Grey Number Based Methodology for Non-homogeneous Preference Elicitation in Fuzzy Risk Analysis Management

  • Ahmad Syafadhli Abu BakarEmail author
  • Ku Muhammad Naim Ku Khalif
  • Abdul Malek Yaakob
  • Alexander Gegov
  • Ahmad Zaki Mohamad Amin
Part of the Fuzzy Management Methods book series (FMM)


Risk analysis plays a crucial role in mitigating the levels of harm of a risk. In real world scenarios, it is a big challenge for risk analysts to make a proper and comprehensive decision when coping with the risks. Many practical risk analysis problems do not have flexibility with regards to knowledge elicitation and disagreements in the group. This is due to the non-homogeneous nature of risk analysts’ preferences that lead to inconsistent agreements in the process of group decision making. In this chapter, a novel non-homogeneous preference elicitation based on grey numbers for risk analysis problem is proposed. Grey numbers allow more flexibility for non-homogeneous preference elicitation in uncertain, vague and fuzzy environment. This work also introduces a novel theoretical non-homogeneous consensus reaching methodology that resolves disagreement between risk analysts. A case study on risk analysis decision making is also presented to demonstrate the novelty, validity and feasibility of the proposed methodology.


  1. 1.
    Deng, J. (1989). Introduction to grey system theory. Journal of Grey Systems, 1(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lin, Y., Chen, M., & Liu, S. (2004). Theory of grey systems: Capturing uncertainties of grey information. Kybernetes: The International Journal of Systems and Cybernetics, 33, 196–218.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liu, S., Gao, T., & Dang, Y. (2000). Grey systems theory and its applications. Beijing: The Science Press of China.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liu, S., & Lin, Y. (2006). Grey information theory and practical applications. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zadeh, L. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338–353.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Komorowski, J., Pawlak, J. Z., Polkowski, L., & Skowron, A. (1999). Rough sets: A tutorial. In S. K. Pal & A. Skowron (Eds.), Rough fuzzy hybridization: A new trend in decision-making. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yamaguchi, D., Li, G.-D., & Nagai, M. (2007). A grey-based rough approximation model for interval data processing. Information Sciences, 177, 4727–4744.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wu, Q., & Liu, Z. (2009). Real formal concept analysis based on grey-rough set theory. Knowledge-Based Systems, 22, 38–45.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deng, J. (1982). The control problems of grey systems. Systems and Control Letters, 1(5), 288–294.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yang, Y., & John, R. (2012). Grey sets and greyness. Information Sciences, 185(1), 249–264.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pham, V. N., Ngo, L. T., & Pedrycz, W. (2016). Interval-valued fuzzy set approach to fuzzy co-clustering for data classification. Knowledge-Based Systems, 107, 1–13.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Navara, M., & Navarová, M. (2017). Principles of inclusion and exclusion for interval-valued fuzzy sets and IF-sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 324, 60–73.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zadeh, L. A. (1975). The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning-I. Information Sciences, 8, 199–249.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wallsten, T. S., & Budescu, D. V. (1995). A review of human linguistic probability processing: General principles and empirical evidence. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 10(1), 43–62.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yaakob, A. M., Serguieva, A., & Gegov, A. (2015). FN-TOPSIS: Fuzzy network for ranking traded equities. IEEE Transaction on Fuzzy Systems, 25(2), 315–332.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Deschrijver, G., & Kerre, E. (2003). On the relationship between some extensions of fuzzy set theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 133(2), 227–235.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Haq, N., & Kannan, G. (2007). A hybrid normalised multi criteria decision making for the vendor selection in a supply chain model. International Journal Management and Decision Making, 8(5/6), 601–622.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lin, Y. H., & Lee, P. C. (2007). Novel high-precision grey forecasting model. Automation in Construction, 16(6), 771–777.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huang, S. J., Chiu, N. H., & Chen, L.W. (2008). Integration of the grey relational analysis with genetic algorithm for software effort estimation. European Journal of Operational Research, 188(3), 898–909.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lin, Y. H., Lee, P. C., Chang, T. P., & Ting, H. I. (2008). Multi-attribute group decision making model under the condition of uncertain information. Automation in Construction, 17(6), 792–797.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zavadskas, E. K., Kaklauskas, A., Turskis, Z., & Tamošaitiene, J. (2009). Multi-attribute decision making model by applying grey numbers. Informatica, 20(2), 305–320.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Van Laarhoven, P. J., & Pedrycz, W. (1983). A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11(1–3), 199–227.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xu, L., & Wei, L. L. (2010). An improved method for ranking fuzzy numbers based on centroid. In Seventh International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery, Yantai, Shandong (pp. 442–446).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lin, J. G., Zhuang, Q. Y., & Huang, C. (2012). Fuzzy statistical analysis of multiple regression with crisp and fuzzy covariates and applications in analyzing economic. Data of China Computational Economic, 39, 29–49.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bakar, A. S. A., & Gegov, A. (2014). Ranking of fuzzy numbers based on centroid point and spread. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy System, 27(3), 1179–1186.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bakar, A. S. A., & Gegov, A. (2015). Multi-layer decision making methodology for ranking Z-numbers. International Journal of Computational Intelligent Systems, 8(2), 395–406.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chutia, R. (2017). Ranking of fuzzy numbers by using value and angle in the epsilon-deviation degree method. Applied Soft Computing, 60, 706–721.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Alfonso, G., de Hierro, A. R. L., & Roldán, C. (2017). A fuzzy regression model based on finite fuzzy numbers and its application to real-world financial data. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 318, 47–58.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Aguilar-Peña, C., De Hierro, A. F. R. L., De Hierro, C. R. L., & Martínez-Moreno, J. (2016). A family of fuzzy distance measures of fuzzy numbers. Soft Computing, 20(1), 237–250.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wang, X., Zhu, J., Song, Y., & Lei, L. (2016). Combination of unreliable evidence sources in intuitionistic fuzzy MCDM framework. Knowledge-Based Systems, 97, 24–39.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bongo, M. F., & Ocampo, L. A. (2017). A hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach for mitigating airport congestion: A case in Ninoy Aquino International Airport. Journal of Air Transport Management, 63, 1–16.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ghorabaee, M. K., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., & Antucheviciene, J. (2018). A new hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluation of construction equipment with sustainability considerations. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 18(1), 32–49.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shieh, B. S. (2007). An approach to centroids of fuzzy numbers. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 9, 51–54.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wang, X., & Kerre, E. E. (2001). Reasonable properties for the ordering of fuzzy quantities (I). Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 118, 375–385.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wang, X., & Kerre, E. E. (2001). Reasonable properties for the ordering of fuzzy quantities (II). Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 118, 387–405.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmad Syafadhli Abu Bakar
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ku Muhammad Naim Ku Khalif
    • 3
  • Abdul Malek Yaakob
    • 4
  • Alexander Gegov
    • 5
  • Ahmad Zaki Mohamad Amin
    • 1
  1. 1.Mathematics Division, Centre for Foundation Studies in ScienceUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  2. 2.Centre of Research for Computational Sciences and Informatics in Biology, Bioindustry, Environment, Agriculture and Healthcare (CRYSTAL)University of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  3. 3.Department of Science Program (Mathematics), Faculty of Industrial Sciences and TechnologyUniversiti Malaysia PahangPahangMalaysia
  4. 4.School of Quantitative SciencesUniversiti Utara MalaysiaKedahMalaysia
  5. 5.School of ComputingUniversity of PortsmouthPortsmouthUK

Personalised recommendations