Advertisement

Neural Computing and Applications

, Volume 31, Issue 12, pp 8897–8915 | Cite as

Multi-criteria decision-making with probabilistic hesitant fuzzy information based on expected multiplicative consistency

  • Jian Li
  • Jian-qiang WangEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

This study presents a multi-criteria decision-making method that considers expected multiplicative consistency and a consensus reaching process with probabilistic hesitant fuzzy information. The concept of expected multiplicative consistent probabilistic hesitant fuzzy preference relation (PHFPR) is defined on the basis of multiplicative transitivity, and a theorem is developed to obtain the score values of complete expected multiplicative consistent PHFPR. Subsequently, a consistency index of individual PHFPR is proposed by using the distance between individual PHFPR and the score values of its complete expected multiplicative consistent PHFPR. When the individual PHFPR consistency level does not meet the expected value, an iteration algorithm is designed to improve its consistency level and obtain an acceptable one. Furthermore, a group consensus index is proposed according to the distance between the individual acceptable multiplicative consistent PHFPR and the score values of collective PHFPR. An iteration algorithm is designed to improve the consensus level when it does not reach the threshold value. Several numerical examples are provided to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method, and a comparative study involving other methods is conducted with the same numerical examples.

Keywords

Multi-criteria decision-making Expected multiplicative consistency Consensus Probabilistic hesitant fuzzy preference relation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their insightful and constructive comments and suggestions that have led to an improved version of this paper. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 71571193, 71871228) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of Central South University (Nos. 2018zzts095).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

