Trapezoidal fuzzy reciprocal preference relation (TraFRPR), whose elements are trapezoidal fuzzy numbers, is a powerful tool to simulate the pairwise comparison judgments with imprecision and vagueness. How to define the consistency and derive the priority weights are two important research topics for decision making with TraFRPRs. This paper will focus on solving these two issues. The paper analyzes the existing definitions of consistent TraFRPRs and concludes that they are flawed by not being robust to permutations of the DM’s judgments. A new trapezoidal fuzzy arithmetic based consistency definition is proposed for TraFRPRs, and properties of consistent TraFRPRs in light of the new definition are studied in detail. An acceptably consistent TraFRPR is then defined. A geometric mean and uncertainty ratio based transformation formula is put forward to convert a normalized trapezoidal fuzzy multiplicative weight vector into a consistent TraFRPR. A logarithmic least square model is developed to derive a normalized trapezoidal fuzzy multiplicative weight vector from an acceptably consistent TraFRPR and to construct the fitted consistent TraFRPR. A numerical example is given to illustrate the validity and applicability of the proposed models.
BoenderC.G.E., de GraanJ.G. and LootsmaF.A., Multicriteria decision analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparison, Fuzzy Sets and Systems29 (1989), 133–143.
2.
BuckleyJ.J., Fuzzy hierarchical analysis, Fuzzy Sets and Systems17(3) (1985), 233–247.
3.
BuckleyJ.J., FeuringT. and HayashiY., Fuzzy hierarchical analysis revisited, European Journal of Operational Research129 (2001), 48–64.
4.
ChangD.Y., Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP, European Journal of Operational Research95 (1996), 649–655.
5.
ChenJ.F., HsiehH.N. and DoQ.H., Evaluating teaching performance based on fuzzy AHP and comprehensive evaluation approach, Applied Soft Computing660(28) (2015), 100–108.
6.
CrawfordG.B., The geometric mean procedure for estimating the scale of a judgement matrix, Mathematical Modelling9 (1987), 327–334.
7.
DuboisD., The role of fuzzy sets in decision sciences: Old techniques and new directions, Fuzzy Sets and Systems184 (2011), 3–28.
8.
EntaniT. and SugiharaK., Uncertainty index based interval assignment by interval AHP, European Journal of Operational Research219(2) (2012), 379–385.
9.
IshizakaA. and NguyenN.H., Calibrated fuzzy AHP for current bank account selection, Expert Systems with Applications40 (2013), 3775–3783.
10.
JavanbargM.B., ScawthornC., KiyonoJ. and ShahbodaghkhanB., Fuzzy AHP-based multicriteria decision making systems using particle swarm optimization, Expert Systems with Applications39 (2012), 960–966.
11.
KabirG. and LizuA., Material selection for femoral component of total knee replacement integrating fuzzy AHP with PROMETHEE, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems30(6) (2016), 3481–3493.
12.
KamvysiK., GotzamaniK., AndronikidisA. and GeorgiouA.C., Capturing and prioritizing students’ requirements for course design by embedding Fuzzy-AHP and linear programming in QFD, European Journal of Operational Research237 (2014), 1083–1094.
13.
LiuP.D., HeL. and YuX.C., Generalized hybrid aggregation operators based on the 2-Dimension uncertain linguistic information for multiple attribute group decision making, Group Decision Negotiation25(1) (2016), 103–126.
14.
LiuP.D. and JinF., A multi-attribute group decision-making method based on weighted geometric aggregation operators of interval-valued trapezoidal fuzzy numbers, Applied Mathematical Modelling36(6) (2012), 2498–2509.
15.
LiuP.D., JinF., ZhangX., SuY. and WangM.H., Research on the multi-attribute decision-making under risk with interval probability based on prospect theory and the uncertain linguistic variables, Knowledge-Based Systems24(4) (2011), 554–561.
16.
LiuP.D. and LiuY., An approach to multiple attribute group decision making based on intuitionistic trapezoidal fuzzy power generalized aggregation operator, International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems7(2) (2014), 291–304.
17.
LiuP.D. and YuX.C., 2-Dimension uncertain linguistic power generalized weighted aggregation operator and its application in multiple attribute group decision making, Knowledge-Based Systems57(1) (2014), 69–80.
18.
LiuP.D., ZhangX. and JinF., A multi-attribute group decision-making method based on interval-valued trapezoidal fuzzy numbers hybrid harmonic averaging operators, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems23 (2012), 159–168.
19.
LiuF., ZhangW.G. and ZhangL.H., Consistency analysis of triangular fuzzy reciprocal preference relations, European Journal of Operational Research235 (2014), 718–726.
20.
MaY.F. and WuX.Y., A new approach for deriving fuzzy global priorities in fuzzy analytic network process, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems30(2) (2016), 1249–1261.
21.
MikhailovL., Deriving priorities from fuzzy pairwise comparison judgements, Fuzzy Sets and Systems134(3) (2003), 365–385.
22.
OzfiratP.M., OzfiratM.K., MalliT. and KahramanB., Integration of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and multi-objective fuzzy goal programming for selection problems: An application on roadheader selection, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems29(1) (2015), 53–62.
23.
OzgenD. and GulsunB., Combining possibilistic linear programming and fuzzy AHP for solving the multi-objective capacitated multi-facility location problem, Information Sciences268 (2014), 185–201.
24.
RezaeiJ. and OrttR., Multi-criteria supplier segmentation using a fuzzy preference relations based AHP, European Journal of Operational Research225(1) (2013), 75–84.
25.
RezaeiJ., OrttR. and ScholtenV., An improved fuzzy preference programming to evaluate entrepreneurship orientation, Applied Soft Computing13(5) (2013), 2749–2758.
26.
SaatyT.L., A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures, Journal of Mathematical Psychology15 (1977), 234–281.
27.
SaatyT.L., The Analytical Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.
28.
SaatyT.L. and VargasL.G., Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process, European Journal of Operational Research32 (1987), 107–117.
29.
ShawK., ShankarR., YadavS.S. and ThakurL.S., Supplier selection using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy multi-objective linear programming for developing low carbon supply chain, Expert Systems with Applications39 (2012), 8182–8192.
30.
SultanaI., AhmedI. and AzeemA., An integrated approach for multiple criteria supplier selection combining Fuzzy Delphi, Fuzzy AHP & Fuzzy TOPSIS, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems29(4) (2015), 1273–1287.
31.
Van LaarhovenP.J.M. and PedryczW., A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory, Fuzzy Sets and Systems11(1–3) (1983), 229–241.
32.
WangZ.J., Consistency analysis and priority derivation of triangular fuzzy preference relations based on modal value and geometric mean, Information Sciences314 (2015), 169–183.
33.
WangT.C. and ChenY.H., Applying fuzzy linguistic preference relations to the improvement of consistency of fuzzy AHP, Information Sciences178 (2008), 3755–3765.
34.
WangY.M., LuoY. and HuaZ.S., On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications, European Journal of Operational Research186 (2008), 735–747.
35.
WuF., LuJ. and ZhangG.Q., A new approximate algorithm for solving multiple objective linear programming problems with fuzzy parameters, Applied Mathematics and Computation174(1) (2006), 524–544.
36.
XuR., Fuzzy least-squares priority method in the analytic hierarchy process, Fuzzy Sets and Systems112 (2000), 359–404.
37.
ZadehL.A., Fuzzy sets, Information Control8(3) (1965), 338–353.
