A Novel Method for Dynamic Multicriteria Decision Making with Hybrid Evaluation Information

Liu, Shihu; Moughal, Tauqir Ahmed

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/864628

Journal of Applied Mathematics

On this page

Abstract Introduction Preliminaries Conclusions References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2014 | Article ID 864628 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/864628

A Novel Method for Dynamic Multicriteria Decision Making with Hybrid Evaluation Information

Shihu Liu^1,2and Tauqir Ahmed Moughal^2,3

Academic Editor: Francisco Chiclana

Received04 Apr 2014

Accepted21 May 2014

Published22 Jun 2014

Abstract

How to select the most desirable pattern(s) is often a crucial step for decision making problem. By taking uncertainty as well as dynamic of database into consideration, in this paper, we construct a dynamic multicriteria decision making procedure, where the evaluation information of criteria is expressed by real number, intuitionistic fuzzy number, and interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy number. During the process of algorithm construction, the evaluation information at all time episodes is firstly aggregated into one, and then it is transformed into the unified interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy number representational form. Similar to most multicriteria decision making approaches, the TOPSIS method is applied in the proposed decision making algorithm. In particular, the distance between possible patterns and the ideal solutions is defined in terms of cosine similarity by considering all aspects of the unified evaluation information. Experimental results show that the proposed decision making approach can effectively select desirable pattern(s).

1. Introduction

It is well-known that how to discover useful information from mass data effectively has aroused lots of people’s interest in many fields, especially in decision making analysis area. In practical processes of information retrieval, decision makers usually have to face complicated database, such as time series database, hybrid database, incomplete database, and so forth. Decision making is extremely intuitive when considering single criterion problems, since we only need to choose the alternative with the highest preference rating. To choose the most desirable ones, multiple criteria are usually considered by decision makers, which is the so-called multicriteria decision making problem. In view of the potential advantages of multicriteria decision making during the process of decision making, this trade-off method has been combined with many theories, such as rough sets [1, 2], fuzzy set and intuitionistic fuzzy set [3, 4], grey theory [5], Choquet integral [6], soft sets [7], and so forth. Moreover, it has been widely applied to many areas such as layout [8–10], management [11, 12], pattern recognition [13], and others [8, 14, 15].

In order to deal with multicriteria decision making problems, Tzeng and Huang [16] proposed that the first step is to figure out how many criteria exist in the problem and then collect the appropriate information of the possible alternatives; the second step is to select an appropriate method to evaluate and outrank the possible alternatives. For the latter issue, Hwang and Yoon [17] proposed the well-known “technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution” method (TOPSIS, in short). Because of the complexity of practical problems, many researchers extended TOPSIS method to fuzzy environment, which can be regarded as a natural generalization of classical TOPSIS method. For example, Shih et al. in [18], Wang and Lee in [19], and Park et al. in [20] discussed extension of TOPSIS method for group decision making problems. Jahanshahloo et al. in [21] constructed an algorithmic method to extend TOPSIS for decision making with interval data. In particular, literature [19] introduced an approach to find the ideal solution and [22] proposed an extension of TOPSIS approach that integrates subjective and objective weight. Abo-Sinna and Amer [23] extended TOPSIS to solve multiobjective large-scale nonlinear programming problems. Moreover, some researchers discussed the extension of TOPSIS to other aspects, such as fuzzy data [21], interval-valued fuzzy data [24–26], interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy data [20, 27], and others [6, 12, 28–32].

However, detailed investigation of the aforementioned literatures shows us that the extended TOPSIS method for multicriteria decision making under various fuzzy environment has its limitations. The reason is that on the one hand, the context on which the problem is based is static. On the other hand, the style of information expression under all criteria has the same representation format. Yu et al. [33] introduced a preference degree based method for handling hybrid multiple attribute decision making problems but the information is still static. Meanwhile, using score function and accuracy function proposed by [34] to rank alternatives is unreasonable to some extent, from which, in this paper, we will focus on the problem of dynamic multicriteria decision making with hybrid evaluation information. Before using TOPSIS method to select the most desirable ones, we presuppose that the values of criteria weights generally are different at the same time episode, in which case the evaluation information of each alternative under each criterion is a time series. Then, by aggregating all the time series into an overall information database, the extended TOPSIS can be applied to deal with the MCDM problems. In this context, the weights of criteria with respect to all alternatives are determined by a mathematical model based on which the weighted distance between alternative and ideal solutions is calculated by means of cosine similarity measure.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents some basic concepts such as intuitionistic fuzzy sets, interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets, multicriteria decision making, and TOPSIS method. In Section 3, we make a detailed discussion on dynamic multicriteria decision making with hybrid evaluation information, in which case the evaluation information of every alternative is regarded as time series and the weights vary with criteria at each time episode. The issue of how to make logical weights of criteria is also investigated in this section. In Section 4, an illustrative example is applied to show the validity of the proposed approach. Finally, Section 5 concludes this paper.

