4.7 Article

Multiple attribute group decision making methods based on intuitionistic linguistic power generalized aggregation operators

期刊

APPLIED SOFT COMPUTING
卷 17, 期 -, 页码 90-104

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.asoc.2013.12.010

关键词

Multiple criteria evaluation; Group decision-making; Intuitionistic linguistic number; Intuitionistic linguistic power generalized weighted average (ILPGWA) operator; Intuitionistic linguistic power generalized ordered weighted average (ILPGOWA) operator

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71271124]
  2. Humanities and Social Sciences Research Project of Ministry of Education of China [13YJC630104]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province [ZR2011FM036]
  4. Shandong Provincial Social Science Planning Project [13BGLJ10]
  5. graduate education innovation projects in Shandong Province [SDYY12065]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With respect to multiple attribute group decision making (MADM) problems in which attribute values take the form of intuitionistic linguistic numbers, some new group decision making methods are developed. Firstly, some operational laws, expected value, score function and accuracy function of intuitionistic linguistic numbers are introduced. Then, an intuitionistic linguistic power generalized weighted average( ILPGWA) operator and an intuitionistic linguistic power generalized ordered weighted average (ILPGOWA) operator are developed. Furthermore, some desirable properties of the ILPGWA and ILPGOWA operators, such as commutativity, idempotency and monotonicity, etc. are studied. At the same time, some special cases of the generalized parameters in these operators are analyzed. Based on the ILPGWA and ILPGOWA operators, two approaches to multiple attribute group decision making with intuitionistic linguistic information are proposed. Finally, an illustrative example is given to verify the developed approaches and to demonstrate their practicality and effectiveness. (C) 2013 Elsevier B. V. 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