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

References

  1. 1.
    Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al Salem AA, Awasthi A (2018) Investigating rank reversal in reciprocal fuzzy preference relation based on additive consistency: causes and solutions. Comput Ind Eng 115:573–581Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meng FY, Tang J, Xu ZS (2017) A 0–1 mixed programming model based method for group decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations. Comput Ind Eng 112:289–304Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhang Z, Kou XY, Dong QX (2018) Additive consistency analysis and improvement for hesitant fuzzy preference relations. Expert Syst Appl 98:118–128Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jin FF, Ni ZW, Chen HY, Li YP (2016) Approaches to decision making with linguistic preference relations based on additive consistency. Appl Soft Comput 49:71–80Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Liu F, Pedrycz W, Wang ZX, Zhang WG (2017) An axiomatic approach to approximation-consistency of triangular fuzzy reciprocal preference relations. Fuzzy Sets Syst 322:1–18MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wu ZB, Jin BM, Xu JP (2018) Local feedback strategy for consensus building with probability-hesitant fuzzy preference relations. Appl Soft Comput 67:691–705Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krejčí J (2017) On additive consistency of interval fuzzy preference relations. Comput Ind Eng 107:128–140Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhang Z, Kou XY, Yu WY, Guo CH (2018) On priority weights and consistency for incomplete hesitant fuzzy preference relations. Knowl Based Syst 143:115–126Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhou W, Xu ZS (2017) Group consistency and group decision making under uncertain probabilistic hesitant fuzzy preference environment. Inf Sci 414:276–288Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    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 84:1–15Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dong YC, Liu YT, Liang HM, Chiclana F, Herrera-Viedma E (2018) Strategic weight manipulation in multiple attribute decision making. Omega 75:154–164Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dong YC, Ding ZG, Martínez L, Herrera F (2017) Managing consensus based on leadership in opinion dynamics. Inf Sci 397–398:187–205Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dong YC, Chen X, Liang HM, Li CC (2016) Dynamics of linguistic opinion formation in bounded confidence model. Inf Fusion 32:52–61Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wu J, Dai LF, Chiclana F, Fujita H, Herrera-Viedma E (2018) A minimum adjustment cost feedback mechanism based consensus model for group decision making under social network with distributed linguistic trust. Inf Fusion 41:232–242Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wu J, Chiclana F, Fujita H, Herrera-Viedma E (2017) A visual interaction consensus model for social network group decision making with trust propagation. Knowl Based Syst 122:39–50Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhang HJ, Dong YC, Herrera-Viedma E (2018) Consensus building for the heterogeneous large-scale GDM with the individual concerns and satisfactions. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 26:884–898Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang J, Wang JQ, Tian ZP, Zhao DY (2018) A multi-hesitant fuzzy linguistic multi-criteria decision-making approach for logistics outsourcing with incomplete weight information. Int Trans Oper Res 25:831–856MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tian ZP, Wang J, Wang JQ, Chen XH (2018) Multi-criteria decision-making approach based on gray linguistic weighted Bonferroni mean operator. Int Trans Oper Res 25:1635–1658MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dong YC, Zha QB, Zhang HJ, Kou G, Fujita H, Chiclana F, Herrera-Viedma E (2018) Consensus reaching in social network group decision making: research paradigms and challenges. Knowl Based Syst.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.1006.1036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chu JF, Liu XW, Wang YM, Chin KS (2016) A group decision making model considering both the additive consistency and group consensus of intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations. Comput Ind Eng 101:227–242Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pérez IJ, Cabrerizo FJ, Alonso S, Dong YC, Chiclana F, Herrera-Viedma E (2018) On dynamic consensus processes in group decision making problems. Inf Sci 459:20–35Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rodríguez RM, Labella Á, Tré GD, Martínez L (2018) A large scale consensus reaching process managing group hesitation. Knowl Based Syst 159:86–97Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wan SP, Wang F, Dong JY (2018) A group decision-making method considering both the group consensus and multiplicative consistency of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations. Inf Sci 466:109–128MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gou XJ, Xu ZS, Herrera F (2018) Consensus reaching process for large-scale group decision making with double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations. Knowl Based Syst 157:20–33Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Xu YJ, Cabrerizo FJ, Herrera-Viedma E (2017) A consensus model for hesitant fuzzy preference relations and its application in water allocation management. Appl Soft Comput 58:265–284Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhang ST, Zhu JJ, Liu XD, Chen Y, Ma ZZ (2017) Adaptive consensus model with multiplicative linguistic preferences based on fuzzy information granulation. Appl Soft Comput 60:30–47Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhou H, Wang JQ, Zhang HY (2017) Stochastic multi-criteria decision-making approach based on SMAA-ELECTRE with extended grey numbers. Int Trans Oper Res.  https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.12380 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Torra V (2010) Hesitant fuzzy sets. Int J Intell Syst 25:529–539zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhu B (2014) Decision method for research and application based on preference relation. Southeast University, NanjingGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhang S, Xu ZS, He Y (2017) Operations and integrations of probabilistic hesitant fuzzy information in decision making. Inf Fusion 38:1–11Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Li J, Wang JQ, Hu JH (2018) Multi-criteria decision-making method based on dominance degree and BWM with probabilistic hesitant fuzzy information. Int J Mach Learn Cybern.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-13018-10845-13042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Li J, Wang JQ (2017) An extended QUALIFLEX method under probability hesitant fuzzy environment for selecting green suppliers. Int J Fuzzy Syst 19:1866–1879MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Xu ZS, He Y, Wang XZ (2018) An overview of probabilistic-based expressions for qualitative decision-making: techniques, comparisons and developments. Int J Mach Learn Cybernet.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-13018-10830-13049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hu JH, Zhang XH, Yang Y, Liu YM, Chen XH (2018) New doctors ranking system based on VIKOR method. Int Trans Oper Res.  https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.12569 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yu SM, Wang J, Wang JQ (2018) An extended TODIM approach with intuitionistic linguistic numbers. Int Trans Oper Res 25:781–805MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Luo SZ, Zhang HY, Wang JQ, Li L (2018) Group decision-making approach for evaluating the sustainability of constructed wetlands with probabilistic linguistic preference relations. J Oper Res Soc.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01605682.01602018.01510806 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zhou W, Xu ZS (2018) Probability calculation and element optimization of probabilistic hesitant fuzzy preference relations based on expected consistency. PP, IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst, pp 1367–1378Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wu ZB, Xu JP (2018) A consensus model for large-scale group decision making with hesitant fuzzy information and changeable clusters. Inf Fusion 41:217–231Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zhu B, Xu ZS (2017) Probability-hesitant fuzzy sets and the representation of preference relations. Technol Econ Dev Economy.  https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.20292016.21266529 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tian XL, Xu ZS, Fujita H (2018) Sequential funding the venture project or not? A prospect consensus process with probabilistic hesitant fuzzy preference information. Knowl Based Syst.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.1008.1002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Li J, Wang ZX (2018) Consensus building for probabilistic hesitant fuzzy preference relations with expected additive consistency. Int J Fuzzy Syst 20:1495–1510MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Li J, Wang ZX (2018) A programming model for consistency and consensus in group decision making with probabilistic hesitant fuzzy preference relations. Int J Fuzzy Syst.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-40018-40501-40818 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Orlovsky SA (1978) Decision-making with a fuzzy preference relation. Fuzzy Sets Syst 1:155–167MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tanino T (1984) Fuzzy preference orderings in group decision making. Fuzzy Sets Syst 12:117–131MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Xia MM, Xu ZS (2011) Hesitant fuzzy information aggregation in decision making. Int J Approx Reason 52:395–407MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zhu B, Xu ZS (2013) Regression methods for hesitant fuzzy preference relations. Technol Econ Dev Economy 19:S214–S227Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zhu B, Xu ZS (2014) Consistency measures for hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 22:35–45Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Xu ZS, Zhou W (2017) Consensus building with a group of decision makers under the hesitant probabilistic fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Optim Decis Making 16:481–503MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pang Q, Wang H, Xu ZS (2016) Probabilistic linguistic term sets in multi-attribute group decision making. Inf Sci 369:128–143Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wu ZB, Xu JP (2012) A concise consensus support model for group decision making with reciprocal preference relations based on deviation measures. Fuzzy Sets Syst 206:58–73MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zhou W, Xu ZS (2017) Group consistency and group decision making under uncertain probabilistic hesitant fuzzy preference environment. Inf Sci 414:276–288Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Xu ZS (2001) Algorithm for priority of fuzzy complementary judgement matrix. J Syst Eng 16:311–314Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Laari S, Töyli J, Ojala L (2017) Supply chain perspective on competitive strategies and green supply chain management strategies. J Clean Prod 141:1303–1315Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Natural Computing Applications Forum 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of BusinessCentral South UniversityChangshaPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations