4.7 Article

Extension of GRA method for multiattribute group decision making problem under linguistic Pythagorean fuzzy setting with incomplete weight information

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS
卷 37, 期 11, 页码 9726-9749

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/int.23003

关键词

distance measure; entropy measure; GRA method; linguistic Pythagorean fuzzy set; MAGDM problem

资金

  1. Deanship of Scientific Research at King Khalid University [RGP.2/212/1443]
  2. Higher education commission, Islamabad, Pakistan [85/IPFP-II(Batch-I)/SRGP/NAHE/HEC/2020/321]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article introduces a new multiattribute group decision-making approach with Linguistic Pythagorean fuzzy numbers (LPFNs). The approach extends the traditional grey relational analysis (GRA) method and introduces a new distance measure and entropy measure for LPFNs. It also provides steps for solving LPFMAGDM problems with incomplete weight information.
Linguistic Pythagorean fuzzy numbers (LPFNs) are better tools for dealing with imprecision and vagueness. This article develops a new multiattribute group decision-making approach with LPFNs. The attribute values are LPFNs, and the information about the attribute weight is incomplete. Extended the notion of the traditional grey relational analysis (GRA) method, a new extension of the GRA method based on LPFN details is introduced. We develop a new distance measure and entropy measure for LPFNs. Moreover, a decision-making approach is proposed based on the traditional. GRA method and steps for solving LPFMAGDM problems with incompletely known weight information are given. The degree of grey relation between positive (PIS) and negative-ideal solutions (NIS) are determined. A relative relational degree is considered by calculating the degree of grey relation to the LPF-PIS and the LPF-NIS, respectively. Finally, an illustrative example is also given to show the application and effectiveness and compare the developed approach with existing 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