4.6 Article

TOPSIS Method for Probabilistic Linguistic MAGDM with Entropy Weight and Its Application to Supplier Selection of New Agricultural Machinery Products

期刊

ENTROPY
卷 21, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/e21100953

关键词

multiple attribute group decision making (MAGDM); probabilistic linguistic term sets (PLTSs); information entropy; TOPSIS method; supplier selection; new agricultural machinery products

资金

  1. National Social Science Foundation of China [17BSH125]
  2. Humanities and Social Sciences Foundation of Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China [16YJA840008]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In multiple attribute group decision making (MAGDM) problems, uncertain decision information is well-represented by linguistic term sets (LTSs). These LTSs are easily converted into probabilistic linguistic sets (PLTSs). In this paper, a TOPSIS method is proposed for probabilistic linguistic MAGDM in which the attribute weights are completely unknown, and the decision information is in the form of probabilistic linguistic numbers (PLNs). First, the definition of the scoring function is used to solve the probabilistic linguistic entropy, which is then employed to objectively derive the attribute weights. Second, the optimal alternatives are determined by calculating the shortest distance from the probabilistic linguistic positive ideal solution (PLPIS) and on the other side the farthest distance of the probabilistic linguistic negative ideal solution (PLNIS). This proposed method extends the applications range of the traditional entropy-weighted method. Moreover, it doesn't need the decision-maker to give the attribute weights in advance. Finally, a numerical example for supplier selection of new agricultural machinery products is used to illustrate the use of the proposed method. The result shows the approach is simple, effective and easy to calculate. The proposed method can contribute to the selection of suitable alternative successfully in other selection problems.

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

4.6
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