4.7 Article

An Approach for Group Decision Making With Interval Fuzzy Preference Relations Based on Additive Consistency and Consensus Analysis

期刊

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TSMC.2016.2606647

关键词

Additive consistency; decision making; group consensus; interval fuzzy preference relation; programming model

资金

  1. State Key Program of National Natural Science of China [71431006]
  2. Projects of Major International Cooperation NSFC [71210003]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71671188, 71571192, 71501189]
  4. Innovation- Driven Planning Foundation of Central South University [2016CXS027]
  5. Hunan Province Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars of China [2016JJ1024]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Interval fuzzy preference relations (IFPRs) that can simply denote the lower and upper bounds of decision makers' uncertain judgments are keenly studied by researchers and are widely used in practical decision-making problems. Consistency analysis is vitally important to avoid illogical ranking orders. First, this paper analyzes issues in previous additive consistency concepts for IFPRs. Then, it presents a new additive consistency definition that overcomes issues in previous ones. A linear programming model to judge the additive consistency of IFPRs is constructed, and a method to derive additive consistent IFPRs is proposed. Furthermore, a goal programming model to determine missing values in an incomplete IFPR is built, which have the highest consistent level with respect to known values. Regarding group decision making, a group consensus index is defined to measure the consensus of individual IFPRs, and an approach to improve the consensus level is introduced. Finally, a method for group decision making with IFPRs is developed, which can address incomplete and inconsistent cases. Associated examples are given to show the efficiency and feasibility of the developed theoretical results and comparative analysis is made.

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