专家犹豫不决的模糊群体决策和共识度量方法

IF 2.5 4区 计算机科学 Q3 COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Knowledge and Information Systems Pub Date : 2024-04-17 DOI:10.1007/s10115-024-02098-3
Chao Huang, Xiaoyue Wu, Mingwei Lin, Zeshui Xu
{"title":"专家犹豫不决的模糊群体决策和共识度量方法","authors":"Chao Huang, Xiaoyue Wu, Mingwei Lin, Zeshui Xu","doi":"10.1007/s10115-024-02098-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In some actual decision-making problems, experts may be hesitant to judge the performances of alternatives, which leads to experts providing decision matrices with incomplete information. However, most existing estimation methods for incomplete information in group decision-making (GDM) neglect the hesitant judgments of experts, possibly making the group decision outcomes unreasonable. Considering the hesitation degrees of experts in decision judgments, an approach is proposed based on the triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (TIFNs) and TODIM (interactive and multiple criteria decision-making) method for GDM and consensus measure. First, TIFNs are applied to handle incomplete information due to the hesitant judgments of experts. Second, considering the risk attitudes of experts, a decision-making model is proposed to rank alternatives for GDM with incomplete information. Subsequently, based on measuring the concordance between solutions, a consensus model is presented to measure the group’s and individual’s consensus degrees. Finally, an illustrative example is presented to show the detailed implementation procedure of the proposed approach. The comparisons with some existing estimation methods verify the effectiveness of the proposed approach for handling incomplete information. The impacts and necessities of experts’ hesitation degrees are discussed by a sensitivity analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":54749,"journal":{"name":"Knowledge and Information Systems","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An approach for fuzzy group decision making and consensus measure with hesitant judgments of experts\",\"authors\":\"Chao Huang, Xiaoyue Wu, Mingwei Lin, Zeshui Xu\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10115-024-02098-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In some actual decision-making problems, experts may be hesitant to judge the performances of alternatives, which leads to experts providing decision matrices with incomplete information. However, most existing estimation methods for incomplete information in group decision-making (GDM) neglect the hesitant judgments of experts, possibly making the group decision outcomes unreasonable. Considering the hesitation degrees of experts in decision judgments, an approach is proposed based on the triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (TIFNs) and TODIM (interactive and multiple criteria decision-making) method for GDM and consensus measure. First, TIFNs are applied to handle incomplete information due to the hesitant judgments of experts. Second, considering the risk attitudes of experts, a decision-making model is proposed to rank alternatives for GDM with incomplete information. Subsequently, based on measuring the concordance between solutions, a consensus model is presented to measure the group’s and individual’s consensus degrees. Finally, an illustrative example is presented to show the detailed implementation procedure of the proposed approach. The comparisons with some existing estimation methods verify the effectiveness of the proposed approach for handling incomplete information. The impacts and necessities of experts’ hesitation degrees are discussed by a sensitivity analysis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54749,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Knowledge and Information Systems\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Knowledge and Information Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-024-02098-3\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"计算机科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knowledge and Information Systems","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-024-02098-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在一些实际决策问题中,专家可能会对备选方案的性能判断犹豫不决,从而导致专家提供的决策矩阵信息不完整。然而,现有的群体决策(GDM)不完全信息估计方法大多忽视了专家的犹豫判断,可能会使群体决策结果不合理。考虑到专家在决策判断中的犹豫程度,本文提出了一种基于三角直觉模糊数(TIFNs)和 TODIM(交互式多准则决策)方法的 GDM 和共识度量方法。首先,三角直觉模糊数用于处理由于专家判断犹豫不决而导致的信息不完整问题。其次,考虑到专家的风险态度,提出了一个决策模型,用于对不完整信息下的 GDM 备选方案进行排序。随后,在测量解决方案之间一致性的基础上,提出了一个共识模型来测量群体和个人的共识度。最后,通过一个示例展示了所提方法的具体实施过程。通过与一些现有估算方法的比较,验证了所提方法在处理不完整信息方面的有效性。通过敏感性分析讨论了专家犹豫度的影响和必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
An approach for fuzzy group decision making and consensus measure with hesitant judgments of experts

In some actual decision-making problems, experts may be hesitant to judge the performances of alternatives, which leads to experts providing decision matrices with incomplete information. However, most existing estimation methods for incomplete information in group decision-making (GDM) neglect the hesitant judgments of experts, possibly making the group decision outcomes unreasonable. Considering the hesitation degrees of experts in decision judgments, an approach is proposed based on the triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (TIFNs) and TODIM (interactive and multiple criteria decision-making) method for GDM and consensus measure. First, TIFNs are applied to handle incomplete information due to the hesitant judgments of experts. Second, considering the risk attitudes of experts, a decision-making model is proposed to rank alternatives for GDM with incomplete information. Subsequently, based on measuring the concordance between solutions, a consensus model is presented to measure the group’s and individual’s consensus degrees. Finally, an illustrative example is presented to show the detailed implementation procedure of the proposed approach. The comparisons with some existing estimation methods verify the effectiveness of the proposed approach for handling incomplete information. The impacts and necessities of experts’ hesitation degrees are discussed by a sensitivity analysis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Knowledge and Information Systems
Knowledge and Information Systems 工程技术-计算机:人工智能
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
7.40%
发文量
152
审稿时长
7.2 months
期刊介绍: Knowledge and Information Systems (KAIS) provides an international forum for researchers and professionals to share their knowledge and report new advances on all topics related to knowledge systems and advanced information systems. This monthly peer-reviewed archival journal publishes state-of-the-art research reports on emerging topics in KAIS, reviews of important techniques in related areas, and application papers of interest to a general readership.
期刊最新文献
Dynamic evolution of causal relationships among cryptocurrencies: an analysis via Bayesian networks Deep multi-semantic fuzzy K-means with adaptive weight adjustment Class incremental named entity recognition without forgetting Spectral clustering with scale fairness constraints Supervised kernel-based multi-modal Bhattacharya distance learning for imbalanced data classification
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1