2. Preliminaries

Throughout this paper, let be a fixed set, the universe of discourse, and let be the collection of all closed intervals belonging to unit interval ; then the intuitionistic fuzzy sets as well as interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets proposed by Atanassov and Gargov [35, 36] can be expressed as follows.

Definition 1. An intuitionistic fuzzy set based on can be expressed as where and are, respectively, the membership degree and nonmembership degree of with the condition for all .

Definition 2. An interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy set based on can be expressed as where and are, respectively, the membership degree interval and nonmembership degree interval with the condition for all .

For an intuitionistic fuzzy set , the pair is called an intuitionistic fuzzy number and is denoted by for convenience, the same as that of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy number. In what follows we present a brief review of the mathematical description of multicriteria decision making and TOPSIS method [17, 37].

The procedure of multicriteria decision making can be summarized in three steps, which are evaluating, prioritizing, and selecting. For the first process, which is evaluating, decision makers usually invite experts to provide some evaluation information for some alternatives under certain criteria, and prioritizing is a trade-off process in its nature; the selecting phase is to rank all alternatives with corresponding values obtained from second stage and select the most desirable one(s).

Mathematically speaking, the multicriteria decision making problem of alternatives with criteria can be expressed as where for and is the evaluation information of alternative under criterion provided by experts, and what follows is to assign an overall evaluation information to each alternative by trading off techniques. Based on foregoing information, the decision maker can obtain a linear order of all alternatives; take , for example, and then the alternative is the best choice under existing criteria.

Just like what [38] claimed, how to aggregate the evaluation information of each alternative to a unique value plays a crucial role in the final selection of the best alternative, which in turn means that suitable techniques need to be selected carefully. For this reason, in what follows we present a brief review of the famous trade-off method, which is TOPSIS method. Its main idea came from the concept of compromise solution in order to choose the best alternative nearest to the positive ideal solution (PIS) and farthest from the negative ideal solution (NIS). The general process of TOPSIS method can be summarized as follows [37].(1)Choose PIS and NIS as where represents the obtainable maximum value under if is beneficial criterion (larger is better); otherwise is the minimum value; represents the obtainable minimum value under if is costly criterion (smaller is better); otherwise is the maximum value.(2)Calculate the separation from the PIS and NIS between alternatives by for .(3)Calculate the overall score of each alternative by and make a choice, where .

It deserves to be pointed out that, in practical application, the criteria are usually given weights by various means; many measuring distances are applied to measure the distance between alternative and PIS as well as NIS, such as [39–41]. For detailed description of this trade-off method, the interested readers can refer to many literatures such as [16, 37, 42].

3. Multicriteria Decision Making with Hybrid Evaluation Information

In this section, our work can be divided into three components, which are normalization of hybrid evaluation information, determination of weighted vector of criteria as well as time episodes, and construction of the detailed procedure for dynamic multicriteria decision making.

3.1. Normalization of Hybrid Evaluation Information

Due to the complexity of the real word, database with hybrid types of information is unavoidable. For example, datum is a hybrid datum with respect to criteria because each component of has different types. Hereinto, by taking uncertainty of information into consideration, next we mainly discuss three types of evaluation information, which are real number, intuitionistic fuzzy number, and interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy number.

It is well-known that during the process of decision making, the ultimate goal is to obtain the whole evaluation of each alternative under many criteria. And if the evaluation information of an alternative contains different types of values, the first choice for many decision makers is to transform them into single type. In this light, next we make a detailed discussion on how an datum that components have different types is changed into a datum that components have same type.

Given that only three types of evaluation information appeared in datum :where is an intuitionistic fuzzy number and is an interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy number, then we have the following.(1)If is an intuitionistic fuzzy number for some , then replace with ; that is, (2) If is a real number belonging to unit interval , then replace it with ; that is, Otherwise, at first we normalize by where and then do as (8) does.(3)Do nothing if is an interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy number.

Using above transformation, datum then changes into an interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy vector as follows:

Example 1. Given that for a dynamic multicriteria decision making with alternatives , , and criteria , , , , , the evaluation information at some episode is

Obviously, the information with respect to criteria and is real number, and the information with respect to criteria and is intuitionistic fuzzy number. By (11) the normalization information of criteria and can be expressed as For criteria and , we have that Therefore, we have

3.2. Determination of Weights

To make a reasonable decision for certain problem, how to determine the weights of criteria has been discussed broadly, and many methods are also being used to calculate the corresponding weights, such as maximizing deviation method [43, 44], entropy method [45, 46], and others [7, 47–49].

Due to the increasing complexity of practical socioeconomic development, uncertainty and diversification have become the normal situation for information obtained from flow process line, especially for the information changing with time, that is, time series database. In this paper, from the view point of uncertainty of dynamic evaluation information, at first we construct an approach to determine the weighted vector of episodes, in which different criteria are assigned different weights at the same episode. The reason for that is that if we pay equal weights to each criterion at the same time episode, it may be illogic. For example, a wise teacher ought to know that, for the purpose of estimating a student’s performance, different subjects should not be paid same importance at the end of one semester.

Generally speaking, (3) can be regarded as one time episode of the dynamic multicriteria decision making, and the whole process of it can be depicted as where represents the evaluation information of alternative under criterion at time episode . Next, we make a detailed description of how to calculate the weights of each criterion at all time episodes. From above flow chart (i.e., (16)) we apply to depict the evaluation information of criterion for all time episodes. Because the value style of varies with criteria, in what follows we propose separately the approaches to determining weighted vector of time episodes in detail. (1) is a positive real number for , in which case for can be calculated by where if is a beneficial criterion; otherwise . Here, represents the alternatives’ weight for the th pattern.(2) is an intuitionistic fuzzy number for , ; that is, with condition , in which case we first aggregate , for , at time episode into by operator or operator provided in [50, 51]. After that, compute the weighted vector of time episodes by where if is a beneficial criterion; otherwise .(3) is an interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy number for and ; that is, with condition , in which case we first aggregate , for , at time episode into by operator or operator provided in [34]. After that, compute the weighted vector of time episodes by where if is beneficial criterion; otherwise .

Notice that if the decision makers treat all alternative without distinction, then during the calculation of , the weighted vector of alternatives is ; otherwise with the condition .

For the rest of this subsection, we present a discussion of how to determine the weighted vector on criteria, at each time episode, take time episode for example. Given that there is a dynamic multicriteria decision making problem with alternatives and criteria , the evaluation information for and can be expressed as

Generally, the starting point of assigning weights to criteria is to make the alternative have the best performance with respect to other alternatives as much as possible under provided criteria. Therefore, the mathematical model can be constructed as follows.

Model-1: where is the score of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy number given by [52]. Solve mathematical model (Model-1) by means of Lagrange multiplier method.

Let be Lagrange multiplier and construct Lagrange function as Differentiating (24) we have that With constraint condition , we have Taking (26) into (25), we can get that for . From above, we obtain the weighted vector of criteria at each time episode with respect to every alternative.

3.3. Procedures for Multicriteria Decision Making

Based on aforementioned analysis, in what follows we propose an approach to dynamic multicriteria decision making for hybrid evaluation information. Given that the dynamic multicriteria decision making problem about alternatives with criteria at time episodes is depicted as flow chart (i.e., (16)), then the procedure for decision making can be constructed as follows.

Step 1. Utilize (18)–(20) to compute , where and .

Step 2. Aggregate into for and , where if is a real number; and or if is an intuitionistic fuzzy number; and or if is an interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy number. And denote the final evaluation information by .

Step 3. Transform for and obtained from (28)–(32) into interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy matrix , where is the interval-valued information fuzzy number of as (8)–(10) depicted.

Step 4. Calculate the score matrix of by (23) and it is denoted by .

Step 5. Calculate weights of criteria for each alternative by (27), with respect to the final evaluation information matrix and it is denoted by .

Step 6. Calculate and of according to (4) and it is denoted by where and for .

Step 7. Calculate weighted evaluation information , where

Step 8. Calculate the distances and for by where and , , and .

Step 9. Utilize (6) to calculate the trade-off performance of each alternative for .

Step 10. Rank and select the best alternative.

4. Illustrative Example

In this section, we use a synthetic dynamic database with hybrid evaluation information to illustrate the proposed multicriteria decision making method.

Given that a university wants to select the most desirable candidate from candidates to attend a special meeting, one of the problems facing the president of the university is to determine how to make a reasonable decision making analysis. The candidates are evaluated by experts from four aspects: level of their scientific research (), social resource (), teaching performance (), and level of subhealth (), where , , and are beneficial criteria and is the cost criterion, where the evaluation information of is expressed as interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy numbers; the evaluation information of is expressed as real numbers; and the evaluation information of and is expressed as intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. All of these evaluation information for each candidate are gathered up separately from five periods and shown in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

In what follows we make a detailed description of the dynamic multicriteria decision making with above database.

