2014
DOI: 10.3233/ifs-130984
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Intuitionistic multiplicative aggregation operators with their application in group decision making

Abstract: Today, preference relations are among the most common types of expressing decision maker's preference information found in uncertainty research. Intuitionistic multiplicative preference relation can reflect our intuition more objectively and it was proposed by Xia et al. [20] recently. In this article, we first develop some aggregation operators for intuitionistic multiplicative numbers, such as the intuitionistic multiplicative weighted averaging operator and intuitionistic multiplicative ordered weighted av… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Example 9 [29] Consider an MADM problem consists of the selection of the best contractor(s) from the given five builders K i which are evaluated under the four attributes B j whose weight vector is 0.35, 0.25, 0.15n and 0.25. The decision matrix given by an expert to evaluate them is given in [29] (see Tables IV). The results for different MAGDM methods [17,18,20,21,24,27,29,34] are listed in Table 6. It is ended that K 4 is the most suited alternative by collecting the MAGDM systems.…”
Section: Comparative Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Example 9 [29] Consider an MADM problem consists of the selection of the best contractor(s) from the given five builders K i which are evaluated under the four attributes B j whose weight vector is 0.35, 0.25, 0.15n and 0.25. The decision matrix given by an expert to evaluate them is given in [29] (see Tables IV). The results for different MAGDM methods [17,18,20,21,24,27,29,34] are listed in Table 6. It is ended that K 4 is the most suited alternative by collecting the MAGDM systems.…”
Section: Comparative Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Each expert evaluates the candidates on the scale of 1/9-9 and represents their information in terms of IMNs. By taking this information, the overall score of the candidates are obtained by different approaches [17,18,20,21,24,27,34] and by the proposed approach. The effects of them are recorded in Table 7 which confers its attainable view.…”
Section: Comparative Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Because of the effectiveness, IMPR has attracted growing concerns. Researchers studied the operations and comparison method [ 13 ], measurements [ 14 , 15 ], consensus models [ 16 ], and aggregation models [ 17 , 18 ] of intuitionistic multiplicative sets (IMSs). Furthermore, the IMPR has been combined with different weighting methods and ranking techniques to handle the MCDM problems.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The consensus problem is very important in group decision making (GDM; Ben‐Arieh and Chen, ; Bordogna et al., ; Chiclana et al., ; Herrera et al., ; Yu, , ; Yu and Fang, ). A number of approaches have been put forward for different types of problems, including ordinal ranking problems (Cook et al., , Cook and Seiford, , ), fuzzy preference relations (Chiclana et al., ; Kacprzyk and Fedrizzi, ; Parreiras et al., ; Wu and Xu, ; Xu et al., ; Xu and Cai, ; Zhang et al., ), multiplicative preference relations (Dong et al., ; Gong et al., ; Jensen, ; van den Honert, ; Wu and Xu, ; Xu, ; Yeh et al., ), multiattribute GDM problems (Fu and Yang, , ; Xu, ; Xu and Wu, ; Zhang et al., ), etc.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%