Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Information Fusion
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/inffus
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 30 April 2015
Received in revised form 27 June 2015
Accepted 4 July 2015
Available online 11 July 2015
Keywords:
Intuitionistic fuzzy decision making
Information fusion
Attribute weights
Aggregation
Ranking
a b s t r a c t
Intuitionistic fuzzy decision making is to nd the suitable method for ranking alternatives based on the
provided intuitionistic fuzzy information or some related attributes. To date, many studies have focused
on intuitionistic fuzzy decision making problems and various decision making methodologies and
approaches have been proposed. To provide a clear perspective on the information fusion for intuitionistic fuzzy decision making, this paper presents an overview on the existing intuitionistic fuzzy decision
making theories and methods from the perspective of information fusion, involving the determination of
attribute weights, the aggregation of intuitionistic fuzzy information and the ranking of alternatives.
Some potential challenges in future research are meanwhile pointed out. In addition, we provide a survey
of recent applications of the discussed theories and methods in various elds.
2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Decision making is a fairly common activity in peoples daily
life, which can be seen as a process of ranking alternatives or
selecting the best one(s) from multiple alternatives based on the
provided decision information under the given environment. Due
to the complexity of the socioeconomic system, most decision
making problems involve multiple attributes/indices used to
reect the characteristics or performances of candidate alternatives, which we usually call multi-attribute decision making
(MADM) problems. To date, much attention has been paid to
MADM, and many fruitful research results have been achieved
[1]. There are three major families of methods for MADM: (i) The
utility theory based approaches, in which information fusion techniques are often adopted to synthesize the assessment values of
each alternative under different attributes into an overall value,
and then the alternatives are ranked by comparing the overall values. The weighted sum model based on some aggregation operators [2], the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method [3] and the
TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal
Solution) method [4] are three classical methods in this family.
Besides, the method recently developed based upon penalty functions also belongs to this family [5,6]; (ii) The outranking
approaches, which are used to identify whether the considered
alternative is preferable, incomparable or indifferent to the others
over the attributes. There are two main outranking approaches,
which are the ELECTRE (Elimination et Choice Translating
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 25 84483382.
E-mail addresses: xuzeshui@263.net (Z. Xu), zhaonawfxy@163.com (N. Zhao).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2015.07.001
1566-2535/ 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
to fully reect the characteristics of afrmation, negation and hesitation of human cognitive performance, Atanassov [15] extended
the fuzzy set to introduce the intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS), which
is characterized by a membership function, a non-membership
function and a hesitancy (indeterminacy) function.
As the IFS can express humans imprecise cognitions from the
aspects of afrmation, negation and hesitation, it has been widely
used to describe the imprecise, vague or uncertain preferences of
the decision makers in decision making process. Xu [16] dened
intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (IFNs) (also called intuitionistic fuzzy
values (IFVs) [17,18]) as the basic components of an IFS, and developed a decision making method to help a manufacturing company
to search the best global supplier. In this example, the IFN uij ; v ij
was adopted to evaluate the global supplier Ai , where uij indicates
the degree that the supplier Ai satises the attribute C j ; v ij indicates
the degree that the supplier Ai does not satisfy the attribute C j , and
1 uij v ij indicates the hesitancy degree that the supplier Ai satises the attribute C j . Hernandez and Uddameri [19] applied the
IFNs to the evaluation of agriculture best management practices
in the coastal semi-arid area of South Texas. In this case study, they
used the IFN qi ; ri to evaluate the importance of the attribute C i ,
where qi and ri denote the degrees of membership and
non-membership of the attribute C i to the fuzzy concept importance, respectively. Wan and Dong [20] developed a novel mathematical programming method for hybrid multi-criteria group
decision making, in which the criteria values are expressed by
IFNs, interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy numbers, trapezoidal
fuzzy numbers, linguistic variables, interval numbers and real
numbers. Liu et al. [21] constructed a partial binary tree DEA-DA
cyclic classication model for the decision makers in complex
multi-attribute large group interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy
decision making problems. To depict the preferences of the decision makers for each pair of alternatives comprehensively, Xu
[22] gave a simple notion of intuitionistic fuzzy preference
relations (IFPRs) in which the basic elements are IFNs
uij ; v ij i; j 1; 2; . . . ; n and applied them to evaluate the agroecological regions in Hubei Province, China. Here, uij denotes the
certainty degree to which the agroecological region Ai is preferred
to the agroecological region Aj ; v ij denotes the certainty degree to
which Ai is non-preferred to Aj , and 1 uij v ij is interpreted as
the hesitancy degree to which Ai is preferred to Aj . Paternain
et al. [23] presented a construction method of IFPRs from fuzzy
preference relations and proposed two novel decision making algorithms by generalizing the weighted voting strategy.
Up to now, a large number of studies have been done on the
intuitionistic fuzzy decision making and a variety of decision making methodologies and approaches have been proposed [14,24,25].
Since the fusion and processing of intuitionistic fuzzy information
are very critical for intuitionistic fuzzy decision making, in this
paper, we shall summarize and analyze the current approaches
to intuitionistic fuzzy decision making from the perspective of
information fusion, involving the determination of attribute
weights, the aggregation of intuitionistic fuzzy information and
the ranking of alternatives. Furthermore, we shall introduce in
depth their recent applications in different elds. Towards these
objectives, we set out the remainder of the paper as follows: In
Section 2, we briey introduce some relevant knowledge about
intuitionistic fuzzy decision making. Section 3 provides a review
of the approaches to derive attribute weights from the intuitionistic fuzzy decision information or from both the intuitionistic fuzzy
decision information and the partially known weight information.
In Section 4, we rst survey the orders of IFNs, which are vital for
the ordered aggregation of intuitionistic fuzzy information, and
then survey the aggregation operators of intuitionistic fuzzy information in different situations. In Section 5, we review four main
11
I fhx; uI x; v I xij x 2 X g
where the functions uI : X ! 0; 1 and v I : X ! 0; 1 ascertain the
membership degree uI x and the non-membership degree v I x of
the element x 2 X to the set I, respectively, with the condition:
uI x v I x 6 1.
Usually, pI x 1 uI x v I x is called the indeterminacy
degree or the hesitancy degree of x to I [17]. a ua ; v a is called
an intuitionistic fuzzy number (IFN) (also called intuitionistic fuzzy
value (IFV) [18]) whose physical interpretation can be presented as
follows: For instance, if ua ; v a 0:5; 0:2, then it can be interpreted as in a presidential election, the vote for a candidate is
50% in favor, 20% against, and 30% abstentions. From the perspective of a voting, the membership degree of an IFS can represent
the approval percentage, the non-membership degree can stand for
the rejection percentage, and the hesitancy degree, reecting the
percentage of voters who are not sure about whether the candidate
is competent as the president, can be regarded as abstention.
