Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prioritization of hesitant multiplicative preference relations based on data envelopment analysis for group decision making

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Hesitant multiplicative preference relations (HMPRs) are utilized to describe situations where a decision maker gives several possible values by Saaty’s 1-9 scale in pairwise comparison. For further applications of HMPRs, this paper develops two priority methods based on data envelopment analysis (DEA) for group decision making. These methods include self-weight prioritization and the cross-weight prioritization, which are similar to the self-evaluation efficiency and the cross-evaluation efficiency in DEA theory, respectively. We prove that both of them can generate true priority weights for consistent HMPRs. The mechanisms of these proposed methods are illustrated with numerical examples. Also, comparisons with other methods are performed to show the advantages of the proposed methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2:429–444

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Chiclana F, Herrera-Viedma E, Alonso S, Herrera F (2009) Cardinal consistency of reciprocal preference relations: a characterization of multiplicative transitivity. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 17:14–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dong YC, Chen X, Herrera F (2015) Minimizing adjusted simple terms in the consensus reaching process with hesitant linguistic assessments in group decision making. Inf Sci 297:95–117

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Doyle J, Green R (1994) Efficiency and cross-efficiency in DEA: derivations, meanings and uses. J Oper Res Soc 45:567–578

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Dubois DJ (1980) Fuzzy sets and systems, theory and applications. Academic Press, Orlando

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Fan ZP, Ma J, Jiang YP, Sun YH, Ma L (2006) A goal programming approach to group decision making based on multiplicative preference relations and fuzzy preference relations. Eur J Oper Res 174:311–321

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Gong ZW (2008) Least-square method to priority of the fuzzy preference relations with incomplete information. Int J Approx Reason 47:258–264

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Verdegay JL (1996) A model of consensus in group decision making under linguistic assessments. Fuzzy Sets Syst 78:73–87

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Hosseinian SS, Navidi H, Hajfathaliha A (2012) A new linear programming method for weights generation and group decision making in the analytic hierarchy process. Group Decis Negot 21:233–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kou G, Lin CS (2014) A cosine maximization method for the priority vector derivation in AHP. Eur J Oper Res 235:225–232

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Li KW, Wang ZJ, Tong XY (2016) Acceptability analysis and priority weight elicitation for interval multiplicative comparison matrices. Eur J Oper Res 250:628–638

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Liang L, Wu J, Cook WD, Zhu J (2008) Alternative secondary goals in DEA cross-efficiency evaluation. Int J Prod Econ 113:1025–1030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Liao HC, Xu ZS (2014) Priorities of intuitionistic fuzzy preference relation based on multiplicative consistency. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 22:1669–1681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lin Y, Wang YM, Chen SQ (2016) Hesitant fuzzy multiattribute matching decision making based on regret theory with uncertain weights. Int J Fuzzy Syst. doi:10.1007/s40815-016-0213-x

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lin Y, Wang YM, Chen SQ (2017) Multistage decision making based on prioritization of hesitant multiplicative preference relations. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 32:691–701

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Lipovetsky S, Conklin WM (2002) Robust estimation of priorities in the AHP. Eur J Oper Res Soc 137:110–122

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Liu PD, Shi L (2015) The generalized hybrid weighted average operator based on interval neutrosophic hesitant set and its application to multiple attribute decision making. Neural Comput Appl 26(2):457–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Orlovsky SA (1978) Decision-making with a fuzzy preference relation. Fuzzy Sets Syst 1:155–167

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Ramanathan R (2006) Data envelopment analysis for weight derivation and aggregation in the analytic hierarchy process. Comput Oper Res 33:1289–1307

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Rodríguez RM, Martínez L, Torra V, Xu ZS, Herrera F (2014) Hesitant fuzzy sets: state of the art and future directions. Int J Intell Syst 29:495–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rodríguez RM, Bedregal B et al (2015) A position and perspective analysis of hesitant fuzzy sets on information fusion in decision making. Towards high quality progress. Inf Fusion 29:89–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Saaty TL (1980) The analysis hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill Company, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Saaty TL, Vargas LG (1984) Comparison of eigenvalue, logarithmic least squares and least squares methods in estimating ratios. Math Model 5:309–324

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Saaty TL, Vargas LG (1987) Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 32:107–117

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Sexton TR, Silkman RH, Hogan AJ (1986) Data envelopment analysis: critique and extensions. New Dir Eval 32:73–105

    Google Scholar 

  26. Sinuany-Stern Z, Mehrez A, Hadad Y (2006) An AHP/DEA methodology for ranking decision making units. Int Trans Oper Res 7:109–124

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Tanino T (1984) Fuzzy preference orderings in group decision making. Fuzzy Sets Syst 12:117–131

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Tanino T (1988) Fuzzy preference relations in group decision making. In: Kacprzyk J, Roubens M (eds) Non-conventional preference relations in decision making. Springer, Berlin

