交互式多属性群决策评价方法研究

doi:10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2016.11.014

中国管理科学 ›› 2016, Vol. 24 ›› Issue (11): 120-128.doi: 10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2016.11.014

交互式多属性群决策评价方法研究

杜娟, 霍佳震

同济大学经济与管理学院, 上海 200092

收稿日期:2016-01-10 修回日期:2016-04-30 出版日期:2016-11-20 发布日期:2017-01-23
作者简介:杜娟(1984-),女(汉族),安徽合肥人,同济大学经济与管理学院,副教授,研究方向:数据包络分析、决策与优化、多目标决策系统,E-mail:dujuan@tongji.edu.cn.
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金面上项目（71471133）

A Study on the Interactive Evaluation in Multiple Attribute Group Decision Making

DU Juan, HUO Jia-zhen

School of Economics and Management, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China

Received:2016-01-10 Revised:2016-04-30 Online:2016-11-20 Published:2017-01-23

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 针对多属性群决策中属性指标权重的确定，将群体看作由多个被评价且参与权重决策的独立成员组成，提出一种交互式迭代算法，以均等属性权重为起点进入迭代过程，每一次迭代在当前给定的权重参数下求解含参规划模型并计算得到新的权重参数。迭代过程终止于任一群成员在相邻两次迭代的参数权重下加权综合属性值的绝对差异控制在非阿基米德无穷小量以内，此时使用的参数权重即为各属性的最优权重。实际迭代计算过程以及属性指标权重由所有群体成员共同参与和决定，故可以认为最终优化和选择结果为绝大部分成员所接受并满意。通过一个算例以及一个关于研发项目选择的实例，说明该交互式群决策评价方法的可行性和有效性。

关键词: 群决策, 属性权重, 交互式迭代

Abstract: In this paper, a group is composed of dependent members who are supposed to be evaluated via multiple attributes and participation in determining these attributes' weights. In order to seek the attributes' weights in multiple attribute group decision making, an iterative algorithm is proposed, which starts with equal weights and solves a programming model with weight parameters for each group member to obtain a set of optimal weights. The optimal weights to each attribute decided by every group member are then averaged and used as the new weight parameters in modeling solving during the next iteration. This iterative procedure repeats until for each member, the consecutive weighted average values of all attributes converge within a specified small enough positive value. The optimal attributes' weights of the group are therefore obtained as the current parameter weights when the iteration terminates. Such a set of attributes' weights are jointly determined by all group members, in which sense the related results and decisions are supposed to be accepted and satisfied by all (or at least most) members. A numerical example and an application of R&D project selection are studied to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed method.

Key words: group decision making, attributes' weights, interactive iteration

中图分类号:

C934

杜娟, 霍佳震. 交互式多属性群决策评价方法研究[J]. 中国管理科学, 2016, 24(11): 120-128.

DU Juan, HUO Jia-zhen. A Study on the Interactive Evaluation in Multiple Attribute Group Decision Making[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2016, 24(11): 120-128.

参考文献

[1] Bryson N. Group decision-making and the analytic hierarchy process: Exploring the consensus-relevant information content [J]. Computers & Operations Research, 1996, 23(1): 27-35.

[2] Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F, Chiclana F. A consensus model for multiperson decision making with different preference structures [J]. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, 2002, 32(3): 394-402.

[3] 徐泽水. 纯语言多属性群决策方法研究 [J]. 控制与决策,2004,19(7):778-781.

[4] 王学军,郭亚军. 基于G-1法的群决策集结分析 [J]. 中国管理科学,2004,12(S1):14-16.

[5] 徐迎军,李东. 多属性群决策达成一致方法研究 [J]. 控制与决策,2010,25(12):1810-1820.

[6] 尤天慧,李洪燕,刘彩娜. 一种具有不确定偏好序信息的多指标群决策方法 [J]. 中国管理科学,2013,21(5):110-114.

[7] Ramanathan R, Ganesh L S. Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members' weightages [J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 1994, 79(2): 249-265.

[8] 孟波,付微. 一种有限方案多目标群决策方法 [J]. 系统工程,1998,16(4):57-61.

[9] 宋光兴,邹平. 多属性群决策中决策者权重的确定方法 [J]. 系统工程,2001,19(4):84-89.

[10] 梁樑,王国华. 一种群决策中专家客观权重的确定方法 [J]. 系统工程与电子技术,2005,4:652-655.

[11] Yue Zhongliang. A method for group decision-making based on determining weights of decision makers using TOPSIS[J]. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 2011, 35(4): 1926-1936.

