Advertisement

Neural Computing and Applications

, Volume 31, Supplement 2, pp 1103–1124 | Cite as

A decision support model for group decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy linguistic preferences relations

  • Feifei JinEmail author
  • Zhiwei Ni
  • Lidan Pei
  • Huayou Chen
  • Yaping Li
  • Xuhui Zhu
  • Liping Ni
Original Article

Abstract

As a new preference structure, the intuitionistic fuzzy linguistic preference relation (IFLPR) was introduced to efficiently cope with situations in which the membership degree and non-membership degree are represented as linguistic terms. For group decision making (GDM) problems with IFLPRs, two significant and challenging issues are individual consistency and group consensus before deriving the reliable priority weights of alternatives. In this paper, a novel decision support model is investigated to simultaneously deal with the individual consistency and group consensus for GDM with IFLPRs. First, the concepts of multiplicative consistency and weak transitivity for IFLPRs are introduced and followed by a discussion of their desirable properties. Then, a transformation approach is developed to convert the normalized intuitionistic fuzzy priority weights into multiplicative consistent IFLPR. Based on the distance of IFLPRs, the consistency index, individual consensus degree and group consensus degree for IFLPRs are further defined. In addition, two convergent automatic iterative algorithms are proposed in the investigated decision support model. The first algorithm is utilized to convert an unacceptable multiplicative consistent IFLPR to an acceptable one. The second algorithm can assist the group decision makers to achieve a predefined consensus level. The main characteristic of the investigated decision support model is that it guarantees each IFLPR is still acceptable multiplicative consistent when the predefined consensus level is achieved. Finally, several numerical examples are provided, and comparative analyses with existing approaches are performed to demonstrate the effectiveness and practicality of the investigated model.

Keywords

Group decision making Intuitionistic fuzzy linguistic preference relation Multiplicative consistency Consensus Decision support model 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 91546108, 71371011, 71490725, 71501002), the National Key Research and Development Plan under Grant (No. 2016YFF0202604). The authors are thankful to the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their valuable comments and constructive suggestions that have led to an improved version of this paper.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declared that they have no conflicts of interest to this work.

