分布式乘性偏好环境下考虑决策者偏好调整意愿的最优-最劣多准则决策方法

doi:10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2021.1586

Abstract

Abstract:

Comparison matrices show sound performance when representing the outcomes of pairwise comparisons coming from decision-makers. Over the past decades， numerous researchers have investigated multi-criteria decision-making with different forms of comparison matrices， including multiplicative preference relations， interval multiplicative preference relations and hesitant multiplicative preference relations. But one can also note there are situations where the outlined comparison matrices fail to record decision-makers’ preference information. To address the limitations of the aforesaid preference relations， this study focusses on the multi-criteria decision-making problem under distributed multiplicative preference environment. First， a new way of pairwise comparison called distributed multiplicative preference relations is introduced to address the hesitation on the linguistic term selection of decision makers when they use linguistic variables to depict their preference information of one criterion over another， and the case where decision makers show tendencies to provide some specific degrees on certain linguistic terms in multiplicative preference multi-criteria decision-making. This newly-introduced preference relation not only inherits the superiority of multiplicative preference but also can handle the hesitation of decision makers on the problem of linguistic term selection when being used to express the preferences over criteria. Then， an improved Best-Worst Method （BWM） with distributed multiplicative preferences is proposed by considering decision maker’s preference adjustment willingness to overcome such limitations as the neglect of decision maker’s willingness， the high computational burden， and the complicated consistency adjustment process of the traditional BWM in managing inconsistent multiplicative preferences. The improved BWM can achieve a predetermined consistency level efficiently in the setting of retaining the original preferences of decision makers to the greatest extent. Finally， a commercial vehicle purchase decision problem is analyzed by using the proposals to demonstrate their feasibility and validity in practice.

Key words: multi-criteria decision-making, Best-worst method, distributed multiplicative preference relation, consistency, preference adjustment willingness

CLC Number:

C934

Rongqing Yang,Xiaoan Tang,Qiang Zhang,Ting Huang. Best-worst Multi-criteria Decision-making Method with Decision Maker's Preference Adjustment Willingness under Distributed Multiplicative Preference Environment[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2024, 32(7): 65-75.

Figures/Tables 10

References 33

1	Wang Y M， Yang J B， Xu D L. A two-stage logarithmic goal programming method for generating weights from interval comparison matrices［J］. Fuzzy Sets and Systems， 2005， 152（3）： 475-498.
2	Liu M， Zhou W， Duan Y L. Generalized hesitant multiplicative preference relations and the analytic risk-network process［J］. Information Sciences， 2020， 540： 345-369.
3	Liu W Q， Zhang H J， Chen X， et al. Managing consensus and self-confidence in multiplicative preference relations in group decision making［J］. Knowledge-Based Systems， 2018， 162： 62-73.
4	Calvo T， Fuster P， Martín J， et al. Aggregation for linearly ordered fuzzy preference relations based on consistency［J］. Fuzzy Sets and Systems， 2022，446：38-52.
5	Wang Z J， Yang X， Jin X T. And-like-uninorm-based transitivity and analytic hierarchy process with interval-valued fuzzy preference relations［J］. Information Sciences， 2020， 539： 375-396.
6	Zhang Q， Huang T， Tang X A， et al. A linguistic information granulation model and its penalty function-based co-evolutionary PSO solution approach for supporting GDM with distributed linguistic preference relations［J］. Information Fusion， 2021， 77： 118-132.
7	Liu H B， Jiang L. Optimizing consistency and consensus improvement process for hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations and the application in group decision making［J］. Information Fusion， 2020， 56： 114-127.
8	Tang X A， Peng Z L， Zhang Q， et al. Consistency and consensus-driven models to personalize individual semantics of linguistic terms for supporting group decision making with distribution linguistic preference relations［J］. Knowledge-Based Systems， 2020， 189： 105078.
9	Saaty T. The analytical hierarchy process［M］. New York： McGraw-Hill Press， 1980.
10	Girsang A S， Tsai C W， Yang C S. Ant algorithm for modifying an inconsistent pairwise weighting matrix in an analytic hierarchy process［J］. Neural Computing and Application， 2015， 26： 313-327.
11	Wu Z B， Xu J P. A consistency and consensus-based decision support model for group decision making with multiplicative preference relations［J］. Decision Support Systems， 2012， 52（3）： 757-767.
12	Saaty T L， Vargas L G. Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process［J］. European Journal of Operational Research， 1987， 32： 107-117.
13	Xia M M， Xu Z S. Managing hesitant information in GDM problems under fuzzy and multiplicative preference relations［J］. International Journal of Uncertainty， Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems， 2013， 21（6）： 865-897.
14	Wang Y M， Elhag T. A goal programming method for obtaining interval weights from an interval comparison matrix［J］. European Journal of Operational Research， 2007， 177（1）： 458-471.
15	Cheng X J， Wan S P， Dong J Y. A new consistency definition of interval multiplicative preference relation［J］. Fuzzy Sets and Systems， 2020， 409： 55-84.
16	Zhang Z M， Wu C. A decision support model for group decision making with hesitant multiplicative preference relations［J］. Information Sciences， 2014， 282： 136-166.
17	Wang Y M， Fan Z P， Hua Z S. A chi-square method for obtaining a priority vector from multiplicative and fuzzy preference relations［J］. European Journal of Operational Research， 2007， 182（1）： 356-366.
18	Coffey L， Claudio D. In defense of group fuzzy AHP： A comparison of group fuzzy AHP and group AHP with confidence intervals［J］. Expert Systems with Applications， 2021， 178： 114970.
19	Dhanaraj P S， Rathinasuriyan C. Selection of intense energy welding process for high strength aluminum alloy using AHP［J］. Materials Today： Proceedings， 2021， 46： 8254-8259.
20	Rezaei J. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method［J］. Omega， 2015， 53： 49-57.
21	Omrani H， Alizadeh A， Amini M. A new approach based on BWM and Multimoora methods for calculating semi-human development index： An application for provinces of Iran［J］. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences， 2020， 70： 100689.
22	Gupta H， Barua M K. Identifying enablers of technological innovation for Indian MSMEs using best-worst multi criteria decision making method［J］. Technological Forecasting & Social Change， 2016， 107： 69–79.
23	Salimi N， Rezaei J. Evaluating firms’ R & D performance using best worst method［J］. Evaluation & Program Planning， 2018， 66：147-155.
24	Rezaei J， Kothadiya O， Tavasszy L， et al. Quality assessment of airline baggage handling systems using SERVQUAL and BWM［J］. Tourism Management， 2018， 66： 85-93.
25	Pamucar D， Petrovic I， Cirovic G. Modification of the best-worst and mabac methods： A novel approach based on interval-valued fuzzy-rough numbers［J］. Expert Systems with Applications， 2017， 91： 89-106.
26	Palanisamy M， Pugalendhi A， Ranganathan R. Selection of suitable additive manufacturing machine and materials through best-worst method （BWM）［J］. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology， 2020， 107（5）： 2345-2362.
27	Tian Z P， Zhang H Y， Wang J Q， et al. Green supplier selection using improved topsis and best-worst method under intuitionistic fuzzy environment［J］. Informatica， 2018， 29（4）： 773-800.
28	Mou Q， Xu Z S， Liao H C. An intuitionistic fuzzy multiplicative best-worst method for multi-criteria group decision making［J］. Information Sciences， 2016， 374： 224-239.
29	Mi X M， Liao H C. An integrated approach to multiple criteria decision making based on the average solution and normalized weights of criteria deduced by the hesitant fuzzy best-worst method［J］. Computers & Industrial Engineering， 2019， 133： 83-94.
30	Gupta H. Assessing organizations performance on the basis of GHRM practices using BWM and fuzzy TOPSIS［J］. Journal of Environmental Management， 2018， 226： 201-216.
31	Mi X M， Tang M， Liao H C， et al. The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best-worst method in decision making： Why， what， what for and what’s next？［J］. Omega， 2019， 87： 205-225.
32	Wan S P， Dong J Y. A novel extension of best-worst method with intuitionistic fuzzy reference comparisons［J］.IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems， 2022， 30（6）： 1698-1711.
33	Yazdi M， Nedjati A， Zarei E， et al. A reliable risk analysis approach using an extension of best-worst method based on democratic-autocratic decision-making style［J］. Journal of Cleaner Production， 2020， 256： 120418.

准则	c₁	c₂	c₃	c₄	c₅	c₆
最优准则(c₁)	-	{(r⁽⁴⁾:0.1), (r⁽³⁾:0.1), (r⁽²⁾:0.3), (r⁽¹⁾:0.3)}	{(r⁽³⁾:0.2), (r⁽¹⁾:0.6)}	{(r⁽⁵⁾:0.1), (r⁽³⁾:0.6), (r⁽¹⁾:0.1)}	{(r⁽³⁾:0.3), (r⁽²⁾:0.4), (r⁽¹⁾:0.3)}	{(r⁽⁵⁾:1)}
最劣准则(c₆)	{(r⁽⁵⁾:1)}	{(r⁽³⁾:0.2), (r⁽¹⁾:0.6)}	{(r⁽⁴⁾:0.1), (r⁽³⁾:0.1), (r⁽²⁾:0.3), (r⁽¹⁾:0.3)}	{(r⁽³⁾:0.3), (r⁽¹⁾:0.7)}	{(r⁽³⁾:0.3), (r⁽²⁾:0.4), (r⁽¹⁾:0.3)}	-

准则 (c₁)	x₁	x₂	x₃	x₄	x₅
最优方案(x₂)	{(r⁽⁴⁾:0.1), (r⁽³⁾:0.2), (r⁽²⁾:0.3), (r⁽¹⁾:0.4)}	-	{(r⁽²⁾:0.4), (r⁽¹⁾:0.6)}	{(r⁽⁴⁾:0.3), (r⁽³⁾:0.7)}	{(r⁽⁵⁾:1)}
最劣方案(x₅)	{(r⁽⁴⁾:0.2), (r⁽³⁾:0.1), (r⁽¹⁾:0.7)}	{(r⁽⁵⁾:1)}	{(r⁽⁵⁾:0.1), (r⁽⁴⁾:0.5), (r⁽³⁾:0.4)}	{(r⁽⁵⁾:0.1), (r⁽³⁾:0.1), (r⁽²⁾:0.4), (r⁽¹⁾:0.4)}	-

准则 (c₂)	x₁	x₂	x₃	x₄	x₅
最优方案(x₂)	{(r⁽²⁾:0.5), (r⁽¹⁾:0.5)}	-	{(r⁽³⁾:0.1), (r⁽²⁾:0.4), (r⁽¹⁾:0.3)}	{(r⁽⁵⁾:1)}	{(r⁽⁴⁾:0.1), (r⁽³⁾:0.3), (r⁽²⁾:0.6)}
最劣方案(x₄)	{(r⁽⁵⁾:0.6)}	{(r⁽⁵⁾:1)}	{(r⁽³⁾:0.2), (r⁽²⁾:0.8)}	-	{(r⁽²⁾:0.4), (r⁽¹⁾:0.6)}

准则 (c₃)	x₁	x₂	x₃	x₄	x₅
最优方案(x₁)	-	{(r⁽⁵⁾:0.1), (r⁽³⁾:0.1), (r⁽²⁾:0.4), (r⁽¹⁾:0.4)}	{(r⁽⁵⁾:1)}	{(r⁽⁴⁾:0.1), (r⁽³⁾:0.3), (r⁽²⁾:0.6)}	{(r⁽³⁾:0.4), (r⁽²⁾:0.6)}
最劣方案(x₃)	{(r⁽⁵⁾:1)}	{(r⁽³⁾:0.4), (r⁽²⁾:0.6)}	-	{(r⁽²⁾:0.4), (r⁽¹⁾:0.6)}	{(r⁽³⁾:0.2), (r⁽²⁾:0.5), (r⁽¹⁾:0.3)}

准则 (c₄)	x₁	x₂	x₃	x₄	x₅
最优方案(x₄)	{(r⁽⁴⁾:0.1), (r⁽³⁾:0.3), (r⁽²⁾:0.6)}	{(r⁽⁵⁾:0.1), (r⁽³⁾:0.1), (r⁽²⁾:0.4), (r⁽¹⁾:0.4)}	{(r⁽⁵⁾:1)}	-	{(r⁽³⁾:0.4), (r⁽²⁾:0.6)}
最劣方案(x₃)	{(r⁽²⁾:0.4), (r⁽¹⁾:0.6)}	{(r⁽³⁾:0.4), (r⁽²⁾:0.6)}	-	{(r⁽⁴⁾:1)}	{(r⁽³⁾:0.2), (r⁽²⁾:0.5), (r⁽¹⁾:0.3)}

Best-worst Multi-criteria Decision-making Method with Decision Maker's Preference Adjustment Willingness under Distributed Multiplicative Preference Environment

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 10

References 33

Related Articles 15

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0

准则 (c₅)	x₁	x₂	x₃	x₄	x₅
最优方案(x₅)	{(r⁽⁵⁾:0.1), (r⁽³⁾:0.1), (r⁽²⁾:0.4), (r⁽¹⁾:0.4)}	{(r⁽⁵⁾:1)}	{(r⁽⁴⁾:0.1), (r⁽³⁾:0.3), (r⁽²⁾:0.6)}	{(r⁽³⁾:0.4), (r⁽²⁾:0.6)}	-
最劣方案(x₂)	{(r⁽³⁾:0.4), (r⁽²⁾:0.6)}	-	{(r⁽²⁾:0.4), (r⁽¹⁾:0.6)}	{(r⁽³⁾:0.2), (r⁽²⁾:0.5), (r⁽¹⁾:0.3)}	{(r⁽⁵⁾:1)}

准则 (c₆)	x₁	x₂	x₃	x₄	x₅
最优方案(x₃)	{(r⁽⁴⁾:0.3), (r⁽³⁾:0.3), (r⁽²⁾:0.4)}	{(r⁽³⁾:0.6), (r⁽²⁾:0.4)}	-	{(r⁽³⁾:0.4), (r⁽²⁾:0.6)}	{(r⁽⁵⁾:1)}
最劣方案(x₅)	{(r⁽²⁾:0.5), (r⁽¹⁾:0.5)}	{(r⁽³⁾:0.6), (r⁽²⁾:0.4)}	{(r⁽⁵⁾:1)}	{(r⁽³⁾:0.3), (r⁽²⁾:0.5), (r⁽¹⁾:0.2)}	-

[1]	Yang Jiao,Gang Li,Jianping Li,Bin Wang,Zhipeng Zhang. Research on the Weighting Method for Group Decision Considering Effective Information of Experts [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2024, 32(8): 107-116.
[2]	JIN Fei-fei, NI Zhi-wei, CHEN Hua-you, ZHU Xu-hui, WU Wen-ying. Linguistic Preference Decision-Making Model Based on Consistency Local Adjustment Algorithm and DEA [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2019, 27(12): 152-163.
[3]	XU Hai-jun, TIAN Xiao-li, XU Ze-shui. Prospect Decision-making Method Based on Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Information [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2018, 26(8): 179-185.
[4]	MIAO Rui, XU Jian. The Impact of Rating Inconsistency on Online Review Helpfulness: A Perspective on Attribution Theory [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2018, 26(5): 178-186.
[5]	LI Ai-hua, SU Jie, JIA Chuan-liang. The Coordinated Development and Consistent Model Between Economic Growth and Carbon Emissions [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2017, 25(4): 1-6.
[6]	SHI Liang, LU Yao-bin, YANG Shui-qing. The Effect of Consistency Perception on Consumer Mobile-shopping Behavior: A Perspective on Cross Channel of Web-Mobile [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2017, 25(4): 70-77.
[7]	DING Tao, WU Hua-qing, LIANG Liang. A Weight Adjustment Method in 360-degree Evaluation System [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2016, 24(7): 149-154.
[8]	SHI Xiao-jing, LIANG Xun, SUN Xiao-lei. Rater Utility Mechanism Research Based On Online Rating and Comment [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2016, 24(5): 149-157.
[9]	LI Mei-juan, XU Lin-ming, CHEN Guo-hong. A Dynamic Combined Evaluation Method Based on Consistency [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2016, 24(10): 149-155.
[10]	WANG Hong-Bo, LUO He, YANG Shan-Lin. Inconsistency Judgment Matrix Ranking Method Based on Manifold Learning [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2015, 23(10): 147-155.
[11]	HAO Jing-jing, ZHU Jian-jun, LIU Si-feng. A Method for Multi-stage Stochastic Multi-criteria Decision Making Concerning Prospect Theory [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2015, 23(1): 73-81.
[12]	ZOU Zi-ran, CHEN Shou, YANG Yan, ZHANG Hong-hao. The Optimization and Decision-making of Principal-agent Problem Based on Time-inconsistency Preference [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2013, 21(4): 27-34.
[13]	GUO Ya-jun, MA Zan-fu, ZHANG Fa-ming. Validity Analysis of Several Kinds of Combination Evaluation Methods [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2009, 17(2): 125-130.
[14]	LI Mei-juan, CHEN Guo-hong, XIAO Xi-feng. Evaluation and Comparative Analysis on Regional Technology Innovation Capability Based on Consistency Combination Evaluation [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2009, 17(2): 131-139.
[15]	HE Yuan-yuan, ZHOU De-qun, WANG Qiang. Research on Aggregated Approach to Group Decision Making with Fuzzy Judgment Matrix [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2008, 16(2): 128-131.