This study examines decision theory based on interval type-2 fuzzy sets with linguistic information for the three-way decision approach by addressing the challenge of uncertainty for information analysis and fusion in subjective decision-making processes. First, the interval type-2 fuzzy linguistic term sets (IT2 FLTSs) are defined to represent and normalize the uncertain preference information in linguistic decision-making. Subsequently, perception computing based on computing with words paradigm is introduced to implement information fusion among different decision-makers in the linguistic information-based fuzzy logic reasoning process. Then, a three-way decision (3WD) theory based on IT2 FLTSs with fuzzy neighborhood covering is proposed, and the corresponded tri-partitioning strategies that satisfy Jaccard similarity of membership distributions are given. Finally, 3WD theory is applied to multi-criteria group decision-making with linguistic terms, and the algorithm steps are illustrated by a promising application under the background of coronavirus disease 2019 to reveal the feasibility and practicability of the proposed approach.
ChenJ., XuY., ZhaoS. and ZhangY.P., AH3: an adaptive hierarchical feature representation model for three-way decision boundary processing, Int J Approx Reason130 (2021), 259–272.
3.
ChenC.T., LinC.T. and HuangS.F., A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management, Int J Prod Econ102 (2006), 289–301.
4.
ChenY.X and
ZhuP.,
Extending characteristic relations on an incomplete data set by the three-way decision theory, Int J Approx Reason119 (2020), 108–121.
5.
DincerH., YukselS. and MartinezL., A comparative analysis of incremental and disruptive innovation policies in the European banking sector with hybrid interval type-2 fuzzy decision-making models, Int J Fuzzy Syst22 (2020), 1158–1176.
6.
FujitaH., GaetaA., LoiaV. and OrciuoliF., Resilience analysis of critical infrastructures: a cognitive approach based on granular computing, IEEE Trans Cybern49 (2019), 1835–1848.
7.
GouX., LiaoH., WangX., XuZ. and Herrera TrigueroF., Consensus based on multiplicative consistent double hierarchy linguistic preferences: venture capital in real estate market, INT J Strateg Prop M24(1) (2020), 1–23.
8.
GouX., XuZ., LiaoH. and HerreraF., Consensus model handling minority opinions and noncooperative behaviors in large-scale group decision-making under double hierarchy linguistic preference relations, IEEE T Cybernetics51(1) (2020), 283–296.
9.
GouX., XuZ. and ZhouW., Managing consensus by multi-stage optimization models with linguistic preference orderings and double hierarchy linguistic preferences, Technol Econ Dev Eco26(3) (2020), 642–674.
10.
GünerR., Hasanoğluİ. and
AktaşF., COVID-19: prevention and control measures in community, Turk J Med Sci50 (2020), 571–577.
11.
HerreraF.E. and Herrera-Viedma, Linguistic decision analysis: steps for solving decision problems under linguistic information, Fuzzy Sets Syst115 (2000), 67–82.
12.
HerreraF. and MartínezL., A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words, IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst8 (2000), 746–752.
13.
HerreraF. and MartínezL., A model based on linguistic 2-tuples for dealing with multigranular hierarchical linguistic contexts in multi-expert decision-making, IEEE Trans Syst Man Cy B31 (2001), 227–234.
14.
HerreraF., MartínezL. and SánchezP.J., Managing non-homogeneous information in group decision-making, Euro J Operat Res166 (2005), 115–132.
15.
HerreraF., AlonsoS., ChiclanaF. and Herrera-ViedmaE., Computing with words in decision-making: foundations, trends and prospects, Fuzzy Optim Decision-making8 (2009), 337–364.
16.
HongY.Z., PasmanH.J., QuddusN. and MannanM.S., Supporting risk management decision-making by converting linguistic graded qualitative risk matrices through interval type-2 fuzzy sets, Process Saf Environ Protect134 (2020), 308–322.
17.
JiangC.M., GuoD.D., DuanY. and LiuY., Strategy selection under entropy measures in movement-based three-way decision, Int J Approx Reason119 (2020), 280–291.
18.
JiangC., GuoD. and SunL., Effectiveness measure for TAO model of three-way decisions with interval set, J Intell Fuzzy Syst40(6) (2021), 11071–11084.
19.
JiangC.M. and YaoY.Y., Effectiveness measures in movement-based three-way decisions, Knowl Based Syst160 (2018), 136–143.
20.
LiL., WuX.D., ChenH.H., ZhouC., LiuG.F. and JiangY.K., Weighted partial order oriented three-way decisions under score-based common voting rules, Int J Approx Reason123 (2020), 41–54.
21.
