区间概率条件下属性值为不确定语言变量的风险型多属性决策研究

针对区间概率条件下属性值为不确定语言信息且属性权重未知的风险型多属性决策问题,提出了一种基于概率理论和不确定语言变量的TOPSIS决策方法。首先建立了区间概率转化为点概率的数学模型,通过期望值将风险型决策矩阵转化为确定型矩阵;然后利用方案与理想解越近方案越优,与负理想解越远方案越优的原则建立属性权重确定模型,并利用TOPSIS方法的相对优属度大小确定方案的排序;最后通过应用案例说明了本方法的决策步骤。     

模糊决策环境下基于COWA算子的绿色供应商选择方法

对于模糊决策环境下的绿色供应商选择问题。提出了一种方案的属性评价信息和属性权重均以模糊语言形式给出的多属性决策方法。首先,定义了模糊语言评估标度并给出了其相应的梯形模糊数表达形式。其次,利用连续区间数据OWA（COWA）算子,把梯形模糊数转化为精确实数,得到方案的排序向量,并且给出了方案排序的敏感性分析方法。最后通过算例说明了该方法的可行性和有效性。     

一类不确定型多属性决策问题的排序方法

研究了属性权重信息完全未知且属性值以区间数形式给出的不确定型多属性决策问题, 给出了区间数决策矩阵的规范化公式. 基于区间数相离度, 给出了求解属性权重的一个简洁 公式, 并提出了一种基于可能度的决策方案排序方法. 最后通过实例说明了该法的实用性和 有效性.     

语言多属性决策的目标规划模型

研究了只有部分属性权重信息、属性值以语言变量或不确定语言变量形式给出且决策者对方案有偏好信息的语言多属性决策问题.给出了语言变量和不确定语言变量的运算法则,以及不确定语言变量之间比较的可能度公式,定义了语言变量的偏离度概念.在属性值以1)语言变量和2)不确定语言变量,这两种形式给出的情形下,分别建立了一个基于偏离度的目标规划模型,并通过求解这两种模型分别获得相应的属性权重.然后对于情形1),利用语言加权平均(LWA)算子,对语言决策信息进行加权集成,继而对方案进行排序和择优;对于情形2),利用不确定语言加权平均(ULWA)算子,对不确定语言决策信息进行加权集成,并利用可能度公式构造可能度矩阵(互补判断矩阵),继而利用互补判断矩阵排序公式对决策方案进行排序和择优.最后进行了实例分析.     

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

扩展概率语言词集通过语言变量概率分布的调整能够转化为多种语言信息表示模型,是语言变量、不确定语言信息、扩展犹豫模糊语言词集、分布语言评估信息、概率语言词集等的一般化,具有较强的通用性和实用性,是处理不确定性信息的重要工具。鉴于此,本文针对扩展概率语言环境下的多属性群决策问题,提出基于证据推理和广义Shapley值的多属性群决策方法。首先,提出扩展概率语言词集的定义和相关基础理论。其次,将广义Shapley值和证据推理相结合用于专家信息融合,并将广义Shapley值和TODIM方法相结合用于备选方案排序。再次,提出基于灰色关联法的权重确定模型来处理专家/属性权重部分未知的情况。最后,以绿色供应商选择为例进行分析,通过对比分析验证所提方法的有效性和优越性。     

三端点区间数互反判断矩阵的排序方法研究

本文研究了三端点区间数互反判断矩阵的一致性和排序方法。在三端点区间数互反判断矩阵完全一致性概念的基础上,首次将矩阵特征向量思想引入三端点区间数互反判断矩阵之中——研究了三端点区间数互反判断矩阵的一致性与权重向量之间的类似特征向量关系,并运用线性规划模型给出一种处理三端点区间数决策者对方案属性权重的方法,然后通过三端点区间数权重向量的期望值,进行方案集结排序。最后通过具体的案例,验证了所提出方法的有效性和适用性。     

基于后悔理论和DEMATEL的语言型多属性决策方法

针对目前语言型多属性决策方法大多基于期望效用理论且不考虑指标间影响关系的不足,提出了一种将后悔理论和决策试验与评价试验法相结合的语言型多属性决策方法。首先,依据后悔理论的思想,定义了语言后悔-欣喜函数,给出了方案感知效用值的计算公式;然后,利用决策试验与评价试验法分析指标间的影响关系,给出了基于语言DEMATEL的指标权重确定方法,再通过指标总容量最大优化模型给出了基于注水原理的指标权重确定方法,并在此基础上求解方案的综合感知效用值,据此对方案进行排序择优;最后,通过两个应用实例来验证所提方法的可行性和有效性。实例结果表明,由于该方法同时考虑了决策者的心理行为和指标间的影响关系,因此可使决策结果更加贴近现实且更为可靠。     

权重信息不完全的区间直觉模糊数多属性决策方法

针对权重信息不完全的区间直觉模糊数多属性决策问题,首先,引入了区间直觉模糊数的一些运算法则、区间直觉模糊数的得分函数和精确函数。然后,对权重信息不完全的区间直觉模糊数的多属性决策方法进行了研究,给出了一个基于最大偏差的目标规划模型,从而获得相应的属性权重,并基于IIWAA算子对区间直觉模糊数信息进行集结,进而根据得分函数和精确函数对方案进行排序。最后,进行了实例分析,说明了该方法的实用性和有效性。     

一种语言评价信息不完全的多属性群决策方法

针对语言评价信息不完全的多属性群决策问题,提出了一种基于D-S理论的新决策方法。该方法首先对多个决策者给出不完全的语言评价信息进行分析,得到不同属性下各焦元的基本概率分配函数值,然后通过Dempster-Shafer合成法则对其值进行合成,计算决策方案的信度函数和似真函数值,并据此对所有决策方案进行排序。最后,通过一个算例验证该方法的可行性和有效性。     

基于两类残缺偏好信息的交互式群决策方法研究

提出不同残缺偏好信息的交互式群决策方法。利用矩阵元素之间的可达性关系,给出区间数判断矩阵残缺元素的确定方法。定义了不同偏好信息的群体满意度,基于群体判断与决策个体判断之问的偏离程度,与决策者进行交互,使得决策者的意见尽可能协调一致。根据修正意见求解得到方案排序,并通过算例说明方法的有效性。     

目标导向层次分析方法

对含有抽象属性的多属性层次结构而言,层次分析法即AHP（包括DIS-AHP、ABS-AHP、IDE-AHP和SUP-AHP四种具体方法）会因比率比较基准缺失、权重内涵模糊不清或方案评价不保序而缺乏科学理性。为发展AHP,基于摆幅置权（SW）判断模式和多属性决策属性价值公度方法,首先给出了能为层次结构抽象属性上的SW判断提供支持的规约性多属性决策属性价值公度方法,然后由此并结合多属性价值理论给出了能够克服现有层次分析法内在缺陷的目标导向层次分析方法即ToAHP。相对于AHP,ToAHP在判断模式与权重内涵、方法建构的理论基础和相关假设检验、方案评价保序与其内在数理依据上具有明显的相对科学合理性。应用分析表明：在输入信息可比的条件下,ToAHP明显优于AHP的四种分析方法之中最具可信性的SUP-AHP方法。     

Ensemble ranking: Aggregation of rankings produced by different multi-criteria decision-making methods

One of the essential problems in multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) is ranking a set of alternatives based on a set of criteria. In this regard, there exist several MCDM methods which rank the alternatives in different ways. As such, it would be worthwhile to try and arrive at a consensus on this important subject. In this paper, a new approach is proposed based on the half-quadratic (HQ) theory. The proposed approach determines an optimal weight for each of the MCDM ranking methods, which are used to compute the aggregated final ranking. The weight of each ranking method is obtained via a minimizer function that is inspired by the HQ theory, which automatically fulfills the basic constraints of weights in MCDM. The proposed framework also provides a consensus index and a trust level for the aggregated ranking. To illustrate the proposed approach, the evaluation and comparison of ontology alignment systems are modeled as an MCDM problem and the proposed framework is applied to the ontology alignment evaluation initiative (OAEI) 2018, for which the ranking of participating systems is of the utmost importance.     

Dominance intensity measure within fuzzy weight oriented MAUT: An application

We introduce a dominance intensity measuring method to derive a ranking of alternatives to deal with incomplete information in multi-criteria decision-making problems on the basis of multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) and fuzzy sets theory. We consider the situation where there is imprecision concerning decision-makers' preferences, and imprecise weights are represented by trapezoidal fuzzy weights. The proposed method is based on the dominance values between pairs of alternatives. These values can be computed by linear programming, as an additive multi-attribute utility model is used to rate the alternatives. Dominance values are then transformed into dominance intensity measures, used to rank the alternatives under consideration. Distances between fuzzy numbers based on the generalization of the left and right fuzzy numbers are utilized to account for fuzzy weights.     

Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method

In this paper, a new method, called best-worst method (BWM) is proposed to solve multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problems. In an MCDM problem, a number of alternatives are evaluated with respect to a number of criteria in order to select the best alternative(s). According to BWM, the best (e.g. most desirable, most important) and the worst (e.g. least desirable, least important) criteria are identified first by the decision-maker. Pairwise comparisons are then conducted between each of these two criteria (best and worst) and the other criteria. A maximin problem is then formulated and solved to determine the weights of different criteria. The weights of the alternatives with respect to different criteria are obtained using the same process. The final scores of the alternatives are derived by aggregating the weights from different sets of criteria and alternatives, based on which the best alternative is selected. A consistency ratio is proposed for the BWM to check the reliability of the comparisons. To illustrate the proposed method and evaluate its performance, we used some numerical examples and a real-word decision-making problem (mobile phone selection). For the purpose of comparison, we chose AHP (analytic hierarchy process), which is also a pairwise comparison-based method. Statistical results show that BWM performs significantly better than AHP with respect to the consistency ratio, and the other evaluation criteria: minimum violation, total deviation, and conformity. The salient features of the proposed method, compared to the existing MCDM methods, are: (1) it requires less comparison data; (2) it leads to more consistent comparisons, which means that it produces more reliable results.     

Chainwise Paired Comparisons

The pairwise comparison technique is a building block of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), which has been popularly used for multicriteria decision analysis. This paper develops a shortcut technique in which only n paired comparisons forming a closed chain are needed for n decision elements. Together with the development of a simple and intuitive measure of (inconsistency, this technique derives the relative weights of decision elements via easy step-by-step calculations on a spreadsheet format. Its performance has been tested on Saaty's wealth of nations example. It is important to notice that ranking and weights yielded from this alternative technique are identical to Harker's incomplete pairwise comparison solution for the same chain orientation for the example tested.     

Approximate weighting method for multiattribute decision problems with imprecise parameters

A multiattribute decision problem with imprecise parameters refers to one in which at least one of the parameters such as attribute weights and value scores is not represented by precise numerical values. Some well-known types of incomplete attribute weights are chosen and analyzed to find their extreme points. In doing so, we show that their coefficients matrix, by itself or by the change of variables, belongs to a class of M-matrix which enables us to find its extreme points readily due to the inverse-positive property.The knowledge of extreme points not only helps us to prioritize alternatives but also supports iterative exploration of decision-maker’s preference by investigating modified extreme points caused by additional preference information. A wide range of eligible attribute weights, however, often fail to result in the best alternative or a complete ranking of alternatives. To address this situation, we consider an approximate weighting method, so called the minimizing squared deviations from extreme points (MSD) which locates the attribute weights at the barycenter of a weight set. Accordingly, the MSD approach extends the rank order centroid (ROC) weighting method which is known to outperform other approximate weighting methods in case of ranked attribute weights. The evidence of the MSD’s superiority over a linear program-based weighting method is verified via simulation analysis under different forms of incomplete attribute weights.     

Fuzzy LINMAP approach to heterogeneous MADM considering comparisons of alternatives with hesitation degrees

Multiattribute decision making (MADM) with multiple formats of information, which is called heterogeneous MADM for short, is very complex and interesting in applications. The purpose of this paper is to extend the Linear Programming Technique for Multidimensional Analysis of Preference (LINMAP) for solving heterogeneous MADM problems which involve intuitionistic fuzzy (IF) sets (IFSs), trapezoidal fuzzy numbers (TrFNs), intervals and real numbers. In this method, DM's preference is given through pair-wise comparisons of alternatives with hesitation degrees which are represented as IFSs. The IF consistency and inconsistency indices are defined on the basis of pair-wise comparisons of alternatives. Each alternative is assessed on the basis of its distance to a fuzzy ideal solution (FIS) unknown a priori. Based on the defined IF consistency and inconsistency indices, we construct a new fuzzy mathematical programming model, which is solved by the developed method of fuzzy mathematical programming with IFSs. Once the FIS and the attribute weights are obtained, we can calculate the distances of all alternatives to the FIS, which are used to determine the ranking order of the alternatives. A supplier selection example is presented to demonstrate the validity and applicability of the proposed method.     

