4.7 Article

On compatibility of uncertain additive linguistic preference relations and its application in the group decision making

期刊

KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS
卷 24, 期 6, 页码 816-823

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.knosys.2011.03.003

关键词

Group decision making; Uncertain additive linguistic preference relation; Compatibility index; Mathematical programming; Weights

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71071002]
  2. Anhui University (Economics and Social Development in Anhui Province)
  3. Academic Innovation Team of Anhui University [KJTD001B, SKTD007B]
  4. Natural Science Foundation of Anhui Provincial Higher School [kj2010b094]
  5. Foundation for the Young Scholar of Anhui University [2009QN022B]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We develop a new compatibility for the uncertain additive linguistic preference relations and utilize it to determine the optimal weights of experts in the group decision making (GDM). Based on some operational laws for the uncertain additive linguistic preference labels, we propose some new concepts of the compatibility degree and acceptable compatibility index for the two uncertain additive linguistic preference relations. We also prove the properties that the synthetic preference relation is also of acceptable compatibility under the condition that additive linguistic preference relations provided by experts are all of acceptable compatibility with the specific linguistic preference relation, which provides a theoretic basis for the application of the uncertain additive linguistic preference relations in the GDM. Furthermore, we establish a mathematical model to obtain the weights of experts based on the criterion of minimizing the compatibility in the GDM, and we discuss the solution to the model. Finally, we give a numerical example to make comparative analysis on compatibility index using the optimal experts' weights approach and the equal experts' weights approach, which indicates that the model is feasible and effective. (C) 2011 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