References

  1. 1.
    Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atanassov K (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 20:87–96CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atanassov K (1989) More on intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 33:37–46MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atanassov K (2000) Two theorems for intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 110:267–269MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bustince H, Burillo P (1996) Vague sets are intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 79:403–405MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Xia MM, Xu ZS (2010) Some new similarity measures for intuitionistic fuzzy values and their application in group decision making. J Syst Sci Syst Eng 19:430–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wei GW (2011) Gray relational analysis method for intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute decision making. Expert Syst Appl 38:11671–11677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wu ZB, Xu JP (2016) Managing consistency and consensus in group decision making with hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations. Omega 65:28–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jin FF, Pei LD, Chen HY, Zhou LG (2014) Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy continuous weighted entropy and its application to multi-criteria fuzzy group decision making. Knowl-Based Syst 59:132–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zadeh LA (1975) The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning. Inf Sci 8:199–249MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cabrerizo FJ, Moreno JM, Pérez IJ, Herrera-Viedma E (2010) Analyzing consensus approaches in fuzzy group decision making: advantages and drawbacks. Soft Comput 14:451–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liu PD, Shi LL (2015) The generalized hybrid weighted average operator based on interval neutrosophic hesitant set and its application to multiple attribute decision making. Neural Comput Appl 26:457–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F, Chiclana F, Luque M (2004) Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations. Eur J Oper Res 154:98–109MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Orlovsky SA (1978) Decision-making with a fuzzy preference relation. Fuzzy Sets Syst 1:155–167MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tanino T (1984) Fuzzy preference orderings in group decision making. Fuzzy Sets Syst 12:117–131MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nurmi H (1981) Approaches to collective decision making with fuzzy preference relations. Fuzzy Sets Syst 6:249–259MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Xu ZS (2001) The least variance priority method (LVM) for fuzzy complementary judgment matrix. Syst Eng Theory Pract 21:93–96Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Xu ZS (1999) Study on the relation between two classes of scales in AHP. Syst Eng Theory Pract 19:97–101Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chiclana F, Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E (2001) Integrating multiplicative preference relations in a multipurpose decision-making based on fuzzy preference relations. Fuzzy Sets Syst 122:277–291MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Xu ZS (2002) A practical method for priority of interval number complementary judgment matrix. Oper Res Manag Sci 10:16–19Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gong ZW, Xu XX, Zhang HH, Azturk UA, Herrera-Viedma E, Xu C (2015) The consensus models with interval preference opinions and their economic interpretation. Omega 55:81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Van Laarhoven PJM, Pedrycz W (1983) A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy Sets Syst 11:229–241MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang YM, Luo Y, Hua ZS (2008) On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications. Eur J Oper Res 186:735–747CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Xu ZS (2007) Intuitionistic preference relations and their application in group decision making. Inf Sci 177:2363–2379MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dong YC, Herrera-Viedma E (2015) Consistency-driven automatic methodology to set interval numerical scales of 2-tuple linguistic term sets and its use in the linguistic GDM with preference relation. IEEE Trans Cybern 45:780–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Xu ZS (2005) Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations in group decision making. Omega 33:249–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhang Y, Ma H, Liu B, Liu J (2012) Group decision making with 2-tuple intuitionistic fuzzy linguistic preference relations. Soft Comput 16:1439–1446CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhu B, Xu ZS, Xu JP (2014) Deriving a ranking from hesitant fuzzy preference: relations under group decision making. IEEE Trans Cybern 44:1328–1337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Xu ZS (2007) Intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 15:1179–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Xu ZS, Yager RR (2006) Some geometric aggregation operators based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Int J Gen Syst 35:417–433MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    He YD, He Z, Chen HY (2015) Intuitionistic fuzzy interaction Bonferroni means and its application to multiple attribute decision making. IEEE Trans Cybern 45:116–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yager RR (1988) On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multi-criteria decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 18:183–190CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Verdegay JL (1996) Direct approach processes in group decision making using linguistic OWA operators. Fuzzy Sets Syst 79:175–190MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Xu ZS (2004) Uncertain linguistic aggregation operators based approach to multiple attribute group decision making under uncertain linguistic environment. Inf Sci 168:171–184CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chu YC, Liu PD (2015) Some two-dimensional uncertain linguistic Heronian mean operators and their application in multiple-attribute decision making. Neural Comput Appl 26:1461–1480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zhang HM, Xu ZS (2005) Uncertain linguistic information based COWA and COWG operators and their applications. J PLA Univ Sci Technol 6:604–608Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zhou LG, Chen HY (2013) The induced linguistic continuous ordered weighted geometric operator and its application to group decision making. Comput Ind Eng 66:222–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chen ZC, Liu PH, Pei Z (2015) An approach to multiple attribute group decision making based on linguistic intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. Int J Computational Intell Syst 8:747–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Xia MM, Xu ZS, Chen J (2013) Algorithms for improving consistency or consensus of reciprocal [0,1]-valued preference relations. Fuzzy Sets Syst 216:108–133MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wu ZB, Xu JP (2012) A consistency and consensus based decision support model for group decision making with multiplicative preference relations. Decis Support Syst 52:757–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zhang ZM, Wu C (2014) A decision support model for group decision making with hesitant multiplicative preference relations. Inf Sci 282:136–166MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Xu ZS, Liao HC (2015) A survey of approaches to decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations. Knowl Based Syst 80:131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Chen HY, Zhou LG, Han B (2011) On compatibility of uncertain additive linguistic preference relations and its application in the group decision making. Knowl Based Syst 24:816–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tao ZF, Liu X, Chen HY, Chen ZQ (2015) Group decision making with fuzzy linguistic preference relations via cooperative games method. Comput Ind Eng 83:184–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zhang GQ, Dong YC, Xu YF (2014) Consistency and consensus measures for linguistic preference relations based on distribution assessments. Inf Fusion 17:46–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gong ZW, Li LS, Zhou FX, Yao TX (2009) Goal programming approaches to obtain the priority vectors from the intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations. Comput Ind Eng 57:1187–1193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zhang ZM, Wu C (2014) On the use of multiplicative consistency in hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations. Knowl Based Syst 72:13–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Liao HC, Xu ZS (2014) Priorities of intuitionistic fuzzy preference relation based on multiplicative consistency. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 22:1669–1681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zhang ZM, Wang C, Tian XD (2015) A decision support model for group decision making with hesitant fuzzy preference relations. Knowl Based Syst 86:77–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Chiclana F, Tapia Garcia JM, Del Moral MJ, Herrera-Viedma E (2013) A statistical comparative study of different similarity measures of consensus in group decision making. Inf Sci 221:110–123MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Cabrerizo FJ, Ureña MR, Pedrycz W, Herrera-Viedma E (2014) Building consensus in group decision making with an allocation of information granularity. Fuzzy Sets Syst 255:115–127MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Dong YC, Zhang HJ, Herrera-Viedma E (2016) Integrating experts’ weights generated dynamically into the consensus reaching process and its applications in managing non-cooperative behaviors. Decis Support Syst 84:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Cabrerizo FJ, Chiclana F, Al-Hmouz R, Morfeq A, Balamash AS, Herrera-Viedma E (2015) Fuzzy decision making and consensus: challenges. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 29:1109–1118MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zhu B, Xu ZS (2014) Consistency measures for hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 22:35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Xu ZS (2004) EOWA and EOWG operators for aggregating linguistic labels based on linguistic preference relations. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 12:791–810MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Morente-Molinera JA, Pérez IJ, Ureña MR, Herrera-Viedma E (2015) On multi-granular fuzzy linguistic modelling in group decision making problems: a systematic review and future trends. Knowl Based Syst 74:49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wang ZJ (2013) Derivation of intuitionistic fuzzy weights based on intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations. Appl Math Model 37:6377–6388MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Xu ZS (2000) On consistency of the weighted geometric mean complex judgment matrix in AHP. Eur J Oper Res 126:683–687CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Xu ZS, Wang H (2016) Managing multi-granularity linguistic information in qualitative group decision making: an overview. Granul Comput 1:21–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Mendel JM (2016) A comparison of three approaches for estimating (synthesizing) an interval type-2 fuzzy set model of a linguistic term for computing with words. Granul Comput 1:59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Dubois D, Prade H (2016) Bridging gaps between several forms of granular computing. Granul Comput 1:115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Yao Y (2016) A triarchic theory of granular computing. Granul Comput 1:145–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Ciucci D (2016) Orthopairs and granular computing. Granul Comput 1:159–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Wilke G, Portmann E (2016) Granular computing as a basis of human-data interaction: a cognitive cities use case. Granul Comput 1:181–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Liu H, Gegov A, Cocea M (2016) Rule-based systems: a granular computing perspective. Granul Comput 1:259–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Xu ZS, Gou X (2017) An overview of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy information aggregations and applications. Granul Comput 2:13–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Das S, Kar S, Pal T (2017) Robust decision making using intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. Granul Comput 2:41–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Zhou X (2017) Membership grade mining of mutually inverse fuzzy implication propositions. Granul Comput 2:55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Porcel C, Herrera-Viedma E (2010) Dealing with incomplete information in a fuzzy linguistic recommender system to disseminate information in university digital libraries. Knowl Based Syst 23:32–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Cabrerizo FJ, Morente-Molinera JA, Pérez IJ, López-Gijón J, Herrera-Viedma E (2015) A decision support system to develop a quality management in academic digital libraries. Inf Sci 323:48–58MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Pérez IJ, Cabrerizo FJ, Herrera-Viedma E (2010) A mobile decision support system for dynamic group decision making problems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 40:1244–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Natural Computing Applications Forum 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Feifei Jin
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Zhiwei Ni
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lidan Pei
    • 3
  • Huayou Chen
    • 3
  • Yaping Li
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xuhui Zhu
    • 1
    • 4
  • Liping Ni
    • 1
  1. 1.School of ManagementHefei University of TechnologyHefeiChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Process Optimization and Intelligent Decision-MakingMinistry of EducationHefeiChina
  3. 3.School of Mathematical SciencesAnhui UniversityHefeiChina
  4. 4.The Russ College of Engineering and TechnologyOhio UniversityAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations