Soft Computing

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 1109–1121 | Cite as

Sorting of decision-making methods based on their outcomes using dominance-vector hesitant fuzzy-based distance

  • Bahram FarhadiniaEmail author
  • Enrique Herrera-ViedmaEmail author


Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques have attracted more and more scholars attention for their potential of application in many areas of human action. Although several contributions exist regarding comparative analysis of MCDM techniques, most of them are focused on demonstrating the similarities and differences of these methodologies in obtaining group decisions. However, the existing techniques comparing MCDM methods to investigate the most suitable ranking method for the case study have a critical shortcoming that limits their application to just MCDM methods resulting in total ranking order. This work contributes to reduce this shortcoming by establishing a correspondence between a non-total ranking order and a set of total ranking orders what we will call dominance-vector hesitant fuzzy set.


Multi-criteria decision-making Hesitant fuzzy set Ranking of alternatives 



The authors respectfully acknowledge the support of Quchan University of Technology under Grant 94/7627 and FEDER funds under Grant TIN2016-75850-R.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the authors.


  1. Atanassov KT (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 20:87–96CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Azgomi MAA (2016) Trust modeling based on a combination of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy VIKOR. Soft Comput 20:399–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bachmaier C, Brandenburg FJ, Gleibner A, Hofmeier A (2014) On the hardness of maximum rank aggregation problems. J Discrete Algorithms.
  4. Bedregal B, Reiser R, Bustince H, Lopez-Molina C, Torra V (2014) Aggregating functions for typical hesitant fuzzy elements and the action of automorphisms. Inf Sci 256:82–97CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Brans JP, Vincke P (1985) A preference ranking organization method: the PROMETHEE method for MCDM. Manag Sci 31:647–656CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Brauers WKM, Zavadskas EK (2006) The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economy. Control Cybern 35:445–469MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Brauers WKM, Zavadskas EK (2010) Project management by MULTIMOORA as an instrument for transition economies. Technol Econ Dev Econ 16:5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cabrerizo FJ, Herrera-Viedma E, Pedrycz W (2013) A method based on PSO and granular computing of linguistic information to solve group decision making problems defined in heterogeneous contexts. Eur J Oper Res 230:624–633MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Cabrerizo FJ, Chiclana F, Al-Hmouz R, Morfeq A, Balamash AS, Herrera-Viedma E (2015) Fuzzy decision making and consensus: challenges. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 29:1109–1118MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Cabrerizo FJ, Al-Hmouz R, Morfeq A, Balamash AS, Martinez MA, Herrera-Viedma E (2017) Soft consensus measures in group decision making using unbalanced fuzzy linguistic information. Soft Comput 21:3037–3050CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Chakraborty S (2011) Applications of the MOORA method for decision making in manufacturing environment. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 54:1155–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chatterjee P, Athawale VM, Chakraborty S (2009) Selection of materials using compromise ranking and outranking methods. Mater Des 30:4043–4053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chitsaz N, Banihabib ME (2015) Comparison of different multi-criteria decision-making models in prioritizing flood management alternatives. Water Resour Manag.
  14. Deng JL (1989) Introduction to grey system. J Grey Syst 1:1–24MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Edwards W, Barron FH (1994) SMARTS and SMARTER: improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 60:306–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farhadinia B (2013) Information measures for hesitant fuzzy sets and interval-valued hesitant fuzzy sets. Inf Sci 240:129–144MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Farhadinia B (2014a) Distance and similarity measures for higher order hesitant fuzzy sets. Knowl Based Syst 55:43–48CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Farhadinia B (2014b) A series of score functions for hesitant fuzzy sets. Inf Sci 277:102–110MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Farhadinia B (2014c) Fuzzy multicriteria decision-making method based on a family of novel measured functions under vague environment. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 27:2797–2808MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Farhadinia B (2014d) Multicriteria decision making method based on the higher order hesitant fuzzy soft set. Int Sch Res Not Article ID 873454Google Scholar
  21. Ho W (2008) Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications—a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 186:211–28MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Jahan A, Ismail MY, Sapuan SM, Mustapha F (2010) Material screening and choosing methods—a review. Mater Des 31:696–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jahan A, Ismail MY, Shuib S, Norfazidah D, Edwards KL (2011) An aggregation technique for optimal decision-making in materials selection. Mater Des 32:4918–4924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kahraman C, Onar SC, Oztaysi B (2015) Fuzzy multicriteria decision-making: a literature review. Int J Comput Intell Syst 8:637–666CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Kumar R, Vassilvitskii S (2010) Generalized distance between rankings. In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World Wide Web, pp 571–580Google Scholar
  27. Liu W, Dong Y, Chiclana F, Cabrerizo FJ, Herrera-Viedma E (2017) Group decision-making based on heterogeneous preference relations with self-confidence. Fuzzy Optim Decis Mak 16:429–447MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. MacCrimon KR (1968) Decision marking among multiple-attribute alternatives: a survey and consolidated approach. In: RAND memorandum, RM-4823- ARPA. The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CAGoogle Scholar
  29. Mardani A, Jusoh A, Zavadskas EK (1994) Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making techniques and applications—two decades review from 1994 to 2014. Expert Syst Appl 42(2015):412–4148Google Scholar
  30. May KO (1952) A set of independent necessary and sufficient conditions for simple majority decision. Econometrica 20:680–684MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Mizumoto M, Tanaka K (1976) Some properties of fuzzy sets of type-2. Inform Control 31:312–340MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Opricovic S (1998) Visekriterijumska optimizacija u gradevinarstvu—multi-criteria optimization of civil engineering systems. Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade (in Serbian)Google Scholar
  33. Peng DH, Gao ChY, Gao ZhF (2013) Generalized hesitant fuzzy synergetic weighted distance measures and their application to multiple criteria decision making. Appl Math Model 37:5837–5850MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Perez IJ, Cabrerizo FJ, Herrera-Viedma E (2010) A mobile decision support system for dynamic group decision making problems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 40:1244–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Perez LG, Mata F, Chiclana F, Kou G, Herrera-Viedma E (2016) Modelling influence in group decision making. Soft Comput 20:1653–1665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pomerol JC, Barba-Romero S (2000) Multicriterion decision in management: principles and practice. Springer, NetherlandsCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. Rodriguez RM, Martinez L, Torra V, Xu ZS, Herrera F (2014) Hesitant fuzzy sets: state of the art and future directions. Int J Intell Syst 29:495–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rodriguez RM, Bedregal B, Bustince H, Dong YC, Farhadinia B, Kahraman C, Martinez L, Torra V, Xu YJ, Xu ZS, Herrera F (2016) A position and perspective analysis of hesitant fuzzy sets on information fusion in decision making. Towards High Qual Prog Inf Fus 29:89–97Google Scholar
  39. Roy B (1991) The outranking approach and the foundation of ELECTRE methods. Theory Decis 31:49–73MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Saaty TL (1980) Analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. Saaty TL, Ozdemir MS, Shang JS (2015) The rationality of punishment—measuring the severity of crimes: an AHP-based orders-of-magnitude approach. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 14:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stanujkic D, Magdalinovic N, Jovanovic R, Stojanovic S (2012) An objective multi-criteria approach to optimization using MOORA method and interval grey numbers. Technol Econ Dev Econ 18:331–363CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. Stanujkic D, Djordjevic B, Djordjevic M (2013) Comparative analysis of some prominent MCDM methods: a case of ranking Serbian banks. Serb J Manag 8:213–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Torra V (2010) Hesitant fuzzy sets. Int J Intell Syst 25:529–539zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. Torra V, Narukawa Y (2009) On hesitant fuzzy sets and decision. In: The 18th IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems, Jeju Island, Korea, pp 1378–1382Google Scholar
  46. Wade TE (1995) Optimum dielectric selection using a weighted evaluation factor. Semicond Int 18Google Scholar
  47. Xia MM, Xu ZS (2011) Hesitant fuzzy information aggregation in decision making. Int J Approx Reason 52:395–407MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z (2010) A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in multicriteria decision-making. Technol Econ Dev Econ 16:159–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zavadskas EK, Kaklauskas A, Sarka V (1994) The new method of multicriteria complex proportional assessment of projects. Technol Econ Dev Econ 1:131–139Google Scholar
  50. Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Antucheviciene J, Zakarevicius A (2012) Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektronika Ir Elektrotechnika Electron Electr Eng 122:3–6Google Scholar
  51. Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Kildiene S (2014) State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technol Econ Dev Econ 20:165–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zeleny M (1973) Compromise programming. In: Cochrane J, Zeleny LM (eds) Multiple criteria decision making. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, pp 262–301Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsQuchan University of TechnologyQuchanIran
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and Artificial IntelligenceUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain
  3. 3.Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringKing Abdulaziz UniversityJeddahSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations