Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A novel assessment approach based on group evidential reasoning and risk attitude

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the multi-attribute group decision-making (MAGDM) analysis, besides the weight of the expert, reliability is another important concept bound up with experts despite it receiving little attention. In addition, the risk attitude of decision-makers is particularly important to decision-making. Considering these two important factors simultaneously, the uncertain evidential reasoning (ER) MAGDM approach based on expert reliability and risk attitude is proposed. In this approach, the best worst method (BWM) is used to determine each attribute weight. The expert reliability is determined by integrating similarity measures between the assessments provided before and after group analysis and discussion (GAD) and optimizing the drawbacks of the reliability model of the original interval-value under global ignorance. The prospect function of assessment grades is introduced to rank alternatives by considering the risk attitude of decision-makers. Taking the risk assessment of public health emergencies as an example, the effectiveness and applicability of the proposed methods are analyzed.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  • Cao J et al (2016) Specification of a performance indicator using the evidential-reasoning approach. Knowl-Based Syst 92:138–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang L et al (2021) Belief rule mining using the evidential reasoning rule for medical diagnosis. Int J Approx Reason 130:273–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen S et al (2018) Evidential reasoning with discrete belief structures. Inf Fus 41:91–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin K et al (2009) An evidential-reasoning-interval-based method for new product design assessment. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 56(1):142–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Dempster A (1967) Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping. Ann Math Stat 38(2):325–339

    Google Scholar 

  • Ding H, Hu X, Tang X (2020) Multiple-attribute group decision making for interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets based on expert reliability and the evidential reasoning rule. Neural Comput Appl 32(9):5213–5234

    Google Scholar 

  • Du YW, Wang YM (2017) Evidence combination rule with contrary support in the evidential reasoning approach. Expert Syst Appl 88:193–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Du Y-W, Xu W-M (2017) Multiattribute group decision making based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets and analytically evidential reasoning methodology. J Intell & Fuzzy Syst 33(5):2953–2960

    Google Scholar 

  • Du Y-W, Zhong J-J (2021) Generalized combination rule for evidential reasoning approach and Dempster–Shafer theory of evidence. Inf Sci 547:1201–1232

    Google Scholar 

  • Du Y-W, Wang Y-M, Qin M (2018) New evidential reasoning rule with both weight and reliability for evidence combination. Comput Ind Eng 124:493–508

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwivedi R et al (2021) Performance evaluation of an insurance company using an integrated Balanced Scorecard (BSC) and Best-Worst Method (BWM). Decis Mak: Appl Manag Eng 4(1):33–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebenbach DH, Moore CF (2000) Incomplete information, inferences, and individual differences: the case of environmental judgments. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 81(1):1–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang R, Liao H (2020) A prospect theory-based evidential reasoning approach for multi-expert multi-criteria decision-making with uncertainty considering the psychological cognition of experts. Int J Fuzzy Syst 23(2):584–598

    Google Scholar 

  • Farquhar PH (1984) State of the art—utility assessment methods. Manage Sci 30(11):1283–1300

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu C, Wang Y (2015) An interval difference based evidential reasoning approach with unknown attribute weights and utilities of assessment grades. Comput Ind Eng 81:109–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu C, Yang J-B, Yang S-L (2015) A group evidential reasoning approach based on expert reliability. Eur J Oper Res 246(3):886–893

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu C et al (2019) An evidential reasoning approach based on criterion reliability and solution reliability. Comput Ind Eng 128:401–417

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu C, Liu W, Chang W (2020a) Data-driven multiple criteria decision making for diagnosis of thyroid cancer. Ann Oper Res 293(2):833–862

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu C et al (2020b) An evidential reasoning approach based on risk attitude and criterion reliability. Knowl-Based Syst 199:105947

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo M et al (2007) Evidential reasoning based preference programming for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty. Eur J Oper Res 182(3):1294–1312

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrera-Viedma E et al (2007) Group decision-making model with incomplete fuzzy preference relations based on additive consistency. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B (Cybern) 37(1):176–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrera-Viedma E et al (2007) A consensus model for group decision making with incomplete fuzzy preference relations. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 15(5):863–877

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang C-Y, Jiang H-C (2020) COVID-19 epidemic prevention and control review of the national emergency management system and capabilities. Manag World (in China) 8:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Kong G et al (2015) Combined medical quality assessment using the evidential reasoning approach. Expert Syst Appl 42(13):5522–5530

    Google Scholar 

  • Li YZ et al (2016) Optimal power system dispatch with wind power integrated using nonlinear interval optimization and evidential reasoning approach. IEEE Trans Power Syst 31(3):2246–2254

    Google Scholar 

  • Liao H et al (2019) Score-HeDLiSF: a score function of hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set based on hesitant degrees and linguistic scale functions: an application to unbalanced hesitant fuzzy linguistic MULTIMOORA. Inf Fus 48:39–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu X-B et al (2008) Assessment of strategic R&D projects for car manufacturers based on the evidential reasoning approach. Int J Comput Intell Syst 1(1):24–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma Z, Zhu J, Chen Y (2020) A probabilistic linguistic group decision-making method from a reliability perspective based on evidential reasoning. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern-Syst 50(7):2421–2435

    Google Scholar 

  • Mi X et al (2019) The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: why, what, what for and what’s next? Omega 87:205–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Millet I (1997) The effectiveness of alternative preference elicitation methods in the analytic hierarchy process. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 6(1):41–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Noor-E-Alam M et al (2011) Algorithms for fuzzy multi expert multi criteria decision making (ME-MCDM). Knowl-Based Syst 24(3):367–377

    Google Scholar 

  • Ölçer Aİ, Odabaşi AY (2005) A new fuzzy multiple attributive group decision making methodology and its application to propulsion/manoeuvring system selection problem. Eur J Op Res 166(1):93–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouyang T-H, Zheng S-W, Chen Y (2020) Constructing a governance system for major public health emergencies: a case study based on the Chinese scenario. Management world (in China) (8)

  • Pamučar D, Stević Ž, Sremac S (2018) A new model for determining weight coefficients of criteria in MCDM models: full consistency method (FUCOM). Symmetry 10(9):393

    Google Scholar 

  • Rezaei J (2015) Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53:49–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafer GA (1979) Mathematical theory of evidence

  • Simon HA (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Quart J Econ 69(1):99–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Smarandache F, Dezert J, Tacnet J (2010) Fusion of sources of evidence with different importances and reliabilities. In: 2010 13th International Conference on Information Fusion

  • Tang X et al (2017) The expert reliability and evidential reasoning rule based intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute group decision making. J Intell & Fuzzy Syst 33(2):1067–1082

    Google Scholar 

  • Torğul B, Demiralay E, Paksoy T (2022) Training aircraft selection for department of flight training in fuzzy environment. Decis Mak: Appl Manag Eng 5(1):264–289

    Google Scholar 

  • Wan S-P, Wang F, Dong J-Y (2016) A novel risk attitudinal ranking method for intuitionistic fuzzy values and application to MADM. Appl Soft Comput 40:98–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang Y-M, Yang J-B, Xu D-L (2006) Environmental impact assessment using the evidential reasoning approach. Eur J Oper Res 174(3):1885–1913

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang Y et al (2007) On the combination and normalization of interval-valued belief structures☆. Inf Sci 177(5):1230–1247

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang J-Q et al (2014) Interval-valued hesitant fuzzy linguistic sets and their applications in multi-criteria decision-making problems. Inf Sci 288:55–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang J et al (2021) A New Evidential Reasoning Rule With Continuous Probability Distribution of Reliability. IEEE Trans Cybern 52:2168–2267

