Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Multi-criteria Decision-Making Approach Based on Regret Theory

  • Published:
International Journal of Fuzzy Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Due to the uncertainty and hesitancy of decision makers in assessing alternatives, hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets have been proposed recently to allow decision makers to provide several linguistic terms in the evaluation process and have been widely used to deal with multi-criteria decision-making problems. According to the regret theory, decision makers may care more about the regret values than the absolute values of alternatives under uncertainty. The hesitant linguistic fuzzy multi-criteria decision making based on regret theory is investigated in this paper. The regret value of each alternative to the other ones is defined, based on which, four types of best alternatives are defined taking into account the uncertainty and hesitancy. The relationship between different types of best alternatives is investigated to reflect different preferences of decision makers. Several models are established to derive the corresponding best alternatives. Comparing with the existing methods, the proposed method considers both the hesitancy and the regret behavior of decision makers and can identify different types of best alternatives. The proposed method can give a complete analysis about the hesitant fuzzy linguistic multi-criteria decision making and provide decision makers more choices. Examples are finally given to illustrate the proposed method.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Belton, V., Stewart, T.: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Kluwer Academic, Dordrech (2002)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Lukovac, V., Pamucar, D., Popović, M., Dorović, B.: Portfolio model for analyzing human resources: an approach based on neuro-fuzzy modeling and the simulated annealing algorithm. Expert Syst. Appl. 90, 318–331 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wang, L., Dun, C.X., Lee, C.G., Fu, Q.L., Zeng, Y.R.: Model and algorithm for fuzzy joint replenishment and delivery scheduling without explicit membership function. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 66, 1907–1920 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wang, L., Fu, Q.L., Lee, C.G., Zeng, Y.R.: Model and algorithm of fuzzy joint replenishment problem under credibility measure on fuzzy goal. Knowl.-Based Syst. 39, 57–66 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Liu, P.D., Chen, S.M.: Group decision making based on Heronian aggregation operators of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. IEEE Trans. Cybern. 47, 2514–2530 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8, 338–353 (1965)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Atanassov, K.T.: Intuitionistic fuzzy set. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 20, 87–96 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Zadeh, L.A.: The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning. Inf. Sci. 8(199–249), 301–357 (1975)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Rodrguez, R.M., Martnez, L., Herrera, F.: Hesitant fuzzy linguistic terms sets for decision making. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 20, 109–119 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Beg, I., Rashid, T.: TOPSIS for hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 28, 1162–1171 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Liao, H.C., Xu, Z.S., Zeng, X.J.: Hesitant fuzzy linguistic VIKOR method and its application in qualitative multiple criteria decision making. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 23, 1343–1355 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Liao, H.C., Xu, Z.S.: Approaches to manage hesitant fuzzy linguistic information based on the cosine distance and similarity measures for HFLTSs and their application in qualitative decision making. Expert Syst. Appl. 42, 5328–5336 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee, L.W., Chen, S.M.: Fuzzy decision making and fuzzy group decision making based on likelihood-based comparison relations of hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 29, 1119–1137 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee, L.W., Chen, S.M.: Fuzzy decision making based on likelihood-based comparison relations of hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and hesitant fuzzy linguistic operators. Inf. Sci. 294, 513–529 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Wei, C.P., Ren, Z.L., Rodriguez, R.M.: A hesitant fuzzy linguistic TODIM method based on a score function. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst. 8, 701–712 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang, J., Wang, J.Q., Zhang, H.Y., Chen, X.H.: Multi-criteria decision-making based on hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets: an outranking approach. Knowl.-Based Syst. 86, 224–236 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Farhadinia, B.: Multiple criteria decision-making methods with completely unknown weights in hesitant fuzzy linguistic term setting. Knowl.-Based Syst. 93, 135–144 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gou, X.J., Xu, Z.S., Liao, H.C.: Hesitant fuzzy linguistic entropy and cross-entropy measures and alternative queuing method for multiple criteria decision making. Inf. Sci. 388–389, 225–246 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Liao, H.C., Yang, L.Y., Xu, Z.S.: Two new approaches based on ELECTRE II to solve the multiple criteria decision making problems with hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets. Appl. Soft Comput. 63, 223–234 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Simon, H.A.: Effects of increased productivity upon the ratio of urban to rural population. Econometrica 15, 31–42 (1947)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47, 263–292 (1979)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertain. 5, 297–323 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bell, D.E.: Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Oper. Res. 30, 961–981 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Loomes, G., Sugden, R.: Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Econ. J. 92, 805–824 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bell, D.E.: Disappointment in decision making under uncertainty. Oper. Res. 33, 1–27 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Rabin, M.: Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. Am. Econ. Rev. 83, 1281–1302 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nwogugu, M.: A further critique of cumulative prospect theory and related approaches. Appl. Math. Comput. 179, 451–465 (2006)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Nagarajan, M., Shechter, S.: Prospect theory and the newsvendor problem. Manage. Sci. 60, 1057–1062 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Muermann, A., Mitchell, O.S., Volkman, J.M.: Regret, portfolio choice, and guarantees in defined contribution schemes. Insur. Math. Econ. 39, 219–229 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Michenaud, S., Solnik, B.: Applying regret theory to investment choices: currency hedging decisions. J. Int. Money Finance 27, 677–694 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Chorus, C.G.: Regret theory-based route choices and traffic equilibria. Transportmetrica 8, 291–305 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Engelbrecht-Wiggans, R., Katok, E.: Regret and feedback information in first-price sealed-bid auctions. Manag. Sci. 54, 808–819 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Dodonova, A., Khoroshilov, Y.: Applications of Regret Theory to Asset Pricing, Technical Report. University of Ottawa, Ottawa (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Jha, G.K.: Material selection in manufacturing environment using compromise ranking and regret theory-based compromise ranking methods: A comparative study. Univ. J. Mater. Sci. 1, 69–77 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Park, K.S.: Mathematical programming models for characterizing dominance and potential optimality when multicriteria alternative values and weights are simultaneously incomplete. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 34, 601–614 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Wang, J.M.: Robust optimization analysis for multiple attribute decision making problems with imprecise information. Ann. Oper. Res. 197, 109–122 (2012)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  38. Wei, G.W., Wang, J.M., Chen, J.: Potential optimality and robust optimality in multiattribute decision analysis with incomplete information: a comparative study. Decis. Support Syst. 55, 679–684 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Zhou, H., Wang, J.Q., Zhang, H.Y.: Grey stochastic multi-criteria decision-making based on regret theory and TOPSIS. Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern. 8, 651–664 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lin, Y., Wang, Y.M., Chen, S.Q.: Hesitant fuzzy multiattribute matching decision making based on regret theory with uncertain weights. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 19, 955–966 (2017)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  41. Zhang, S.T., Zhu, J.J., Liu, X.D., Chen, Y.: Regret theory-based group decision-making with multidimensional preference and incomplete weight information. Inf. Fusion 31, 1–13 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Peng, X.D., Yang, Y.: Algorithms for interval-valued fuzzy soft sets in stochastic multi-criteria decision making based on regret theory and prospect theory with combined weight. Appl. Soft Comput. 54, 415–430 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Xu, Z.S.: Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations in group decision making. Omega 33, 249–254 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Weber, M.: Decision making with incomplete information. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 28, 44–57 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Anandalingam, G., Olsson, C.E.: A multi-stage multi-attribute decision model for project selection. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 43, 271–283 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Eum, Y.S., Park, K.S., Kim, S.H.: Establishing dominance and potential optimality in multi-criteria analysis with imprecise weight and value. Comput. Oper. Res. 28, 397–409 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Liao, H.C., Xu, Z.S., Zeng, X.J.: Distance and similarity measures for hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and their application in multi-criteria decision making. Inf. Sci. 271, 125–142 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  48. Liao, H.C., Xu, Z.S., Zeng, X.J., Merig, J.M.: Qualitative decision making with correlation coefficients of hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets. Knowl.-Based Syst. 76, 127–138 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and valuable suggestions, which have helped greatly to improve the quality and presentation of this paper. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 71501010, 71661167009, 71532002), the Fundamental Funds for Humanities and Social Sciences of Beijing Jiaotong University (No. 2016JBZD01).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economics and Management, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, 100044, China

    Meimei Xia

Authors
  1. Meimei Xia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meimei Xia.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xia, M. A Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Multi-criteria Decision-Making Approach Based on Regret Theory. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 20, 2135–2143 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-018-0502-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-018-0502-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation