Some Generalized Single Valued Neutrosophic Linguistic Operators and Their Application to Multiple Attribute Group Decision Making
-
Ruipu Tan
,
Wende Zhang
Abstract
This paper proposes a group decision making method based on entropy of neutrosophic linguistic sets and generalized single valued neutrosophic linguistic operators. This method is applied to solve the multiple attribute group decision making problems under single valued neutrosophic liguistic environment, in which the attribute weights are completely unknown. First, the attribute weights are obtained by using the entropy of neutrosophic linguistic sets. Then three generalized single valued neutrosophic linguistic operators are introduced, including the generalized single valued neutrosophic linguistic weighted averaging (GSVNLWA) operator, the generalized single valued neutrosophic linguistic ordered weighted averaging (GSVNLOWA) operator and the generalized single valued neutrosophic linguistic hybrid averaging (GSVNLHA) operator, and the GSVNLWA and GSVNLHA operators are used to aggregate information. Furthermore, similarity measure based on single valued neutrosophic linguistic numbers is defined and used to sort the alternatives and obtain the best alternative. Finally, an illustrative example is given to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of the developed method.
1 Introduction
In real decision making problems, the decision information is usually inaccurate uncertain or incomplete. So it is more and more difficult to make scientific and reasonable decisions. Under these circumstances, Zadeh[1] proposed the remarkable theory of fuzzy sets (FS), where the membership degree is represented by a real number between zero and one, is regarded as an important tool for solving multiple attribute decision making problems. Subsequently, Atanassov[2] introduced the idea of intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS) in 1983, in which each member having a membership degree as well as non-membership degree. This is an extension of Zadehs FS. Furthermore, hesitant fuzzy set (HFS) were introduced by Torra[3] to support the decision makers who are hesitant in expressing preference in a decision making. Although these sets are very successfully applied to multiple attribute decision making problems[4–6], FS and IFS cannot describe and deal with the indeterminate and inconsistent information that exits in real world[7]. Take vote as an example, thirty percent vote Yes, twenty percent vote No, ten percent give up, and forty percent are undecided. This is beyond the scope of IFSs, and it cannot distinguish the information between giving up and undecided. Hence further generalizations of fuzzy and intuitionistic fuzzy sets are required.
Smarandache[7] originally proposed the concept of a neutrosophic set (NS) by adding an independent indeterminacy-membership on the basis of IFS which means decision makers use truth-membership, indeterminacy-membership and falsity-membership to describe their judgment on an object respectively[8]. The neutrosophic set is a powerful general formal framework which generalizes the concepts of the classic set, FS, IFS and paraconsistent set etc. Recently, neutrosophic set have become an interesting research topic and made some achievements. Wang, et al.[9, 10] proposed the single valued neutrosophic set (SVNS) and interval neutrosophic set (INS), and provided the set theoretic operators and various properties of them. Wang, et al.[11] defined the multi-valued neutrosophic sets and multi-valued neutrosophic number, and proposed the TODIM method under multi-valued neutrosophic number environment. Majumdar, et al.[12] introduced the entropy of SVNS and three similarity measures. Also, Ye[13] proposed a cross-entropy measure of single valued neutrosophic and applied it to multiple attribute decision making problems. And Ye[14] defined the similarity measure of INS based on Hamming and Euclidean distances, and applied it to multiple attribute decision making problems under interval neutrosophic circumstance. Zhang, et al.[15] developed interval neutrosophic number weighted arithmetic averaging (INNWAA) operator and interval neutrosophic weighted geometric averaging (INNWGA) operator, and their application in multicriteria decision making problems. Ye[16] proposed a multiple attribute decision making method based on the possibility degree ranking method and ordered weighted aggregation (OWA) operators of interval neutrosophic numbers. Liu, et al.[17] introduced the single valued neutrosophic normalized weighted Bonferroni operator and applied it to the multiple attribute decision making method.
However, in real multiple attribute decision making problems, because of the ambiguity of peoples thinking and the complexity of objective things, the attribute values cannot always be expressed by crisp numbers, and it is easier to be expressed by linguistic terms, such as good, general, and poor. In the last decades, a number of linguistic multiple attribute decision making problems and linguistic aggregation operators were developed[18–23]. Herrera, et al.[18] proposed a model of consensus in group decision making under linguistic assessments. Xu[19] introduced some generalized induced linguistic aggregation operators to assemble the linguistic information. Wei[20] proposed a grey relational analysis method for 2-tuple linguistic, and applied it to multiple attribute group decision making with incomplete weight information. Wang, et al.[21] proposed the concept of the intuitionistic linguistic set, the intuitionistic linguistic number, and the intuitionistic two-semantic. Wang, et al.[22, 23] introduced some intuitionistic linguistic aggregation operators, and applied these operators to solve decision making problems.
