4.7 Article

A new method for multiple criteria group decision making with incomplete weight information under linguistic environment

期刊

APPLIED MATHEMATICAL MODELLING
卷 38, 期 21-22, 页码 5256-5268

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apm.2014.04.022

关键词

Multiple criteria group decision making (MCGDM); 2-Tuple linguistic; Incomplete linguistic criteria weight; Weights of decision makers

资金

  1. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University [NCET-13-0037]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of China [70972007, 71271049]
  3. Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation [9102015, 9133020]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new method is proposed to solve multiple criteria group decision making (MCGDM) problems, in which both the criteria values and criteria weights take the form of linguistic information, and the information about linguistic criteria weights is partly known or completely unknown. Firstly, to get reasonable decision result, instead of assigning the same weight to the decision maker (DM) for all criteria, we propose a method to determine the weight of DM with respect to each criterion under linguistic environment by calculating the similarity degree between individual 2-tuple linguistic evaluation value and the mean given by all decision makers (DMs). Secondly, for the situations where the information about the criteria weights is partly known or completely unknown, we establish optimization models to determine the criteria weights by defining 2-tuple linguistic positive ideal solution (TL-PIS), 2-tuple linguistic right negative ideal solution (TL-RNIS) and 2-tuple linguistic left negative ideal solution (TL-LNIS) of the collective 2-tuple linguistic decision matrix. Thirdly, we propose a new method to solve MCGDM problems with partly known or completely unknown linguistic weight information. Finally, an illustrative example is given to demonstrate the calculation process of the proposed method. (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