Advertisement

Utilization of trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and extended fuzzy preference relation for multi-criteria group decision-making based on individual differentiation of decision-makers

  • Yu-Jie WangEmail author
Methodologies and Application
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

In 2015, Li and Chen proposed a multi-criteria group decision-making (MCGDM) method, as similar as technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), with trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy information to derive preference values (i.e., alternative ratings) based on individual differentiation of decision-makers. The individual differentiation consideration of decision-makers was useful because alternative ratings and criteria weights in group were generally derived by mean computation in the past. Additionally, MCGDM with trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy information is regarded to be the extension of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) with group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Practically, fuzzy extension of MCDM is commonly complicated based on the characteristics of fuzzy numbers, especially for intuitionistic fuzzy numbers that may be the most complex one for all kinds of fuzzy numbers. Obviously, Li and Chen’s contribution was extending MCGDM based on individual differentiation of decision-makers under trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Unfortunately, Li and Chen’s method merely expressed the importance difference of decision-makers for yielding preference values, but they derived criteria weights by mean computation. Therefore, the computations of preference values and criteria weights are inconsistent on considering the importance of decision-makers. Besides, their fuzzy extension was complicated and hard for MCGDM with trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy information. To resolve the importance inconsistent of yielding ratings and weights as well as fuzzy operation complicated ties, we utilize trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and extended fuzzy preference relation for MCGDM based on individual differentiation of decision-makers in this paper. By utilization of extended fuzzy preference relation, both alternative ratings and criteria weights of MCGDM under intuitionistic fuzzy environment are yielded based on individual differentiation of decision-makers, and decision-making problems are easily and reasonably solved. Furthermore, we also use the simplified version of the MCGDM with trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers to evaluate alternatives in the illustrating example of Li and Chen, and compare their evaluating result with the result of proposed method based on individual differentiation of decision-makers.

Keywords

Extended fuzzy preference relation Individual differentiation Intuitionistic fuzzy numbers MCGDM TOPSIS 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research work was partially supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of China under Grant No. MOST 106-2410-H-346-002-.

Funding

This study was funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of China under Grant No. MOST 106-2410-H-346-002-.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The corresponding author (also the sole author) declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the author.

References

  1. Amin F, Fahmi A, Abdullah S, Ali A, Ahmed R, Ghani F (2017) Triangular cubic linguistic hesitant fuzzy aggregation operators and their application in group decision making. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 34:2401–2416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atanassov K (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 20:87–96CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Churchman CW, Ackoff RJ, Amoff EL (1957) Introduction to operation research. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Delgado M, Verdegay JL, Vila MA (1992) Linguistic decision-making models. Int J Intell Syst 7:479–492CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Epp SS (1990) Discrete mathematics with applications. Wadsworth, CaliforniazbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Fahmi A, Abdullah S, Amin F, Siddque N, Ali A (2017a) Aggregation operators on triangular cubic fuzzy numbers and its application to multi-criteria decision making problems. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 33:3323–3337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fahmi A, Abdullah S, Amin F, Ali A (2017b) Precursor selection for sol–gel synthesis of titanium carbide nanopowders by a new cubic fuzzy multi-attribute group decision-making model. J Intell Syst.  https://doi.org/10.1515/jisys-2017-0083 Google Scholar
  8. Fahmi A, Abdullah S, Amin F, Ali A (2018a) Weighted average rating (WAR) method for solving group decision making problem using triangular cubic fuzzy hybrid aggregation (Tcfha). Punjab Univ J Math 50:23–34MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Fahmi A, Abdullah S, Amin F, Ali A, Khan WA (2018b) Some geometric operators with triangular cubic linguistic hesitant fuzzy number and their application in group decision-making. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 35:2485–2499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fahmi A, Abdullah S, Amin F, Khan MSA (2018c) Trapezoidal cubic fuzzy number Einstein hybrid weighted averaging operators and its application to decision making. Soft Comput.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3242-6 Google Scholar
  11. Fahmi A, Amin F, Abdullah S, Ali A (2018d) Cubic fuzzy Einstein aggregation operators and its application to decision making. Int J Syst Sci 49:2385–2397MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fan ZP, Ma J, Zhang Q (2002) An approach to multiple attribute decision making based on fuzzy preference information on alternatives. Fuzzy Sets Syst 131:101–106MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Grzegrorzewski P (2003) The hamming distance between intuitionistic fuzzy sets. In: Proceedings of the 10th IFSA World Congress, Istanbul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  14. Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Verdegay JL (1996) A model of consensus in group decision making under linguistic assessments. Fuzzy Sets Syst 78:73–87MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and application. Springer, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Keeney R, Raiffa H (1976) Decision with multiple objective: preference and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New WorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee HS (2005) On fuzzy preference relation in group decision making. Int J Comput Math 82:133–140MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Li X, Chen X (2014) Extension of the TOPSIS method based on prospect theory and trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers for group decision making. J Syst Sci Syst Eng 23:231–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Li X, Chen X (2015) Multi-criteria group decision making based on trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy information. Appl Soft Comput 30:454–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liang GS (1999) Fuzzy MCDM based on ideal and anti-ideal concepts. Eur J Oper Res 112:682–691CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Vahdani B, Mousavi SM, Tavakkoli-Moghaddam R (2011) Group decision making based on novel fuzzy modified TOPSIS method. Appl Math Model 35:4257–4269MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Wang YJ (2015) A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making model based on simple additive weighting method and relative preference relation. Appl Soft Comput 30:412–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wang CY, Chen SM (2017) Multiple attribute decision making based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets, linear programming methodology, and the extended TOPSIS method. Inf Sci 397–398:155–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Shipping and Transportation ManagementNational Penghu University of Science and TechnologyMagongTaiwan, ROC

Personalised recommendations