In order to make full use of the merits of the single valued neutrosophic set and linguistic term set, Ye[24] introduced the concept of a single valued neutrosophic linguistic set, and define basic operational relations. Motived by the above literature, this paper proposed a multiple attribute group decision making method based on generalized single valued neutrosophic linguistic operators. This paper is structured as follows. The preliminaries are provided in Section 2. In Section 3, three generalized single valued neutrosophic linguistic operators are introduced, including the generalized single valued neutrosophic linguistic weighted averaging (GSVNLWA) operator, the generalized single valued neutrosophic linguistic ordered weighted averaging (GSVNLOWA) operator and the generalized single valued neutrosophic linguistic hybrid averaging (GSVNLHA) operator. In Section 4, a multiple attribute group decision making method based on entropy of neutrosophic linguistic sets and generalized single valued neutrosophic linguistic operators is proposed. An illustrative example is presented to demonstrate the application of the proposed method in Section 5. Section 6 is the conclusion.
2 Preliminaries
This section briefly reviewed the concept of the neutrosophic set (NS), the single valued neutrosophic set (SVNS), the linguistic term set (LS) and the single valued neutrosophic linguistic set (SVNLS), then defined the distance between single valued neutrosophic linguistic numbers (SVNLNs) and the entropy of single valued neutrosophic linguistic sets, which will be used in the rest of the paper.
2.1 The Neutrosophic Set and the Single Valued Neutrosophic Set
Definition 1
(see [9]) Let X be a space of points (objects), with a generic element in X denoted by x. A neutrosophic set A in X is characterized by a truth-membership function TA(x), an indeterminacy-membership function IA(x), a falsity-membership function FA(x). The function FA(x), IA(x) and FA(x) are real standard or nonstandard subsets of ]0–, 1+[, i.e., TA(x) : X → ]0–, 1+[, IA(x) : X →]0–, 1+[, and FA(x) : X → ]0–, 1+[. Therefore, the sum of TA(x), IA(x) and FA(x) satisfies the condition 0– ≤ supTA(x) + sup IA(x) + sup FA(x) < 3+.
Definition 2
(see [11]) Let X be a space of points (objects) with generic elements in X denoted by x. A simple valued neutrosophic set A in X is characterized by a truth-membership function TA(x), an indeterminacy-membership function IA(x), a falsity-membership function FA(x), where TA(x) ∈ [0, 1], IA(x) ∈ [0, 1], FA(x) ∈ [0, 1] for each point x in X. Then, a simple valued neutrosophic set A can be expressed as:
Thus, the simple valued neutrosophic set satisfies the condition 0 ≤ TA(x)+IA(x)+FA(x) ≤ 3.
2.2 The Linguistic Term Set
Definition 3
(see [25, 26]) Let S = {sθ |θ = 0, 1, · · ·, τ} be a finite and totally ordered discrete term set, where τ is the even value and sθ represents a possible value for a linguistic variable. For example, when τ = 8, a set S could be given as follows:
In these cases, it is usually required that there exist the following[25, 26]:
A negation operator: Neg(si) = sτ–i,
The set is ordered: si ≤ sj if and only if i ≤ j,
Maximum operator: max(si, sj) = si, if i ≥ j,
Minimum operator: min(si, sj) = si, if i ≤ j.
In order to preserve all the given information, Xu[26] extended the discrete term set S to a continuous term set S̅ = {sθ |θ ∈ [0, q]}, where, if sθ ∈ S, then we call sθ the original term, otherwise, we call sθ the virtual term. In general, the decision maker uses the original linguistic terms to evaluate alternatives, and the virtual linguistic terms can only appear in the actual calculation[25].
Consider two linguistic terms sα, sβ ∈ S̅, μ > 0, the operations are defined as follows[26]:
sα ⨁ sβ = sα+β,
μsα = sμα,
sα/sβ = sα/β.