Fuzzy LINMAP approach to heterogeneous MADM considering comparisons of alternatives with hesitation degrees

Multiattribute decision making (MADM) with multiple formats of information, which is called heterogeneous MADM for short, is very complex and interesting in applications. The purpose of this paper is to extend the Linear Programming Technique for Multidimensional Analysis of Preference (LINMAP) for solving heterogeneous MADM problems which involve intuitionistic fuzzy (IF) sets (IFSs), trapezoidal fuzzy numbers (TrFNs), intervals and real numbers. In this method, DM's preference is given through pair-wise comparisons of alternatives with hesitation degrees which are represented as IFSs. The IF consistency and inconsistency indices are defined on the basis of pair-wise comparisons of alternatives. Each alternative is assessed on the basis of its distance to a fuzzy ideal solution (FIS) unknown a priori. Based on the defined IF consistency and inconsistency indices, we construct a new fuzzy mathematical programming model, which is solved by the developed method of fuzzy mathematical programming with IFSs. Once the FIS and the attribute weights are obtained, we can calculate the distances of all alternatives to the FIS, which are used to determine the ranking order of the alternatives. A supplier selection example is presented to demonstrate the validity and applicability of the proposed method.     

PAHAP: A Pairwise Aggregated Hierarchical Analysis of Ratio-Scale Preferences

In this paper, we present a Pairwise Aggregated Hierarchical Analysis of Ratio-Scale Preferences (PAHAP), a new method for solving discrete alternative multicriteria decision problems. Following the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), PAHAP uses pairwise preference judgments to assess the relative attractiveness of the alternatives. By first aggregating the pairwise judgment ratios of the alternatives across all criteria, and then synthesizing based on these aggregate measures, PAHAP determines overall ratio scale priorities and rankings of the alternatives which are not subject to rank reversal, provided that certain weak consistency requirements are satisfied. Hence, PAHAP can serve as a useful alternative to the original AHP if rank reversal is undesirable, for instance when the system is open and criterion scarcity does not affect the relative attractiveness of the alternatives. Moreover, the single matrix of pairwise aggregated ratings constructed in PAHAP provides useful insights into the decision maker's preference structure. PAHAP requires the same preference information as the original AHP (or, altematively, the same information as the Referenced AHP, if the criteria are compared based on average (total) value of the alternatives). As it is easier to implement and interpret than previously proposed variants of the conventional AHP which prevent rank reversal, PAHAP also appears attractive from a practitioner's viewpoint.     

A multi-criteria ranking algorithm (MCRA) for determining breast cancer therapy

Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths among women. The selection of an effective, patient-specific treatment plan for breast cancer has been a challenge for physicians because the decision process involves a vast number of treatment alternatives as well as treatment decision criteria, such as the stage of the cancer (e.g., in situ, invasive, metastasis), tumor characteristics, biomarker-related risks, and patient-related risks. Furthermore, every patient's case is unique, requiring a patient-specific treatment plan, while there is no standard procedure even for a particular stage of the breast cancer. In this paper, we first determine a comprehensive set of criteria for selecting the best breast cancer therapy by interviewing medical oncologists and reviewing the literature. We then present two analytical hierarchy process (AHP) models for quantifying the weights of criteria for breast cancer treatment in two sequential steps: primary and secondary treatment therapy. Using the weights of criteria from the AHP model, we propose a new multi-criteria ranking algorithm (MCRA), which evaluates a large variety of patient scenarios and provides the best patient-tailored breast cancer treatment alternatives based on the input of nine medical oncologists. We then validate the predictions of the multi-criteria ranking algorithm by comparing treatment ranks of the algorithm with ranks of five different oncologists, and show that algorithm rankings match or are statistically significantly correlated with the overall expert ranking in most cases. Our multi-criteria ranking algorithm could be used as an accessible decision-support tool to aid oncologists and educate patients for determining appropriate and effective treatment alternatives for breast cancer. Our approach is also general in the sense that it could be adapted to solve other complex decision-making problems in medicine, healthcare, as well as other service and manufacturing industries.