An overview of probabilistic-based expressions for qualitative decision-making: techniques, comparisons and developments

  • Zeshui Xu
  • Yue He
  • Xizhao Wang
Original Article


The rapid development of science and technology brings the complexity and difficulty in decision-making. As a comprehensive tool for information expression, the probabilistic-based expressions can denote the complex information by considering the hesitancy and the accuracy at the same time. Because of the flexibility for expression, the related researches of the probabilistic-based expressions develop at a high rate of speed even though they are not systematical and mature enough. In this paper, we introduce the existing concepts of the probabilistic-based expressions and deeply analyze their developments and compare their similarities and differences. Each kind of concept has its own advantages and limitations, and can be applied for different decision-making environments. Besides, we investigate the research status of the techniques of the probabilistic-based expressions since they are the basis for most decision-making methods. For now, the existing decision-making methods for probabilistic-based expressions can be divided into the multi-attribute decision-making methods and the dynamic decision-making methods. It is worthy to point out that there are still a lot of severe challenges in the development process of probabilistic-based expressions, but their theoretical and applied value deserves to be paid much attention.


Probabilistic-based expressions Probabilistic linguistic term sets Distribution assessment Probabilistic hesitant fuzzy sets Ordinal information 



This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (nos. 71571123, 71771155).


  1. 1.
    Zadeh LA (1975) The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning. Inf Sci 8(3):199–249MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–353zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Xu ZS (2004) A method based on linguistic aggregation operators for group decision making with linguistic preference relations. Inf Sci 166(1–4):19–30MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Xu ZS, Wang H (2017) On the syntax and semantics of virtual linguistic terms for information fusion in decision-making. Inf Fusion 34:43–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Herrera F, Martinez L (2000) A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 8(6):746–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Atanassov KT, Rangasamy P (2012) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 20(1):87–96zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Atanassov K, Gargov G (1999) Interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 343–349zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chang SL, Wang RC, Wang SY (2006) Applying fuzzy linguistic quantifier to select supply chain partners at different phases of product life cycle. Int J Prod Econ 100(2):348–359MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tseng ML, Chiu ASF (2013) Evaluating firm’s green supply chain management in linguistic preferences. J Clean Prod 40:22–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haq AN, Boddu V (2017) Analysis of enablers for the implementation of leagile supply chain management using an integrated fuzzy QFD approach. J Intell Manuf 28(1):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ashayeri J, Tuzkaya G, Tuzkaya UR (2012) Supply chain partners and configuration selection: an intuitionistic fuzzy Chouquet integral operator based approach. Soc Sci Electron Publ 39(3):3642–3649Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fahmi A, Derakhshan A, Kahraman C (2015) Human resources management using interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. In: IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lukovac V, Pamučar D, Popović M, Đorović B (2017) Portfolio model for analyzing human resources: an approach based on neuro-fuzzy modeling and the simulated annealing algorithm. Expert Syst Appl 90:318–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu P, Wu XY (2012) A competency evaluation method of human resources managers based on multi-granularity linguistic variables and VIKOR method. Technol Econ Dev Econ 18(4):696–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhang Z, Liu PD, Guan ZL (2009) A new method for human resources evaluation based on linguistic variable and TOPSIS. J Quant Tech Econ 26(11):141–151Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huppertz JW, Strosberg M, Burns S, Chaudhri I (2014) The uniqueness of U.S. healthcare management: a linguistic analysis of competency models and application to health administration education. J Health Adm Educ 31(3):540–567Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ravangard R, Bahadori M, Raadabadi M, Alimomohammadzadeh K (2017) A model for the development of hospital beds using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (fuzzy AHP). Iran J Public Health 46(11):1555–1562Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Büyüközkan G, Feyzioğlu O, Gocer F (2016) Evaluation of hospital web services using intuitionistic fuzzy AHP and intuitionistic fuzzy VIKOR. In: IEEE international conference on industrial engineering and engineering management, pp 607–611Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang LE, Liu HC, Quan MY (2016) Evaluating the risk of failure modes with a hybrid MCDM model under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Comput Ind Eng 102(C):175–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Torra V (2010) Hesitant fuzzy sets. Int J Intell Syst 25(6):529–539zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Xia MM, Xu ZS (2011) Hesitant fuzzy information aggregation in decision-making. Int J Approx Reason 52:395–407MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rodriguez RM, Martinez L, Herrera F (2012) Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets for decision-making. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 20(1):109–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liao HC, Xu ZS, Zeng XJ, Merigó JM (2015) Qualitative decision-making with correlation coefficients of hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets. Knowl Based Syst 76(1):127–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liao HC, Xu ZS, Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F (2017) Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set and its application in decision-making: a state-of-the-artsurvey. Int J Fuzzy Syst 12:1–27Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Xia MM, Xu ZS (2011) Hesitant fuzzy information aggregation in decision-making. Int J Approx Reason 52(3):395–407MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Xu ZS, Xia MM (2012) Hesitant fuzzy entropy and cross-entropy and their use in multiattribute decision-making. Int J Intell Syst 27(9):799–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chen SM, Hong JA (2014) Multicriteria linguistic decision-making based on hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and the aggregation of fuzzy sets. Inf Sci 286:63–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wei CP, Zhao N, Tang X (2014) Operators and comparisons of hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 22(3):575–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chen N, Xu ZS (2015) Hesitant fuzzy ELECTRE II approach: a new way to handle multi-criteria decision-making problems. Inf Sci 292:175–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Liao HC, Xu ZS (2013) A VIKOR-based method for hesitant fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making. Fuzzy Optim Decis Mak 12(4):373–392MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Beg I, Rashid T (2013) TOPSIS for hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets. Int J Intell Syst 28(12):1162–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Liao HC, Xu ZS, Zeng XJ (2015) Hesitant fuzzy linguistic VIKOR method and its application in qualitative multiple criteria decision-making. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 23(5):1343–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zhang FY, Luo L, Liao HC, Zhu T, Shi Y (2016) Inpatient admission assessment in West China Hospital based on hesitant fuzzy linguistic VIKOR method. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 30(6):3143–3154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Xu ZS, Xia MM (2011) Distance and similarity measures for hesitant fuzzy sets. Inf Sci 181(11):2128–2138MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Chen N, Xu ZS, Xia MM (2013) Correlation coefficients of hesitant fuzzy sets and their applications to clustering analysis. Appl Math Model 37(4):2197–2211MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Xu ZS, Xia MM. On distance and correlation measures of hesitant fuzzy information. Int J Intell Syst 26(5):410–425Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Riera JV, Massanet S, Herrera-Viedma E, Torrens J (2015) Some interesting properties of the fuzzy linguistic model based on discrete fuzzy numbers to manage hesitant fuzzy linguistic information. Appl Soft Comput 36:383–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wei CP, Liao HC (2016) A Multigranularity linguistic group decision-making method based on hesitant 2-tuple sets. Int Journal of Intell Syst 31(6):612–634MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pang Q, Wang H, Xu ZS (2016) Probabilistic linguistic term sets in multi-attribute group decision-making. Inf Sci 369:128–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zhang G, Dong YC, Xu YF (2014) Consistency and consensus measures for linguistic preference relations based on distribution assessments. Inf Fusion 17(1):46–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dong YC, Wu Y, Zhang H, Zhang G (2015) Multi-granular unbalanced linguistic distribution assessments with interval symbolic proportions. Knowl Based Syst 82(C):139–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zhu B, Xu ZS (2017) Probability-hesitant fuzzy sets and the representation of preference relations. Technol Econ Dev Econ. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    He Y, Xu ZS, Jiang WL (2017) Probabilistic interval reference ordering sets in multi-criteria group decision-making. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 25(2):189–212MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zhai YL, Xu ZS, Liao HC (2017) Measures of probabilistic interval-valued intuitionistic hesitant fuzzy sets and the application in reducing excessive medical examinations. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zhang YX, Xu ZS, Liao HC (2017) A consensus process for group decision-making with probabilistic linguistic preference relations. Inf Sci 414:260–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bai C, Zhang R, Qian L, Wu Y (2017) Comparisons of probabilistic linguistic term sets for multi-criteria decision-making. Knowl Based Syst 119(C):284–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zhai YL, Xu ZS, Liao HC (2016) Probabilistic linguistic vector-term set and its application in group decision-making with multi-granular linguistic information. Appl Soft Comput 49:801–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zhou W, Xu ZS (2017) Probability calculation and element optimization of probabilistic hesitant fuzzy preference relations based on expected consistency. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wu ZB, Xu JP (2016) Possibility distribution-based approach for MAGDM with hesitant fuzzy linguistic information. IEEE Trans Cybern 46(3):694–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Xu ZS, Zhou W (2017) Consensus building with a group of decision makers under the hesitant probabilistic fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Optim Decis Mak. MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zhang Z, Guo C, Martínez L (2017) Managing multigranular linguistic distribution assessments in large-scale multiattribute group decision-making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 47(11):3063–3076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hao ZN, Xu ZS, Zhao H, Su Z (2017) Probabilistic dual hesitant fuzzy set and its application in risk evaluation. Knowl Based Syst 127(C):16–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    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 Part B Cybern A 31(2):227–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wang JH, Hao J (2006) A new version of 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 14(3):435–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zhang YX, Xu ZS, Wang H, Liao HC (2016) Consistency-based risk assessment with probabilistic linguistic preference relation. Appl Soft Comput 49(C):817–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Zhu B, Xu ZS, Zhang R, Hong M (2015) Generalized analytic network process. Eur J Oper Res 244(1):277–288MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Liu HC, Rodríguez RM (2014) A fuzzy envelope for hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set and its application to multicriteria decision-making. Inf Sci 258(3):220–238MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Yang JB (2001) Rule and utility based evidential reasoning approach for multi-attribute decision analysis under uncertainties. Eur J Oper Res 131(1):31–61zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Chen ZS, Chin KS, Li YL, Yang Y (2016) Proportional hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set for multiple criteria group decision-making. Inf Sci 357(C):61–87MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Xie WY, Xu ZS (2017) Probabilistic linguistic analytic hierarchy process and its application on the performance assessment of Xiongan new area. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Lin MW, Xu ZS, Zhai YL, Yao Z (2017) Multi-attribute group decision-making under probabilistic uncertain linguistic environment. J Oper Res Soc 22:1–15Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Xu ZS (2004) Uncertain multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Tsinghua University Press/Springer, Beijing/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Xu ZS (2005) Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations in group decision making. Omega 33(3):249–254MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Zhang S, Xu ZS, He Y (2017) Operations and integrations of probabilistic hesitant fuzzy information in decision making. Inf Fusion 38:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Wu ZB, Xu JP (2018) A consensus model for large-scale group decision-making with hesitant fuzzy information and changeable clusters. Inf Fusion 41:217–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Zhang Z (2014) Weighted hesitant fuzzy sets and their application to multi-criteria decision-making. Br J Math Comput Sci 4(8):1091–1123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Chiclana F (2001) Multiperson decision-making based on multiplicative preference relations. Eur J Oper Res 129(2):372–385MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Xu ZS, Cai XQ, Liu S (2011) Nonlinear programming model integrating different preference structures. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 41(1):169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Fan ZP, Yue Q, Feng B, Liu Y (2010) An approach to group decision-making with uncertain preference ordinals. Comput Ind Eng 58(1):51–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Wu ZB, Jin B, Xu JP (2017) Local feedback strategy for consensus building with probability-hesitant fuzzy preference relations. Appl Soft Comput 67:691–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Ding J, Xu ZS, Zhao N (2017) An interactive approach to probabilistic hesitant fuzzy multi-attribute group decision-making with incomplete weight information. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 32(3):2523–2536zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Xu ZS, Chen J (2008) Some models for deriving the priority weights from interval fuzzy preference relations. Eur J Oper Res 184:266–280MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Behzadian M, Otaghsara SK, Yazdani M, Ignatius J (2012) A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Syst Appl 39(17):13051–13069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Xu ZS, Zhang XL (2013) Hesitant fuzzy multi-attribute decision-making based on TOPSIS with incomplete weight information. Knowl Based Syst 52(6):53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Simard PY, Lecun YA, Denker JS, Victorri B (2000) Transformation invariance in pattern recognition—tangent distance and tangent propagation. Int J Imaging Syst Technol 11(3):181–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Sanfeliu A, Fu KS (2012) A distance measure between attributed relational graphs for pattern recognition. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern SMC 13(3):353–362zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Kaspar R (2016) Structural pattern recognition with graph edit distance: approximation algorithms and applications. Advances in computer vision & pattern recognition. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Shen J, Hao X, Liang Z, Wang W (2016) Real-time superpixel segmentation by DBSCAN clustering algorithm. IEEE Trans Image Process 25(12):5933–5942MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Li Z, Filev DP, Kolmanovsky I, Atkins E, Lu J (2017) A new clustering algorithm for processing GPS-based road anomaly reports with a mahalanobis distance. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 18(7):1980–1988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Lin MW, Xu ZS (2017) Probabilistic linguistic distance measures and their applications in multi-criteria group decision-making. In: Collan M, Kacprzyk J (eds) Soft computing applications for group decision-making and consensus modeling. Springer, Berlin, pp 411–440Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Farhadinia B (2016) Utility of correlation measures for weighted hesitant fuzzy sets in medical diagnosis problems. Math Model Appl 1(2):36–45Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Kapur JN, Kesavan HK (1992) Entropy optimization principles and their applications. Academic Press, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Liu HB, Jiang L, Xu ZS (2017) Entropy measures of probabilistic linguistic term sets. Int J Comput Intell Syst 11(1):45–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Zhao N, Xu ZS, Liu F (2015) Uncertainty measures for hesitant fuzzy information. Int J Intell Syst 30(7):818–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Saaty TL (1980) Analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Dong YC, Luo N, Liang H (2015) Consensus building in multiperson decision-making with heterogeneous preference representation structures: a perspective based on prospect theory. Appl Soft Comput 35:898–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Yan HB, Ma T, Huynh VN (2017) On qualitative multi-attribute group decision-making and its consensus measure: a probability based perspective. Omega 70:94–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Zhou W, Xu ZS (2017) Expected hesitant VaR for tail decision-making under probabilistic hesitant fuzzy environment. Appl Soft Comput 60(9):297–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Business SchoolSichuan UniversityChengduChina
  2. 2.School of Computer and SoftwareNanjing University of Information Science and TechnologyNanjingChina
  3. 3.College of Computer Science and Software EngineeringShenzhen UniversityShenzhenChina

Personalised recommendations