Probabilistic hesitant fuzzy Set (PHFs) is the most powerful and comprehensive idea to support more complexity than developed fuzzy set (FS) frameworks. In this paper a novel and improved TOPSIS-based method for multi-criteria group decision making (MCGDM) is explained through the probabilistic hesitant fuzzy environment, in which the weights of both experts and criteria are completely unknown. Firstly, we discuss the concept of PHFs, score functions and the basic operating laws of PHFs. In fact, to compute the unknown weight information, the generalized distance measure for PHFs was defined based on the Probabilistic hesitant fuzzy entropy measure. Second, MCGDM will be presented with the PHF information-based decision-making process.
BoranF.E., BoranK. and MenlikT., The evaluation of renewable energy technologies for electricity generation in Turkey using intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS, Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy7(1) (2012), 81–90.
2.
BegI. and RashidT., TOPSIS for hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets, International Journal of Intelligent Systems28(12) (2013), 1162–1171.
3.
BashirZ., RashidT., WatróbskiJ., SałabunW. and MalikA., Hesitant probabilistic multiplicative preference relations in group decision making, Applied Sciences8(3) (2018), 398.
4.
BiswasA. and KumarS., An integrated TOPSIS approach to MADM with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy settings, In Advanced Computational and Communication Paradigms, 2018, (pp. 533–543). Springer, Singapore.
5.
ChenC.T., Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment, Fuzzy sets and systems114(1) (2000), 1–9.
6.
ChangK.H., ChangY.C. and LeeY.T., Integrating TOPSIS and DEMATEL methods to rank the risk of failure of FMEA, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making13(06) (2014), 1229–1257.
7.
ChenN., XuZ. and XiaM., Interval-valued hesitant preference relations and their applications to group decision making, Knowledge-Based Systems37 (2013), 528–540.
8.
DharV., ChouD. and ProvostF., Discovering Interesting Patterns for Investment Decision Making with GLOWERA Genetic Learner Overlaid with Entropy Reduction, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery4(4) (2000), 251–280.
9.
EbrahimiN. and KirmaniS.N.U.A., A measure of discrimination between two residual life-time distributions and its applications, Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics48(2) (1996), 257–265.
10.
LuJ., WeiC., WuJ. and WeiG., TOPSIS method for probabilistic linguistic MAGDM with entropy weight and its application to supplier selection of new agricultural machinery products, Entropy21(10) (2019), 953.
11.
GaoJ., XuZ. and LiaoH., A dynamic reference point method for emergency response under hesitant probabilistic fuzzy environment, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems19(5) (2017), 1261–1278.
12.
HwangC.L. and YoonK., Methods for multiple attribute decision making, In Multiple attribute decision making1981, (pp. 58–191). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
13.
HaoZ., XuZ., ZhaoH. and SuZ., Probabilistic dual hesitant fuzzy set and its application in risk evaluation, Knowledge-based systems127 (2017), 16–28.
14.
HuJ., YangY., ZhangX. and ChenX., Similarity and entropy measures for hesitant fuzzy sets, International Transactions in Operational Research25(3) (2018), 857–886.
15.
JiangF. and MaQ., Multi-attribute group decision making under probabilistic hesitant fuzzy environment with application to evaluate the transformation efficiency, Applied Intelligence48(4) (2018), 953–965.
16.
KrishankumarR., RavichandranK.S., KarS., GuptaP. and MehlawatM.K., Interval-valued probabilistic hesitant fuzzy set for multi-criteria group decision-making, Soft Computing23(21) (2019), 10853–10879.
17.
LavioletteM. and SeamanJ.W., Unity and diversity of fuzziness/spl minus/from a probability viewpoint, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems2(1) (1994), 38–42.
18.
LiJ. and WangZ.X., Multi-attribute decision making based on prioritized operators under probabilistic hesitant fuzzy environments, Soft Computing23(11) (2019), 3853–3868.
19.
LiuX., WangZ., ZhangS. and LiuJ., Probabilistic hesitant fuzzy multiple attribute decision-making based on regret theory for the evaluation of venture capital projects, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja33(1) (2020), 672–697.
20.
MeghdadiA.H. and Akbarzadeh-T,M.R., December. Probabilistic fuzzy logic and probabilistic fuzzy systems, In 10th IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems. (Cat. No. 01CH37297) (Vol. 3, pp. 1127–1130) IEEE.
