迄今，为解决多属性偏好关联决策属性集容量判断指数复杂性难题所提出的λ模糊测度模式与k-可加模糊测度模式，以及建构在它们之上的属性集容量确定的推算模型，尚存在着适用性差的技术不足。为此，以平衡容量判断的可操作性和容量推算的准确性为视角，提出了一种新容量测度模式，即关于容量判断与推算的夹挤式测度模式，并在此基础上通过引入决策者较易判断给出的容量序信息构建了相应的容量推算模型。基于数值模拟的对比分析表明：新模式不仅在应用可行性上高于k-可加模糊测度模式，而且从容量推算的准确性上看也明显优于λ模糊测度模式和k-可加模糊测度模式，因而对实际决策具有更强的适用性。
For multiple attribute decision making with preference dependence relationship (MADMPDR), a problem is that the decision maker is required to estimate too many attribute-set capacities, which is also called the exponential complexity problem of attribute-set capacity determination. For this problem, the two fuzzy measures namely the λ-measure and the k-order measure, as well as attribute-set capacity calculation (ASCC) models based on these two measures, have been presented in literature. However, they are suffered from impracticality in many decision cases due to arbitrary hypotheses on preference dependence relationship. The impracticality embodies in two aspects. One is the unfeasibility of measurement pattern, the other is the inaccurateness in capacity calculation. To overcome the impracticality of the λ-measure and the k-order measure, a new measurement pattern on attribute-set capacity, called sandwich measurement pattern (SMP), is proposed based on such a strategy of balancing the feasibility of attribute-set capacity determination with the accurateness of ASCC. Then, a linear programming model for ASCC corresponding to SMP, shorted as LPM-SMP, is presented. In specific, the model determines an attribute-set capacity through restricting it between the minimum and maximum of attribute-set capacities of the same order, and squeezing it into a particular range by theoretical quantitative relationships of attribute-set capacities. These relationships include μ(Ø)=0, μ(N)=1, and μ(A∪{Ci})-μ(A) ≥ 0, where N represents the attribute set of attributes C1,…,Cn, μ(·) does the capacity of the attribute-set denoted by "·", {Ci} does the singleton of attribute Ci, and A does a subset of N except {Ci}. Besides, the attribute-set capacity given by LPM-SMP satisfies other constraints built on the judgment information of the decision maker. The judgment information is of three types. The first is on the attribute-set capacity ranks, the second is on the numerical values of low-order attribute-set capacities, and the third is on the minimum and maximum attribute-set capacities within a high-order capacity rank. SMP as well as LPM-SMP has two advantages. First, the number of attribute-set capacities to be estimated is Cn1+Cn2+2(n-3) for a decision with n attributes, which is very acceptable for decision makers since it is only approximate to that when the 2-order measure is adopted. Second, the given attribute-set capacities are more rational than those given by ASCC models based on the λ-measure and k-order measure, since arbitrary hypotheses like those adopted in the measures mentioned above are no longer made in SMP. Data simulation analysis shows that SMP is not only more feasible than the k-order measure, but also greatly superior in calculation accurateness to the λ-measure and the k-order measure. As a result, SMP is more applicable to real-world decisions of MADMPDR.
[1] Grabisch M. The application of fuzzy integrals in multicriteria decision making[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 1996, 89(3):445-456.
[2] 赵树平,梁昌勇,罗大伟.基于VIKOR和诱导广义直觉梯形模糊Choquet积分算子的多属性群决策方法[J].中国管理科学, 2016, 24(6):132-142.
[3] 常志鹏,程龙生.灰模糊积分关联度决策模型[J].中国管理科学, 2015, 23(11):105-111.
[4] Grabisch M, Labreuche C. A decade of application of the Choquet and Sugeno integrals in multi-criteria decision aid[J]. Annals Operations Research, 2010, 175(1):247-286.
[5] Marichal J L, Roubens M. Determination of weights of interacting criteria from a reference set[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2000, 124(3):641-650.
[6] Grabisch M, Kojadinovic I, Meyer P. A review of methods for capacity identification in Choquet integral based multi-attribute utility theory:Applications of the Kappalab R package[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2008, 186(2):766-785.
[7] Anath R K, Maznah M K, Engku M N E A B. A short survey on the usage of Choquet integral and its associated fuzzy measure in multiple attribute analysis[J]. Procedia Computer Science, 2015, 59:427-434.
[8] Sugeno M. Theory of integral and its applications[D]. Tokyo:Tokyo Institute of Technology,1974.
[9] David S, Martin H. Dynamic classifier aggregation using interaction-sensitive fuzzy measures[J]. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2015, 270:25-52.
[10] 武建章, 张强. 基于2-可加模糊测度的多准则决策方法[J]. 系统工程理论与实践, 2010, 30(7):1229-1237.
[11] Grabisch M. K-order additive discrete fuzzy measure and their representation[J]. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1997, 92(2):167-189.
[12] 章玲,周德群.基于k-可加模糊测度的多属性决策分析[J].管理科学学报, 2008, 11(6):18-24.
[13] Yager R R. Modeling multi-criteria objective functions using fuzzy measure[J], Information Fusion, 2015, 29(3):105-111.
[14] Wu Yunna, Geng Shuai, Xu Hu, et al. Study of decision framework of wind farm project plan selection under intuitionistic fuzzy set and fuzzy measure environment[J]. Energy Conversion and Management, 2014, 87:274-284.
[15] Yang J L, Chiu H N, Tzeng G H, et al. Vendor selection by integrated fuzzy MCDM techniques with independent and interdependent relationships[J]. Information Sciences, 2008, 178(21):4166-4183.
[16] Chen T Y, Wang J C. Identification of λ-fuzzy measures using sampling design and genetic algorithms[J]. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2001, 123(1):321-341.
[17] Xu Xiaozhan, Martel J M, Lamond B F. A multiple criteria ranking procedure based on distance between partial preorders[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2001, 133(1):69-81.
[18] Lahdelma R, Miettinen K, Salminen P. Ordinal criteria in stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA)[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2003, 147(1):117-127.
[19] Punkka A, Salo A. Preference programming with incomplete ordinal information[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2013, 231(1):141-150.
[20] Sarabando P, Dias L C. Simple procedures of choice in multicriteria problems without precise information about the alternatives' values[J]. Computer and Operations Research, 2010, 37(12):2239-2247.
[21] Fitousi D. Dissociating between cardinal and ordinal and between the value and size magnitudes of coins[J]. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2010, 17(6):889-894.
[22] Ahn B S, Park K S. Comparing methods for multiattribute decision making with ordinal weights[J]. Computers & Operations Research, 2008, 35(5):1660-1670.
[23] Bottomley P A, Doyle J R. A comparison of three weight elicitation methods:Good, better, and best[J]. Omega, 2001, 29(6):553-560.
[24] Saaty T L. The analytic hierarchy process[M]. New York:McGraw-Hill, 1980.
[25] Saaty T L. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures[J]. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1977, 15(3):234-281.