During the decision making process, the decision maker is usually required to provide his/her preferences for each pair of alternatives, and then construct a preference relation. Based on the IFNs,
Xu [22] dened an intuitionistic fuzzy preference relation (IFPR)
e e
on the set X fx1 ; x2 ; . . . ; xn g as A
a ij nn , where e
a ij uij ; v ij is
an IFN, for all i; j 1; 2; . . . ; n, and uij denotes the certainty degree
to which the object xi is preferred to the object xj ; v ij denotes the
certainty degree to which xi is non-preferred to xj , and 1 uij v ij
is interpreted as the indeterminacy degree or hesitancy degree to
which xi is preferred to xj . Furthermore, uij and v ij satisfy the conditions: uji v ij ; v ji uij ; uii v ii 0:5, for all i; j 1; 2; . . . ; n.
It is obvious that the IFN is very useful in modeling the uncertainty and vagueness of objective things for it allocates to each element in a universe a membership degree, a non-membership
degree and a hesitancy degree. Accordingly, more and more
researchers have been applying IFNs to describe the imprecise or
uncertain decision information and dealing with the uncertainty
and vagueness in decision making under different situations.
According to the distinct forms of the decision information, the
current intuitionistic fuzzy decision making can be roughly divided
into two types: The rst type is based on the intuitionistic fuzzy
assessment information provided by the decision makers, which
is expressed by IFNs. The second type is based on the IFPRs provided by the decision makers through pair-wise comparisons of
alternatives. In this paper, we mainly focus our attention on the
rst type for we may refer to the review [26] for the second one.
Firstly, we pay attention to the most common intuitionistic
fuzzy MADM (IF-MADM) problems, which can be mathematically
described as follows: In a MADM problem, let A fA1 ; A2 ; . . . ; An g
be a discrete set of n alternatives, C fC 1 ; C 2 ; . . . ; C m g be the discussion universe containing m attributes, and w w1 ; w2 ; . . . ; wm T be
the weight vector of the attributes, where wj denotes the importance degree of the attribute C j . If the assessment of each
12
(
reij
f
dij ; for benefit attribute C j
;
f
dij c ; for cost attribute C j
j 1; 2; . . . ; m
dij c is the complement of f
dij dened as f
dij c v ij ; uij [15].
where f
For convenience, we hereinafter suppose that all intuitionistic fuzzy
decision matrices are normalized without explicitly mentioning
them. In general, the weight information of attributes is in one of
the following cases:
(1) The weight information is completely unknown owing to
time pressure or the complexity and uncertainty of the considered problem [27].
(2) The weight information is partially known due to the inherent subjective nature of human thinking. In this case, the
known weight information H can be expressed by the following forms [28] for i j:
Form 1. A weak ranking: wi P wj ;
Form 2. A strict ranking: wi wj P di di > 0;
Form 3. A ranking with multiples: wi P di wj 0 6 di 6 1;
Form 4. An interval form: fdi 6 wi 6 di ei g0 6 di 6 di
ei 6 1;
Form 5. A ranking of differences: wi wj P wk wl , for
j k l.
(3) The weight information is completely known. The weights
wj j 1; 2; . . . ; m of the attributes C j j 1; 2; . . . ; m are
assigned in advance by the decision maker according to
his/her expertise and experience, which is usually needed
to satisfy the normalization conditions: wj 2 0; 1 j 1;
P
2; . . . ; m and m
j1 wj 1.
In the IF-MADM problems, all the intuitionistic fuzzy assessment information is provided in the same time period or at the
same stage. Nevertheless, in many practical situations, such as
multi-period investment decision making, medical diagnosis, personnel dynamic examination, and military system efciency
dynamic evaluation, the assessment information is usually
provided in different time periods [14]. As a result, the intuitionistic fuzzy dynamic MADM (IF-DMADM) problems were introduced
[29], which can be depicted by the following notations:
(1) A; C and w are dened as above;
(2) t t1 ; t2 ; . . . ; tp is the set of p time periods, whose weight
T
vector is wt wt 1 ; wt2 ; . . . ; w tp , where wtk 2
Pp
0; 1 k 1; 2; . . . ; p and k1 wt k 1;
(3) Mtl reij t l nm is the intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix
provided in the time period tl l 1; 2; . . . ; p. Here,
reij tl uij t l ; v ij t l is an IFN, where uij t l indicates the
degree to which the alternative Ai satises the attribute C j
in the period tl , and v ij t l indicates the degree to which
the alternative Ai does not satisfy the attribute C j in the period tl , with uij t l ; v ij t l 2 0; 1 and uij t l v ij t l 6 1 for
i 1; 2; . . . ; n; j 1; 2; . . . ; m.
The aforementioned intuitionistic fuzzy decision making problems involve only one decision maker. However, the increasing complexity of socioeconomic environments makes it more and more
difcult for a single decision maker to consider all aspects of a problem and then make a reasonable decision [30]. Accordingly, it is
required to conduct a GDM. An intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute
group decision making (IF-MAGDM) problem encompasses a group
of decision makers fd1 ; d2 ; . . . ; ds g whose importance weight vector
P
is k k1 ; k2 ; . . . ; ks T with kk 2 0; 1k 1; 2; . . . ; s and sk1 ks 1,
and a collection of intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrices
n
o
f
k
k 1; 2; . . . ; s are
M1 ; M 2 ; . . . ; M s , where M k r ij
nm
Model 1
wj
1 Ej
P
;
m m
j1 Ej
j 1; 2; . . . ; m
13
Ai ; uij ; v ij Ai 2 A
Model 2
Max
m X
n X
X
d reij ; rf
kj wj
m
X
w2j 1;
wj P 0;
Pn P
e f
ki d r ij ; r kj
i1
wj q
Pm Pn P
e f 2
j1
i1
ki d r ij ; r kj
j1
wj P 0;
j1
j 1; 2; . . . ; m
j1
Model 3
Min f w
m X
n
X
2
w2j d reij ; f
r j
j1 i1
m
X
wj 1;
s:t:
wj P 0;
j 1; 2; . . . ; m
j1
wj 0
@
Pm
j1
Pn
1
d2
reij ; re
j
1
1
P
2
n
A
rj
reij ; f
i1 d
j 1; 2; . . . ; m
where d reij ; rf
is the distance between reij and rf
kj
kj dened as
1
d reij ; rf
kj 2 uij ukj v ij v kj .
By constructing the Lagrange function, we obtain
Max
j1
m
X
wj 1;
s:t:
r
h
i
2
12 uij 1 v 2ij .
r
where for i 1; 2; . . . ; n; j 1; 2; . . . ; m, d reij ; f
j
j1
Model 4
Min f w
m
m
m
X
X
X
2
2
2
f
f
f
;
;...;
w2j d rf
w2j d rf
w2j d rf
1j ; r j
2j ; r j
nj ; r j
i1
j1 i1 ki
s:t:
kki
k;i2X
8P
h
i
P
m
>
u2ij u2kj v 2ij v 2kj p2ij p2kj 2 uij ukj 2 v ij v kj
>
k;i2X
j1 wj
>
>
>
Pm
P
P
P
>
>
>
m
j1 v j k;i2X 2 uij ukj 4 v ij v kj P 2h;
>
j1 uj
k;i2X 4 uij ukj 2 v ij v kj
>
>
h
i
>
P
Pm
>
>
>
u2kj u2ij v 2kj v 2ij p2kj p2ij 2 ukj uij 2 v kj v ij
>
j1 wj
k;i2X
>
< P
Pm
P
P
m
j1 v j k;i2X 2 ukj uij 4 v kj v ij 2kki P 0; k; i 2 X;
s:t:
k;i2X 4 ukj uij 2 v kj v ij
j1 uj
>
>
> kki P 0; k; i 2 X;
>
>
>
>
> u ; v P 0; u v 6 w ; j 1; 2; . . . ; m;
>
j
j
j
j
j
>
>
>
> w P e; j 1; 2; . . . ; m;
>
j
>
>
>
: Pm w 1
j1
Pn P
d reij ; rf
kj
wj Pm i1
Pn ki
P
e f
ki d r ij ; r kj
j1
i1
In such a case, we have wj 2 0; 1 for j 1; 2; . . . ; m, and
Pm
j1 wj 1.
3.1.3. The ideal-solution-based method
This method is based on the intuitionistic fuzzy positive ideal
f
solution (IFPIS) A f
with f
r
r
for
1 ; r2 ; . . . ; rm
j 1; 0
14
0
!2
s X
m X
n
s
X
X
l
@ uk
Min
k
u
l ij
ij
Model 5
k1 j1 i1
k
ij
s
X
l
kl v ij
l1
s
X
k
l
kl pij
pij
!2
1<p62
and
m
X
s:t:
wj 1; wj P 0; j 1; 2; . . . ; m
CE reij ; relj
j1
Ps Pn
k1
wj
Ps
k1
i1
Ps
k
u
ij
l
ku
l1 l ij
v k
ij
Ps
l1
kl v
l
ij
2
Ps
pk
ij
l1
p
lj
!p
p
ij
2
p
lj
p p
2
!p
p
ij
p p
v pij v plj
p
lj
2
!p )
1<p62
kl p
l
ij
2
2
2
2
P
P
P
k
l
k
l
k
l
uij sl1 kl uij
v ij sl1 kl v ij
pij sl1 kl pij
i1
Model 6
Min Ew
i1 j1
j1
where g is a small positive real number, and E reij is the
1
dened
by
E reij pij ln 2
reij
entropy
value
of
h
i
u
v
uij ln u ijv v ij ln u ijv .
ij
ij
Model 8
Max Dw
j1 i1 k1
s:t: w w1 ; w2 ; . . . ; wm T 2 H;
m
X
wj 1; wj P 0; j 1; 2; . . . ; m
j1
rf
for i; k 1; 2; . . . ; n,
kj ukj ; v kj
i k; j 1; 2; . . . ; m, and d reij ; rf
kj is the distance between reij and
1
f
rf
kj dened as d reij ; r
kj 2 uij ukj v ij v kj .
where
reij uij ; v ij
ij
j1 i1
n
1 X
CE reij ; relj
n 1 l1
and
Model 9
m X
n X
n
X
d reij ; rf
kj wj
f
with f
r
r
Xu [41] suggested A f
1 ; r2 ; . . . ; rm
j 1; 0 for
f
j 1; 2; . . . ; m, and A f
for
r1 ; f
r2 ; . . . ; rf
r
with
m
j 0; 1
n X
m
X
wj E reij
s:t: w w1 ; w2 ; . . . ; wm T 2 H;
m
X
wj 1; wj P g; j 1; 2; . . . ; m
Model 7
p
ij
upij uplj
Pn
ij
12
1p
2
( p
uij uplj
j1
l1
!2 1
Aw2
l1
Pm
(
p
p )
p
1 uij 1 v ij
2 uij v ij
;
2
2
1 21p
E reij 1
s:t: w w1 ; w2 ; . . . ; wm T 2 H;
m
X
wj 1; wj P 0; j 1; 2; . . . ; m
j1
where E reij is the entropy value of reij and CE reij ; relj is the cross
entropy between reij and relj , dened as:
s:t: w w1 ; w2 ; . . . ; wm T 2 H;
m
X
wj 1; wj P 0; j 1; 2; . . . ; m
j1
Here,
qzi w
where
dzi w; z w
dzi w; z w dzi w; z w
zi w
P
m
j1 wj uij ;
Pm
j1 wj
v ij
for
1
i 1; 2; . . . ; n; z w
15
Model 10
Max
n
X
j1 wj uij v ij
Pm
1 j1 wj v ij
Pm
i1
s:t: w w1 ; w2 ; . . . ; wm 2 H;
m
X
wj 1; wj P 0; j 1; 2; . . . ; m
j1
A re1 ; re2 ; . . . ; rf
with
rej
m
e
e
f
maxi uij ; mini v ij for j 1; 2; . . . ; m and A r 1 ; r 2 ; . . . ; rm with
rej mini uij ; maxi v ij for j 1; 2; . . . ; m as the IFPIS and the
Wei
[42]
considered
Model 11
n X
m
X
Min
nij nij wj
i1 j1
s:t: w w1 ; w2 ; . . . ; wm T 2 H;
m
X
wj 1; wj P 0; j 1; 2; . . . ; m
j1
where
min16i6n min16j6m d reij ; rej 0:5max16i6n max16j6m d reij ; rej
nij
and
d reij ; rej 0:5max16i6n max16j6m d reij ; rej
min16i6n min16j6m d reij ; rej 0:5max16i6n max16j6m d reij ; rej
nij
d reij ; re 0:5max16i6n max16j6m d reij ; re
j
Max si w
m
X
wj sij
j1
s:t: w w1 ; w2 ; . . . ; wm T 2 H;
m
X
wj 1; wj P 0; j 1; 2; . . . ; m
j1
where sij uij v ij is the score of reij uij ; v ij .
By solving Model 12, we can get the optimal solution
T
i
i
i
i
corresponding to the alternative Ai . In
w w1 ; w2 ; . . . ; wm
general, in the process of determining the attribute weight vector,
it is required to consider all alternatives as a whole. Therefore, a
combined weight vector can be constructed [16]:
w x1 w1 x2
2 1
2
w1
w1
6 1
2
6w
w2
6 2
6
..
6 ..
4 .
.
1
wm
where,
wm
wm
w1
w2
..
.
wm
3
n
w1
n 7
w2 7
7
.. 7
..
7
. 5
.
n
wm
matrix of the intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix M uij ; v ij nm .
For the case in which the known weight information is
expressed by interval forms, i.e., for j 1; 2; . . . ; m; dj 6
wj 6 dj ej , where 0 6 dj 6 dj ej 6 1, Li [43] constructed the following linear programming model:
Max zi
m
X
bij wj
j1
8
>
< uij 6 bij 6 1 v ij ; i 1; 2; . . . ; n;
dj 6 wj 6 dj ej ; j 1; 2; . . . ; m
s:t:
>
: Pm w 1
j
j1
j 1; 2; . . . ; m
P
for each i 1; 2; . . . ; n. Here, Li [43] assumed that m
j1 dj 6 1 and
Pm
d
e
P
1
in
order
to
nd
the
weights
w
2
0;
1 satisfying
j
j
j
j1
Pm
dj 6 wj 6 dj ej and
w
1.
Then,
he
transformed
the above
j
j1
model into the following form:
Model 13
Max z
(
s:t:
n X
m
X
1 uij v ij wj =n
i1 j1
dj 6 wj 6 dj ej ;
Pm
j1 wj 1
j 1; 2; . . . ; m
are the grey relational coefcients of each alternative from IFPIS and
IFNIS, respectively, d is the distance measure between IFNs dened
1
and
as d reij ; rf
for reij uij ; v ij
kj 2 uij ukj v ij v kj
rf
u
;
v
,
for
i
1;
2;
.
.
.
;
n;
j
1;
2;
.
.
.
;
m.
kj
kj
kj
Model 12
w1
6 1
6w
6 2
W 6
6 ..
4 .
1
w2 . . . xn wn
3
1
n 0
w1
x1
7
n B
x2 C
w2 7
C
7B
B . C Wx
7
C
..
.. 7B
.
.
. 5@ . A
n
wm
xn
Max s
8
>
< qzi w P s; i 1; 2; . . . ; n
w w1 ; w2 ; . . . ; wm T 2 H
s:t:
>
: Pm
wj P 0; j 1; 2; . . . ; m
j1 wj 1;
where s mini qzi w, and qzi w is dened as Eq. (1). From the
above model, the original optimal weight vector w0
T
0
0
0
w1 ; w2 ; . . . ; wm
can be got, and then the corresponding satis 0
faction degree q zi w
of the alternative Ai can be calculated
by Eq. (1). In the course of decision making, the decision maker
0
Model 14
Max
n
X
si
i1
8
0
>
>
< qzi w P si P si ; i 1; 2; . . . ; n
s:t:
w w1 ; w2 ; . . . ; wm T 2 H
>
>
: Pm w 1; w P 0; j 1; 2; . . . ; m
j
j
j1
16
T
t
t
t
from which the weight vector wt w1 ; w2 ; . . . ; wm
can be
t
derived, and then the corresponding satisfaction degree q zi w
of the alternative Ai can be calculated by Eq. (1). In this case, if
the decision maker is satised with the result, then we end the
interactive process and the nal weight vector is wt
T
t
t
t
w1 ; w2 ; . . . ; wm ; otherwise, the decision maker needs to recont1
t P 1; i 1; 2; . . . ; n of the satisfaction
sider the lower bound si
degrees of the alternatives Ai i 1; 2; . . . ; n until the optimal solution is obtained, and let t : t 1 and return to Model 14.
To facilitate the reading and comparison, the abovementioned
attribute weight determination models are summarized in Table 1.
In the above, we have overviewed the existing main methods to
derive attribute weights from the intuitionistic fuzzy decision
information or from both the intuitionistic fuzzy decision information and the partially known weight information. However, different methods have different characteristics. For example, as we can
see, Models 1, 6 and 7 all involve the entropy measures of intuitionistic fuzzy information. The entropy measure used in Model
1 only captures the intuitionism, while the one used in Model 7
considers not only the intuitionism, but also the fuzziness of an
IFN. Furthermore, it is worth noting that when the IFN 0; 0 is
involved in Model 6, it is meaningless. Models 2, 3, 8, 9, 11 and
14 all involve the distance measures of intuitionistic fuzzy information. The distance measures used in Models 2, 3, 8 and 11 only
consider the membership degree information and the
non-membership degree information and omit the hesitancy
degree information of IFNs, whereas the ones used in Models 9
Table 1
Different attribute weight determination models for intuitionistic fuzzy decision making.
Based-information
Models
Papers
Based-techniques
Optimization models
Characteristics
Intuitionistic fuzzy
decision information
Model 1
Ye [31]
Entropy measure
Model 2
Xu [27]
Distance measure
Model 3
Xu [34]
Distance measure
Model 4
Li et al. [36]
Distance measure
Model 5
Simple additive
weighting method
Model 6
Entropy measure
Model 7
Model 8
Wei [40]
Distance measure
Model 10
Xu [41]
Distance measure
Model 11
Wei [42]
Grey relational
coefcient
Model 12
Xu [16]
Score function
Model 13
Li [43]
Simple additive
weighting method
Model 14
Xu [41]
Distance measure,
interactive mechanism
Intuitionistic fuzzy
decision information,
partially known
weight information
Note: denotes that there is no optimization models involved in the discussed model.
according to the values. Chen and Tan [44] rstly developed a score
function for the IFN a ua ; v a : sa ua v a . Obviously, the
score of a is directly related to the deviation between ua and v a ,
and the bigger the score of a, the larger the IFN a is. However,
Chen and Tans score function cannot efciently compare the
IFNs with the same score. Therefore, a series of modied score
functions have been subsequently put forward. Chen [45] provided
a comparative analysis of different score functions.
The second category is dened by means of two functions. The
most famous one of this category is Xu and Yager [17]s order
dened by adding the accuracy function [46], shown as follows:
Denition 2 [17]. Let ai uai ; v ai ; i 1; 2 be two IFNs,
sai uai v ai be the score of ai , and hai uai v ai be the
accuracy degree of ai , then
(1) If sa1 < sa2 , then a1 is smaller than a2 , denoted by
a1 XY a2 .
(2) If sa1 sa2 , then
_ ua1 v a1 ua2 v a2 ^ ua1 v a1 6 ua2 v a2
where ai uai ; v ai ; i 1; 2.
Bustince et al. [47] claimed that the order XY is an admissible
order, i.e., XY is a linear order and for any two IFNs a1 and a2 , if
a1 62 a2 , then it holds that a1 XY a2 . Here,
the partial order 62 is
a1 62 a2 () ua1 6 ua2 ^ v a1 P v a2 ,
where
dened
as
ai uai ; v ai ; i 1; 2. Furthermore, motivated by the lexicographical order of points, Bustince et al. [47] presented the following two
admissible orders:
where ai uai ; v ai ; i 1; 2. Additionally, Bustince et al. [47] and
Miguel et al. [48] investigated the methods of constructing admissible orders in terms of two aggregation functions. The important
roles of admissible orders in different aspects, such as in the construction of the ordered weighted aggregation operators [49,50]
and in the selection of alternatives in decision making [50,51], were
also investigated.
4.2. Aggregation operators for intuitionistic fuzzy information
At present, a lot of studies have focused on the aggregation of
intuitionistic fuzzy information, and a variety of aggregation operators have been developed. Since the operational laws of IFNs are
very vital for the denition of aggregation operators for intuitionistic fuzzy information, we here rst introduce the existing main
operational laws of IFNs.
Given three IFNs a ua ; v a ; a1 ua1 ; v a1 and a2 ua2 ; v a2 ,
some basic operations developed by Xu and Yager [17,18] are presented as follows:
17
(1) a1 ^ a2 minfua1 ; ua2 g; maxfv a1 ; v a2 g ,
(2) a1 _ a2 maxfua1 ; ua2 g; minfv a1 ; v a2 g ,
(3) a1 a2 ua1 ua2 ua1 ua2 ; v a1 v a2 ,
(4) ka 1 1 ua k ; v ka ; k > 0,
(5) a1
a2 ua1 ua2 ; v a1 v a2 v a1 v a2 ,
(6) ak uka ; 1 1 v a k ; k > 0.
Later, based on Archimedean t-norm and t-conorm [52],
Beliakov et al. [53] dened the generalized sum and the generalized multiplication as:
(7) a1 a2 Sua1 ; ua2 ; Tv a1 ; v a2
1
h hua1 hua2 ; g 1 gv a1 gv a2 ,
1
(8) ka h khua ; g 1 kgv a ; k > 0,
where the function T is an Archimedean t-norm and the function S
is an Archimedean t-conorm. Klir and Yuan [52] pointed out that an
additive generator of a continuous Archimedean t-norm is a strictly
decreasing function g : 0; 1 ! 0; 1, such that g1 0. Here,
ht g1 t.
Based on the operational laws (5) and (6), Xia et al. [54] dened
the following generalized forms:
(9) a1
a2 Tua1 ; ua2 ; Sv a1 ; v a2
1
g 1 gua1 gua2 ; h hv a1 hv a2 ,
1
(10) ak g 1 kgua ; h khv a ; k > 0.
It can be noted that let gt logt, then the operational laws
(7)(10) become (3)(6) accordingly.
Xia and Xu [55] found that the above operations are only based
on the original information, and thus cannot reduce the uncertainty of the aggregated IFNs. Hence, they introduced some point
aggregation operators to reduce the uncertainty degree of IFNs,
which is necessary in some situations [56]:
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
Dja a ua ja pa ; v a 1 ja pa ,
F ja ;ka a ua ja pa ; v a ka pa , where ja ka 6 1,
Hja ;ka a ja ua ; v a ka pa ,
Hja ;ka a ja ua ; v a ka 1 ja ua v a ,
J ja ;ka a ua ja pa ; ka v a ,
J ja ;ka a ua ja 1 ua ka v a ; ka v a ,
P ja ;ka a maxja ; ua ; minka ; v a , where ja ka 6 1,
Q ja ;ka a minja ; ua ; maxka ; v a , where ja ka 6 1,
where ja ; ka 2 0; 1.
Let a1 ua1 ; v a1 with ua1 0 and a2 ua2 ; v a2 with ua2 0,
then by the operation (5), we can get ua1
a2 0, which illustrates
that ua2 is not accounted for at all. He et al. [57] noted that it is
an undesirable feature for an averaging operation, and dened
some new operational laws by considering the interactions
between the membership functions and the non-membership
functions of different IFSs:
1 v a1 1 v a2 1 ua1 v a1
1 ua2 v a2 ; 1 1 v a1 1 v a2 ,
(20) ak 1 v a k 1 ua v a k ; 1 1 v a k ; k > 0.
^ a2
(19) a1
18
(21) ka 1 1 ua r ; v a1q ,
q
r
(22) ak u1
a ; 1 1 v a ,
where k r; q is an IFN.
Based upon the above-mentioned operations on IFNs, a large
number of aggregation operators have been developed for fusing
the intuitionistic fuzzy information. From the viewpoint of the relationships between the aggregated IFNs, the existing aggregation
operators for intuitionistic fuzzy information are mainly classied
into four categories: the ones for aggregating the independent
IFNs, the ones for aggregating the correlative IFNs, the ones for
aggregating the IFNs when the attributes are in different priority
levels, and the ones for aggregating the IFNs in different time periods. For the convenience of reading and understanding, we summarize the existing main aggregation operators for intuitionistic fuzzy
information in Table 2.
It can be seen from Table 2 that a variety of aggregation operators
have been designed for fusing the intuitionistic fuzzy information in
different situations. In the following, we discuss their characteristics
and relationships. Among the aggregation operators for the independent IFNs, the IFWA, IFWG, IFOWA, IFOWG, IFHWA, IFHWG, GIFWA,
GIFOWA, GIFHWA, ATS-IFWA and ATS-IFWG operators possess the
desirable properties of idempotency, boundedness, and monotonicity, while the IFHA, IFHG and GIFHA operators do not satisfy some
basic properties such as idempotency and boundedness. Moreover,
from the ATS-IFWA and ATS-IFWG operators, some known operators
can be derived, such as the IFWA, IFWG, EIFWA and EIFWG operators [69]. The GIFPWA, GIFPOWA and GIFPHA operators can reduce
the uncertainty of the aggregated IFNs, which is necessary in some
intuitionistic fuzzy decision situations [56]. Additionally, the
IFWGIA, IFOWGIA and IFHGIA operators take into account of the
interactions between the non-membership degrees and the membership degrees of different IFNs.
Table 2
Various aggregation operators for intuitionistic fuzzy information.
Relationships between the
aggregated IFNs
Operators
Based-operations
Based-operators
Similar studies
Independent
(3), (4)
WA operator [61]
Yager [66]
WG operator [62]
Li [67]
(5), (6)
(7), (8)
(9), (10)
(11)(18)
(19), (20)
(3)
(5)
(3), (4)
(5), (6)
(3)(6)
(3)(6)
(3), (4)
(3), (4)
(5), (6)
(9), (10)
(1), (2), (3), (5)
(21)
(22)
(3), (4)
(5), (6)
Correlative
Wu et al. [83]
Tan and Chen [84]
Zhou et al. [85]
Zhang [86]
Beliakov and James [87]
19
for j 1; 2; . . . ; m, and A re1 ; re2 ; . . . ; rf
with rej mini uij ;
m
maxi v ij for j 1; 2; . . . ; m, as the IFPIS and the IFNIS, respectively.
f
r
r
However, Li [43] suggested A f
with f
1 ; r2 ; . . . ; rm
j 1; 0
f
for j 1; 2; . . . ; m, and A f
r1 ; f
r 2 ; . . . ; rf
r
0; 1 for
with
m
j
j 1; 2; . . . ; m, as the IFPIS and the IFNIS, respectively. In the
TOPSIS based method, the best alternative should simultaneously
have the shortest distance from the IFPIS and the farthest distance
from the IFNIS, which states that this method is suitable for the cautious decision makers who want to have a decision which not only
makes as much prot as possible, but also avoids as much risk as possible [98]. To cope with the situations where the decision makers
want to have maximum prot and do not care for the decision risk
too much, the VIKOR method was extended to the intuitionistic
fuzzy context[99,100] for solving the problems with conicting
and noncommensurable attributes by mutual concessions. In the
TOPSIS-based and VIKOR-based methods, the weight vector of attributes is known a priori, and the IFPIS and the IFNIS are derived from
the intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix directly. Nonetheless, sometimes, the weight vector of attributes is unknown a priori. Hence,
some researchers have extended the LINMAP method to the intuitionistic fuzzy environment and developed the IF-LINMAP method
[36,101], in which the IFPIS and the weights of attributes are
estimated by using a linear programming model, and the best compromise alternative is the feasible one with the shortest distance to
the IFPIS.
5.2. The outranking-based approach
The second category is the outranking based method, which is
used to identify which alternative is preferable, incomparable or
indifferent by a pairwise comparison of alternatives over each
attribute. Currently, the existing outranking based methods for
intuitionistic fuzzy decision making are mainly designed on the
basis of the classical outranking methods, such as the ELECTRE
(Elimination et Choice Translating Reality) method [7] and the
PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization Method for
Enrichment Evaluation) method [8]. For example, Wu and Chen
[102] and Vahdani et al. [103] extended the ELECTRE method [7]
to solve the IF-MADM and IF-MAGDM problems in which the attribute weights are expressed by real numbers or IFNs, respectively.
The extended ELECTRE methods analyze the outranking relations
among alternatives by dening the concordance and discordance
indices. Liao and Xu [104] put forward the intuitionistic fuzzy
PROMETHEE method to solve the IF-MADM problem with intuitionistic fuzzy weights, which derives a partial or complete ranking of alternatives based upon the positive outranking ow, the
negative outranking ow and the net outranking ow.
20
Table 3
Different alternative ranking approaches for intuitionistic fuzzy decision making.
Categories
Methods
Papers
Based-techniques
IFPIS
IFNIS
Application
scopes
TOPSIS-based method
Distance measure
Distance measure
Distance measure
Similarity measure
Grey relational coefcient
Distance measure
Distance measure
Distance measure
Distance measure
Distance measure
Projection model
Correlation coefcient
Evidential reasoning algorithms, distance
measure
A
A
A
A
A
unknown
unknown
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
MADM
MAGDM
MADM
MADM
MADM
MADM
MAGDM
MADM
DMADM
MADM
MADM
MADM
MADM
Distance measure
MADM
Distance measure
Distance measure
MAGDM
MADM
Interactive approach
Su et al. [105]
Xu [41]
A
A
A
A
DMAGDM
MADM
MADM
Psychological behavior-based
approach
Chen [107]
Chen [108]
Chen and Yang [109]
MADM
MADM
MADM
MADM
LINMAP-based
method
VIKOR-based method
Other methods
Outranking-based approach
ELECTRE-based
method
PROMETHEE-based
method
Table 4
Applications in different elds.
Fields
Applications
Papers
Based-means
Logistic management
Location selection
Strategy selection
Job-Shop scheduling
Failure analysis
Resource management
Evaluations
Web quality
Intellectual capital
Value evaluation
Network security evaluation
Performance evaluation
Teaching evaluation
Information system evaluation
Wang [130]
Zhao [132]
Zhang et al. [133]
Li et al. [134]
Zhang [135]
Fan [136]
Cui and Xu [137]
Predictions
21
22
[26] Z.S. Xu, H.C. Liao, A survey of approaches to decision making with
intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations, Knowl.-Based Syst. 80 (2015) 131
142.
[27] Z.S. Xu, A deviation-based approach to intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute
group decision making, Group Decis. Negot. 19 (2010) 5776.
[28] K.S. Park, Mathematical programming models for characterizing dominance
and potential optimality when multicriteria alternative values and weights
are simultaneously incomplete, IEEE Trans. Syst., Man Cybernet., A: Syst.
Hum. 34 (2004) 601614.
[29] Z.S. Xu, R.R. Yager, Dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute decision
making, Int. J. Approx. Reason. 48 (2008) 246262.
[30] S.H. Kim, B.S. Ahn, Interactive group decision making procedure under
incomplete information, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 116 (1999) 498507.
[31] J. Ye, Fuzzy decision-making method based on the weighted correlation
coefcient under intuitionistic fuzzy environment, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 205
(2010) 202204.
[32] E. Szmidt, J. Kacprzyk, Entropy for intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets Syst.
118 (2001) 467477.
[33] T.Y. Chen, C.H. Li, Determining objective weights with intuitionistic fuzzy
entropy measures: a comparative analysis, Inform. Sci. 180 (2010) 4207
4222.
[34] Z.S. Xu, Models for multiple attribute decision making with intuitionistic
fuzzy information, Int. J. Uncert., Fuzz. Knowl.-Based Syst. 15 (2007) 285297.
[35] S. French, R. Hartley, L.C. Thomas, D.J. White, Multi-objective Decision
Making, Academic Press, New York, 1983.
[36] D.F. Li, G.H. Chen, Z.G. Huang, Linear programming method for multiattribute
group decision making using IF sets, Inform. Sci. 180 (2010) 15911609.
[37] Z.S. Xu, X.Q. Cai, Nonlinear optimization models for multiple attribute group
decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy information, Int. J. Intell. Syst. 25
(2010) 489513.
[38] J.Z. Wu, Q. Zhang, Multicriteria decision making method based on
intuitionistic fuzzy weighted entropy, Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (2011) 916922.
[39] M.M. Xia, Z.S. Xu, Entropy/cross entropy-based group decision making under
intuitionistic fuzzy environment, Inform. Fusion 13 (2012) 3147.
[40] G.W. Wei, Maximizing deviation method for multiple attribute decision
making in intuitionistic fuzzy setting, Knowl.-Based Syst. 21 (2008) 833836.
[41] Z.S. Xu, Intuitionistic fuzzy multiattribute decision making: an interactive
method, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 20 (2012) 514525.
[42] G.W. Wei, GRA method for multiple attribute decision making with
incomplete weight information in intuitionistic fuzzy setting, Knowl.-Based
Syst. 23 (2010) 243247.
[43] D.F. Li, Multiattribute decision making models and methods using
intuitionistic fuzzy sets, J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 70 (2005) 7385.
[44] S.M. Chen, J.M. Tan, Handling multicriteria fuzzy decision-making problems
based on vague set theory, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 67 (1994) 163172.
[45] T.Y. Chen, A comparative analysis of score functions for multiple criteria
decision making in intuitionistic fuzzy settings, Inform. Sci. 181 (2011) 3652
3676.
[46] D.H. Hong, C.H. Choi, Multicriteria fuzzy decision-making problems based on
vague set theory, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 114 (2000) 103113.
[47] H. Bustince, J. Fernandez, A. Kolesrov, R. Mesiar, Generation of linear orders
for intervals by means of aggregation functions, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 220 (2013)
6977.
[48] L.D. Miguel, H. Bustince, J. Fernandez, E. Indurin, A. Kolesrov, R. Mesiar,
Construction of admissible linear orders for interval-valued Atanassov
intuitionistic fuzzy sets with an application to decision making, Inform.
Fusion 27 (2015) 189197.
[49] H. Bustince, M. Galar, B. Bedregal, A. Kolesarova, R. Mesiar, A new approach to
interval-valued Choquet Integrals and the problem of ordering in intervalvalued fuzzy set applications, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 21 (2013) 11501162.
[50] E. Barrenechea, J. Fernandez, M. Pagola, F. Chiclana, H. Bustince, Construction
of interval-valued fuzzy preference relations from ignorance functions and
fuzzy preference relations. Application to decision making, Knowl.-Based
Syst. 58 (2014) 3344.
[51] U. Bentkowska, H. Bustince, A. Jurio, M. Pagola, B. Pekala, Decision making
with an interval-valued fuzzy preference relation and admissible orders, Appl.
Soft Comput., in press (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.03.012.
[52] G.J. Klir, B. Yuan, Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic: Theory and Applications,
Prentice Hall, USA, 1995.
[53] G. Beliakov, H. Bustince, D. Goswami, U. Mukherjee, N.R. Pal, On averaging
operators for Atanassovs intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Inform. Sci. 181 (2011)
11161124.
[54] M.M. Xia, Z.S. Xu, B. Zhu, Some issues on intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation
operators based on Archimedean t-conorm and t-norm, Knowl.-Based Syst.
31 (2012) 7888.
[55] M.M. Xia, Z.S. Xu, Generalized point operators for aggregating intuitionistic
fuzzy information, Int. J. Intell. Syst. 25 (2010) 10611080.
[56] H.W. Liu, G.J. Wang, Multi-criteria decision-making methods based on
intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 179 (2007) 220233.
[57] Y. He, H. Chen, L. Zhou, J. Liu, Z. Tao, Intuitionistic fuzzy geometric interaction
averaging operators and their application to multi-criteria decision making,
Inform. Sci. 259 (2014) 142159.
[58] B. Li, W. He, Intuitionistic fuzzy PRI-AND and PRI-OR aggregation operators,
Inform. Fusion 14 (2013) 450459.
[59] H.C. Liao, Z.S. Xu, Intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid weighted aggregation operators,
Int. J. Intell. Syst. 29 (2014) 971993.
[60] H. Zhao, Z.S. Xu, M.F. Ni, S.S. Liu, Generalized aggregation operators for
intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Int. J. Intell. Syst. 25 (2010) 130.
[61] J.C. Harsanyi, Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal
comparisons of utility, J. Polit. Econ. 63 (1955) 309321.
[62] Z.S. Xu, On consistency of the weighted geometric mean complex judgement
matrix in AHP, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 126 (2000) 683687.
[63] R.R. Yager, On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in
multi-criteria decision making, IEEE Trans. Syst., Man Cybernet. 18 (1988)
183190.
[64] Z.S. Xu, Q.L. Da, The ordered weighted geometric averaging operators, Int. J.
Intell. Syst. 17 (2002) 709716.
[65] R.R. Yager, Generalized OWA aggregation operators, Fuzzy Optim. Decis.
Making 3 (2004) 93107.
[66] R.R. Yager, OWA aggregation of intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Int. J. Gen. Syst. 38
(2009) 617641.
[67] D.F. Li, Multiattribute decision making method based on generalized OWA
operators with intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Expert Syst. Appl. 37 (2010)
86738678.
[68] S. Zeng, W. Su, Intuitionistic fuzzy ordered weighted distance operator,
Knowl.-Based Syst. 24 (2011) 12241232.
[69] W. Wang, X. Liu, Intuitionistic fuzzy geometric aggregation operators based
on Einstein operations, Int. J. Intell. Syst. 26 (2011) 10491075.
[70] Z.X. Su, G.P. Xia, M.Y. Chen, L. Wang, Induced generalized intuitionistic fuzzy
OWA operator for multi-attribute group decision making, Expert Syst. Appl.
39 (2012) 19021910.
[71] W. Yang, Z. Chen, The quasi-arithmetic intuitionistic fuzzy OWA operators,
Knowl.-Based Syst. 27 (2012) 219233.
[72] C. Tan, X. Chen, Intuitionistic fuzzy Choquet integral operator for multicriteria decision making, Expert Syst. Appl. 37 (2010) 149157.
[73] Z.S. Xu, Choquet integrals of weighted intuitionistic fuzzy information,
Inform. Sci. 180 (2010) 726736.
[74] Z.S. Xu, Approaches to multiple attribute group decision making based on
intuitionistic fuzzy power aggregation operators, Knowl.-Based Syst. 24
(2011) 749760.
[75] Z.S. Xu, R.R. Yager, Intuitionistic fuzzy Bonferroni means, IEEE Trans. Syst.,
Man Cybernet., B: Cybernet. 41 (2011) 568578.
[76] M.M. Xia, Z.S. Xu, B. Zhu, Generalized intuitionistic fuzzy Bonferroni means,
Int. J. Intell. Syst. 27 (2012) 2347.
[77] W. Zhou, J.M. He, Intuitionistic fuzzy geometric Bonferroni means and their
application in multicriteria decision making, Int. J. Intell. Syst. 27 (2012)
9951019.
[78] D.J. Yu, Intuitionistic fuzzy geometric Heronian mean aggregation operators,
Appl. Soft Comput. 13 (2013) 12351246.
[79] G. Choquet, Theory of capacities, Ann. linst. Fourier 5 (1953) 8587.
[80] R.R. Yager, The power average operator, IEEE Trans. Syst., Man Cybernet., A:
Syst. Hum. 31 (2001) 724731.
[81] C. Bonferroni, Sulle medie multiple di potenze, B. Unione Mat. Ital. 5 (1950)
267270.
