4.7 Article

Modification of the Best-Worst and MABAC methods: A novel approach based on interval-valued fuzzy-rough numbers

期刊

EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS
卷 91, 期 -, 页码 89-106

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2017.08.042

关键词

Multi-criteria analysis; Fuzzy sets; Rough numbers; Best-Worst method; MABAC

资金

  1. Ministry for Science and Technology (Republic of Serbia) [TR 36017, VA-TT/4/17-19]
  2. Ministry of Defence (Republic of Serbia)
  3. University of defence in Belgrade

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents a new approach for the treatment of uncertainty which is based on interval-valued fuzzy-rough numbers (IVFRN). It is shown that by integrating the rough approach with the traditional fuzzy approach, the subjectivity that exists when defining the borders of fuzzy sets is eliminated. IVFRN make decision making possible using only the internal knowledge in the operative data available to the decision makers. In this way objective uncertainties are used and there is no need to rely on models of assumptions. Instead of different external parameters in the application of IVFRN, the structure of the given data is used. On this basis an original multi-criteria model was developed based on an IVFRN approach. In this multi-criteria model the traditional steps of the BWM (Best-Worst method) and MABAC (Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison) methods are modified. The model was tested and validated on a study of the optimal selection of fire fighting helicopters. Testing demonstrated that the model based on IVFRN enabled more objective expert evaluation of the criteria in comparison with traditional fuzzy and rough approaches. A sensitivity analysis of the IVFRN BWM-MABAC model was carried out by means of 57 scenarios, the results of which showed a high degree of stability. The results of the IVFRN model were validated by comparing them with the results of the fuzzy and rough extension of the MABAC, COPRAS and VIKOR models. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. 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