International Journal of Fuzzy Systems

, Volume 19, Issue 5, pp 1317–1332 | Cite as

A Consistency-Based Method to Decision Making with Triangular Fuzzy Multiplicative Preference Relations

Article

Abstract

Triangular fuzzy multiplicative preference relations (TFMPRs) enable decision makers to apply triangular fuzzy numbers to denote their preferences, which can express their vagueness and fuzziness. Consistency analysis is an important research topic that can guarantee logical ranking order. Considering previous research regarding the consistency of TFMPRs, several issues and limitations exist with these relations. The researches cannot cope well with certain situations, such as unacceptably consistent TFMPRs and incomplete TFMPRs. In this paper, a new consistency definition for TFMPRs is defined that can overcome the issues in the previous concepts. Next, several desirable properties of the definition are discussed, and the relationship between the new definition and two existing ones is presented. A linear goal programming model is also built to judge the consistency of TFMPRs, and a method is introduced to obtain an acceptably consistent TFMPR from an inconsistent one. Furthermore, several goal programming models are constructed to estimate missing values in an incomplete TFMPR. Finally, a decision-making method with TFMPRs is developed. Illustrative examples are offered to demonstrate the concrete application of the developed procedure, and a comparison analysis is also made.

Keywords

Decision making Triangular fuzzy multiplicative preference relation Consistency analysis Programming model 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 71571192, 71671188, and 71501189), the Innovation-Driven Planning Foundation of Central South University (No. 2016CXS027), the State Key Program of National Natural Science of China (No. 71431006), the Projects of Major International Cooperation NSFC (No. 71210003), the Hunan Province Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars of China (No. 2016JJ1024) and the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No. 2016M602170).

