The Likelihood Ranking Methods for Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Sets Considering Risk Preferences

Table 7

The collective IT2TrF data using the GITFNWGA operator in the engineering investment project evaluation problem.

The importance weights of each of each
	[(0.90 0.97 0.97 0.98; 0.8), (0.83 0.97 0.97 1.00; 1.0)];
	[(0.90 0.97 0.97 0.98; 0.8), (0.83 0.97 0.97 1.00; 1.0)];
	[(0.53 0.63 0.63 0.73; 0.8), (0.43 0.63 0.63 0.83; 1.0)];
	[(0.85 0.93 0.93 0.97; 0.8), (0.77 0.93 0.93 1.00; 1.0)];
	[(0.68 0.70 0.75 0.80; 0.8), (0.56 0.70 0.78 0.90; 1.0)];
The evaluative ratings of each with respect to
	[(0.73 0.78 0.90 0.94; 0.8), (0.73 0.78 0.90 0.94; 1.0)];
	[(0.56 0.63 0.77 0.82; 0.8), (0.56 0.63 0.77 0.82; 1.0)];
	[(0.78 0.84 0.95 0.98; 0.8), (0.78 0.84 0.95 0.98; 1.0)];
	[(0.88 0.94 0.99 0.99; 0.8), (0.85 0.91 0.97 1.00; 1.0)];
	[(0.42 0.50 0.60 0.75; 0.8), (0.40 0.48 0.50 0.75; 1.0)];
	[(0.67 0.73 0.88 0.93; 0.8), (0.67 0.73 0.88 0.93; 1.0)];
	[(0.55 0.75 0.93 0.95; 0.8), (0.76 0.80 0.93 0.95; 1.0)];
	[(0.85 0.91 0.97 0.99; 0.8), (0.85 0.91 0.97 0.99; 1.0)];
	[(0.79 0.85 0.93 0.95; 0.8), (0.79 0.85 0.93 0.95; 1.0)];
	[(0.32 0.48 0.84 0.90; 0.8), (0.22 0.60 0.84 0.90; 1.0)];
	[(0.85 0.91 0.97 0.99; 0.8), (0.85 0.91 0.97 0.99; 1.0)];
	[(0.56 0.63 0.77 0.82; 0.8), (0.56 0.65 0.77 0.82; 1.0)];
	[(0.42 0.55 0.70 0.80; 0.8), (0.53 0.60 0.78 0.90; 1.0)];
	[(0.79 0.85 0.93 0.95; 0.8), (0.79 0.85 0.93 0.95; 1.0)];
	[(0.77 0.82 0.88 1.00; 0.8), (0.84 0.96 0.98 1.0; 1.0)];
	[(0.73 0.78 0.90 0.94; 0.8), (0.73 0.78 0.90 0.94; 1.0)];
	[(0.46 0.55 0.70 0.75; 0.8), (0.46 0.55 0.70 0.75; 1.0)];
	[(0.70 0.73 0.88 0.98; 0.8), (0.67 0.73 0.88 0.94; 1.0)];
	[(0.85 0.91 0.97 0.99; 0.8), (0.85 0.91 0.97 0.99; 1.0)];
	[(0.93 0.98 1.00 1.00; 0.8), (0.93 0.98 1.00 1.00; 1.0)];