4.7 Article

A method based on PSO and granular computing of linguistic information to solve group decision making problems defined in heterogeneous contexts

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH
卷 230, 期 3, 页码 624-633

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2013.04.046

关键词

Group decision making; Information granules; Consistency; Granular computing; Linguistic information

资金

  1. FEDER funds in FUZZYLING-II Project [TIN2010-17876]
  2. Andalusian Excellence Projects [TIC-05299, TIC-5991]
  3. Programa Jose Castillejo [JC2011-0002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Group decision making is a type of derision problem in which multiple experts acting collectively, analyze problems, evaluate alternatives, and select a solution from a collection of alternatives. As the natural language is the standard representation of those concepts that humans use for communication, it seems natural that they use words (linguistic terms) instead of numerical values to provide their opinions. However, while linguistic information is readily available, it is not operational and thus it has to be made usable though expressing it in terms of information granules. To do so, Granular Computing, which has emerged as a unified and coherent framework of designing, processing, and interpretation of information granules, can be used. The aim of this paper is to present an information granulation of the linguistic information used in group decision making problems defined in heterogeneous contexts, i.e., where the experts have associated importance degrees reflecting their ability to handle the problem. The granulation of the linguistic terms is formulated as an optimization problem, solved by using the particle swarm optimization, in which a Performance index is maximized by a suitable mapping of the linguistic terms on information granules formalized as sets. This performance index is expressed as a weighted aggregation of the individual consistency achieved by each expert. (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