[12] Yue Zhongliang. Extension of TOPSIS to determine weight of decision maker for group decision making problems with uncertain information [J]. Expert Systems with Applications, 2012, 39(7): 6343-6350.

[13] 梁昌勇,戚筱雯,丁勇,等. 一种基于TOPSIS的混合型多属性群决策方法 [J]. 中国管理科学,2012,20(4):109-117.

[14] 蒋文能. 群组决策中专家权重确定的思路和方法 [J]. 统计与决策,2013,2:24-28.

[15] Chen C, Chau K W. Three-person multi-objective integrated approach to determine attribute weights [J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2002, 142(3): 625-631.

[16] Chen Zhiping, Yang Wei. A new multiple attribute group decision making method in intuitionistic fuzzy setting[J]. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 2011, 35: 4424-4437.

[17] Xu Z S, Yager R R. Intuitionistic and interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations and their measures of similarity for the evaluation of agreement within a group [J]. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 2009, 8(2): 123-139.

[18] 闫书丽,刘思峰,方志耕,等. 区间灰数群决策中决策者和属性权重确定方法 [J]. 系统工程理论与实践,2014,34(9):2372-2378.

[19] 梁樑,王国华. 多层次交互式确定权重的方法 [J]. 系统工程学报,2002,17(4):358-363.

[20] Li Dengfeng, Chen Guohong, Huang Zhigang. Linear programming method for multiattribute group decision making using IF sets [J]. Information Sciences, 2010, 180(9): 1591-1609.

[21] 戚筱雯,梁昌勇,张恩桥,等. 基于熵最大化的区间直觉模糊多属性群决策方法 [J]. 系统工程理论与实践,2011,31(10):1940-1948.

[22] 郭凯红,李文立. 权重信息未知情况下的所属性群决策方法及其拓展 [J]. 中国管理科学,2011,19(5):94-103.

[23] Zhang Zhen, Guo Chonghui. A method for multi-granularity uncertain linguistic group decision making with incomplete weight information [J]. Knowledge-Based Systems, 2012, 26(2): 111-119.

[24] Ma Jian, Fan Zhipeng, Huang Lihua. A subjective and objective integrated approach to determine attribute weights [J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 1999, 112(2): 397-404.

[25] Rao R V, Patel B K. A subjective and objective integrated multiple attribute decision making method for material selection [J]. Materials & Design, 2010, 31(10): 4738-4747.

[26] Oral M, Kettani O, Liang P. A methodology for collective evaluation and selection of industrial R&D projects [J]. Management Science, 1991, 37(7): 871-883.

[27] Green R, Doyle J, Cook W D. Preference voting and project ranking using DEA and cross-evaluation [J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 1996, 90(3): 461-472.

[28] Liang Liang, Wu Jie, Cook W D, et al. The DEA game cross efficiency model and its Nash equilibrium [J]. Operations Research, 2008, 56(5): 1278-1288.

交互式多属性群决策评价方法研究

A Study on the Interactive Evaluation in Multiple Attribute Group Decision Making

PDF (PC)

可视化

被引次数

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	焦阳,李刚,李建平,王斌,张志鹏. 考虑专家有效信息的群决策赋权方法研究[J]. 中国管理科学, 2024, 32(8): 107-116.
[2]	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.
[3]	姜立生,廖虎昌. 考虑共识效率和误判风险的风险-效率混合共识模型[J]. 中国管理科学, 2024, 32(2): 23-30.
[4]	万志远, 刘勤明, 叶春明, 刘文溢. 突发事件下的医院应急群决策模型研究*[J]. 中国管理科学, 2022, 30(6): 254-262.
[5]	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.
[6]	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.
[7]	李磊, 张曙阳. 共识条件下最小最大妥协的直觉模糊数集结方法研究[J]. 中国管理科学, 2021, 29(2): 168-176.
[8]	王泽洲, 陈云翔, 项华春. 一种改进型专家模糊核聚类赋权方法研究[J]. 中国管理科学, 2021, 29(2): 177-183.
[9]	金飞飞,刘金培，陈华友，杜鹏程. 基于信任关系和信息测度的概率语义社会网络群决策模型[J]. 中国管理科学, 2021, 29(10): 178-190.
[10]	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.
[11]	刘金培, 杨宏伟, 陈华友, 周礼刚. 基于交叉效率DEA与群体共识的区间乘性语言偏好关系群决策[J]. 中国管理科学, 2020, 28(2): 190-198.
[12]	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.
[13]	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.
[14]	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.
[15]	杜娟, 胥敬华. 基于交互式迭代算法的中国碳减排目标分配研究[J]. 中国管理科学, 2018, 26(5): 31-39.