LiH.X., ZhangL.B., HuangB. and ZhouX.Z., Sequential three-way decision and granulation for cost-sensitive face recognition, Knowl Based Syst91 (2016), 241–251.
22.
LiangD.C and
LiuD.,
Deriving three-way decisions from intuitionistic fuzzy decision theory based on rough sets, Inf Sci300 (2015), 28–48.
23.
LiaoH.C., XuZ.S. and ZengX.J., Hesitant fuzzy linguistic VIKOR method and its application in qualitative multiple criteria decision-making, IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst23 (2015), 1343–1355.
24.
LiuS., LiuX., A novel three-way decision based on linguistic evaluation, In: 2015 IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems (Fuzz-IEEE), Istanbul, 2015, 1–7.
25.
LiuF., LiuY. and AbdullahS., Three-way decisions with decision-theoretic rough sets based on covering-based q-rung orthopair fuzzy rough set model, J Intell Fuzzy Syst40(5) (2021), 9765–9785.
26.
LuoJ.F., HuM.J. and QinK.Y., Three-way decision with incomplete information based on similarity and satisfiability, Int J Approx Reason120 (2020), 151–183.
27.
LuoS., A three-way decision method based on hybrid data, J Intell Fuzzy Syst40(5) (2021), 8639–8650.
28.
MaW.M,,
LeiW.J. and
SunB.Z.,
Three-way group decisions based on multi-granulation hesitant fuzzy decision-theoretic rough set over two universes, J Intell Fuzzy Syst38(2) (2020), 2165–2179.
29.
MendelJ.M., An architecture for making judgments using computing with words, Int J Appl Math Comput Sci12 (2002), 325–335.
30.
MendelJ.M., Computing with words: Zadeh, Turing, Popper and Occam, IEEE Comput Intell M2 (2007), 10–17.
31.
MendelJ.M., The perceptual computer: an architecture for computing with words, in Proc. IEEE Int Conf Fuzzy Syst Australia, 2001, 35–38.
32.
MendelJ.M., Type-2 fuzzy sets and systems: an overview, IEEE Comput Intell M2 (2007), 20–29.
33.
MendelJ.M., Type-2 fuzzy sets as well as computing with words, IEEE Comput Intell M14 (2019), 82–95.
34.
MendelJ.M. and JohnR.I., Type-2 fuzzy sets made simple, IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst10 (2002), 117–127.
35.
MendelJ.M., JohnR.I. and LiuF.L., Interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems made simple, IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst14 (2006), 808–821.
36.
MendelJ.M. and WuH., Type-2 fuzzistics for symmetric interval type-2 fuzzy sets-Part 1: forward problems, IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst14 (2006), 781–792.
37.
PatilS.K. and KantR., A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for ranking the solutions of knowledge management adoption in supply chain to overcome its barriers, Expert Syst Appl41 (2014), 679–693.
38.
PatilS.K. and KantR., A hybrid approach based on fuzzy DEMATEL and FMCDM to predict success of knowledge management adoption in supply chain, Appl Soft Comput18 (2014), 126–135.
39.
PengJ.G., XiaG., SunB.Q. and WangS.J., Systematical decision-making approach for quality function deployment based on uncertain linguistic term sets, Int J Prod Res56(18) (2018), 6183–6200.
40.
PengJ.G. and XiaG., A systematic fuzzy multi-criteria group decision-making approach for alternatives evaluation, Oper Res Soc70(9) (2019), 1490–1501.
41.
Pries-HejeJ. and BaskervilleR., The design theory nexus, MIS Quarterly32 (2008), 731–755.
42.
QinJ.D., LiuX.W. and PedryczW., An extended TODIM multi-criteria group decision-making method for green supplier selection in interval type-2 fuzzy environment, Euro J Operat Res258 (2017), 626–638.
43.
RashidT.S. and Faizi,
XuZ.S., ELECTRE-based outranking method for multi-criteria decision-making using hesitant intuitionistic fuzzy linguistic term sets, Int J Fuzzy Syst20 (2018), 78–92.
44.
RodríguezR.M., MartínezL. and HerreraF., Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets for decision-making, IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst20 (2012), 109–119.
45.
SellakH., OuhbiB., FrikhB. and IkkenB., Expertise-based consensus building for MCGDM with hesitant fuzzy linguistic information, Inform Fusion50 (2019), 54–70.
46.
SunB.Z., MaW.M., LiB.J. and LiX.N., Three-way decisions approach to multiple attribute group decision-making with linguistic information-based decision theory based on rough fuzzy set, Int J Approx Reason93 (2018), 424–442.
47.
