4.7 Article

An improved method on group decision making based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy prioritized operators

期刊

APPLIED MATHEMATICAL MODELLING
卷 38, 期 9-10, 页码 2689-2694

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apm.2014.02.028

关键词

Multi-criteria group decision making; Aggregation operator; Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy set; Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy prioritized weighted average (IVIFPWA) operator

资金

  1. Hong Kong Polytechnic University
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61174022]
  3. R&D Program of China [2012BAH07B01]
  4. Chongqing Natural Science Foundation [CSCT, 2010BA2003]
  5. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (863 program) [2013AA013801]
  6. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [XDJK201313029, XDJK2014C082]
  7. 4th Education and Teaching Reform Research Program of Southwest University [2010JY024]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy prioritized operators are widely used in group decision making under uncertain environment due to its flexibility to model uncertain information. However, there is a shortcoming in the existing aggregation operators (interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy prioritized weighted average (IVIFPWA)) to deal with group decision making in some extreme situations. For example, when an expert gives an absolute negative evaluation, the operators could lead to irrational results, so that they are not effectively enough to handle group decision making. In this paper, several examples are illustrated to show the unreasonable results in some of these situations. Actually, these unreasonable cases are common for operators in dealing with product averaging, not only emerging in IVIFPWA operators. To overcome the shortcoming of these kinds of operators, an improvement of making slight adjustment on initial evaluations is provided. Numerical examples are used to show the efficiency of the improvement. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. 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