Decision Making Models and Approaches Based on Intuitionistic Preference Relations

  • Zeshui Xu
  • Xiaoqiang Cai

Abstract

In real-life situations, such as partner selection in supply chain management, and performance assessment of military systems, a decision maker may be unable to express accurately his/her preferences for alternatives, because ① the decision maker may not possess a precise or sufficient level of knowledge (i.e., lack of knowledge to a certain degree (Mitchell, 2004), and ② he/she is unable to discriminate explicitly the degree to which one alternative is better than the others (Herrera-Viedma et al., 2007), and so there is a certain degree of hesitation (Szmidt and Kacprzyk, 2000). The decision maker may express, to a certain degree, his/her preferences for alternatives, but it is possible that he/she is not so sure about it (Deschrijver and Kerre, 2003a). In these problems, it is very suitable to study the decision maker’s preferences using IFNs rather than exact numerical values or linguistic variables (Dai et al., 2007; Herrera et al., 2005; Szmidt and Kacprzyk, 2003; 2002; Xu, 2007c; 2007f; Xu and Chen, 2007a).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arbel A. 1989. Approximate articulation of preference and priority derivation. European Journal of Operational Research, 43: 317–326.Google Scholar
  2. Bordogna G, Fedrizzi M, Passi G. 1997. A linguistic modeling of consensus in group decision making based on OWA operator. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 27: 126–132.Google Scholar
  3. Chen C Y, Xu L G. 2001. Partner selection model in supply chain management. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 9(Suppl.): 57–62.Google Scholar
  4. Chen Y, Fan Z P. 2005. Study on the adverse judgment problem for group decision making based on linguistic judgment matrices. Journal of Systems Engineering, 20(2): 211–215.Google Scholar
  5. Chiclana F, Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E. 1998. Integrating three representation models in fuzzy multipurpose decision making based on fuzzy preference relations. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 97: 33–48.Google Scholar
  6. Chiclana F, Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E. 2001a. Integrating multiplicative preference relations in a multipurpose decision-making model based on fuzzy preference relations. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 122: 277–291.Google Scholar
  7. Chiclana F, Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E. 2001b. Multiperson decision making based on multiplicative preference relations. European Journal of Operational Research, 129:372–385.Google Scholar
  8. Chiclana F, Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E. 2002. A note on the internal consistency of various preference representations. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 131: 75–78.Google Scholar
  9. Dai Y Q, Xu Z S, Da Q L. 2007. Approach to multiple attribute decision making based on different intuitionistic preference structures. Journal of Southeast University (Natural Science Edition), 37: 706–710.Google Scholar
  10. Deschrijver G, Kerre E E. 2003a. On the composition of intuitionistic fuzzy relations. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 136: 333–361.Google Scholar
  11. Fan Z P, Ma J, Zhang Q. 2002. An approach to multiple attribute decision making based on fuzzy preference information on alternatives. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 131: 101–106.Google Scholar
  12. Haines L M. 1998. A statistical approach to the analytic hierarchy process with interval judgments. European Journal of Operational Research, 110: 112–125.Google Scholar
  13. Herrera E, Martínez L. 2000b. An approach for combining linguistic and numerical information based on 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model in decision-making. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness, Knowledge-based Systems, 8: 539–562.Google Scholar
  14. Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Martínez L. 2000. A fusion approach for managing multigranularity linguistic term sets in decision making. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114:43–58.Google Scholar
  15. Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Verdegay J L. 1996a. A model of consensus in group decision making under linguistic assessments. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 78: 73–87.Google Scholar
  16. Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Verdegay J L. 1996b. Direct approach processes in group decision making using linguistic OWA operators. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 79: 175–190.Google Scholar
