Advertisement

Cognitive Computation

, Volume 10, Issue 5, pp 752–768 | Cite as

Outranking Decision-Making Method with Z-Number Cognitive Information

  • Hong-gang Peng
  • Jian-qiang Wang
Article

Abstract

The Z-number provides an adequate and reliable description of cognitive information. The nature of Z-numbers is complex, however, and important issues in Z-number computation remain to be addressed. This study focuses on developing a computationally simple method with Z-numbers to address multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) problems. Processing Z-numbers requires the direct computation of fuzzy and probabilistic uncertainties. We used an effective method to analyze the Z-number construct. Next, we proposed some outranking relations of Z-numbers and defined the dominance degree of discrete Z-numbers. Also, after analyzing the characteristics of elimination and choice translating reality III (ELECTRE III) and qualitative flexible multiple criteria method (QUALIFLEX), we developed an improved outranking method. To demonstrate this method, we provided an illustrative example concerning job-satisfaction evaluation. We further verified the validity of the method by a criteria test and comparative analysis. The results demonstrate that the method can be successfully applied to real-world decision-making problems, and it can identify more reasonable outcomes than previous methods. This study overcomes the high computational complexity in existing Z-number computation frameworks by exploring the pairwise comparison of Z-numbers. The method inherits the merits of the classical outranking method and considers the non-compensability of criteria. Therefore, it has remarkable potential to address practical decision-making problems involving Z-information.

Keywords

Multicriteria decision-making Z-number Outranking relation ELECTRE III QUALIFLEX 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are very grateful to the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their insightful and constructive comments and suggestions that have led to an improved version of this paper. And, this work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71571193).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Hong-gang Peng and Jian-qiang Wang declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was not required as no humans or animals were involved.

Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Shivhare R, Cherukuri AK, Li J. Establishment of cognitive relations based on cognitive informatics. Cogn Comput. 2017;9(5):721–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kim SS, Mcloone S, Byeon JH, Lee S, Liu H. Cognitively inspired artificial bee colony clustering for cognitive wireless sensor networks. Cogn Comput. 2017;9(2):207–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Oliva J, Serrano JI, Castillo MDD, Iglesias Á. Cross-linguistic cognitive modeling of verbal morphology acquisition. Cogn Comput. 2017;9(2):237–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ramírez-Bogantes M, Prendas-Rojas JP, Figueroa-Mata G, Calderon RA, Salas-Huertas O, Travieso CM. Cognitive modeling of the natural behavior of the Varroa destructor mite on video. Cogn Comput. 2017;9(4):482–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Farhadinia B. A multiple criteria decision making model with entropy weight in an interval-transformed hesitant fuzzy environment. Cogn Comput. 2017;9(4):513–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Li J, Wang J. Multi-criteria outranking methods with hesitant probabilistic fuzzy sets. Cogn Comput. 2017;9(5):611–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhao F, Zeng Y, Wang G, Bai J, Xu B. A brain-inspired decision making model based on top-down biasing of prefrontal cortex to basal ganglia and its application in autonomous UAV explorations. Cogn Comput. 2018;10(2):296–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hu JH, Pan L, Chen XH. An interval neutrosophic projection-based VIKOR method for selecting doctors. Cogn Comput. 2017;9(6):801–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets. Inf Control. 1965;8(3):338–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Atanassov KT. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1986;20(1):87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Torra V, Narukawa Y. On hesitant fuzzy sets and decision. The 18th IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems. 2009;1378–1382.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Peng HG, Wang JQ. Cloud decision model for selecting sustainable energy crop based on linguistic intuitionistic information. Int J Syst Sci. 2017;48(15):3316–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liu PD, Zhang XH. A novel picture fuzzy linguistic aggregation operator and its application to group decision-making. Cogn Comput. 2018;10(2):242–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ye J. Multiple attribute decision-making methods based on the expected value and the similarity measure of hesitant neutrosophic linguistic numbers. Cogn Comput. 2017;  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-017-9535-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang J, Wang JQ, Tian ZP, Zhao DY. A multi-hesitant fuzzy linguistic multicriteria decision-making approach for logistics outsourcing with incomplete weight information. Int Trans Oper Res. 2018;25(3):831–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zadeh LA. A note on Z-numbers. Inf Sci. 2011;181(14):2923–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aliev RA, Pedrycz W, Huseynov OH, Eyupoglu SZ. Approximate reasoning on a basis of Z-number valued if-then rules. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst. 2017;25(6):1589–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kang BY, Chhipi-Shrestha G, Deng Y, Hewage K, Sadiq R. Stable strategies analysis based on the utility of Z-number in the evolutionary games. Appl Math Comput. 2018;324:202–17.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yang Y, Wang J. SMAA-based model for decision aiding using regret theory in discrete Z-number context. Appl Soft Comput. 2018;65:590–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Peng HG, Wang JQ. A multicriteria group decision-making method based on the normal cloud model with Zadeh’s Z-numbers. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst. 2018:1.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2018.2816909.
  21. 21.
    Banerjee R, Pal SK. Z*-numbers: augmented Z-numbers for machine-subjectivity representation. Inf Sci. 2015;323:143–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peng HG, Wang JQ. Hesitant uncertain linguistic Z-numbers and their application in multi-criteria group decision-making problems. Int J Fuzzy Syst. 2017;19(5):1300–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang JQ, Cao YX, Zhang HY. Multi-criteria decision-making method based on distance measure and Choquet integral for linguistic Z-numbers. Cogn Comput. 2017;9(6):827–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bakar ASA, Gegov A. Multi-layer decision methodology for ranking Z-numbers. Int J Comput Intell Syst. 2015;8(2):395–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Aliev RA, Huseynov OH, Serdaroglu R. Ranking of Z-numbers and its application in decision making. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making. 2016;15(06):1503–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jiang W, Xie CH, Luo Y, Tang YC. Ranking Z-numbers with an improved ranking method for generalized fuzzy numbers. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems. 2017;32(3):1931–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kang BY, Wei DJ, Li Y, Deng YA. Method of converting Z-number to classical fuzzy number. J Inf Comput Sci. 2012;9(3):703–9.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kang BY, Wei DJ, Li Y, Deng Y. Decision making using Z-numbers under uncertain environment. J Inf Comput Sci. 2012;8(7):2807–14.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Xiao ZQ. Application of Z-numbers in multi-criteria decision making. International Conference on Informative and Cybernetics for Computational Social Systems IEEE 2014;91–95.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yaakob AM, Gegov A. Interactive TOPSIS based group decision making methodology using Z-numbers. Int J Comput Intell Syst. 2016;9(2):311–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kang BY, Hu Y, Deng Y, Zhou DY. A new methodology of multi-criteria decision-making in supplier selection based on Z-numbers. Math Probl Eng. 2016;2016(1):1–17.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Aliev RA, Alizadeh AV, Huseynov OH. The arithmetic of discrete Z-numbers. Inf Sci. 2015;290:134–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Aliev RA, Huseynov OH, Zeinalova LM. The arithmetic of continuous Z-numbers. Inf Sci. 2016;373:441–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wang JQ, Peng JJ, Zhang HY, Chen XH. Outranking approach for multi-criteria decision-making problems with hesitant interval-valued fuzzy sets. Soft Comput. 2017;  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-017-2791-4.
  35. 35.
    Kadziński M, Rocchi L, Miebs G, Grohmann D, Menconi ME, Paolotti L. Multiple criteria assessment of insulating materials with a group decision framework incorporating outranking preference model and characteristic class profiles. Group Decis Negot. 2018;27(1):33–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Roy B. The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods. Theor Decis. 1991;31:49–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Petrović M, Bojković N, Stamenković M, Anić I. Supporting performance appraisal in ELECTRE based stepwise benchmarking model. Omega. 2018;78:237–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yu X, Zhang S, Liao X, Qi X. ELECTRE methods in prioritized MCDM environment. Inf Sci. 2018;424:301–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Corrente S, Figueira JR, Greco S, Słowiński R. A robust ranking method extending ELECTRE III to hierarchy of interacting criteria, imprecise weights and stochastic analysis. Omega. 2017;73:1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lupo T, Cusumano M. Towards more equity concerning quality of urban waste management services in the context of cities. J Clean Prod. 2018;171:1324–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Brans JP, Vincke P, Mareschal B. How to select and how to rank projects: the PROMETHEE method. Eur J Oper Res. 1986;24(2):228–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Paelinck JHP. Qualiflex:a flexible multiple-criteria method. Econ Lett. 1978;1(3):193–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zhang XL. Multicriteria Pythagorean fuzzy decision analysis: a hierarchical QUALIFLEX approach with the closeness index-based ranking methods. Inf Sci. 2016;330:104–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tian ZP, Wang J, Wang JQ, Zhang HY. Simplified neutrosophic linguistic multi-criteria group decision-making approach to green product development. Group Decis Negot. 2017;26(3):597–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wang KQ, Liu HC, Liu L, Huang J. Green supplier evaluation and selection using cloud model theory and the QUALIFLEX method. Sustainability. 2017;9(5):688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zadeh LA. The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning—I. Inf Sci. 1975;8(3):199–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Voxman W. Canonical representations of discrete fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 2001;118(3):457–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wang JQ, Kuang JJ, Wang J, Zhang HY. An extended outranking approach to rough stochastic multi-criteria decision-making problems. Cogn Comput. 2016;8(6):1144–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Vasto-Terrientes LD, Valls A, Slowinski R, Zielniewicz P. ELECTRE III-H:an outranking-based decision aiding method for hierarchically structured criteria. Expert Syst Appl. 2015;42(11):4910–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Vasto-Terrientes LD, Fernández-Cavia J, Huertas A, Moreno A, Valls A. Official tourist destination websites:hierarchical analysis and assessment with ELECTRE-III-H. Tour Manag Perspect. 2015;15:16–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hashemi SS, Hajiagha SHR, Zavadskas EK, Mahdiraji HA. Multicriteria group decision making with ELECTRE III method based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy information. Appl Math Model. 2016;40(2):1554–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zhou H, Wang J, Zhang H. Stochastic multi-criteria decision-making approach based on SMAA-ELECTRE with extended grey numbers. Int Trans Oper Res 2017;2016.  https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.12380.
  53. 53.
    Chen TY. An interval type-2 fuzzy PROMETHEE method using a likelihood-based outranking comparison approach. Inf Fusion. 2015;25:105–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Chen TY. An interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy permutation method with likelihood-based preference functions and its application to multiple criteria decision analysis. Appl Soft Comput. 2016;42:390–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wang YM. Using the method of maximizing deviation to make decision for multiindices. J Syst Eng Electron. 1997;8(3):21–6.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Fu C, Xu DL, Xue M. Determining attribute weights for multiple attribute decision analysis with discriminating power in belief distributions. Knowl-Based Syst. 2018;143:127–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Peng HG, Zhang HY, Wang JQ. Cloud decision support model for selecting hotels on TripAdvisor.com with probabilistic linguistic information. Int J Hosp Manag. 2018;68:124–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wang X, Triantaphyllou E. Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods. Omega. 2008;36(1):45–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Zadeh LA. Toward a restriction-centered theory of truth and meaning (RCT). Inf Sci. 2013;248:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Zadeh LA. The information principle. Inf Sci. 2015;294:540–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of BusinessCentral South UniversityChangshaPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations