Soft Computing

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 683–691 | Cite as

D-AHP method with different credibility of information

  • Xinyang Deng
  • Yong DengEmail author
Methodologies and Application


Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) has attracted wide interest due to its extensive applications in practice. In our previous study, a method called D-AHP (AHP method extended by D numbers preference relation) was proposed to study the MCDM problems based on a D numbers extended fuzzy preference relation, and a solution for the D-AHP method has been given to obtain the weights and ranking of alternatives from the decision data, in which the results obtained by using the D-AHP method are influenced by the credibility of information. However, in previous study the impact of information’s credibility on the results is not sufficiently investigated, which becomes an unsolved issue in the D-AHP. In this paper, we focus on the credibility of information within the D-AHP method and study its impact on the results of a MCDM problem. Information with different credibilities including high, medium and low, respectively, is taken into consideration. The results show that the credibility of information in the D-AHP method slightly impacts the ranking of alternatives, but the priority weights of alternatives are influenced in a relatively obvious extent.


D-AHP D numbers preference relation Fuzzy preference relation Dempster–Shafer theory Multi-criteria decision making 



The authors are grateful to anonymous reviewers for their useful comments and suggestions on improving this paper. The work was partially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 61573290, 61503237).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Antoine V, Quost B, Masson MH, Denoeux T (2014) CEVCLUS: evidential clustering with instance-level constraints for relational data. Soft Comput 18(7):1321–1335Google Scholar
  2. Aplak HS, Sogut MZ (2013) Game theory approach in decisional process of energy management for industrial sector. Energy Convers Manag 74:70–80Google Scholar
  3. Aplak HS, Türkbey O (2013) Fuzzy logic based game theory applications in multi-criteria decision making process. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 25(2):359–371MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen YH, Chao RJ (2012) Supplier selection using consistent fuzzy preference relations. Expert Syst Appl 39(3):3233–3240Google Scholar
  5. Chen SJJ, Hwang CL, Beckmann MJ, Krelle W (1992) Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Dempster AP (1967) Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping. Ann Math Stat 38(2):325–339MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Deng Y (2012) D numbers: theory and applications. J Inf Comput Sci 9(9):2421–2428Google Scholar
  8. Deng X, Jiang W (2018) An evidential axiomatic design approach for decision making using the evaluation of belief structure satisfaction to uncertain target values. Int J Intell Syst 33(1):15–32Google Scholar
  9. Deng X, Hu Y, Deng Y, Mahadevan S (2014a) Environmental impact assessment based on D numbers. Expert Syst Appl 41(2):635–643Google Scholar
  10. Deng X, Hu Y, Deng Y, Mahadevan S (2014b) Supplier selection using AHP methodology extended by D numbers. Expert Syst Appl 41(1):156–167Google Scholar
  11. Deng X, Han D, Dezert J, Deng Y, Shyr Y (2016) Evidence combination from an evolutionary game theory perspective. IEEE Trans Cybern 46(9):2070–2082Google Scholar
  12. Deng X, Xiao F, Deng Y (2017) An improved distance-based total uncertainty measure in belief function theory. Appl Intell 46(4):898–915Google Scholar
  13. Denoeux T (2013) Maximum likelihood estimation from uncertain data in the belief function framework. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 25(1):119–130Google Scholar
  14. Fei L, Wang H, Chen L, Deng Y (2017) A new vector valued similarity measure for intuitionistic fuzzy sets based on OWA operators. Iran J Fuzzy Syst 15(5):31–49Google Scholar
  15. García-Cascales MS, Lamata MT (2012) On rank reversal and TOPSIS method. Math Comput Model 56(5):123–132MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F, Chiclana F, Luque M (2004) Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations. Eur J Oper Res 154(1):98–109MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Herrera-Viedma E, Alonso S, Chiclana F, Herrera F (2007) A consensus model for group decision making with incomplete fuzzy preference relations. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 15(5):863–877zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Jiang W, Wang S (2017) An uncertainty measure for interval-valued evidences. Int J Comput Commun Control 12(5):631–644MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. Jiang W, Zhan J (2017) A modified combination rule in generalized evidence theory. Appl Intell 46(3):630–640Google Scholar
  20. Jiang W, Wei B, Tang Y, Zhou D (2017a) Ordered visibility graph average aggregation operator: an application in produced water management. Chaos Interdiscip J Nonlinear Sci 27(2):023117Google Scholar
  21. Jiang W, Xie C, Zhuang M, Tang Y (2017b) Failure mode and effects analysis based on a novel fuzzy evidential method. Appl Soft Comput 57:672–683Google Scholar
  22. Jiang W, Wei B, Liu X, Li X, Zheng H (2018) Intuitionistic fuzzy power aggregation operator based on entropy and its application in decision making. Int J Intell Syst 33(1):49–67Google Scholar
  23. Kang B, Chhipi-Shrestha G, Deng Y, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2017) Stable strategies analysis based on the utility of Z-number in the evolutionary games. Appl Math Comput. Google Scholar
  24. Liu HC, You JX, Fan XJ, Lin QL (2014) Failure mode and effects analysis using D numbers and grey relational projection method. Expert Syst Appl 41(10):4670–4679Google Scholar
  25. Liu T, Deng Y, Chan F (2017) Evidential supplier selection based on DEMATEL and game theory. Int J Fuzzy Syst.,815-017-0400-4 Google Scholar
  26. Liu, B., Hu, Y., Deng, Y.: New failure mode and effects analysis based on D numbers downscaling method. Int J Comput Commun Control 13(2) (2018, in press)Google Scholar
  27. Nie S, Hu B, Li Y, Hu Z, Huang GH (2011) Identification of filter management strategy in fluid power systems under uncertainty: an interval-fuzzy parameter integer nonlinear programming method. Int J Syst Sci 42(3):429–448MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2004) Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Oper Res 156(2):445–455zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2007) Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods. Eur J Oper Res 178(2):514–529zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Peldschus F, Zavadskas EK (2005) Fuzzy matrix games multi-criteria model for decision-making in engineering. Informatica 16(1):107–120MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Ribeiro RA (1996) Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making: a review and new preference elicitation techniques. Fuzzy Sets Syst 78(2):155–181MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resources allocation. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Sayadi MK, Heydari M, Shahanaghi K (2009) Extension of VIKOR method for decision making problem with interval numbers. Appl Math Model 33(5):2257–2262MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Shafer G (1976) A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  35. Tanino T (1984) Fuzzy preference orderings in group decision making. Fuzzy Sets Syst 12(12):117–131MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Tsaur RC (2011) Decision risk analysis for an interval TOPSIS method. Appl Math Comput 218(8):4295–4304MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang Z, Bauch CT, Bhattacharyya S, d’Onofrio A, Manfredi P, Perc M, Perra N, Salathé M, Zhao D (2016) Statistical physics of vaccination. Phys Rep 664:1–113MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang Z, Jusup M, Wang RW, Shi L, Iwasa Y, Moreno Y, Kurths J (2017) Onymity promotes cooperation in social dilemma experiments. Sci Adv 3(3):e1601444Google Scholar
  39. Wei GW (2008) Maximizing deviation method for multiple attribute decision making in intuitionistic fuzzy setting. Knowl Based Syst 21(8):833–836Google Scholar
  40. Xu Z (2007) A survey of preference relations. Int J Gen Syst 36(2):179–203MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. Xu H, Deng Y (2018) Dependent evidence combination based on Shearman coefficient and Pearson coefficient. IEEE Access.
  42. Xu Z, Yager RR (2008) Dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute decision making. Int J Approx Reason 48(1):246–262zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. Xu S, Jiang W, Deng X, Shou Y (2018) A modified Physarum-inspired model for the user equilibrium traffic assignment problem. Appl Math Model 55:340–353MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  44. Yager RR (1992) Decision making under Dempster–Shafer uncertainties. Int J Gen Syst 20(3):233–245zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. Yager RR (2014) An intuitionistic view of the Dempster–Shafer belief structure. Soft Comput 18(11):2091–2099zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. Yager RR, Liu L et al (2008) Classic works of the Dempster–Shafer theory of belief functions, vol 219. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. Yang JB, Xu DL (2013) Evidential reasoning rule for evidence combination. Artif Intell 205:1–29MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. Yang M, Khan FI, Sadiq R, Amyotte P (2013) A rough set-based game theoretical approach for environmental decision-making: a case of offshore oil and gas operations. Process Saf Environ Prot 91(3):172–182Google Scholar
  49. Zhang R, Ashuri B, Deng Y (2017) A novel method for forecasting time series based on fuzzy logic and visibility graph. Adv Data Anal Classif 11(4):759–783MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhang Q, Li M, Deng Y (2018) Measure the structure similarity of nodes in complex networks based on relative entropy. Phys A Stat Mech Its Appl 491:749–763MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  51. Zheng H, Deng Y (2018a) Evaluation method based on fuzzy relations between Dempster-Shafer belief structure. Int J Intell Syst. Google Scholar
  52. Zheng X, Deng Y (2018b) Dependence assessment in human reliability analysis based on evidence credibility decay model and IOWA operator. Ann Nucl Energy 112:673–684Google Scholar
  53. Zheng H, Deng Y, Hu Y (2017) Fuzzy evidential influence diagram and its evaluation algorithm. Knowl Based Syst 131:28–45Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Fundamental and Frontier SciencesUniversity of Electronic Science and Technology of ChinaChengduChina
  2. 2.School of Computer and Information ScienceSouthwest UniversityChongqingChina

Personalised recommendations