2.3 The Single Valued Neutrosophic Linguistic Set
Definition 4
(see [24]) Let X be a finite universal set. A single valued neutrosophic linguistic set (SVNLS) in X is defined as follows:
where sθ(x) ∈ S, TA(x) ∈ [0, 1], IA(x) ∈ [0, 1], and FA(x) ∈ [0, 1], with the condition 0 ≤ TA(x) + IA(x) + FA(x) ≤ 3 for any x ∈ X. The functions TA(x), IA(x) and FA(x) represent, respectively, the truth-membership degree, the indeterminacy-membership degree, and the falsity-membership degree of the element x in X to the linguistic variable sθ(x).
For convenience, we can use
Definition 5
(see [24]) Let
Furthermore, for any two SVNLNs
and any real numbers λ, λ1 ≥ 0, λ2 ≥ 0, then, there are the following properties:
a1 ⨁ a2 = a2 ⨁ a1,
a1 ⨂ a2 = a2 ⨂ a1,
λ(a1 ⨁ a2) = λa1 ⨁ λa2,
λ1a1 ⨁ λ2a1 = (λ1 + λ2)a1,
Definition 6
Let
Definition 7
(see [12]) Let
2.4 Entropy of Single Valued Neutrosophic Linguistic Set
The entropy of SVNLS was defined to determine the attribute weights based on the intuitionistic fuzzy entropy proposed by literature [27].
Definition 8
Let X = (x1, x2, . . . xn) be a finite universal set. A SVNLS in X is
In the evaluation matrix of SVNLS F(aij), here aij represents the evaluation of alternative x1 with respect to an attribute cj, the entropy of attribute weights can be calculated based on formula E(A). The entropy value represents the uncertainty of attribute value, with the greater of entropy value, the attribute value will be more uncertainty. Then weights can be derived from the following formula:
3 The Generalized Single Valued Neutrosophic Linguistic Operators
Based on the generalized intuitionistic fuzzy operators proposed by the literature [28] and Definition 5, three generalized single valued neutrosophic linguistic operators were introduced in the following section.
Definition 9
Generalized single valued neutrosophic linguistic weighted averaging (GSVNLWA) operator
Let
Then the function GSVNLWA is called a GSVNLWA operator, where sθ ∈ S is a linguistic variable, λ > 0, ω = (ω1, ω2, . . ., ωn)T is a weight vector associated with the GSVNLWA operator, with ωj ∈ [0, 1], and
Theorem 1
Let
where λ > 0, ω = (ω1, ω2, · · · , ωn)T is a weight vector associated with the GSVNLWA operator, with ωj ∈ [0, 1] and
The parameter λ plays a regulatory role during the information aggregation process. When the parameter λ was set to a special number, the GSVNLWA operator can be reduced.
For example, when λ = 1, then,
Proof
The Equation (2) can be derived from Equation (1) using Definition 5 in Section 2.3. In the following, we first prove
by using mathematical induction on n.
For n = 2: Since
then
If Equation (4) holds for n = k, that is,
then, when n = k + 1, by the operational laws in Definition 5,
i.e., Equation (4) holds for n = k + 1. Thus, Equation (4) holds for all n.
Then
Theorem 2
(Idempotency) Let
Proof
By Definition 5, we have
Theorem 3
(Boundedness) Let
Proof
Since amin = min(a1, a2, ⋯ , an) and amax = max(a1, a2, ⋯ , an), then
Thus, Equation (5) always holds.
Theorem 4
(Monotonity) Let
Proof
Since
Thus, Equation (6) always holds.
Definition 10
Generalized single valued neutrosophic linguistic ordered weighted averaging (GSVNLOWA) operator
Let
where sθ ∈S is a linguistic variable, λ > 0, w = (w1,w2, ⋯ ,wn) is an associated weight vector such that wj ∈ [0,1], j = 1, 2, ⋯ ,n, and
Theorem 5
Let
where λ > 0, w = (w1,w2,⋯,wn)Tis an associated weight vector such that wj ∈ [0, 1], j = 1,2,·⋯, n , and
of (1,2,⋯,n), with the conditionaσ(j-1)≥ aσ(j).
The parameter λ plays a regulatory role during the information aggregation process. When the parameter λ was set to a special number, the GSVNLOWA operator can be reduced.
For example, when λ = 1, then,
The GSVNLOWA operator has some properties similar to those of the GSVNLWA operator.
