咨询与建议

看过本文的还看了

相关文献

该作者的其他文献

文献详情 >Fuzzy best-worst method based ... 收藏

Fuzzy best-worst method based on generalized interval-valued trapezoidal fuzzy numbers for multi-criteria decision-making

模糊最好最糟的方法基于概括珍视间隔的 trapezoidal 为多标准决策的模糊数字

作     者:Wan, Shuping Dong, Jiuying Chen, Shyi-Ming 

作者机构:Jiangxi Univ Finance & Econ Sch Informat Technol Nanchang 330013 Jiangxi Peoples R China Jiangxi Univ Finance & Econ Sch Stat Nanchang 330013 Jiangxi Peoples R China Natl Taiwan Univ Sci & Technol Dept Comp Sci & Informat Engn Taipei Taiwan 

出 版 物:《INFORMATION SCIENCES》 (信息科学)

年 卷 期:2021年第573卷

页      面:493-518页

核心收录:

学科分类:12[管理学] 1201[管理学-管理科学与工程(可授管理学、工学学位)] 08[工学] 0812[工学-计算机科学与技术(可授工学、理学学位)] 

主  题:Best-worst method Consistency index Generalized interval-valued trapezoidal fuzzy number Goal programming model Multi-criteria decision-making 

摘      要:This paper proposes a fuzzy best-worst method (BWM), called the GITrF BWM, based on generalized interval-valued trapezoidal fuzzy (GITrF) numbers (GITrFNs) for multi criteria decision-making (MCDM). The reference comparisons between criteria are represented by GITrFNs and the weights of criteria are also taken the form of GITrFNs. The concept of normalized GITrF weight vector is proposed and a new graded mean integration representation (GMIR) of GITrFN is given. A goal programming model is built to obtain the optimal normalized GITrF weights of criteria. Furthermore, the GITrF consistency index and the GITrF consistency ratio are proposed. The GMIR of the GITrF consistency ratio is calculated to measure the acceptable consistency of all the reference comparisons between criteria. For the unacceptable consistent reference comparisons, we propose an approach to improve the consistency of reference comparisons between criteria. Finally, a GITrF BWM is proposed for MCDM. Three real examples are analyzed to illustrate the proposed GITrF BWM. The comparison analyses show that the proposed GITrF BWM outperforms the existing methods for MCDM in GITrF environments. (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

读者评论 与其他读者分享你的观点

用户名:未登录
我的评分