4.7 Article

A dynamically weight adjustment in the consensus reaching process for group decision-making with hesitant fuzzy preference relations

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS SCIENCE
卷 48, 期 6, 页码 1311-1321

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00207721.2016.1255803

关键词

Group decision-making; consensus reaching process; hesitant fuzzy preference relations; dynamically weight adjustment

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [71471056]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71433003]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2015B23014]
  4. Hohai University
  5. Qing Lan Project of Jiangsu Province

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The consensus reaching process is a dynamic and iterative process for improving group's consensus level before making a final decision in group decision-making (GDM). As the experts will express their opinions under their own intellectual level from different aspects, it is natural that the experts' weights should reflect their judgment information. This paper proposes a dynamic way to adjust weights of decision-makers (DMs) automatically when they are asked to give original judgment information for GDM problems, in which the DMs express their judgment information by hesitant fuzzy preference relations (HFPRs). Two indices, an individual consensus index of hesitant fuzzy preference relation (ICIHFPR) and a group consensus index of hesitant fuzzy preference relation (GCIHFPR), are introduced. Normalisation of HFPRs with different numbers of possible values is taken into consideration for better computation and comparison. An iterative consensus reaching algorithm is presented with DMs' weighting vector changing in each consensus reaching process and the process terminates until both the ICIHFPR and GCIHFPR are controlled within predefined thresholds. Finally, an example is illustrated and comparative analyses demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed 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

4.7
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