Definition 11
Generalized single valued neutrosophic linguistic hybrid averaging (GSVNLHA) operators
Let
where sθ ∈S is a linguistic variable, λ > 0, w = (w1,w2, ⋯ ,wn)T is an associated weight vector such that wj ∈ [0,1], j = 1,2, ⋯ ,n, and
Theorem 6
Let
where λ > 0, w = (w1, w2,⋯, wn)Tis an associated weight vector of GSVNLHA operator, with wj ∈ [0, 1], j = 1,2,⋯,n, and
The parameter λ plays a regulatory role during the information aggregation process. When the parameter λ was set to a special number, the GSVNLHA operator can be reduced.
For example, when λ = 1, then,
The GSVNLHA operator has some properties similar to those of the GSVNLWA operator.
4 Group Decision Making Method Based on the Entropy of Neutrosophic Linguistic Sets and the GSVNLOWA and GSVNLHA Operators
This section proposes a method for multiple attribute group decision making problems by means of the entropy of neutrosophic linguistic sets and the GSVNLOWA and GSVNLHA operators under single valued neutrosophic linguistic environment.
Considering the multiple attribute group decision making problems based on SVNLNs, let A = {a1, a2, ⋯, am} be the set of alternatives, and C = {c1, c2,⋯, cn} be the set of attributes. ωj is the weight of the attribute cj (j = 1,2,⋯, n), where ωj ∈[0,1] (j = 1,2,⋯, n), and
The decision procedure for the proposed method is as follows:
Step 1 Transform the decision matrix.
Generally, attributes can be categorized into two types: benefit attributes and cost attributes. In order to eliminate the influence of the attribute types, we need to convert the cost type to the benefit type. The SVNLN decision matrix
Step 2 Determine the weights of attributes.
Based on the entropy of neutrosophic linguistic set, we can obtain the attribute weight vector
Step 3 Calculate the comprehensive evaluation value of each alternative.
According to the GSVNLWA operator, we can calculate the comprehensive evaluation value
Step 4 Aggregate the decision information of each decision maker to the collective information by GSVNLHA operator, and get the group comprehensive evaluation value ai of each
alternative, where
Step 5 Rank S(ai, a+) in descending order according to the Definition 6 and Definition 7 described in 2.3, where the ideal solution a+ = (s6, (1,0,0)). Generally speaking, the greater the similarity value, the better the alternative.
Step 6 End.
5 Illustrative Example
An illustrative example is used to demonstrate the application of the proposed decision making method under single valued neutrosophic linguistic environment. It is about investment alternatives for a multiple attribute group decision making problem adapted from [24]. An investment company wants to invest a sum of money in the best option. There is panel with four possible alternatives to invest the money: 1) a1 is a car company; 2) a2 is a food company; 3) a3 is a computer company; 4) a4 is an arms company. The investment company must take a decision according to the following three attributes: 1) c1 is the risk; 2) c2 is the growth; 3) c3 is the environmental impact. The four possible alternatives of ai(i = 1, 2, 3, 4) are to be evaluated using the single valued neutrosophic linguistic information by some decision makers or experts under the three attributes of cj(j = 1, 2, 3). Assume that the set of three experts is D = {d1, d2, d3}, and the weight vector of the three experts is e = (0.3700, 0.3300, 0.3000)T. The experts evaluate these alternatives by SVNLNs under the linguistic term set S = {s0 = extremely poor, s1 = very poor, s2 = poor, s3 = medium, s4 = good, s5 = very good, s6 = extremely good.
The evaluation of an alternative ai (i = 1, 2, 3, 4) with respect to an attribute cj (j = 1, 2, 3) is obtained from the experts. The evaluation values can be represented by SVNLNs. For example, the SVNLNs of an alternative a1 with respect to an attribute c1 is given as
Step 1 Normalize decision matrices. Here c1 and c2 are benefit attributes, and c3 is a cost attribute, so c3 need to be standardized, then the normalized matrices can be obtained as follows:
Step 2 By Definition 8 we can calculate the weight vector of attribute for each decision matrix:
Then the final attribute weight is the followings:
Step 3 By Equation (3) we can calculate the comprehensive evaluation value of each alternative for each decision matrix as follows:
Step 4 By Equation (12) we can calculate the group comprehensive evaluation value of each alternative as follows:
where the associated weight vector is w = (0.2429, 0.5142, 0.2429)T, which determined by the literature [29]. And the sorting method is based on the distance between an alternative and the ideal solution a+ = (s6, (1,0,0)).
