Sorting of decision-making methods based on their outcomes using dominance-vector hesitant fuzzy-based distance
- 80 Downloads
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.
KeywordsMulti-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.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the authors.
- Bachmaier C, Brandenburg FJ, Gleibner A, Hofmeier A (2014) On the hardness of maximum rank aggregation problems. J Discrete Algorithms. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jda.2014.10.002
- Chitsaz N, Banihabib ME (2015) Comparison of different multi-criteria decision-making models in prioritizing flood management alternatives. Water Resour Manag. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-015-0954-6
- Farhadinia B (2014d) Multicriteria decision making method based on the higher order hesitant fuzzy soft set. Int Sch Res Not Article ID 873454Google Scholar
- Kumar R, Vassilvitskii S (2010) Generalized distance between rankings. In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World Wide Web, pp 571–580Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Opricovic S (1998) Visekriterijumska optimizacija u gradevinarstvu—multi-criteria optimization of civil engineering systems. Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade (in Serbian)Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Wade TE (1995) Optimum dielectric selection using a weighted evaluation factor. Semicond Int 18Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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