System Portfolio Selection Under Hesitant Fuzzy Information
System portfolio selection faces multi-criteria and multi-objective problems, which lead the decision-makers to build a decision model. Otherwise, the system evaluation value is not clear and the multi-objective of the system is difficult to outweigh. To solve the problem, a value-risk ratio model with Hesitant Fuzzy Set (HFS) is used for portfolio selection. To be specific, in this model, the HFS is used to evaluate the value and risk of systems; and the portfolio value and portfolio risk are calculated with HFS operation. Meanwhile, the value-risk rate is applied to address the problem of multi-objective for system portfolio. Finally, one numerical example for system portfolio selection is given to illustrate the applicability of the proposed model.
KeywordsSystem portfolio selection Hesitant Fuzzy Set Decision-making Value and risk model
We are thankful to the Editor and the reviewers for their valuable comments and detailed suggestions to improve the presentation of the paper. Further, we also acknowledge the support in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 71690233, No. 71671186 and No. 71401167.
- 1.Markowitz, H.: Portfolio selection. J. Financ. 7(1), 77–91 (1952)Google Scholar
- 6.Dou, Y., Zhang, P., Ge, B., Jiang, J., Chen, Y.: An integrated technology pushing and requirement pulling model for weapon system portfolio selection in defence acquisition and manufacturing. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf. 229(6), 1781–1789 (2014)Google Scholar
- 8.Zhou, Z., Dou, Y., Xia, B., et al.: Weapon systems portfolio selection based on fuzzy clustering analysis. In: IEEE International Conference on Control Science and Systems Engineering, pp. 702–705. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
- 12.Torra, V.: Hesitant fuzzy sets. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 25(6), 529–539 (2010)Google Scholar
- 18.Zhang, Z.: A framework of group decision making with hesitant fuzzy preference relations based on multiplicative consistency. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 19(4), 1–15 (2016)Google Scholar