Advertisement

Neural Computing and Applications

, Volume 31, Issue 12, pp 8769–8786 | Cite as

Derivation of personalized numerical scales from distribution linguistic preference relations: an expected consistency-based goal programming approach

  • Xiaoan TangEmail author
  • Qiang Zhang
  • Zhanglin Peng
  • Shanlin Yang
  • Witold Pedrycz
Original Article
  • 72 Downloads

Abstract

Due to the promising performance of distribution linguistic preference relations (DLPRs) in eliciting the comparison information coming from decision makers (DMs), linguistic decision problems of this type of preference relations have attracted considerable research interest in recent years. However, to our best knowledge, there is little research on the personalized individual semantics of linguistic terms when dealing with computing with words (CWW) in the process of solving linguistic decision problems with DLPRs. As is well known, one statement about CWW in linguistic decisions is that words might exhibit different meanings for different people. Words need to be individually quantified when dealing with CWW. Hence, the objective of this study is to fill this gap by applying the idea of personalizing numerical scales of linguistic terms for different DMs in linguistic decision with DLPRs to manage the statement about CWW. First, this study connects DLPRs to fuzzy preference relations and multiplicative preference relations by using different types of numerical scales. Then, definitions of expected consistency for DLPRs are presented. On the basis of expected consistency, some goal programming models are built to derive personalized numerical scales for linguistic terms from DLPRs. Finally, a numerical study concerning football player evaluation is analyzed by using the proposed method to demonstrate its applicability in practical decision scenarios. A discussion and a comparative study highlight the validity of the proposed method in this paper.

Keywords

Distribution linguistic preference relation Personalized numerical scale Goal programming model Linguistic decision making 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the State Scholarship Fund of China (No. 201706690025), the Foundation for Innovative Research Groups of the Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71521001) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 71690230, 71690235, 71501056, 71601066, 71501055, 71501054 and 71571166).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

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

References

  1. 1.
    Alonso S, Cabrerizo FJ, Chiclana F, Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E (2009) Group decision making with incomplete fuzzy linguistic preference relations. Int J Intell Syst 24:201–222zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dong YC, Xu YF, Li HY, Dai M (2008) A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP. Eur J Oper Res 186:229–242MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dong YC, Xu YF, Yu S (2009) Linguistic multiperson decision making based on the use of multiple preference relations. Fuzzy Set Syst 160:603–623MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dong YC, Xu YF, Yu S (2009) Computing the numerical scale of the linguistic term set for the 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 17:1366–1378Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dong YC, Zhang GQ, Hong WC, Yu S (2013) Linguistic computational model based on 2-tuples and intervals. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 21:1006–1018Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    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 45:780–792Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dong YC, Wu YZ, Zhang HJ, Zhang GG (2015) Multi-granular unbalanced linguistic distribution assessments with interval symbolic proportions. Knowl Based Syst 82:139–151Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dong YC, Li CC, Herrera F (2016) Connecting the linguistic hierarchy and the numerical scale for the 2-tuple linguistic model and its use to deal with hesitant unbalanced linguistic information. Inf Sci 367:259–278Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dutta B, Guha D, Mesiar R (2015) A model based on linguistic 2-tuples for dealing with heterogeneous relationship among attributes in multi-expert decision making. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 23:1817–1831Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gao J, Xu ZS, Ren PJ, Liao HC (2018) An emergency decision making method based on the multiplicative consistency of probabilistic linguistic preference relations. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 10:1–17Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ghadikolaei AS, Madhoushi M, Divsalar M (2018) Extension of the VIKOR method for group decision making with extended hesitant fuzzy linguistic information. Neural Comput Appl 30:3589–3602Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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
  13. 13.
    Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F, Chiclana F, Luque M (2004) Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations. Eur J Oper Res 154:98–109MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Herrera-Viedma E, Martinez L, Mata F, Chiclana F (2005) A consensus support system model for group decision-making problems with multigranular linguistic preference relations. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 13:644–658Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Verdegay JL (1996) A model of consensus in group decision making under linguistic assessments. Fuzzy Set Syst 78:73–87MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Martinez L (2000) A fusion approach for managing multi-granularity linguistic term sets in decision making. Fuzzy Set Syst 114:43–58zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Chiclana F (2001) Multiperson decision-making based on multiplicative preference relations. Eur J Oper Res 129:372–385MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Herrera F, Martinez L (2001) A model based on linguistic 2-tuples for dealing with multigranular hierarchical linguistic contexts in multi-expert decision-making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B Cybern 31:227–234Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Herrera F, Alonso S, Chiclana F, Herrera-Viedma E (2009) Computing with words in decision making: foundations, trends and prospects. Fuzzy Optim Decis Mak 8:337–364zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Krishankumar R, Ravichandran KS, Ahmed MI, Kar S, Tyagi SK (2019) Probabilistic linguistic preference relation-based decision framework for multi-attribute group decision making. Symmetry 11:2Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Li CC, Dong YC, Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Martinez L (2017) Personalized individual semantics in computing with words for supporting linguistic group decision making. An application on consensus reaching. Inf Fusion 33:29–40Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Li CC, Rodríguez RM, Herrera F, Martinez L, Dong YC (2017) A consistency-driven approach to set personalized numerical scales for hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations. In: IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems (FUZZ-IEEE), Naples, Italy. IEEE, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Li CC, Rodriguez RM, Martinez L, Dong YC, Herrera F (2018) Personalized individual semantics based on consistency in hesitant linguistic group decision making with comparative linguistic expressions. Knowl Based Syst 145:156–165Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liu HB, Ma Y, Jiang L (2019) Managing incomplete preferences and consistency improvement in hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations with applications in group decision making. Inf Fusion 51:19–29Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Martinez L, Herrera F (2012) An overview on the 2-tuple linguistic model for computing with words in decision making: extensions, applications and challenges. Inf Sci 207:1–18MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Massanet S, Riera JV, Torrens J, Herrera-Viedma E (2016) A model based on subjective linguistic preference relations for group decision making problems. Inf Sci 355:249–264Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mendel JM, Wu D (2010) Perceptual computing: aiding people in making subjective judgments. IEEE Press and John Wiley, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mendel JM, Zadeh LA, Trillas E, Yager R, Lawry J, Hagras H, Guadarrama S (2010) What computing with words means to me. IEEE Comput Intell Mag 5:20–26Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Morente-Molinera JA, Perez IJ, Urena MR, Herrera-Viedma E (2015) On multi-granular fuzzy linguistic modeling in group decision making problems: a systematic review and future trends. Knowl Based Syst 74:49–60Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ölçer Aİ, Odabaşi AY (2005) A new fuzzy multiple attributive group decision making methodology and its application to propulsion/manoeuvring system selection problem. Eur J Oper Res 166:93–114zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pang Q, Wang H, Xu ZS (2016) Probabilistic linguistic linguistic term sets in multi-attribute group decision making. Inf Sci 369:128–143Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rodriguez RM, Martinez L, Herrera F (2013) A group decision making model dealing with comparative linguistic expressions based on hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets. Inf Sci 241:28–42MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Salo AA, Hämäläinen RP (1997) On the measurement of preferences in the analytic hierarchy process. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 6:309–319zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tanino T (1984) Fuzzy preference orderings in group decision-making. Fuzzy Set Syst 12:117–131MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wang JH, Hao JY (2006) A new version of 2-tuple. Fuzzy linguistic, representation model for computing with words. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 14:435–445Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wang JH, Hao J (2007) An approach to computing with words based on canonical characteristic values of linguistic labels. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 15:593–604Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wu YZ, Li CC, Chen X, Dong YC (2018) Group decision making based on linguistic distributions and hesitant assessments: maximizing the support degree with an accuracy constraint. Inf Fusion 41:151–160Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wu ZB, Xu JP (2016) Managing consistency and consensus in group decision making with hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations. Omega Int J Manag S 65:28–40Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Xu JP, Wu ZB (2013) A maximizing consensus approach for alternative selection based on uncertain linguistic preference relations. Comput Ind Eng 64:999–1008Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Xu ZS (1999) Study on the relation between two classes of scales in AHP. Syst Eng Theory Pract 19:311–314Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Xu ZS (2004) EOWA and EOWG operators for aggregating linguistic labels based on linguistic preference relations. Int J Uncertain Fuzz 12:791–810MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Xu ZS (2007) A survey of preference relations. Int J Gen Syst 36:179–203MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Xu ZS (2008) Group decision making based on multiple types of linguistic preference relations. Inf Sci 178:452–467MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zadeh LA (1975) The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning. 1. Inf Sci 8:199–249MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zhang BW, Liang HM, Gao Y, Zhang GQ (2018) The optimization-based aggregation and consensus with minimum-cost in group decision making under incomplete linguistic distribution context. Knowl Based Syst 162:92–102Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zhang GQ, Dong YC, Xu YF (2014) Consistency and consensus measures for linguistic preference relations based on distribution assessments. Inf Fusion 17:46–55Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zhang YX, Xu ZS, Wang H, Liao HC (2016) Consistency-based risk assessment with probabilistic linguistic preference relation. Appl Soft Comput 49:817–833Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zhang YX, Xu ZS, Liao HC (2017) A consensus process for group decision making with probabilistic linguistic preference relations. Inf Sci 414:260–275Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zhang YX, Xu ZS, Liao HC (2018) An ordinal consistency-based group decision making process with probabilistic linguistic preference relation. Inf Sci 467:179–198MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zhang Z, Guo CH, Martinez L (2017) Managing multigranular linguistic distribution assessments in large-scale multiattribute group decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 47:3063–3076Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zhang ZM, Wu C (2014) On the use of multiplicative consistency in hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations. Knowl Based Syst 72:13–27Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ManagementHefei University of Technology, HefeiHefeiPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Process Optimization and Intelligent Decision-makingMinistry of Education, HefeiHefeiPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  4. 4.Systems Research Institute, Polish Academy of SciencesWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations