Abstract
In fuzzy decision-making problems, existing fuzzy decision-making methods only indicate fuzzy assessment values but lack the degrees/levels of credibility regarding the fuzzy assessment values in alternatives over attributes due to the vagueness and uncertainty of human cognitions/judgments for complicated decision-making problems. Therefore, the credibility degree of the fuzzy assessment value shows its importance and necessity in the fuzzy decision-making problem. To enhance the credibility degrees/levels of fuzzy assessment values, the fuzzy assessment values should be closely related to their credibility measures, which make the assessment information more abundant and more credible. Hence, this study proposes the concept of a fuzzy credibility number (FCN) as a new extension of the fuzzy concept, where both a fuzzy value and a credibility degree are expressed by a pair of fuzzy values. Then, we present operations of FCNs, a score function of FCN, a FCN weighted arithmetic averaging (FCNWAA) operator, and a FCN weighted geometric averaging (FCNWGA) operator. Next, a multi-attribute decision-making (MADM) approach using the FCNWAA or FCNWGA operator is established to deal with MADM problems in the setting of FCNs. Eventually, the established MADM approach is used for a decision-making example on selecting a suitable slope design scheme for an open pit mine in the setting of FCNs to reflect the usability and effectiveness of the established decision-making approach. Compared with the classical fuzzy MADM approach, the established MADM approach makes the assessment information more abundant and more credible, then the sensitivity analysis indicates the importance and efficiency of credibility measures in the ranking order of alternatives, which reflect main advantages of the established MADM approach in the environment of FCNs. However, this study reflects the novelty and new contribution of the proposed information expression and aggregation operations and decision-making method in fuzzy decision theory and methods.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abdullah L (2013) Fuzzy multi criteria decision making and its applications: a brief review of category. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 97:131–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.213
Abdullah S, Khan S, Qiyas M, Chinram R (2021) A novel approach based on sine trigonometric picture fuzzy aggregation operators and their application in decision support system. J Math 2021:8819517. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8819517
Ansari M, Hosseini RS, Sharifi M (2016) Evaluating and rating the performance of Qazvin municipalities, using the balanced scorecard (BSC) model, with fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making (FMCDM) approach. Int J Hum Comput Stud 3(2):185–197
Ashraf S, Abdullah S, Mahmood T, Ghani F, Mahmood T (2019) Spherical fuzzy sets and their applications in multi-attribute decision making problems J. Intell Fuzzy Syst 36(3):2829–2844
Ayouni S, Menzli LJ, Hajjej F, Madeh M, Al-Otaibi S (2021) Fuzzy Vikor application for learning management systems evaluation in higher education. Int J Inf Commun Technol Educ 17(2):17–35
Bender MJ, Simonovic SP (2000) A fuzzy compromise approach to water resource systems planning under uncertainty. Fuzzy Sets Syst 115(1):35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(99)00025-1
Bostancı B, Erdem N (2020) Investigating the satisfaction of citizens in municipality services using fuzzy modeling. Socioecon Plann Sci 69:100754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2019.100754
Calabrese A, Costa R, Menichini T (2013) Using fuzzy AHP to manage intellectual capital assets: an application to the ICT service industry. Expert Syst Appl 40(9):3747–3755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.12.081
Chang TH (2014) Fuzzy VIKOR method: a case study of the hospital service evaluation in Taiwan. Inform Sci 271:196–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2014.02.118
Chen SJ, Hwang CL (1992) Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making. Springer-Verlag
Hatami-Marbini A, Tavana M (2011) An extension of the ELECTRE I method for group decision-making under a fuzzy environment. Omega 39(4):373–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2010.09.001
Hb L, Liu Y, Xu L, Abdullah S (2021) Multi-attribute group decision-making for online education live platform selection based on linguistic intuitionistic cubic fuzzy aggregation operators. Comput Appl Math 40:16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-020-01406-1
Kahraman C, Onar SC, Oztaysi B (2015) Fuzzy multicriteria decision-making: a literature review. Int J Comput Intell Syst 8(4):637–666. https://doi.org/10.1080/18756891.2015.1046325
Kangas A, Kangas J, Pykäläinen J (2001) Outranking methods as tools in strategic natural resources planning. Silva Fennica 35(2):215–227
Liu HC, Liu L, Liu N, Mao LX (2012) Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects analysis with extended VIKOR method under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 39(17):12926–12934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.031
Montazer GA, Saremi HQ, Ramezani M (2009) Design a new mixed expert decision aiding system using fuzzy ELECTRE III method for vendor selection. Expert Syst Appl 36(8):10837–10847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.01.019
Naeem M, Qiyas M, Al-Shomrani MM, Abdullah S (2020) Similarity measures for fractional orthotriple fuzzy sets using cosine and cotangent functions and their application in accident emergency response. Mathematics 8(10):1653. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8101653
Pandey MM, Shukla D, Graham A (2019) Evaluating the human performance factors of air traffic control in Thailand using fuzzy multi criteria decision making method. J Air Transp Manag 81:101708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2019.101708
Rahimi M, Najafi A (2016) Analysis of customer’s expectations and satisfaction in Zanjan municipality using fuzzy multi-criteria decision making (FMCDM) approach. J Optim Ind Eng 10(21):47–57. https://doi.org/10.22094/joie.2016.260
Read J, Stacey P (2009) Guidelines for open pit slope design. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood
Sanayei A, Mousavi SF, Yazdankhah A (2011) Group decision making process for supplier selection with VIKOR under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 37(1):24–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.04.063
Shweta KD (2021) Analysis of issues of generic medicine supply chain using fuzzy AHP: a Pilot study of Indian public drug distribution scheme. Int J Pharm Healthcare Market 15(1):18–42
Sun Y, Mi JS, Chen JK, Liu W (2021) A new fuzzy multi-attribute group decision-making method with generalized maximal consistent block and its application in emergency management. Knowl-Based Syst 215:106594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2020.106594
Triantaphyllou E, Lin CT (1996) Development and evaluation of five fuzzy multiattribute decision-making methods. Int J Approx Reason 14(4):281–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/0888-613X(95)00119-2
Wang YJ (2014) The evaluation of financial performance for Taiwan container shipping companies by fuzzy TOPSIS. Appl Soft Comput 22:28–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.03.021
Wang TC, Lee HD (2009) Developing a fuzzy TOPSIS approach based on subjective weights and objective weights. Expert Syst Appl 36(5):8980–8985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.07.005
Wang Y, Jung KA, Yeo GT, Chou CC (2014) Selecting a cruise port of call location using the fuzzy-AHP method: a case study in East Asia. Tour Manage 42:262–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.11.005
Wang Y, Yang H, Qin K (2019) The consistency between cross-entropy and distance measures in fuzzy sets. Symmetry 11(3):386. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11030386
Yadegaridehkordi E, Hourmand M, Nilashi M, Alsolami E, Samad S, Mahmoud M, Alarood AA, Zainol A, Majeed HD, Shuib L (2020) Assessment of sustainability indicators for green building manufacturing using fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach. Ournal Clean Prod 277:122905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122905
Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that we have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Communicated by Marcos Eduardo Valle.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ye, J., Song, J., Du, S. et al. Weighted aggregation operators of fuzzy credibility numbers and their decision-making approach for slope design schemes. Comp. Appl. Math. 40, 155 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-021-01539-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-021-01539-x