4.4 Article

Grey relational analysis method based on cumulative prospect theory for intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute group decision making

期刊

JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT & FUZZY SYSTEMS
卷 41, 期 2, 页码 3783-3795

出版社

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/JIFS-211461

关键词

Multi-attribute group decision making (MAGDM); grey relational analysis (GRA) method; cumulative prospect theory (CPT); intuitionistic fuzzy sets (IFSs)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposes a grey relational analysis method based on cumulative prospect theory in an intuitionistic fuzzy environment for multi-attribute group decision making problems. The method calculates attribute weight using entropy weight, improving the credibility of selected schemes. The research validates the feasibility of this method in selecting optimal green suppliers and confirms its reliability compared to existing methods.
The Multi-attribute group decision making (MAGDM) problem is an interesting everyday problem full of complexity and ambiguity. As an extended form of fuzzy sets, intuitionistic fuzzy sets (IFS s) can provide decision-makers (DMs) with a wider range of preferences for MAGDM. The grey relational analysis (GRA) is an effective method for dealing with MAGDM problems. However, in view of the incomplete and asymmetric information and the influence of DMs' psychological factors on the decision result, we develop a new model that GRA method based on cumulative prospect theory (CPT) under the intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Moreover, the weight of attribute is calculated by entropy weight, so as to distinguish the importance level of attributes, which greatly improves the credibility of the selected scheme. simultaneously, the proposed method is used to the selection of optimal green suppliers for testifying the availability of this new model and the final comparison between this new method and the existing methods further verify the reliability. In addition, the proposed method provides some references for 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

4.4
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