References

  1. 1.
    Buckley, J.J.: Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 17(3), 233–247 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brunelli, M.: A note on the article “Inconsistency of pair-wise comparison matrix with fuzzy elements based on geometric mean” [Fuzzy Sets and Systems161 (2010) 1604–1613]. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 176(1), 76–78 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chou, C.C., Liu, L.J., Huang, S.F., Yih, J.M., Han, T.C.: An evaluation of airline service quality using the fuzzy weighted SERVQUAL method. Appl. Soft Comput. 11(2), 2117–2128 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dubois, D.: The role of fuzzy sets in decision sciences: old techniques and new directions. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 184(1), 3–28 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gong, Z.W.: Least-square method to priority of the fuzzy preference relations with incomplete information. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 47(2), 258–264 (2008)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gong, Z.W., Zhang, L.F., Liu, S.F.: Study on group decision making based on the triangular fuzzy number preference relations under incomplete information. J. Syst. Eng. 23(3), 269–275 (2008)MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hu, J.H., Yang, Y., Chen, X.H.: A novel TODIM method based three-way decision model for medical treatment selection. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst (2017). doi: 10.1007/s40815-017-0320-3 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kwiesielewicz, M.: A note on the fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 95(2), 161–172 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leung, L.C., Cao, D.: On consistency and ranking of alternatives in fuzzy AHP. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 124(1), 102–113 (2000)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liu, F., Zhang, W.G., Zhang, L.H.: Consistency analysis of triangular fuzzy reciprocal preference relations. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 235(3), 718–726 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu, F., Pedrycz, W., Wang, Z.X., Zhang, W.G.: An axiomatic approach to approximation-consistency of triangular fuzzy reciprocal preference relations”. Fuzzy Sets Syst. (2017). doi: 10.1016/j.fss.2017.02.004 MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liu, F., Pedrycz, W., Zhang, W.G.: Limited rationality and its quantification through the interval number judgments with permutations”. IEEE Trans. Cybern. (2016). doi: 10.1109/TCYB.2016.2594491 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liu, F., Zhang, W.G., Zhang, L.H.: A group decision-making model based on a generalized ordered weighted geometric average operator with interval-valued preference relations. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 246, 1–18 (2014)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu, F., Zhang, W.G.: TOPSIS-based consensus model for group decision making with incomplete interval fuzzy preference relations. IEEE Trans. Cybern. 44(8), 1283–1294 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liang, R.X., Wang, J.Q., Zhang, H.Y.: A multi-criteria decision-making method based on single-valued trapezoidal neutrosophic preference relations with complete weight information. Neural Comput. Appl. (2017). doi: 10.1007/s00521-017-2925-8 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meng, F.Y., Chen, X.H.: A new method for triangular fuzzy compare wise judgment matrix process based on consistency analysis. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 19(1), 27–46 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meng, F.Y., Tan, C.Q., Chen, X.H.: Multiplicative consistency analysis for interval reciprocal preference relations: a comparative study. Omega 68, 17–38 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meng, F.Y., Tang, J., An, Q.X., Chen, X.H.: Decision making with intuitionistic linguistic preference relations”. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. (2017). doi: 10.1111/itor.12383 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    F.Y. Meng and X.H. Chen, “A robust additive consistency-based method for decision making with triangular fuzzy reciprocal preference relations,” Fuzzy Opt. Decis. Ma., doi: 10.1007/s10700-016-9262-8
  20. 20.
    Mikhailov, L.: Deriving priorities from fuzzy pairwise comparison judgments. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 134(3), 365–385 (2003)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ramik, J., Korviny, P.: Inconsistency of pair-wise comparison matrix with fuzzy elements based on geometric mean. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 161(11), 1604–1613 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rezaei, J., Ortt, R., Scholten, V.: An improved fuzzy preference programming to evaluate entrepreneurship orientation. Appl. Soft Comput. 13(5), 2749–2758 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York (1980)MATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G.: Comparison of eigenvalue, logarithmic least squares and least squares methods in estimating ratios. Math. Model. 5(5), 309–324 (1984)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ureña, R., Chiclana, F., Morente-Molinera, J.A., Herrera-Viedma, E.: Managing incomplete preference relations in decision making: a review and future trends. Inf. Sci. 302, 14–32 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ureña, R., Chiclana, F., Fujita, H., Herrera-Viedma, E.: Confidence-consistency driven group decision making approach with incomplete reciprocal intuitionistic preference relations. Knowle. Based Syst 89, 86–96 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    van Laarhoven, P.J.M., Pedrycz, W.: A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 11(1–3), 229–241 (1983)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wang, Y.M., Chin, K.S.: A linear goal programming priority method for fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and its applications in new product screening. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 49(2), 451–465 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wang, Y.M., Luo, Y., Hua, Z.S.: On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 186(2), 735–747 (2008)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wang, Z.J.: Consistency analysis and priority derivation of triangular fuzzy preference relations based on modal value and geometric mean. Inf. Sci. 314, 169–183 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang, Z.J., Tong, X.Y.: Consistency analysis and group decision making based on triangular fuzzy additive reciprocal preference relations. Inf. Sci. 361, 29–47 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wang, Z.J., Lin, J.: Acceptability measurement and priority weight elicitation of triangular fuzzy multiplicative preference relations based on geometric consistency and uncertainty indices. Inf. Sci. 402, 105–123 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wang, Z.J., Li, K.W.: A multi-step goal programming approach for group decision making with incomplete interval additive reciprocal comparison matrices. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 242, 890–900 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wu, J., Chiclana, F.: Visual information feedback mechanism and attitudinal prioritisation method for group decision making with triangular fuzzy complementary preference relations. Inf. Sci. 279, 716–734 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Xia, M.M., Xu, Z.S.: Methods for fuzzy complementary preference relations based on multiplicative consistency. Comput. Ind. Eng. 61(4), 930–935 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Xu, Y.J., Wang, H.M.: A comment on “Incomplete fuzzy linguistic preference relations under uncertain environments”. Inf. Fusion 20(1), 2–5 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Xu, Y.J., Herrera, F., Wang, H.M.: A distance-based framework to deal with ordinal and additive inconsistencies for fuzzy reciprocal preference relations. Inf. Sci. 328, 189–205 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Xu, Y.J., Ma, F., Xu, W.J., Wang, H.M.: An incomplete multi-granular linguistic model and its application in emergency decision of unconventional outburst incidents. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 29(2), 619–633 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Xu, Y.J., Chen, L., Li, K.W., Wang, H.M.: A chi-square method for priority derivation in group decision making with incomplete reciprocal preference relations. Inf. Sci. 306, 166–179 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Xu, R.: Fuzzy least-squares priority method in the analytic hierarchy process. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 112(3), 359–404 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yager, R.R.: A procedure for ordering fuzzy subsets of the unit interval. Inf. Sci. 24(2), 143–161 (1980)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yuen, K.K.F., Lau, H.C.W.: A fuzzy group analytical hierarchy process approach for software quality assurance management: fuzzy logarithmic least squares method. Expert Syst. Appl. 38(8), 10292–10302 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Inf. Con. 8(1), 338–353 (1965)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Taiwan Fuzzy Systems Association and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Business SchoolCentral South UniversityChangshaChina
  2. 2.School of International AuditNanjing Audit UniversityNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations