Advertisement

An extended prospect theory–VIKOR approach for emergency decision making with 2-dimension uncertain linguistic information

  • Xu-Feng Ding
  • Hu-Chen LiuEmail author
Methodologies and Application
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

Emergency situations often require high-quality decisions which have to be made within a short period of time. An emergency event is often complex and can cause huge loss of lives and property if a wrong decision is made. Therefore, emergency decision making (EDM) has become a very high-profile research topic in recent years. In this paper, a new integrated approach based on prospect theory and VIKOR (VIsekriterijumska optimizacija i KOm-promisno Resenje), called linguistic PT-VIKOR, is proposed for solving the EDM problems with 2-dimension uncertain linguistic information. First, the preference information and the weights of criteria provided by experts for all statuses are expressed in the form of 2-dimension uncertain linguistic variables (2DULVs). Then, the individual experts’ opinions of each status are aggregated into a group decision matrix according to the aggregation operators of 2DULVs. Next, the group decision matrices of all statuses are transformed into a prospect decision matrix on the basis of the prospect theory, and the VIKOR technique is applied to rank the alternative solutions. Finally, the feasibility and practicability of the proposed linguistic PT-VIKOR approach is illustrated by an illustrate example and a comparative analysis.

Keywords

Emergency decision making Prospect theory 2-Dimension uncertain linguistic variable (2DULV) VIKOR method 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are very grateful to the respected editor and the anonymous referees for their insightful and constructive comments, which helped to improve the overall quality of the paper. This work was partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 71502098, 61773250 and 71671125) and the Humanities and Social Sciences Research Project of Ministry of Education of China (No. 13YJC630023).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Ethical approval