21.
MardaniA., JusohA. and ZavadskasE.K., Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making techniques and applications–Two decades review from 1994 to 2014, Expert systems with Applications42(8) (2015), 4126–4148.
22.
PidreJ.C., CarrilloC.J. and LorenzoA.E.F., Probabilistic model for mechanical power fluctuations in asynchronous wind parks, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems18(2) (2003), 761–768.
23.
ShannonC.E., A Mathematical Theory of Communication,379– 423 &, Bell System Technical Journal27 (1948), 623–656.
24.
ShihH.S., Incremental analysis for MCDM with an application to group TOPSIS, European Journal of Operational Research186(2) (2008), 720–734.
25.
SeitiH. and HafezalkotobA., Developing the R-TOPSIS methodology for risk-based preventive maintenance planning: A case study in rolling mill company, Computers & Industrial Engineering128 (2019), 622–636.
26.
SinghL., SinghS. and AggarwalN., Improved TOPSIS method for peak frame selection in audio-video human emotion recognition, Multimedia Tools and Applications78(5) (2019), 6277–6308.
27.
TorraV., Hesitant fuzzy sets, International Journal of Intelligent Systems25(6) (2010), 529–539.
28.
TorlakG., SevkliM., SanalM. and ZaimS., Analyzing business competition by using fuzzy TOPSIS method, An example of Turkish domestic airline industry, Expert Systems with Applications38(4) (2011), 3396–3406.
29.
TangH., ShiY. and DongP., Public blockchain evaluation using entropy and TOPSIS, Expert Systems with Applications117 (2019), 204–210.
30.
VidalR. and Sánchez-PantojaN., Method based on life cycle assessment and TOPSIS to integrate environmental award criteria into green public procurement, Sustainable Cities and Society44 (2019), 465.
31.
WangH., ZhaoX. and WeiG., Dual hesitant fuzzy aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems26(5) (2014), 2281–2290.
32.
WuZ., XuJ., JiangX. and ZhongL., Two MAGDM models based on hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets with possibility distributions: VIKOR and TOPSIS, Information Sciences473 (2019), 101–120.
33.
WangL. and LiN., Pythagorean fuzzy interaction power Bonferroni mean aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making, International Journal of Intelligent Systems35(1) (2020), 150–183.
34.
XiaM. and XuZ., Hesitant fuzzy information aggregation in decision making, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning52(3) (2011), 395–407.
35.
XuZ. and ZhouW., Consensus building with a group of decision makers under the hesitant probabilistic fuzzy environment, Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making16(4) (2017), 481–503.
36.
YagerR.R., On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decision making, IEEE Transactions on systems, Man, and Cybernetics18(1) (1988), 183–190.
37.
YangJ. and QiuW., A measure of risk and a decision-making model based on expected utility and entropy, European Journal of Operational Research164(3) (2005), 792–799.
38.
YueZ., An extended TOPSIS for determining weights of decision makers with interval numbers, Knowledge-Based Systems24(1) (2011), 146–153.
39.
YuW., ZhangZ. and ZhongQ., Consensus reaching for MAGDM with multi-granular hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets: a minimum adjustment-based approach, Annals of Operations Research (2019), 1–24.
ZadehL.A., Probability measures of fuzzy events, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications23(2) (1968), 421–427.
42.
ZadehL.A., Discussion: Probability theory and fuzzy logic are complementary rather than competitive, Technometrics37(3) (1995), 271–276.
43.
ZhangN. and WeiG., Extension of VIKOR method for decision making problem based on hesitant fuzzy set, Applied Mathematical Modelling37(7) (2013), 4938–4947.
44.
ZhouW. and XuZ., Group consistency and group decision making under uncertain probabilistic hesitant fuzzy preference environment, Information Sciences414 (2017), 276–288.
45.
ZhuB. and XuZ., Probability-hesitant fuzzy sets and the representation of preference relations, Technological and Economic Development of Economy24(3) (2018), 1029–1040.
46.
ZamaniR. and BerndtssonR., Evaluation of CMIP5 models for west and southwest Iran using TOPSIS-based method, Theoretical and Applied Climatology137(1-2) (2019), 533–543.
47.
ZhangZ., GaoY. and LiZ., Consensus reaching for social network group decision making by considering leadership and bounded confidence, Knowledge-based systems204 (2020), 106240.