[82] G. Beliakov, A. Pradera, T. Calvo, Aggregation Functions: A Guide for
Practitioners, Springer, Berlin, 2007.
[83] J. Wu, F. Chen, C. Nie, Q. Zhang, Intuitionistic fuzzy-valued Choquet integral
and its application in multicriteria decision making, Inform. Sci. 222 (2013)
509527.
[84] C. Tan, X. Chen, Induced intuitionistic fuzzy Choquet integral operator for
multicriteria decision making, Int. J. Intell. Syst. 26 (2011) 659686.
[85] L. Zhou, H. Chen, J. Liu, Generalized power aggregation operators and
their applications in group decision making, Comput. Ind. Eng. 62 (2012)
989999.
[86] Z.M. Zhang, Generalized Atanassovs intuitionistic fuzzy power geometric
operators and their application to multiple attribute group decision making,
Inform. Fusion 14 (2013) 460486.
[87] G. Beliakov, S. James, On extending generalized Bonferroni means to
Atanassov orthopairs in decision making contexts, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 211
(2013) 8498.
[88] Y.J. Xu, T. Sun, D.F. Li, Intuitionistic fuzzy prioritized OWA operator and its
application in multi-criteria decision-making problem, Control Decis. 26
(2011) 129132.
[89] D. Yu, Intuitionistic fuzzy prioritized operators and their application in multicriteria group decision making, Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 19 (2013) 121.
[90] D. Yu, Group decision making based on generalized intuitionistic fuzzy
prioritized geometric operator, Int. J. Intell. Syst. 27 (2012) 635661.
[91] X.H. Yu, Z.S. Xu, Prioritized intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators, Inform.
Fusion 14 (2013) 108116.
[92] R.R. Yager, Prioritized OWA aggregation, Fuzzy Optim. Decis. Making 8 (2009)
245262.
[93] R.R. Yager, Prioritized aggregation operators, Int. J. Approx. Reason. 48 (2008)
263274.
[94] G. Wei, Some geometric aggregation functions and their application to
dynamic multiple attribute decision making in the intuitionistic fuzzy
setting, Int. J. Uncert., Fuzz. Knowl.-Based Syst. 17 (2009) 179196.
[95] V. Srinivasan, A.D. Shocker, Linear programming techniques for
multidimensional analysis of preferences, Psychometrika 38 (1973) 337369.
[96] S. Opricovic, Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems, Fac. Civ.
Eng. 2 (1998) 521.
[97] T.Y. Chen, C.Y. Tsao, The interval-valued fuzzy TOPSIS method and
experimental analysis, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 159 (2008) 14101428.
23
[119] X. Xu, The SIR method: a superiority and inferiority ranking method for
multiple criteria decision making, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 131 (2001) 587602.
[120] K. Devi, S.P. Yadav, A multicriteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making
for plant location selection with ELECTRE method, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
66 (2013) 12191229.
[121] F.E. Boran, An integrated intuitionistic fuzzy multi criteria decision making
method for facility location selection, Math. Comput. Appl. 16 (2011)
487496.
[122] W. Liu, Z. Lin, F. Wen, G. Ledwich, Intuitionistic fuzzy Choquet integral
operator-based approach for black-start decision-making, IET Gener.,
Transm. Distrib. 6 (2012) 378386.
[123] X. Zhang, Y. Deng, F.T. Chan, P. Xu, S. Mahadevan, Y. Hu, IFSJSP: a novel
methodology for the job-shop scheduling problem based on intuitionistic
fuzzy sets, Int. J. Prod. Res. 51 (2013) 51005119.
[124] K.H. Chang, C.H. Cheng, Y.C. Chang, Reprioritization of failures in a silane
supply system using an intuitionistic fuzzy set ranking technique, Soft
Comput. 14 (2010) 285298.
[125] F. Tao, D. Zhao, L. Zhang, Resource service optimal-selection based on
intuitionistic fuzzy set and non-functionality QoS in manufacturing grid
system, Knowl. Inform. Syst. 25 (2010) 185208.
[126] F. Boran, K. Boran, T. Menlik, The evaluation of renewable energy
technologies for electricity generation in Turkey using intuitionistic fuzzy
TOPSIS, Energy Source, B 7 (2012) 8190.
[127] S.F. Zhang, S.Y. Liu, A GRA-based intuitionistic fuzzy multi-criteria group
decision making method for personnel selection, Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (2011)
1140111405.
[128] J.L. Deng, Introduction to grey system theory, J. Grey Syst. UK 1 (1989)
124.
[129] F.E. Boran, S. Gen, D. Akay, Personnel selection based on intuitionistic fuzzy
sets, Hum. Factor. Ergon. Man. 21 (2011) 493503.
[130] P. Wang, QoS-aware web services selection with intuitionistic fuzzy set
under consumers vague perception, Expert Syst. Appl. 36 (2009) 44604466.
[131] S.K. De, R. Biswas, A.R. Roy, An application of intuitionistic fuzzy sets in
medical diagnosis, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 117 (2001) 209213.
[132] X. Zhao, Evaluation model for intellectual capital with intuitionistic fuzzy
information, in: IEEE International Conference on Industrial Mechatronics
and Automation, 2009, pp. 398401.
[133] D. Zhang, X. Zeng, H. Chen, W. He, Research on the evaluation models of
customer value of brokers in the circumstances of electronic commerce with
intuitionistic fuzzy information, Adv. Inform. Sci. Serv. Sci. 3 (2011) 7681.
[134] Y. Li, J. Yin, G. Wu, An approach to evaluating the computer network security
with intuitionistic fuzzy information, Adv. Inform. Sci. Serv. Sci. 3 (2011)
195200.
[135] Y. Zhang, Research on the pre-evaluation methods on performance balance of
computer with intuitionistic fuzzy information, Adv. Inform. Sci. Serv. Sci. 4
(2012) 161167.
[136] H. Fan, Research on the physical education teaching effectiveness of the
higher colleges and universities with intuitionistic fuzzy information, J.
Converg. Inform. Technol. 7 (2012) 463469.
[137] S.Y. Cui, A.F. Xu, An approach to evaluating the enterprise management
information system with intuitionistic fuzzy information, Int. J. Adv. Comput.
Technol. 4 (2012) 4955.
[138] Z. Yue, Y. Jia, C. Zhu, Prediction of air quality during 2010 asian games in
Guangzhou, in: IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and
Biomedical Engineering, 2009, pp. 15.
[139] H. Wang, G. Qian, X.Q. Feng, Predicting consumer sentiments using online
sequential extreme learning machine and intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Neural
Comput. Appl. 22 (2013) 479489.
[140] G. Wei, Induced intuitionistic fuzzy ordered weighted averaging operator and
its application to multiple attribute group decision making, in: Rough Sets
and Knowledge Technology, Springer, 2008, pp. 124131.