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu X, Liao H (2018) An approach to quality function deployment based on probabilistic linguistic term sets and ORESTE method for multi-expert multi-criteria decision making. Inf Fus 43:13–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu D-L (2011) An introduction and survey of the evidential reasoning approach for multiple criteria decision analysis. Ann Oper Res 195(1):163–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu X et al (2017) Data classification using evidence reasoning rule. Knowl-Based Syst 116:144–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang J-B (2001) Rule and utility based evidential reasoning approach for multiattribute decision analysis under uncertainties. Eur J Oper Res 131(1):31–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang J-B, Singh MG (1994) An evidential reasoning approach for multiple-attribute decision making with uncertainty. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 24(1):1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang J-B, Xu D-L (2002) On the evidential reasoning algorithm for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty. IEEE Trans Syst, Man, Cybern—Part A: Syst Hum 32(3):289–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang J-B, Xu D-L (2013) Evidential reasoning rule for evidence combination. Artif Intell 205:1–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang M-J et al (2017) A general evidential reasoning algorithm for multi-attribute decision analysis under interval uncertainty. Eur J Oper Res 257(3):1005–1015

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou Z-J et al (2009) Online updating belief rule based system for pipeline leak detection under expert intervention. Expert Syst Appl 36(4):7700–7709

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou Z-J et al (2011) Online updating belief-rule-base using the RIMER approach. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A-Syst Hum 41(6):1225–1243

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou Z-G et al (2013a) A bi-level belief rule based decision support system for diagnosis of lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer. Knowl-Based Syst 54:128–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou M et al (2013b) Group evidential reasoning approach for MADA under fuzziness and uncertainties. Int J Comput Intell Syst 6(3):423–441

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou Z-G et al (2015) A cooperative belief rule based decision support system for lymph node metastasis diagnosis in gastric cancer. Knowl-Based Syst 85:62–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou M et al (2018) Evidential reasoning rule for MADM with both weights and reliabilities in group decision making. Knowl-Based Syst 143:142–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou M et al (2019) Evidential reasoning approach with multiple kinds of attributes and entropy-based weight assignment. Knowl-Based Syst 163:358–375

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou M et al (2020) Assignment of attribute weights with belief distributions for MADM under uncertainties. Knowl-Based Syst 189:105110

    Google Scholar 

  • Žižović M, Pamučar D (2019) New model for determining criteria weights: level based weight assessment (LBWA) model. Decis Mak: Appl Manag Eng 2(2):126–137

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors are grateful to the case company for permitting and supporting this research. This work was financially supported by Humanities and social sciences research project of the Ministry of Education (20YJAZH096), the China Scholarship Council (Grant number. 202008320538, 202109040034), Postgraduate Research and Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province (KYCX21_1035); Meteorological soft science project of China (2022zzxm24).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Benhong Peng and Anxia Wan have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management Science and Engineering, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing, 210044, People’s Republic of China

    Chaoyu Zheng, Benhong Peng, Xuan Zhao & Anxia Wan

  2. Engineering Systems and Design (ESD), Singapore University of Technology and Design, Singapore, 487372, Singapore

    Chaoyu Zheng & Mu Yue

Authors
  1. Chaoyu Zheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benhong Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xuan Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anxia Wan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mu Yue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benhong Peng.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

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

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

See Tables

Table 7 Original assessment data from the four experts for the four public health emergencies
Full size table

7,

Table 8 Assessment data from the four experts for the four public health emergencies after GAD
Full size table

8,

Table 9 The relative weights of four experts on eleven attributes
Full size table

9,

Table 10 Interval-value expert reliabilities on each attribute for each emergency
Full size table

10,

Table 11 Reference assessment data obtained by four experts on public health emergency under GAD
Full size table

11,

Table 12 Prospect utilities of the four emergencies and their rankings with variation in \(r_{1}\)
Full size table

12,

Table 13 Prospect utilities of the four emergencies and their rankings with variation in \(\mu \left( {H_{k} } \right)\)
Full size table

13 and

Table 14 Model parameters and calculations
Full size table

14.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zheng, C., Peng, B., Zhao, X. et al. A novel assessment approach based on group evidential reasoning and risk attitude. Group Decis Negot 32, 925–964 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-023-09830-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-023-09830-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation