模糊异构环境下考虑双重交互及不完全理性心理的多属性群决策及应用

doi:10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2022.1835

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

针对当前多属性群决策方法基于单型同构信息、属性方案独立或决策者完全理性假设建模的不足，提出了一种模糊异构环境下考虑属性方案双重交互及决策者不完全理性心理的新方法。首先，定义了模糊异构信息的双向投影度量，建立了模糊异构信息双向投影三维集对D-U （确定-不确定）空间同构化模型。其次，构建了变异最大化优化模型确定各交互属性局部交互权重，进而基于 $λ$ 模糊测度的广义Banzhaf值确定交互属性及属性集的全局交互权重。然后，为表述并测度方案交互，构建了方案综合感知优势度复杂交互网络及全局交互综合感知优势度模型。同时，扩展经典TODIM模型，提出了考虑决策者不完全理性心理的属性方案双重交互TODIM模型确定方案排序。最后，通过干热岩开发选址案例说明了方法的有效性，对比分析验证了其优越性及科学性。

关键词: 多属性群决策, 模糊异构信息, 属性方案双重交互, 不完全理性心理, TODIM模型

Abstract:

Multi-attribute group decision-making （MAGDM） is widely used in many social fields. In practical MAGDM， the heterogeneity between decision makers （DMs） or attributes causes it to be difficult to accurately describe all attribute information in the form of a single preference. Meanwhile， there are often complex interactions between attributes or alternatives， which， if ignored， can easily lead to inaccurate attribute weights and preference information fusion， reducing decision quality. Moreover， due to the psychological influence of the decision environment and subjective cognitive limitations on DMs， DMs are often in a state of incomplete rational psychology during the decision-making process， and this can have a significant impact on the decision results. Therefore， it is necessary and important to consider the heterogeneous information， attribute and alternative interaction， and DMs' incomplete rational psychology in MAGDM. However， few MAGDM methods consider all three aspects simultaneously.To make this gap， a new MAGDM method in a fuzzy heterogeneous environment considering dual interactions and DMs' incomplete rational psychology is proposed. First， a bidirectional projection measurement of fuzzy heterogeneous information is defined， and the homogenous method of three-dimensional D-U space based on bidirectional projection is established. Second， a variance maximization optimization model is constructed to determine the local weights of each interaction attribute， and then the global interaction weights of interaction attributes and attribute sets are determined based on the generalized Banzhaf values of the λ fuzzy measure. Then， to describe and measure the alternative interactions， a alternative complex interaction network of integrated perceptual dominance and a global interaction integrated perceptual dominance model are developed. Following this， the classical TODIM model is extended， and an attribute and alternative dual interaction TODIM model considering the imperfect rational psychology of DMs is proposed to determine the alternative ranking. Finally， the validity and feasibility of the proposed method are proved by a site selection case study of hot dry rock development， and its superiority and scientificity are verified by comparative analysis. The results show that simultaneous consideration of heterogeneous information， attribute and alternative interactions and DMs' incomplete rational psychology will substantially improve the accuracy and robustness of MAGDM methods.

Key words: multi-attribute group decision making, fuzzy heterogeneous information, attribute and alternative double interaction, incomplete rational psychology, TODIM model

中图分类号:

C934

赵程伟, 徐选华, 刘瑞环, 何继善. 模糊异构环境下考虑双重交互及不完全理性心理的多属性群决策及应用[J]. 中国管理科学, 2025, 33(6): 182-195.

Chengwei Zhao, Xuanhua Xu, Ruihuan Liu, Jishan He. Multi-attribute Group Decision-making and Its Application Considering Dual Interaction and Incomplete Rational Psychology in Fuzzy Heterogeneous Environment[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2025, 33(6): 182-195.

