4.5 Article

Modeling Interactive Multiattribute Decision-Making via Probabilistic Linguistic Term Set Extended by Dempster-Shafer Theory

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FUZZY SYSTEMS
卷 23, 期 2, 页码 599-613

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s40815-020-01019-0

关键词

Dempster– Shafer theory; Probabilistic linguistic term set; Multiattribute decision-making; Interaction; Nonadditive measure

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71472053, 91646105]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper focuses on the modeling of interactive MADM problem, extends the concept of probabilistic linguistic term set, and develops a novel nonadditive measure determination method to better model the interaction between attributes.
In multiattribute decision-making (MADM), more and more attention is paid to the interaction between attributes when considering the actual decision environment. As a result, interactive MADM has become an emerging and challenging area of research whose success will greatly facilitate the development of decision-making. This paper models the interactive MADM problem and its contribution is multifaceted. First, the concept of probabilistic linguistic term set (PLTS) is extended by Dempster-Shafer theory (DST), which helps to express more uncertain information, followed by some basic operations, such as score function and aggregation operator. In virtue of evidential best-worst method and the principle of maximum entropy, then a novel nonadditive measure determination method is developed based on the 2-order additive measure to better model the interaction between attributes. Further, the generalized PLTS-based Choquet integral is defined by which generalized PLTSs on a nonadditive measure can be reasonably aggregated. Finally, an interactive MADM model is constructed and the technical details are described. The proposed approach is implemented to select the supplier for medical devices, and its effectiveness is emphasized by comparison with other methods.

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

4.5
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