4.5 Article

Nonadditive best-worst method: Incorporating criteria interaction using the Choquet integral

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE OPERATIONAL RESEARCH SOCIETY
卷 74, 期 6, 页码 1495-1506

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/01605682.2022.2096504

关键词

Multicriteria decision-making; Best-worst method; Choquet integral; Criteria interaction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents a nonadditive BWM method that considers interactions between criteria, using the Choquet integral. It introduces a nonlinear optimization model to minimize the deviation of obtained weights from pairwise comparisons, taking into account the criterion interactions. A linear variant of the nonadditive BWM is also discussed. The applicability of the proposed approach is demonstrated through a real-world case study.
The best-worst method (BWM) is a multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) method to derive the relative importance (weight) of a set of criteria used to evaluate a set of alternatives. Several models (e.g., nonlinear, linear, Bayesian, and multiplicative) have been developed to find the weights based on the provided pairwise comparisons, conducted among the criteria, by the decision-maker(s)/expert(s). The existing BWM models, however, do not handle interactions that might exist between the criteria encountered in a decision problem. In this study, a nonadditive BWM is developed that considers possible interactions between the criteria. To this end, we use the Choquet integral, one of the most widely accepted techniques, to incorporate criteria interactions. A nonlinear optimization model is introduced to minimize the maximum deviation of the obtained weights from the provided pairwise comparisons, considering the information about the interactions between the criteria. We then introduce a linear variant of the nonadditive BWM and discuss its property compared to the nonlinear model. The applicability of the proposed approach is demonstrated through a real-world case study of a battery-powered electric vehicle (BEV) selection problem.

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