  17. Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Verdegay J L. 1997. A rational consensus model in group decision making using linguistic assessments. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 88: 31–49.Google Scholar
  18. Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E. 2000a. Choice functions and mechanisms for linguistic preference relations. European Journal of Operational Research, 120: 144–161.Google Scholar
  19. Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E. 2000b. Linguistic decision analysis: steps for solving decision problems under linguistic information. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 115: 67–82.Google Scholar
  20. Herrera F, Martínez L. 2000a. A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 8: 746–752.Google Scholar
  21. Herrera F, Martinez L, Sanchez P J. 2005. Managing non-homogeneous information in group decision making. European Journal of Operational Research, 166: 115–132.Google Scholar
  22. Herrera-Viedma E, Chiclana F, Herrera F, Alonso S. 2007. A group decision-making model with incomplete fuzzy preference relations based on additive consistency. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics-Part B, 37: 176–189.Google Scholar
  23. Hwang C L, Yoon K. 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  24. Igizio J P. 1976. Goal Programming and Extensions. Lexington: Health.Google Scholar
  25. Islam R, Biswal M P, Alam S S. 1997. Preference programming and inconsistent interval judgments. European Journal of Operational Research, 97: 53–62.Google Scholar
  26. Li X M, Min M, Tan C F. 2005. The functional assessment of agricultural ecosystems in Hubei Province, China. Ecological Modelling, 187: 352–360.Google Scholar
  27. Ma J, Fan Z P, Jiang Y P, Mao J Y, et al. 2006. A method for repairing the inconsistency of fuzzy preference relations. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 157: 20–33.Google Scholar
  28. Mikhailov L. 2002. Fuzzy analytical approach to partnership selection in formation of virtual enterprises. Omega, 30: 393–401.Google Scholar
  29. Mikhailov L. 2003. Deriving priorities from fuzzy pairwise comparison judgements. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 137: 365–385.Google Scholar
  30. Mitchell H B. 2004. A correlation coefficient for intuitionistic fuzzy sets. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 19: 483–490.Google Scholar
  31. Orlovsky S A. 1978. Decision-making with a fuzzy preference relation. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1: 155–167.Google Scholar
  32. Saaty T L, Vargas L G. 1987. Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 32: 107–117.Google Scholar
  33. Saaty T L. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  34. Salo A, Hämäläinen R P. 1995. Preference programming through approximate ratio comparisons. European Journal of Operational Research, 82: 458–475.Google Scholar
  35. Szmidt E, Kacprzyk J. 2000. Distances between intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114: 505–518.Google Scholar
  36. Szmidt E, Kacprzyk J. 2002. Using intuitionistic fuzzy sets in group decision making. Control and Cybernetics, 31: 1037–1053.Google Scholar
  37. Szmidt E, Kacprzyk J. 2003. A consensus-reaching process under intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 18: 837–852.Google Scholar
  38. Szmidt E, Kacprzyk J. 2004. A similarity measure for intuitionistic fuzzy sets and its application in supporting medical diagnostic reasoning. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 3070: 388–393.Google Scholar
  39. Tanino T. 1984. Fuzzy preference orderings in group decision making. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 12: 117–131.Google Scholar
  40. Wang L F, Xu S B. 1990. The Introduction to Analytic Hierarchy Process. Beijing: China Renmin University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Wang Y M, Xu D L. 2005. A two-stage logarithmic goal programming method for generating weights from interval comparison matrices. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 152: 475–498.Google Scholar
  42. Xu Z S, Cai X Q. 2009. Incomplete interval-valued intuitionistic preference relations. International Journal of General Systems, 38: 871–886.Google Scholar
  43. Xu Z S, Chen J. 2007a. An approach to group decision making based on interval-valued intuitionistic judgment matrices. Systems Engineering-Theory & Practice, 27(4): 126–133.Google Scholar
  44. Xu Z S, Da Q L. 2003a. A possibility-based method for priorities of interval judgment matrices. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 11(1): 63–65.Google Scholar
  45. Xu Z S, Da Q L. 2003c. Possibility degree method for ranking interval numbers and its application. Journal of Systems Engineering, 18: 67–70.Google Scholar
  46. Xu Z S, Da Q L. 2005. A least deviation method to obtain a priority vector of a fuzzy preference relation. European Journal of Operational Research, 164: 206–216.Google Scholar
  47. Xu Z S, Yager R R. 2009. Intuitionistic and interval-valued intutionistic fuzzy preference relations and their measures of similarity for the evaluation of agreement within a group. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 8: 123–139.Google Scholar
  48. Xu Z S. 1999. Study on the Relation between two classes of scales in AHP. Systems Engineering-Theory & Practice, 19(7): 97–101.Google Scholar
  49. Xu Z S. 2001a. Algorithm for priority of fuzzy complementary judgment matrix. Journal of Systems Engineering, 16(4): 311–314.Google Scholar
  50. Xu Z S. 2001b. The least variance Priority method (LVM) for fuzzy complementary judgment matrix. Systems Engineering-Theory and Practice, 21(10): 93–96.Google Scholar
  51. Xu Z S. 2004a. A method based on linguistic aggregation operators for group decision making with linguistic preference relations. Information Sciences, 166: 19–30.Google Scholar
  52. Xu Z S. 2004b. EOWA and EOWG operators for aggregating linguistic labels based on linguistic preference relations. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 12: 791–810.Google Scholar
  53. Xu Z S. 2004c. Goal programming models for obtaining the priority vector of incomplete fuzzy preference relation. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 36: 261–270.Google Scholar
  54. Xu Z S. 2004e. Uncertain Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Xu Z S. 2005b. Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations in group decision making. Omega, 33: 249–254.Google Scholar
  56. Xu Z S. 2005d. On method for uncertain multiple attribute decision making problems with uncertain preference information on alternatives. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 4: 131–139.Google Scholar
  57. Xu Z S. 2006a. A C-OWA operator based approach to decision making with interval fuzzy preference relation. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 21: 1289–1298.Google Scholar
  58. Xu Z S. 2006c An approach based on the uncertain LOWG and the induced uncertain LOWG operators to group decision making with uncertain multiplicative linguistic preference relations. Decision Support Systems, 41: 488–499.Google Scholar
  59. Xu Z S. 2006e. Group decision making method based on different types of incomplete judgment matrices. Control and Decision, 21(1): 28–33.Google Scholar
  60. Xu Z S. 2006f. Incomplete linguistic preference relations and their fusion. Information Fusion, 7: 331–337.Google Scholar
  61. Xu Z S. 2007b A survey of preference relations. International Journal of General Systems, 36: 179–203.Google Scholar
  62. Xu Z S. 2007c Approaches to multiple attribute decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy preference information. Systems Engineering-Theory and Practice, 27(11): 62–71.Google Scholar
  63. Xu Z S. 2007f. Intuitionistic preference relations and their application in group decision making. Information Sciences, 177: 2363–2379.Google Scholar
  64. Xu Z S. 2007g. Linguistic aggregation operators: an overview, In: Bustince H, Herrera F, Montero J, eds. Fuzzy Sets and Their Extensions: Representation, Aggregation and Models. Berlin: Springer: 163–181.Google Scholar
  65. Xu Z S. 2007j. Multiple attribute group decision making with different formats of preference information on attributes. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part B, 37(6): 1500–1511.Google Scholar
  66. Xu Z S. 2008b. Group decision making based on multiple types of linguistic preference relations. Information Sciences, 178: 3775–3790.Google Scholar
  67. Yager R R, Xu Z S. 2006. The continuous ordered weighted geometric operator and its application to decision making. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 157: 1393–1402.Google Scholar
  68. Zadeh L A. 2005. Toward a generalized theory of uncertainty (GTU)-an outline. Information Sciences, 172: 1–40.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press Beijing and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zeshui Xu
    • 1
  • Xiaoqiang Cai
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of SciencesPLA University of Science and TechnologyNanjing, JiangsuP.R. China
  2. 2.Department of Systems Engineering and Engineering ManagementThe Chinese University of Hong KongShatin, N.T.Hong Kong

Personalised recommendations