Step 5 By using Definition 6 and Definition 7, we can calculate the similarity value between the alternative ai and ideal solution a+ as follows:
According to the similarity value, the ranking order of the four alternatives is a4 ≻ a2 ≻ a3 ≻ a1, and the best alternative is a4, that is to say, the investment company should invest in arms companies to get the maximum benefits.
Obviously, the ranking orders and the best alternative in this paper are in accordance with ones of [24].
In addition, the method proposed in this paper differs from the existing single valued neutrosophic linguistic multiple attribute group decision making method[24], and has some special characteristics. First, the method of weight calculation is different, and the method based on entropy is more objective than the subjective assumption of the paper [24]. Second, the method of aggregation for decision information is different. The method proposed in this paper using GSVNLWA operator and GSVNLHA operator not only considers the importance of attributes, but also takes the importance of position into account, so it is more general than the method in [24] which only using SVNLWA operator. Last, the subscript of linguistic variable starts from zero in this paper. This representation is more accurate than the one in [24]. For example, in our paper, the neg(s2 = poor) = s6-2 = s4 = good but in paper [24], the neg( s3= poor) = s7-3 = s4 = medium, so it is not in conformity with the language habits. Therefore, our method is more reasonable and effective.
6 Conclusion
This paper proposed a group decision making method based on entropy of neutrosophic linguistic sets and generalized single valued neutrosophic linguistic operators. The entropy of neutrosophic linguistic sets was defined to determine the weight of attribute. It introduced three generalized single valued neutrosophic linguistic operators and analyzed their properties, and introduced the similarity measure method of single valued neutrosophic linguistic numbers. Finally, an illustrative example was given to demonstrate the application of the proposed method. Therefore, the proposed method enriched and developed the theory and method of group decision making problems and provided a new way to solving group decision making problems.
References
[1] Zadeh L A. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 1965, 8(3): 338–353.10.21236/AD0608981Search in Google Scholar
[2] Atanassov K T. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1986, 20(1): 87–96.10.1016/S0165-0114(86)80034-3Search in Google Scholar
[3] Torra V. Hesitant fuzzy sets. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 2010, 25(6): 529–530.10.1002/int.20418Search in Google Scholar
[4] Li D F, Wan S P. A fuzzy inhomogenous multiattribute group decision making approach to solve outsourcing provider selection problems. Knowledge-Based Systems, 2014, 67: 71–89.10.1016/j.knosys.2014.06.006Search in Google Scholar
[5] Xu Z S. Intuitionistic preference relations and their application in group decision making. Information Science, 2007, 177(11): 2363–2379.10.1016/j.ins.2006.12.019Search in Google Scholar
[6] Chen N, Xu Z S, Xia M M. Interval-valued hesitant preference relations and their applications to group decision making. Knowlege-Based System, 2013, 37(2): 528–540.10.1016/j.knosys.2012.09.009Search in Google Scholar
[7] Smarandache F. A unifying field in logics. Neutrosophy: Neutrosophic probability, set and logic. American Research Press, Rehoboth, 1999.Search in Google Scholar
[8] Biswas P, Pramanik S, Giri B C. TOPSIS method for multi-attribute group decision-making under single-valued neutrosophic environment. Neural Computing & Applications, 2016, 27(3): 727–737.10.1007/s00521-015-1891-2Search in Google Scholar
[9] Wang H, Smarandache F, Zhang Y Q, Sunderraman R. Interval neutrosophic sets and logic: Theory and applications in computing. Hexis, Phoenix, AZ, 2005.Search in Google Scholar
[10] Wang H B, Smarandache F, Zhang Y Q, et al. Single valued neutrosophic sets. Multispace and Multistructure, 2010, 4(10): 410–413.Search in Google Scholar
[11] Wang J J, Li X E. TODIM method with multi-valued neutrosophic sets. Control and Decision, 2015, 30(6): 1139–1142 (in Chinese).Search in Google Scholar
[12] Majumdar P, Samanta S K. On similarity and entropy of neutrosophic sets. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 2014, 26(3): 1245–1252.10.3233/IFS-130810Search in Google Scholar
[13] Ye J. Single valued neutrosophic cross-entropy for multicriteria decision making problems. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 2014, 38(3): 1170–1175.10.1016/j.apm.2013.07.020Search in Google Scholar