  29. Torra V (2010) Hesitant fuzzy sets. Int J Intell Syst 25:529–539

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Torra V, Narukawa Y (2009) On hesitant fuzzy sets and decision. In: The 18th IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems. Jeju Island, Korea, pp 1378–1382

  31. Wang YM, Chin KS (2009) A new data envelopment analysis method for priority determination and group decision making in the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 195:239–250

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Wang YM, Chin KS (2010) A neutral DEA model for cross-efficiency evaluation and its extension. Expert Syst Appl 37:3666–3675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Wang ZJ, Li KW (2015) A multi-step goal programming approach for group decision making with incomplete interval additive reciprocal comparison matrices. Eur J Oper Res 242(3):890–900

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Wang ZJ, Li KW (2016) Group decision making with incomplete intuitionistic preference relations based on quadratic programming models. Comput Ind Eng 93:162–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Wang H, Xu ZS (2016) Multi-groups decision making using intuitionistic-valued hesitant fuzzy information. Int J Comput Intell Sys 9:468–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wang YM, Yang JB, Xu DL (2005) A two-stage logarithmic goal programming method for generating weights from interval comparison matrices. Fuzzy Sets Syst 152:475–498

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Wang YM, Chin KS, Poon GKK (2008) A data envelopment analysis method with assurance region for weight generation in the analytic hierarchy process. Decis Support Syst 45:913–921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wang YM, Luo Y, Xu YS (2013) Cross-weight evaluation for pairwise comparison matrices. Group Decis Negot 22:483–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Wu DD (2009) Performance evaluation: an integrated method using data envelopment analysis and fuzzy preference relations. Eur J Oper Res 194:227–235

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Wu Z, Xu J (2012) A consistency and consensus based decision support model for group decision making with multiplicative preference relations. Decis Support Syst 52:757–767

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Wu J, Liu Y, Liang C (2015) A consensus- and harmony- based feedback mechanism for multiple attribute group decision making with correlated intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Int Trans Oper Res 22:1033–1054

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  42. Wu J, Chu J, Sun J, Zhu Q (2015) DEA cross-efficiency evaluation based on Pareto improvement. Eur J Oper Res 248:571–579

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Xia MM, Xu ZS (2013) Managing hesitant information in GDM problems under fuzzy and multiplicative preference relations. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness 21:865–897

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Xu ZS (2007) Intuitionistic preference relations and their application in group decision making. Inf Sci 177:2363–2379

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Xu ZS, Cai X (2014) Deriving weights from interval multiplicative preference relations in group decision making. Group Decis Negot 23:695–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Xu ZS, Chen J (2008) Some models for deriving the priority weights from interval fuzzy preference relations. Eur J Oper Res 184:266–280

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Xu ZS, Da QL (2003) An overview of operators for aggregating information. Int J Intell Syst 18:953–969

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Xu Y, Chen L, Li KW, Wang H (2015) A Chi square method for priority derivation in group decision making with incomplete reciprocal preference relations. Inf Sci 306:166–179

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  49. Zadeh LA (1965) Information and control. Fuzzy Sets 8:338–353

    Google Scholar 

  50. Zhang Z, Guo CH (2016) Fusion of heterogeneous incomplete hesitant preference relations in group decision making. Int J Comput Intell Syst 9:245–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Zhang XL, Xu ZS (2014) The TODIM analysis approach based on novel measured functions under hesitant fuzzy environment. Knowl-Based Syst 61:48–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Zhang ZM, Wu C, Zhang Z, Wu C (2014) Deriving the priority weights from hesitant multiplicative preference relations in group decision making. Appl Soft Comput 25:107–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Zhu B, Xu ZS, Xu JP (2014) Deriving a ranking from hesitant fuzzy preference relations under group decision making. IEEE Trans Cybern 44(8):1328–1337

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Prof. Shengqun Chen for his helpful discussions and comments and also thank the anonymous referees and the editor for their insightful suggestions which lead to the present version of this paper. The work was partly supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71371053), the Humanities and Social Sciences Foundation of Ministry of Education of China (Grant No. 16YJC630008), the Fujian Provincial Young Teacher Educational Research Foundation (Grant No. JAS160132) and the Teaching Reform Foundation of Fujian Normal University of China (Grant No. I201603023).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Decision Sciences Institute, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou, 350116, China

    Yang Lin & Ying-Ming Wang

  2. School of Economics, Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou, 350117, China

    Yang Lin

Authors
  1. Yang Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ying-Ming Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ying-Ming Wang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that can inappropriately influence their work, and there is no professional or other personal interest of any nature or kind in any product, service and/or company that could be construed as influencing the position presented in, or the review of, the manuscript entitled, “Prioritization of hesitant multiplicative preference relations based on data envelopment analysis for group decision making.”

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lin, Y., Wang, YM. Prioritization of hesitant multiplicative preference relations based on data envelopment analysis for group decision making. Neural Comput & Applic 31, 437–447 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-017-3075-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-017-3075-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation