Interval fuzzy preference relations (IFPRs) have been widely adopted in describing vagueness and uncertainty in real-life decision problems. Different methods have been applied in aggregating decision makers’ (DMs’) IFPRs. Nevertheless, the objective weights of DMs are often neglected in the group decision literature. Besides, the commonly methods used in aggregating decision makers’ (DMs’) IFPRs may make the final result too average. This paper investigates the plant growth simulation algorithm (PGSA) to aggregate interval fuzzy preference relations (IFPRs) and then derives the objective weights of decision makers (DMs) based on the deviation measure method. Next, the weighted aggregation IFPR is obtained by PGSA and the alternatives are ranked based on the continuous ordered weighted averaging (COWA) operator. The new aggregation method creatively converts the elements of IFPRs into two-dimensional coordinates and the ideal IFPR can be aggregated by PGSA based on the minimum Euclidean distance model. Then the weight of each DM can be derived according to the Euclidean distance between the individual IFPR and ideal IFPR based on the deviation measure method. Finally, a weighted aggregated IFPR can be obtained by PGSA and the ranking of alternatives is obtained by the COWA operator. Numerical examples are given to verify the efficiency and superiority of the method.
SaatyT.L., Analytic Hierarchy Process, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, (1980).
2.
AczélJ. and SaatyT.L., Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgements, Journal of Mathematical Psychology27(1) (1983), 93–102.
3.
RamanathanR. and GaneshL.S., Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members’ weightages, European Journal of Operational Research79(2) (1994), 249–265.
4.
DebbarmaB., ChakrabortiP., BoseP.K., DebM. and BanerjeeR., Exploration of PROMETHEE II and VIKOR methodology in a MCDM approach for ascertaining the optimal performance-emission trade-off vantage in a hydrogen-biohol dual fuel endeavour, Fuel210 (2017), 922–935. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2017.08.016.
5.
LiJ., ZhangQ., YanF. and ZhongM., A cloud model-based multi-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluation approach for financing credit of scientific & technological small-medium enterprises, Journal of Difference Equations & Applications23(1) (2016), 1–14.
6.
NiuB., ChenK., HuangH., LiY. and ChenL., System Selection and Performance Evaluation for Manufacturing Company’s ERP Adoption, International Journal of Computers Communications & Control12(3) (2017), 347–364.
7.
DurbachI.N. and StewartT.J., Modeling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis, European Journal of Operational Research223(1) (2012), 1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2012.04.038.
8.
XuZ.S. and ChenJ., Some models for deriving the priority weights from interval fuzzy preference relations, European Journal of Operational Research184(1) (2008), 266–280. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2006.11.011.
9.
ChiclanaF., HerreraF. and Herrera-ViedmaE., Integrating three representation models in fuzzy multipurpose decision making based on fuzzy preference relations, Fuzzy Sets and Systems97(1) (1998), 33–48. doi: 10.1016/s0165-0114(96)00339-9.
10.
AlonsoS., ChiclanaF., HerreraF. and Herrera-ViedmaE., A learning procedure to estimate missing values in fuzzy preference relations based on additive consistency. Modeling Decisions for Artificial Intelligence, Proceedings, 3131 (2004). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 227–238.
11.
GongZ.W., Least-square method to priority of the fuzzy preference relations with incomplete information, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning47(2) (2008), 258–264. doi: 10.1016/j.ijar.2007.05.005.
12.
HerreraF., Herrera-ViedmaE. and ChiclanaF., Multiperson decision-making based on multiplicative preference relations, European Journal of Operational Research129(2) (2001), 372–385. doi: 10.1016/s0377-2217(99)00197-6.
13.
WangZ.J. and LiK.W., A multi-step goal programming approach for group decision making with incomplete interval additive reciprocal comparison matrices, European Journal of Operational Research242(3) (2015), 890–900. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2014.10.025.
14.
ChiclanaF., Herrera-ViedmaE., AlonsoS. and HerreraF., A note on the estimation of missing pairwise preference values: A uninorm consistency based method, International Journal of Uncertainty Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems16(2) (2008), 19–32. doi: 10.1142/s0218488508005467.
15.
YueZ., Deriving decision maker’s weights based on distance measure for interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making, Expert Systems with Applications38(9) (2011), 11665–11670.
16.
JabeurK., MartelJ.M. and BenS., Khélifa, A Distance-Based Collective Preorder Integrating the Relative Importance of the Group’s Members, Group Decision & Negotiation13(4) (2004), 327–349.
17.
ChenH.Y. and ZhouL.G., A Relative Entropy Approach to Group Decision Making with Interval Reciprocal Relations Based on COWA Operator, Group Decision and Negotiation21(4) (2012), 585–599. doi: 10.1007/s10726-011-9228-8.
18.
XuZ., Group decision making based on multiple types of linguistic preference relations, Information Sciences178(2) (2008), 452–467.
19.
YueZ., Approach to group decision making based on determining the weights of experts by using projection method, Applied Mathematical Modelling36(7) (2012), 2900–2910.
20.
XuZ. and CaiX., Minimizing Group Discordance Optimization Model for Deriving Expert Weights, Group Decision & Negotiation21(6) (2012), 863–875.
21.
ZhangX. and XuZ., Deriving experts’ weights based on consistency maximization in intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems27(1) (2014), 221–233.
22.
ZhouL.G., HeY.D., ChenH.Y. and LiuJ.P., Compatibility of interval fuzzy preference relations with the COWA operator and its application to group decision making, Soft Computing18(11) (2014), 2283–2295. doi: 10.1007/s00500-013-1201-9.
23.
OrlovskyS.A., Decision-making with a fuzzy preference relation, Fuzzy Sets & Systems1(3) (1978), 155–167.
24.
XuZ., On Compatibility of Interval Fuzzy Preference Relations, Fuzzy Optimization & Decision Making3(3) (2004), 217–225.
25.
HerreraF., MartinezL. and SanchezP.J., Managing non-homogeneous information in group decision making, European Journal of Operational Research166(1) (2005), 115–132.
26.
YagerR.R., On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decision-making, Ieee Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics18(1) (1988), 183–190. doi: 10.1109/21.87068.
27.
YagerR.R., OWA aggregation over a continuous interval argument with applications to decision making, Ieee Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part B-Cybernetics34(5) (2004), 1952–1963. doi: 10.1109/tsmcb.2004.831154.
28.
XuZ.S., A C-OWA operator-based approach to decision making with interval fuzzy preference relation, International Journal of Intelligent Systems21(12) (2006), 1289–1298. doi: 10.1002/int.20184.
29.
LiT., WangC.F., WangW.B. and SuW.L., A global optimization bionics algorithm for solving integer programming-plant growth simulation algorithm, Systems Engineering-theory & Practice25(1) (2005), 76–85.
30.
QiuJ.D. and LiL., A new approach for multiple attribute group decision making with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy information, Applied Soft Computing61 (2017), 111–121. doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2017.07.008.
31.
LiuW. and LiL., An approach to determining the integrated weights of decision makers based on interval number group decision matrices, Knowledge-Based Systems90 (2015), 92–98. doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2015.09.029.
32.
LiL., XieX. and GuoR., Research on group decision making with interval numbers based on plant growth simulation algorithm, Kybernetes43(2) (2014), 250–264.
33.
ZhangH., A goal programming model of obtaining the priority weights from an interval preference relation, Information Sciences354 (2016), 197–210. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2016.03.015.
34.
LiJ. and ZhangY., A novel method for aggregating interval multiplicative comparison matrices and its application in ranking alternatives, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems353 (2018), 3675–3684.
35.
GargH. and KumarK., Linguistic interval-valued Atanassov intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their applications to group decision-making problems, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems (2019). doi: 10.1007/s10462-018-9668-5.
36.
GargH. and KumarK., A novel exponential distance and its based TOPSIS method for interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets using connection number of SPA theory, Artificial Intelligence Review (2018). doi: 10.1007/s10462-018-9668-5.
37.
GargH. and AroraR., Generalized intuitionistic fuzzy soft power aggregation operator based on tnorm and their application in multicriteria decisionmaking, International Journal of Intelligent Systems34(2) (2019), 215–246.
38.
KaurG. and GargH., Generalized Cubic Intuitionistic Fuzzy Aggregation Operators Using t-Norm Operations and Their Applications to Group Decision-Making Process, Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering44(3) (2019), 2775–2794.
39.
KaurG., Generalized Intuitionistic Fuzzy Entropy-Based Approach for Solving Multi-attribute Decision-Making Problems with Unknown Attribute Weights, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences India Section A-Physical Sciences89(1) (2019), 129–139.
40.
GargH. and KumarK., An advanced study on the similarity measures of intuitionistic fuzzy sets based on the set pair analysis theory and their application in decision making, Soft Computing22(15) (2018), 4959–4970.
41.
KhalilA.M., LiS.G. and GargH., ., New Operations on Interval-Valued Picture Fuzzy Set, Interval-Valued Picture Fuzzy Soft Set and Their Applications, IEEE Access7 (2019), 51236–51253.
42.
GargH. and Nancy, Algorithms for possibility linguistic single-valued neutrosophic decision-making based on COPRAS and aggregation operators with new information measures, Measurement138 (2019), 278–290.
43.
Nancy and GargH., A novel divergence measure and its based TOPSIS method for multi criteria decision-making under single-valued neutrosophic environment, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems36(1) (2019), 101–115.
44.
Nancy and GargH., New logarithmic operational laws and their applications to multiattribute decision making for single-valued neutrosophic numbers, Cognitive Systems Research52 (2018), 931–946.
