4.7 Article

Soft computing based on maximizing consensus and fuzzy TOPSIS approach to interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making

期刊

APPLIED SOFT COMPUTING
卷 26, 期 -, 页码 42-56

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.asoc.2014.08.073

关键词

Multi-attribute group decision making; Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy number; Consensus; Experts' weights; Fuzzy TOPS IS; Multi-choice goal programming

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61273209]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [CXZZ13_0139]
  3. Scientific Research Foundation of Graduate School of Southeast University [YBJJ1339]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multi-attribute group decision making (MAGDM) is an important research topic in decision theory. In recent decades, many useful methods have been proposed to solve various MAGDM problems, but very few methods simultaneously take them into account from the perspectives of both the ranking and the magnitude of decision data, especially for the interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy decision data. The purpose of this paper is to develop a soft computing technique based on maximizing consensus and fuzzy TOPSIS in order to solve interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy MAGDM problems from such two aspects of decision data. To this end, we first define a consensus index from the perspective of the ranking of decision data, for measuring the degree of consensus between the individual and the group. Then, we establish an optimal model based on maximizing consensus to determine the weights of experts. Following the idea of TOPSIS, we calculate the closeness indices of the alternatives from the perspective of the magnitude of decision data. To identify the optimal alternatives and determine their optimum quantities, we further construct a multi-choice goal programming model based on the derived closeness indices. Finally, an example is given to verify the developed method and to make a comparative analysis. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据