4.7 Article

Deriving heterogeneous experts weights from incomplete linguistic preference relations based on uninorm consistency

期刊

KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS
卷 150, 期 -, 页码 150-165

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.knosys.2018.03.013

关键词

Heterogeneous group decision-making; Expert weight; Incomplete linguistic preference relations; Uninorm consistency; Expertise; Group decision-making

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71390333, 71673118]
  2. National Bureau of Statistics Project [2017LY13]
  3. Jiangsu University Top Talent Fund [15JDG107]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, we provide an expertise-based weight allocation approach for heterogeneous experts with incomplete linguistic preference relations (ILPRs) in heterogeneous group decision-making (HGDM). Based on the uninorm consistency (U-consistency) theory, this paper proposes a new four-way iteration step to estimate the missing preference values so as to preserve the original information as much as possible. After obtaining the complete linguistic preference relations that satisfies reciprocity and boundedness, the discrimination indicator is introduced to measure the expertise level of heterogeneous experts, and its definition and calculation method in linguistic context is provided. In contrast to complete preference information, when assigning weights for heterogeneous experts with ILPRs, the contradictory relationship between their inconsistency and incompleteness, which had been proved by numerical simulation, exists and needs solving. Then, using defined discrimination, inconsistency and incompleteness, we propose a New-Index and a weight allocation method, the validity of which had been illustrated by the numerical example, to measure objectively heterogeneous experts' expertise. Considering these three indicators, the proposed weight is more reasonable than existent weight allocation methods with single indicator. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据