Issue:Some remarks on assigning weights to experts in multi-attribute group decision making using intuitionistic fuzzy sets

From Ifigenia, the wiki for intuitionistic fuzzy sets and generalized nets
Jump to: navigation, search
shortcut
http://ifigenia.org/wiki/issue:nifs/26/3/43-51
Title of paper: Some remarks on assigning weights to experts in multi-attribute group decision making using intuitionistic fuzzy sets
Author(s):
Eulalia Szmidt
Systems Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, ul. Newelska 6, 01-447 Warsaw, Poland
Warsaw School of Information Technology, ul. Newelska 6, 01-447 Warsaw, Poland
szmidtAt sign.pngibspan.waw.pl
Janusz Kacprzyk
Systems Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, ul. Newelska 6, 01-447 Warsaw, Poland
Warsaw School of Information Technology, ul. Newelska 6, 01-447 Warsaw, Poland
szmidtAt sign.pngibspan.waw.pl
Published in: Notes on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets, Volume 26 (2020), Number 3, pages 43–51
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7546/nifs.2020.26.3.43-51
Download: Download-icon.png PDF (157  Kb, Info) Download-icon.png
Abstract: We discuss how to assign weights to the experts participating in group decision making in intuitionistic fuzzy environment which means that the options are expressed via intuitionistic fuzzy sets (IFSs, for short). We use the three term representation of the IFSs. A question arises if by making use of the expert’s opinions concerning a problem considered is it possible to assess the experts. The typical approaches from literature are recalled and discussed. Next, we propose two novel methods of assigning weights to experts. However, the methods are not ideal as starting from expert’s opinions concerning the options considered. Alas, while not knowing a real solution of a problem the experts try to solve, it is difficult to tell who is right and who is wrong whereas we do not have additional knowledge about the experts. The advantage of the method proposed is that we avoid assumptions about a real optimal solution which is not known. Instead, we pay attention if an expert is able to tell in a convincing way which option is good and which one is bad by pointing out pros and cons of an option in a definite way.
Keywords: Intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Three term representation of IFSs, Multi-attribute group decision-making, Assigning weights to the experts.
AMS Classification: 03E72, 34Gxx.
References:
  1. Atanassov, K. (1983). Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets. VII ITKR Session. Sofia (Centr. Sci.-Techn. Libr. of Bulg. Acad. of Sci., 1697/84) (in Bulgarian).
  2. Atanassov, K. (1999). Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets: Theory and Applications. Springer-Verlag.
  3. Atanassov, K. (2012). On Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets Theory. Springer-Verlag.
  4. Atanassova, V. (2004). Strategies for Decision Making in the Conditions of Intuitionistic Fuzziness. Int. Conf. 8th Fuzzy Days, Dortmund, Germany, 263–269.
  5. Bujnowski, P., Szmidt, E., Kacprzyk, J. (2014). Intuitionistic Fuzzy Decision Trees – a new Approach. In: Rutkowski L., Korytkowski M., Scherer R., Tadeusiewicz R., Zadeh L., Zurada J. (Eds.): Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing, Part I. Springer, Switzerland, 181–192.
  6. Bustince, H., Mohedano, V., Barrenechea, E., Pagola, M. (2006). An algorithm for calculating the threshold of an image representing uncertainty through A-IFSs. IPMU’2006, 2383–2390.
  7. Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and Applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
  8. Pawlak, Z., & Słowinski, R. (1994). Rough set approach to multi-attribute decision analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 72, 443–459.
  9. Ramanathan, R., & Ganesh, L. S. (1994). Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members’ weightages. European Journal of Operational Research, 79, 249–265.
  10. Roeva, O., & Michalikova, A. (2013). Generalized net model of intuitionistic fuzzy logic control of genetic algorithm parameters. Notes on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets, 19 (2), 71–76.
  11. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw- Hill, New York.
  12. Szmidt, E. (2014). Distances and Similarities in Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets. Springer.
  13. Szmidt, E., & Baldwin, J. (2006). Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set Functions, Mass Assignment Theory, Possibility Theory and Histograms. 2006 IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence, 237–243.
  14. Szmidt, E., & Kacprzyk, J. (1997). On measuring distances between intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Notes on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets, 3 (4), 1–13.
  15. Szmidt, E., & Kacprzyk, J. (2000). Distances between intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114 (3), 505–518.
  16. Szmidt, E., & Kacprzyk, J. (2001). Entropy for intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 118 (3), 467–477.
  17. Szmidt, E., & Kacprzyk, J. (2006). Distances Between Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets: Straightforward Approaches May Not Work. IEEE Intelligent System’06, London, 716–721.
  18. Szmidt, E., & Kacprzyk, J. (2007). Some problems with entropy measures for the Atanassov intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Applications of Fuzzy Sets Theory. LNAI 4578, 291–297.
  19. Szmidt, E., & Kacprzyk, J. (2007). A New Similarity Measure for Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets: Straightforward Approaches May Not Work. 2007 IEEE Conf. on Fuzzy Systems, 481–486.
  20. Szmidt, E., & Kacprzyk, J. (2009). Ranking of Intuitionistic Fuzzy Alternatives in a Multi-criteria Decision Making Problem. In: Proceedings of the conference: NAFIPS 2009, Cincinnati, USA, June 14-17, 2009, IEEE, ISBN: 978-1-4244-4577-6.
  21. Szmidt, E., & Kacprzyk, J. (2018). Selection of the attributes in intuitionistic fuzzy models. Notes on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets, 24 (4), 63–71, DOI: 10.7546/nifs.2018.
  22. Szmidt E., Kacprzyk, J., & Bujnowski, P. (2020) Attribute Selection for Sets of Data Expressed by Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets. 2020 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE), 1–7.
  23. Szmidt, E., & Kukier, M. (2006). Classification of Imbalanced and Overlapping Classes using Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets. IEEE IS’06, London, 722–727.
  24. Szmidt, E., & Kukier, M. (2008). A New Approach to Classification of Imbalanced Classes via Atanassov’s Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets. In: Hsiao-Fan Wang (Ed.): Intelligent Data Analysis : Developing New Methodologies Through Pattern Discovery and Recovery. Idea Group, 85–101.
  25. Szmidt, E., & Kukier, M. (2008) Atanassov’s intuitionistic fuzzy sets in classification of imbalanced and overlapping classes. In: Panagiotis Chountas, Ilias Petrounias, Janusz Kacprzyk (Eds.): Intelligent Techniques and Tools for Novel System Architectures. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 455–471.
  26. Yang, Q., Du, P.-A., Wang, Y., & Liang, B. (2017). A rough set approach for determining weights of decision makers in group decision making. PLoS ONE 12(2): e0172679. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0172679.
  27. Yue, Z. L. (2013). Group decision making with multi-attribute interval data. Information Fusion, 14, 551–561.
  28. Yue, Z. L. (2012). Approach to group decision making based on determining the weights of experts by using projection method. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 36, 2896–2906.
  29. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338–353.
Citations:

The list of publications, citing this article may be empty or incomplete. If you can provide relevant data, please, write on the talk page.