4.7 Article

Multicriteria decision making based on the TOPSIS method and similarity measures between intuitionistic fuzzy values

期刊

INFORMATION SCIENCES
卷 367, 期 -, 页码 279-295

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ins.2016.05.044

关键词

Intuitionistic fuzzy values; Intuitionistic fuzzy sets; Multicriteria decision making; Similarity measure; TOPSIS method

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology, Republic of China [MOST 103-2221-E-011-108-MY2]
  2. Chienkuo Technology University, Changhua, Taiwan [CTU-103-RP-KH-002-020-A]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multicriteria decision making (MCDM) in intuitionistic fuzzy environments is a very important research topic. In this paper, we propose a new MCDM method based on the TOPSIS method and similarity measures between intuitionistic fuzzy values (IFVs). First, the proposed method calculates the degree of indeterminacy of each evaluating IFV given by the decision maker. Then, it gets the relative positive ideal solution and the relative negative ideal solution for the criteria, respectively. Then, it calculates the degrees of indeterminacy of the relative positive ideal value and the relative negative ideal value for each criterion, respectively. Then, it calculates the positive similarity degrees and the negative similarity degrees between the evaluating IFVs and the relative positive ideal solutions and the relative negative ideal solutions for the criteria, respectively. Finally, it calculates the weighted positive score and the weighted negative score of each alternative, respectively, to get the relative degree of closeness of each alternative. The larger the relative degree of closeness of the alternative, the better the preference order of the alternative. The experimental results show that the proposed method can overcome the drawbacks of Joshi and Kumar's method (2014), Wang and Wei's method (2008) and Wu and Chen's method (2011) for MCDM in intuitionistic fuzzy environments. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. 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