SunB.Z., MaW.M. and ZhaoH.Y., Decision theory based on rough fuzzy set model and application, Inf Sci283 (2014), 180–196.
48.
TorraV., Hesitant fuzzy sets, Int J Intell Syst25 (2010), 529–539.
49.
TürkşenI.B., Type 2 representation and reasoning for CWW, Fuzzy Sets Syst127 (2002), 17–36.
50.
WalpoleR.W., MyersR.H., MyersA.L. and YeK., Probability & statistics for engineers and scientists (8th ed),Upper Saddleback River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2007, 737.
51.
WangY., SunB.Z., ZhangX.R. and WangQ., BWM and MULTIMOORA-based multi-granulation sequential three-way decision model for multi-attribute group decision-making problem, Int J Approx Reason125 (2020), 169–186.
52.
WangH.D., PanX.H. and YanJ., A projection-based regret theory method for multi-attribute decision-making under interval type-2 fuzzy sets environment, Inf Sci512 (2020), 108–122.
53.
WangH., XuZ.S. and ZengX.J., Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets for linguistic decision-making: current developments, issues and challenges, Inform Fusion43 (2018), 1–12.
54.
WenH.L., XiaF. and TangH.X., Three-way decision for incomplete real-valued data, J Intell Fuzzy Syst39(5) (2020), 7843–7862.
55.
WilbikA. and KellerJ.M., A fuzzy measure similarity between sets of linguistic summaries, IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst21 (2013), 183–189.
56.
Wilder-Smith MDA. and
Freedman MDD.O., Isolation, quarantine, social distancing and community containment: pivotal role for old-style public health measures in the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak, J Travel Med27 (2020), 1–4.
WuD. and MendelJ.M., A comparative study of ranking methods, similarity measures and uncertainty measures for interval type-2 fuzzy sets, Inf Sci179 (2009), 1169–1192.
59.
WuD. and MendelJ.M., Aggregation using the linguistic weighted average and interval type-2 fuzzy sets, IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst15 (2007), 1145–1161.
60.
WuD. and MendelJ.M., Uncertainty measures for interval type-2 fuzzy sets, Inf Sci177 (2007), 5378–5393.
61.
WuD., MendelJ.M. and CouplandS., Enhanced interval approach for encoding words into interval type-2 fuzzy sets and its convergence analysis, IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst20 (2012), 499–513.
62.
XuZ.S., Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations in group decision-making, Omega33 (2005), 249–254.
63.
XueZ.A., XinX.W., YuanY.L. and XueT.Y., Intuitionistic fuzzy possibility measure-based three-way decisions for incomplete data, J Intell Fuzzy Syst35(5) (2018), 5657–5666.
64.
XueZ.A., ZhaoL.P., ZhangM. and SunB.X., Three-way decisions based on multi-granulation support intuitionistic fuzzy probabilistic rough sets, J Intell Fuzzy Syst38(4) (2020), 5013–5031.
65.
YangD.D., DengT.Q. and FujitaH., Partial-overall dominance three-way decision models in interval-valued decision systems, Int J Approx Reason126 (2020), 308–325.
66.
YangJ., LuoT., ZhaoF., LiS. and JinX., Data-driven sequential three-way decisions for unlabeled information system, J Intell Fuzzy Syst40(6) (2021), 10633–10644.
67.
YangJ.L. and YaoY.Y., Semantics of soft sets and three-way decision with soft sets, Knowl Based Syst194 (2020). DOI: 10.1016/j.knosys.2020.105538.
68.
YaoY.Y., Probabilistic approaches to rough sets, Expert Syst20 (2003), 287–297.
69.
YaoY.Y., Three-way decisions and cognitive computing, Cogn Comput8 (2016), 543–554.
70.
YaoY.Y., Three-way decision: an interpretation of rules in rough set theory, in: Proceedings of RSKT’09, LNCS, 2009, 642–649.
71.
YueX.D., ChenY.F., MiaoD.Q. and FujitaH., Fuzzy neighborhood covering for three-way classification, Inf Sci507 (2020), 795–808.
ZhangC., LiD.Y. and LiangJ.Y., Multi-granularity three-way decisions with adjustable hesitant fuzzy linguistic multi-granulation decision theory based on rough sets over two universes, Inf Sci507 (2020), 665–683.
74.
ZhangM., ZhangQ.H. and GaoM., A sequential three-way decision model based on hesitant fuzzy sets, J Intell Fuzzy Syst40(5) (2021), 9073–9084.
75.
ZhouW. and XuZ.S., Generalized asymmetric linguistic term set and its application to qualitative decision-making involving risk appetites, Euro J Operat Res254 (2016), 610–621.