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

References

  1. Amin F, Fahmi A, Abdullah S, Ali A, Ahmad R, Ghani F (2018) Triangular cubic linguistic hesitant fuzzy aggregation operators and their application in group decision making. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 34(4):2401–2416Google Scholar
  2. Awasthi A, Govindan K, Gold S (2018) Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. Int J Prod Econ 195:106–117Google Scholar
  3. Cai CG, Xu XH, Wang P, Chen XH (2017) A multi-stage conflict style large group emergency decision-making method. Soft Comput 21(19):5765–5778zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen TY (2018) Remoteness index-based Pythagorean fuzzy VIKOR methods with a generalized distance measure for multiple criteria decision analysis. Inf Fusion 41(Supplement C):129–150Google Scholar
  5. Chu Y, Liu P (2015) Some two-dimensional uncertain linguistic Heronian mean operators and their application in multiple-attribute decision making. Neural Comput Appl 26(6):1461–1480Google Scholar
  6. Ding XF, Liu HC (2018) A 2-dimension uncertain linguistic DEMATEL method for identifying critical success factors in emergency management. Appl Soft Comput 71:386–395Google Scholar
  7. Fahmi A, Abdullah S, Amin F, Ali A (2017a) 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, Siddiqui N, Ali A (2017b) Aggregation operators on triangular cubic fuzzy numbers and its application to multi-criteria decision making problems. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 33(6):3323–3337Google Scholar
  9. 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) operator. Punjab Univ J Math 50(1):23–34MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 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(2):2485–2499Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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(11):2385–2397MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Feng Y, Hong Z, Tian G, Li Z, Tan J, Hu H (2018) Environmentally friendly MCDM of reliability-based product optimisation combining DEMATEL-based ANP, interval uncertainty and Vlse Kriterijumska Optimizacija Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR). Inf Sci 442–443:128–144Google Scholar
  14. Hao Z, Xu Z, Zhao H, Fujita H (2018) A dynamic weight determination approach based on the intuitionistic fuzzy Bayesian network and its application to emergency decision making. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 26(4):1893–1907Google Scholar
  15. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Li MY, Cao PP (2018) Extended TODIM method for multi-attribute risk decision making problems in emergency response. Comput Ind Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.06.027 Google Scholar
  17. Liang H, Xiong W, Dong Y (2018) A prospect theory-based method for fusing the individual preference-approval structures in group decision making. Comput Ind Eng 117:237–248Google Scholar
  18. Liao H, Xu Z, Zeng XJ (2015) Hesitant fuzzy linguistic VIKOR method and its application in qualitative multiple criteria decision making. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 23(5):1343–1355Google Scholar
  19. Liu P (2012) An approach to group decision making based on 2-dimension uncertain linguistic information. Technol Econ Dev Econ 18(3):424–437Google Scholar
  20. Liu Q (2014) An extended TOPSIS method for multiple attribute decision making problems with unknown weight based on 2-dimension uncertain linguistic variables. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 27(5):2221–2230MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Liu P (2018) Two-dimensional uncertain linguistic generalized normalized weighted geometric Bonferroni mean and its application to multiple-attribute decision making. Sci Iran 25(1):450–465Google Scholar
  22. Liu P, Yu X (2014) 2-Dimension uncertain linguistic power generalized weighted aggregation operator and its application in multiple attribute group decision making. Knowl Based Syst 57:69–80Google Scholar
  23. Liu P, Wang Y (2016) The aggregation operators based on the 2-dimension uncertain linguistic information and their application to decision making. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 7(6):1057–1074Google Scholar
  24. Liu P, Teng F (2018) Multiple attribute decision-making method based on 2-dimension uncertain linguistic density generalized hybrid weighted averaging operator. Soft Comput 22(3):797–810zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Liu HC, You JX, Zhen L, Fan XJ (2014) A novel hybrid multiple criteria decision making model for material selection with target-based criteria. Mater Des 60:380–390Google Scholar
  26. Liu P, He L, Yu X (2016) Generalized hybrid aggregation operators based on the 2-dimension uncertain linguistic information for multiple attribute group decision making. Group Decis Negot 25(1):103–126Google Scholar
  27. Liu HC, You XY, Tsung F, Ji P (2018a) An improved approach for failure mode and effect analysis involving large group of experts: an application to the healthcare field. Qual Eng 30(4):762–775Google Scholar
  28. Liu P, Li Y, Zhang M (2018b) Some Maclaurin symmetric mean aggregation operators based on two-dimensional uncertain linguistic information and their application to decision making. Neural Comput Appl.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-018-3350-3:1-14 Google Scholar
  29. Liu HC, Hu YP, Wang JJ (2019) Failure mode and effects analysis using 2-dimensional uncertain linguistic variables and alternative queuing method. IEEE Trans Reliab 68(2):554–565Google Scholar
  30. Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2004) Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Oper Res 156(2):445–455zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2007) Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods. Eur J Oper Res 178(2):514–529zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Peng X, Garg H (2018) Algorithms for interval-valued fuzzy soft sets in emergency decision making based on WDBA and CODAS with new information measure. Comput Ind Eng 119:439–452Google Scholar
  33. Ren P, Xu Z, Hao Z (2017) Hesitant fuzzy thermodynamic method for emergency decision making based on prospect theory. IEEE Trans Cybern 47(9):2531–2543Google Scholar
  34. Sennaroglu B, Varlik Celebi G (2018) A military airport location selection by AHP integrated PROMETHEE and VIKOR methods. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 59:160–173Google Scholar
  35. Sun B, Ma W, Chen X (2015) Fuzzy rough set on probabilistic approximation space over two universes and its application to emergency decision-making. Expert Syst 32(4):507–521Google Scholar
  36. Sun B, Ma W, Zhao H (2016) An approach to emergency decision making based on decision-theoretic rough set over two universes. Soft Comput 20(9):3617–3628Google Scholar
  37. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain 5(4):297–323zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang L, Zhang ZX, Wang YM (2015) A prospect theory-based interval dynamic reference point method for emergency decision making. Expert Syst Appl 42(23):9379–9388Google Scholar
  39. Wang L, Wang YM, Martínez L (2017) A group decision method based on prospect theory for emergency situations. Inf Sci 418–419:119–135Google Scholar
  40. Wang L, Rodríguez RM, Wang YM (2018a) A dynamic multi-attribute group emergency decision making method considering experts’ hesitation. Int J Comput Intell Syst 11(1):163–182Google Scholar
  41. Wang L, Zhang HY, Wang JQ, Li L (2018b) Picture fuzzy normalized projection-based VIKOR method for the risk evaluation of construction project. Appl Soft Comput 64:216–226Google Scholar
  42. Wang Z, Fung RYK, Li YL, Pu Y (2018c) An integrated decision-making approach for designing and selecting product concepts based on QFD and cumulative prospect theory. Int J Prod Res 56(5):2003–2018Google Scholar
  43. Wu Z, Xu J, Jiang X, Zhong L (2019) Two MAGDM models based on hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets with possibility distributions: VIKOR and TOPSIS. Inf Sci 473:101–120MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  44. Xu ZS (2004) Uncertain linguistic aggregation operators based approach to multiple attribute group decision making under uncertain linguistic environment. Inf Sci 168(1–4):171–184zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. Xu Z (2006) Induced uncertain linguistic OWA operators applied to group decision making. Inf Fusion 7(2):231–238MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  46. Xu XH, Zhong XY, Chen XH, Zhou YJ (2015a) A dynamical consensus method based on exit-delegation mechanism for large group emergency decision making. Knowl Based Syst 86:237–249Google Scholar
  47. Xu Y, Ma F, Xu W, Wang H (2015b) An incomplete multi-granular linguistic model and its application in emergency decision of unconventional outburst incidents. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 29(2):619–633MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. Xu Y, Zhang W, Wang H (2015c) A conflict-eliminating approach for emergency group decision of unconventional incidents. Knowl Based Syst 83:92–104Google Scholar
  49. Zhang L, Wang YZ, Zhao XY (2018a) A new emergency decision support methodology based on multi-source knowledge in 2-tuple linguistic model. Knowl Based Syst 144:77–87Google Scholar
  50. Zhang ZX, Wang L, Wang YM (2018b) An emergency decision making method based on prospect theory for different emergency situations. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 9(3):407–420Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ManagementShanghai UniversityShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.College of Economics and ManagementChina Jiliang UniversityHangzhouPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.School of Economics and ManagementTongji UniversityShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations