2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.cie.2017.10.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Approaches to group decision making with linguistic preference relations based on multiplicative consistency

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
21
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
0
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Jin et al [40] proposed the definition of multiplicative consistent linguistic preference relation based on the multiplicative consistency of fuzzy preference relation as follows:…”
Section: -Tuple Flpr and Multiplicative Consistency Of Flprmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Jin et al [40] proposed the definition of multiplicative consistent linguistic preference relation based on the multiplicative consistency of fuzzy preference relation as follows:…”
Section: -Tuple Flpr and Multiplicative Consistency Of Flprmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a group decision-making (GDM) problem, preference relations (PRs) are widely used tools for comparing two alternatives at a time. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] PRs provide efficient ways to represent the preference levels of the experts by integrating two alternatives in pairs. Some PRs are formed in the last few decades based on various information representation types.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(2) Compared to the specific evaluation values, natural languages such as “excellent”, “good” or “bad” are more intuitive for representing the opinions of decision makers. Therefore, preference information decision analysis methods based on linguistic form have emerged (Jin et al, ; Liu & Chen, ), especially fuzzy linguistic decision‐making, which has been widely studied recently (Liu, Liu, & Merigó, ). These work on group decision‐making focus on collecting the judgement preferences of group experts and decision aggregation matrix based on operators, but ignore the influence of group interaction and affective state on decision preferences, making the discussion of decision‐making consistency easily deviate from the true wishes of group experts.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%