[14] Ye J. Similarity measures between interval neutrosophic sets and their applications in multicriteria decision-making. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 2014, 26(1): 165–172.10.3233/IFS-120724Search in Google Scholar
[15] Zhang H Y, Wang J Q, Chen X H. Interval neutrosophic sets and their application in multicriteria decision making problems. The Scientific World Journal, 2014: 1–15.10.1155/2014/645953Search in Google Scholar
[16] Ye J. Multiple attribute decision-making method based on the possibility degree ranking method and ordered weighted aggregation operators of interval neutrosophic numbers. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 2015, 28(3): 1307–1317.10.3233/IFS-141416Search in Google Scholar
[17] Liu P D, Wang Y M. Multiple attribute decision-making method based on single-valued neutrosophic normalized weighted Bonferroni mean. Neural Computing & Applications, 2014, 25(7–8): 2001–2010.10.1007/s00521-014-1688-8Search in Google Scholar
[18] Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Verdegay J L. A model of consensus in group decision making under linguistic assessments. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1996, 78(1): 73–87.10.1016/0165-0114(95)00107-7Search in Google Scholar
[19] Xu Z S. On generalized induced linguistic aggregation operators. International Journal of General Systems, 2006, 35(1): 17–28.10.1080/03081070500422836Search in Google Scholar
[20] Wei G W. Grey relational analysis method for 2-tuple linguistic multiple attribute group decision making with incomplete weight information. Expert Systems with Applications, 2011, 38(5): 4824–4828.10.1016/j.eswa.2010.09.163Search in Google Scholar
[21] Wang J Q, Li J J. The multi-criteria group decision making method based on multi-granularity intuitionistic two semantics. Science & Technology Information, 2009, 33: 8–9.Search in Google Scholar
[22] Wang J Q, Li H B. Multi-criteria decision-making method based on aggregation operators for intuitionistic linguistic fuzzy numbers. Control Decision, 2010, 25(10): 1571–1584.Search in Google Scholar
[23] Wang X F, Wang J J, Deng S Y. Some geometric operators for aggregating intuitionistic linguistic information, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 2015, 17(2): 268–278.10.1007/s40815-015-0007-6Search in Google Scholar
[24] Ye J. An extend TOPSIS method for multiple attribute group decision making based on single valued neutrosophic linguistic numbers. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 2015, 28(1): 247–255.10.3233/IFS-141295Search in Google Scholar
[25] Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E. Linguistic decision analysis: Steps for solving decision problems under linguistic information. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2000, 115(1): 67–82.10.1016/S0165-0114(99)00024-XSearch in Google Scholar
[26] Xu Z S. Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations in group decision making. Omega, 2005, 33(3): 249–254.10.1016/j.omega.2004.04.008Search in Google Scholar
[27] Li P, Wu J M, Zhu J J. Stochastic multi-criteria decision-making methods based on new intuitionistic fuzzy distance. Systems Engineering — Theory & Practice, 2014, 36(4): 1517–1524.Search in Google Scholar
[28] Zhao H, Xu Z S, Ni M F, et al. Generalized aggregaton operators for intuitionistic fuzzy sets. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 2010, 25(1): 1–30.10.1002/int.20386Search in Google Scholar
[29] Xu Z S. An overview of methods for determining OWA weights. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 2005, 20(8): 843–865.10.1002/int.20097Search in Google Scholar
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Optimization of Empty Pallets Dispatching Based on Different Transportation Modes
- Optimal Implementation Strategy of Carbon Emission Reduction Policy Instruments in Consideration of Cost Efficiency
- On Consistency in AHP and Fuzzy AHP
- Some Generalized Single Valued Neutrosophic Linguistic Operators and Their Application to Multiple Attribute Group Decision Making
- An Asset Allocation Model and Its Solving Method
- Performance Analysis of a Discrete-Time Queue with Working Breakdowns and Searching for the Optimum Service Rate in Working Breakdown Period
Articles in the same Issue
- Optimization of Empty Pallets Dispatching Based on Different Transportation Modes
- Optimal Implementation Strategy of Carbon Emission Reduction Policy Instruments in Consideration of Cost Efficiency
- On Consistency in AHP and Fuzzy AHP
- Some Generalized Single Valued Neutrosophic Linguistic Operators and Their Application to Multiple Attribute Group Decision Making
- An Asset Allocation Model and Its Solving Method
- Performance Analysis of a Discrete-Time Queue with Working Breakdowns and Searching for the Optimum Service Rate in Working Breakdown Period