Step 1. Compute for and by the aggregation operators and . Here we treat all alternatives without distinction, and the corresponding computing results can be found in Table 6.

Step 2. Aggregate into , and Table 7 illustrates the corresponding aggregation results.

Step 3. Change into interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy matrix and show it in Table 8.

Step 4. Calculate the score matrix of which is illustrated in Table 9.

Step 5. Calculate by (27) and Table 10 shows the corresponding results.

Step 6. Calculate and of :

Step 7. Calculate weighted evaluation information which is illustrated in Table 11.

Step 8. Calculate the distances from each alternative to PIS as well as NIS:

Step 9. Calculate for each alternative:

Step 10. Rank the performance order of alternative as and we have that the most desirable alternative is .

5. Conclusions

In this paper, a multicriteria decision making algorithm with respect to hybrid evaluation information has been proposed. This decision making approach aims at selecting the most desirable patterns(s) from a group of evaluation information, where the evaluation information are gathered from different time episodes and different criteria usually have different representations, such as real number, intuitionistic fuzzy number, interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy number, and so forth. The experimental results show that the proposed decision making approach is feasible and effective. Since, for decision making problem, the concrete data representation of evaluation information, to some extent, can directly determine the decision approach selection, our proposed approach can enrich the study in the area of diversifying patterns’ data representation. However, our proposed algorithm is incapable of handling the decision making problems with missing evaluation information, especially for the case that patterns in different time episode are depicted by different amount of criteria. Bearing these facts in mind, it deserves further investigation for the dynamic multicriteria decision making problem with hybrid evaluation information.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

References

S. Greco, B. Matarazzo, and R. Slowinski, “Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 129, no. 1, pp. 1–47, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Pawlak and R. Slowinski, “Decision analysis using rough sets,” International Transactions in Operational Research, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 107–114, 1994.
View at: Google Scholar
K. T. Atanassov, G. Pasi, and R. R. Yager, “Intuitionistic fuzzy interpretations of multi-criteria multi-person and multi-measurement tool decision making,” International Journal of Systems Science, vol. 36, no. 14, pp. 859–868, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. A. Zadeh, “Fuzzy sets,” Information and Control, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 338–353, 1965.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. L. Deng, “Control problems of grey systems,” Systems and Control Letters, vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 288–294, 1982.
View at: Google Scholar
C. Q. Tan, “A multi-criteria interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making with choquet integral-based TOPSIS,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 3023–3033, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Zou and Z. Xiao, “Data analysis approaches of soft sets under incomplete information,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 941–945, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. S. Ahn and S. H. Choi, “Conflict resolution in a knowledge-based system using multiple attribute decision-making,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 11552–11558, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Yang and C. C. Hung, “Multiple-attribute decision making methods for plant layout design problem,” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 126–137, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. H. Zhang, J. Y. Yang, Y. P. Ye, and M. Wang, “Intuitionistic fuzzy sets with double parameters and its application to multiple attribute decision making of urban planning,” Procedia Engineering, vol. 21, pp. 496–502, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Prato, “Multiple attribute decision analysis for ecosystem management,” Ecological Economics, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 207–222, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z.-L. Yang, S. Bonsall, and J. Wang, “Use of hybrid multiple uncertain attribute decision making techniques in safety management,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 1569–1586, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. R. Mahdipoor, “Flow pattern recognition in tray columns with MADM (multiple attribute decision making) method,” Computers & Chemical Engineering, vol. 30, no. 6-7, pp. 1197–1200, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. E. Borana, M. K. S. Genç, M. Kurt, and D. Akay, “A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 11363–11368, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. A. Krohling and V. C. Campanharo, “Fuzzy TOPSIS for group decision making: a case study for accidents with oil spill in the sea,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 4190–4197, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. H. Tzeng and J. J. Huang, Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, CRC Press, New York, NY, USA, 2011.
C. L. Hwang and K. Yoon, Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Theory and Applications, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1992.
H. S. Shih, H. J. Shyur, and E. S. Lee, “An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling, vol. 45, no. 7-8, pp. 801–813, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. J. Wang and H. S. Lee, “Generalizing TOPSIS for fuzzy multiple-criteria group decision-making,” Computers & Mathematics with Applications, vol. 53, no. 11, pp. 1762–1772, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. H. Park, Y. Park II, Y. C. Kwun, and X. G. Tan, “Extension of the TOPSIS method for decision making problems under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment,” Applied Mathematical Modelling, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 2544–2556, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. R. Jahanshahloo, F. H. Lotfi, and M. Izadikhah, “Extension of the TOPSIS method for decision-making problems with fuzzy data,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 181, no. 2, pp. 1544–1551, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. C. Wang and H. D. Lee, “Developing a fuzzy TOPSIS approach based on subjective weights and objective weights,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 8980–8985, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. A. Abo-Sinna and A. H. Amer, “Extensions of TOPSIS for multi-objective large-scale nonlinear programming problems,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 162, no. 1, pp. 243–256, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Ashtiani, F. Haghighirad, A. Makui, and G. A. Montazer, “Extension of fuzzy TOPSIS method based on interval-valued fuzzy sets,” Applied Soft Computing Journal, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 457–461, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. T. Chen, “Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 114, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2000.
View at: Google Scholar
T. Y. Chen and C. Y. Tsao, “The interval-valued fuzzy TOPSIS method and experimental analysis,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 159, no. 11, pp. 1410–1428, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Ye, “An extended TOPSIS method with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy numbers for virtual enterprise partner selection,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 7050–7055, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Chen, K. W. Li, and S. F. Liu, “An OWA-TOPSIS method for multiple criteria decision analysis,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 5205–5211, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Jiang, Y. W. Chen, Y. W. Chen, and K. W. Yang, “TOPSIS with fuzzy belief structure for group belief multiple criteria decision making,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 9400–9406, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. H. Lin, P. C. Lee, T. P. Chang, and H.-I. Ting, “Multi-attribute group decision making model under the condition of uncertain information,” Automation in Construction, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 792–797, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. H. Lin, P. C. Lee, and H.-I. Ting, “Dynamic multi-attribute decision making model with grey number evaluations,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 1638–1644, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. M. Zhang and L. Y. Yu, “MADM method based on cross-entropy and extended TOPSIS with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 30, pp. 115–120, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. H. Yu, Z. S. Xu, and Q. Chen, “A method based on preference degrees for handling hybrid multiple attribute decision making problems,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 3147–3154, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. S. Xu, “Methods for aggregating interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy information and their application to decision making,” Control and Decision, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 215–219, 2007.
View at: Google Scholar
K. Atanassov, “Intuitionistic fuzzy sets,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 87–96, 1986.
View at: Google Scholar
K. Atanassov and G. Gargov, “Interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 343–349, 1989.
View at: Google Scholar
C. L. Hwang and K. Yoon, Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1981.
G. Campanella and R. A. Ribeiro, “A framework for dynamic multiple-criteria decision making,” Decision Support Systems, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 52–60, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Burillo and H. Bustince, “Entropy on intuitionistic fuzzy sets and on interval-valued fuzzy sets,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 305–316, 1996.
View at: Google Scholar
P. Grzegorzewski, “Distances between intuitionistic fuzzy sets and/or interval-valued fuzzy sets based on the hausdorff metric,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 148, no. 2, pp. 319–328, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. H. Park, K. M. Lim, J. S. Park, and Y. C. Kwun, “Distances between interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 96, no. 1, Article ID 012089, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. J. Lai, T. Y. Liu, and C. L. Hwang, “TOPSIS for MODM,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 486–500, 1994.
View at: Google Scholar
G. W. Wei, “Maximizing deviation method for multiple attribute decision making in intuitionistic fuzzy setting,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 833–836, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Xu, J. Zhou, R. Gu, and H. Qin, “Approach for aggregating interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy information and its application to reservoir operation,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 9032–9035, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Chen and B. Li, “Dynamic multi-attribute decision making model based on triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers,” Scientia Iranica, vol. 18, no. 2 B, pp. 268–274, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Ye, “Fuzzy decision-making method based on the weighted correlation coefficient under intuitionistic fuzzy environment,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 205, no. 1, pp. 202–204, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. F. Li, Y. C. Wang, S. Liu, and F. Shan, “Fractional programming methodology for multi-attribute group decision-making using IFS,” Applied Soft Computing Journal, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 219–225, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. M. Xia and Z. S. Xu, “Entropy/cross entropy-based group decision making under intuitionistic fuzzy environment,” Information Fusion, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 31–47, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. L. Yue, “An extended TOPSIS for determining weights of decision makers with interval numbers,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 146–153, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Xu, “Intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1179–1187, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. S. Xu and R. R. Yager, “Some geometric aggregation operators based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets,” International Journal of General Systems, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 417–433, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. L. G. Nayagam, S. Muralikrishnan, and G. Sivaraman, “Multi-criteria decision-making method based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 1464–1467, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2014 Shihu Liu and Tauqir Ahmed Moughal. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

1290

Downloads

901

Citations