图/表 5

图1

图2

表1

图3

图4

参考文献 30

1	Rao C J， Gao M Y， Wen J H， et al. Multi-attribute group decision making method with dual comprehensive clouds under information environment of dual uncertain Z-numbers［J］.Information Sciences， 2022， 602： 106-127.
2	Li Z X， Liu A J， Miao J， et al. A three-phase method for spherical fuzzy environment and application to community epidemic prevention management［J］. Expert Systems with Applications， 2023， 211： 118601.
3	王浩伦.基于直觉语言粗糙CoCoSo-H的废旧动力电池回收技术选择模型［J］.中国管理科学，2024， 32（5）： 24-37.
	Wang H L. Spent power battery recycling technology selection based on integrated CoCoSo and heronian mean with intuitionistic linguistic rough number［J］. Chinese Journal of Management Science，2024， 32（5）： 24-37.
4	Li W W， Yi P T， Li L Y. Santibanez Superiority-comparison-based transformation， consensus， and ranking methods for heterogeneous multi-attribute group decision-making［J］. Expert Systems with Applications， 2023， 213： 119018.
5	Zhang F， Ju Y B， Santibanez Gonzalez E D R， et al. Evaluation of construction and demolition waste utilization schemes under uncertain environment： A fuzzy heterogeneous multi-criteria decision-making approach［J］. Journal of Cleaner Production， 2021， 313： 127907.
6	王伟明，徐海燕，朱建军，等.基于TTD_（WAA）算子和TPBM算子的混合型多属性大群体决策方法［J］.中国管理科学，2024，32（4）： 97-107.
	Wang W M， Xu H Y， Zhu J J， et al. A hybrid multiple attribute large group decision-making approach based on TTD_WAA operator and TPBM operator［J］. Chinese Journal of Management Science， 2024，32（4）： 97-107.
7	Zhao C W， Xu X H， Liu R H， et al. A multi-aspect coordination HDRED site selection framework under multi-type heterogeneous environments［J］. Renewable Energy， 2021， 171： 833-848.
8	Zou W C， Wan S P， Chen S M. A fairness-concern-based LINMAP method for heterogeneous multi-criteria group decision making with hesitant fuzzy linguistic truth degrees［J］. Information Sciences， 2022， 612： 1206-1225.
9	Yuan J H， Luo X G， Li Y， et al. Multi criteria decision-making for distributed energy system based on multi-source heterogeneous data［J］. Energy， 2022， 239： 122250.
10	Du J L， Liu S F， Liu Y， et al. A novel approach to three-way conflict analysis and resolution with Pythagorean fuzzy information［J］. Information Sciences， 2022， 584： 65-88.
11	Ayyildiz E. A novel pythagorean fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methodology for e-scooter charging station location-selection［J］. Transportation Research Part D：Transport and Environment，2022，111： 103459.
12	Gireesha O， Kamalesh A B， Krithivasan K， et al. A fuzzy-multi attribute decision making approach for efficient service selection in cloud environments［J］. Expert Systems with Applications， 2022，206： 117526.
13	Pinar A， Boran F E. A novel distance measure on q-rung picture fuzzy sets and its application to decision making and classification problems［J］. Artificial Intelligence Review， 2022， 55（2）： 1317-1350.
14	Tao Y， Wu Y N， Wu M， et al. Multi-criteria decision making for comprehensive benefits assessment of photovoltaic poverty alleviation project under sustainability perspective： A case study in Yunnan， China［J］. Journal of Cleaner Production，2022，346： 131175.
15	Yong X K， Chen W J， Wu Y N， et al. A two-stage framework for site selection of underground pumped storage power stations using abandoned coal mines based on multi-criteria decision-making method：An empirical study in China［J］.Energy Conversion and Management， 2022， 260： 115608.
16	徐选华，赵程伟，何继善，等. 多型异构数据下关联变权空间多属性决策方法［J］. 系统工程理论与实践， 2020， 40（7）： 1895-1905.
	Xu X H， Zhao C W， He J S， et al. Association variable weight space multi-attribute decision method under multi-type heterogeneous data［J］.Systems Engineering- Theory & Practice， 2020， 40（7）： 1895-1905.
17	Bonab S R， Ghoushchi S J， Deveci M， et al. Logistic autonomous vehicles assessment using decision support model under spherical fuzzy set integrated Choquet Integral approach［J］. Expert Systems with Applications， 2023， 214： 119205.
18	Krishankumar R， Pamucar D， Deveci M， et al. Assessment of renewable energy sources for smart cities’ demand satisfaction using multi-hesitant fuzzy linguistic based choquet integral approach［J］. Renewable Energy， 2022， 189： 1428-1442.
19	Wu Y N， Zhang T， Yi L Q. Regional energy internet project investment decision making framework through interval type-2 fuzzy number based Choquet integral fuzzy synthetic model［J］. Applied Soft Computing， 2021， 111： 107718.
20	Zhang Y R J， Liang D C， Xu Z S. Cross-platform hotel evaluation by aggregating multi-website consumer reviews with probabilistic linguistic term set and Choquet integral［J］. Annals of Operations Research， 2022： 1-35.
21	Liu Y， Wei G W， Abdullah S， et al. Banzhaf-Choquet-copula-based aggregation operators for managing q-rung orthopair fuzzy information［J］. Soft Computing， 2021， 25（10）： 6891-6914.
22	Tang G L， Long J P， Gu X W， et al. Interval type-2 fuzzy programming method for risky multicriteria decision-making with heterogeneous relationship［J］. Information Sciences， 2022， 584： 184-211.
23	Zheng J， Wang Y M， Zhang K， et al. A heterogeneous multi-attribute case retrieval method for emergency decision making based on bidirectional projection and TODIM［J］. Expert Systems with Applications， 2022， 203： 117382.
24	Divsalar M， Ahmadi M， Ebrahimi E， et al. A probabilistic hesitant fuzzy Choquet integral-based TODIM method for multi-attribute group decision-making［J］. Expert Systems with Applications， 2022， 191： 116266.
25	Zhao C W， Xu X H， Liu R H， et al. A novel multi-attribute group decision-making method for heterogeneous preferences and attribute interaction contexts［J］. Expert Systems with Applications， 2023，221： 119752.
26	Sugeno M. Theory of fuzzy integrals and its applications［D］.Tokyo： Tokyo Institute of Technology， 1974.
27	Marichal J L. The influence of variables on pseudo-Boolean functions with applications to game theory and multicriteria decision making［J］.Discrete Applied Mathematics， 2000， 107（1-3）： 139-164.
28	Ding Q Y， Wang Y M， Goh M， et al. A hesitant fuzzy linguistic bidirectional projection-regret decision making model［J］. Computers & Industrial Engineering， 2022， 169： 108197.
29	Zhong S， Zhang H T， Deng Y. Identification of influential nodes in complex networks： A local degree dimension approach［J］. Information Sciences， 2022， 610： 994-1009.
30	Garg C P， Görçün Ö F， Kundu P， et al. An integrated fuzzy MCDM approach based on Bonferroni functions for selection and evaluation of industrial robots for the automobile manufacturing industry［J］. Expert Systems with Applications， 2023， 213： 118863.

方法	方法来源	不确定性处理	En(A_i )	TEn
贴近度距离法	类似文献[7，8]	局部	{0.987, 0.924, 0.701, 0.966, 0.801}	0.876
负理想点偏差法	类似文献[9]	局部	{0.721, 0.927, 0.803, 0.881, 0.690}	0.804
BpTD-DU空间法	所提出方法	系统	{0.740, 0.499, 0.622, 0.551, 0.703}	0.623

[1]	王浩伦. 基于直觉语言粗糙CoCoSo-H的废旧动力电池回收技术选择模型[J]. 中国管理科学, 2024, 32(5): 24-37.
[2]	彭友, 刘晓鹤, 孙健博. 区间直觉模糊数环境下基于犹豫度和相关系数的多属性群决策模型研究[J]. 中国管理科学, 2021, 29(8): 229-240.
[3]	刘培德, 滕飞. 基于共识模型和ORESTE的扩展概率语言多属性群决策方法[J]. 中国管理科学, 2021, 29(3): 199-209.
[4]	任嵘嵘, 孟一鸣, 李晓奇, 赵萌. 基于一致性度量的概率模糊语言多属性群决策方法[J]. 中国管理科学, 2020, 28(4): 220-230.
[5]	赵萌, 张晨曦, 胡亦奇, 李刚. 基于愿景满意度函数的多属性群决策方法[J]. 中国管理科学, 2020, 28(2): 220-230.
[6]	刘培德, 滕飞. 基于证据推理和广义Shapley值的扩展概率语言多属性群决策方法[J]. 中国管理科学, 2020, 28(11): 206-218.
[7]	罗世华, 刘俊. 改进排序的梯形直觉模糊Choquet Bonferroni算子的多属性群决策方法[J]. 中国管理科学, 2020, 28(1): 134-143.
[8]	许成磊, 段万春, 孙永河. 多属性群决策的混合结构偏好识别与融合方法[J]. 中国管理科学, 2016, 24(8): 139-145.
[9]	彭勃, 叶春明. 基于不确定纯语言混合调和平均算子的多属性群决策方法[J]. 中国管理科学, 2015, 23(2): 131-138.
[10]	刘德海, 于倩, 马晓南, 尹丹, 王维国. 基于最小偏差组合权重的突发事件应急能力评价模型[J]. 中国管理科学, 2014, 22(11): 79-86.
[11]	刘德海, 于倩, 马晓南, 尹丹, 王维国. 基于最小偏差组合权重的突发事件应急能力评价模型[J]. 中国管理科学, 2014, 22(11): 79-86.
[12]	丁勇, 梁昌勇, 朱俊红, 陆文星. 群决策中基于二元语义的主客观权重集成方法[J]. 中国管理科学, 2010, 18(5): 165-170.
[13]	梁昌勇, 张恩桥, 戚筱雯, 陆青. 一种评价信息不完全的混合型多属性群决策方法[J]. 中国管理科学, 2009, 17(4): 126-132.
[14]	龚本刚, 华中生, 檀大水. 一种语言评价信息不完全的多属性群决策方法[J]. 中国管理科学, 2007, 15(1): 88-93.