Research article

Managing incomplete general hesitant linguistic preference relations and their application

  • Received: 26 August 2024 Revised: 19 September 2024 Accepted: 29 September 2024 Published: 14 October 2024
  • MSC : 03E72, 94D05

  • Hesitant linguistic preference relations (HLPRs) are useful tools for decision makers (DMs) to express their qualitative judgements. However, the traditional HLPRs have one prominent drawback, which is to sort the linguistic values in a hesitant linguistic set. This will distort the DMs' initial judgements. In the present paper, a revised definition of HLPR, called general HLPR (GHLPR), was proposed. A characterization was explored for LPRs. Then, the characterization was extended to GHLPRs. Based on the characterization, the estimation of unknown entries in incomplete GHLPRs were carried out by two algorithms. The group decision-making problems with incomplete GHLPRs were settled by another algorithm. Finally, a case study was illustrated, and comparisons showed that our methods were more reasonable than the existent methods.

    Citation: Lei Zhao. Managing incomplete general hesitant linguistic preference relations and their application[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(10): 28870-28894. doi: 10.3934/math.20241401

    Related Papers:

    [1] Senthil Kumar Prakasam, Arul Joseph Gnanaprakasam, Gunaseelan Mani, Fahd Jarad . Solving an integral equation via orthogonal generalized $ {\boldsymbol{\alpha}} $-$ {\boldsymbol{\psi}} $-Geraghty contractions. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(3): 5899-5917. doi: 10.3934/math.2023297
    [2] Qing Yang, Chuanzhi Bai . Fixed point theorem for orthogonal contraction of Hardy-Rogers-type mapping on $O$-complete metric spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(6): 5734-5742. doi: 10.3934/math.2020368
    [3] Mustafa Mudhesh, Hasanen A. Hammad, Eskandar Ameer, Muhammad Arshad, Fahd Jarad . Novel results on fixed-point methodologies for hybrid contraction mappings in $ M_{b} $-metric spaces with an application. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(1): 1530-1549. doi: 10.3934/math.2023077
    [4] Chen Lang, Hongyan Guan . Common fixed point and coincidence point results for generalized $ \alpha $-$ \varphi_{E} $-Geraghty contraction mappings in $ b $-metric spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(8): 14513-14531. doi: 10.3934/math.2022800
    [5] Leyla Sağ Dönmez, Abdurrahman Büyükkaya, Mahpeyker Öztürk . Fixed-point results via $ \alpha_{i}^{j} $-$ \left({\bf D}_{{\mathscr{C}}}\left(\mathfrak{P}_{\hat E}\right)\right) $-contractions in partial $ \flat $-metric spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(10): 23674-23706. doi: 10.3934/math.20231204
    [6] Rashid Ali, Faisar Mehmood, Aqib Saghir, Hassen Aydi, Saber Mansour, Wajdi Kallel . Solution of integral equations for multivalued maps in fuzzy $ b $-metric spaces using Geraghty type contractions. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(7): 16633-16654. doi: 10.3934/math.2023851
    [7] Abdellah Taqbibt, M'hamed Elomari, Milica Savatović, Said Melliani, Stojan Radenović . Fixed point results for a new $ \alpha $-$ \theta $-Geraghty type contraction mapping in metric-like space via $ \mathcal{C}_\mathcal{G} $-simulation functions. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(12): 30313-30334. doi: 10.3934/math.20231548
    [8] Ying Chang, Hongyan Guan . Generalized $ (\alpha_s, \xi, \hbar, \tau) $-Geraghty contractive mappings and common fixed point results in partial $ b $-metric spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(7): 19299-19331. doi: 10.3934/math.2024940
    [9] Hongyan Guan, Jinze Gou, Yan Hao . On some weak contractive mappings of integral type and fixed point results in $ b $-metric spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(2): 4729-4748. doi: 10.3934/math.2024228
    [10] Aftab Hussain . Fractional convex type contraction with solution of fractional differential equation. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(5): 5364-5380. doi: 10.3934/math.2020344
  • Hesitant linguistic preference relations (HLPRs) are useful tools for decision makers (DMs) to express their qualitative judgements. However, the traditional HLPRs have one prominent drawback, which is to sort the linguistic values in a hesitant linguistic set. This will distort the DMs' initial judgements. In the present paper, a revised definition of HLPR, called general HLPR (GHLPR), was proposed. A characterization was explored for LPRs. Then, the characterization was extended to GHLPRs. Based on the characterization, the estimation of unknown entries in incomplete GHLPRs were carried out by two algorithms. The group decision-making problems with incomplete GHLPRs were settled by another algorithm. Finally, a case study was illustrated, and comparisons showed that our methods were more reasonable than the existent methods.



    Fixed point theory is one of very important tools for proving the existence and uniqueness of the solutions to various mathematical models like integral and partial differential equations, variational inequalities, optimization and approximation theories, etc. It has gained a considerable importance because of the Banach contraction mapping principle [5]. Since then, there have been many results related to the mapping satisfying various types of contractive inequalities; we refer the reader to [7,16,19,21] and references therein. In recent years, there has been a trend to weaken the requirement on the contraction by considering metric spaces endowed with a partial order; see [6,14,17,18]. Recently, Gordji et al. [13] coined an exciting notion of the orthogonal sets and after that, they introduced orthogonal metric spaces. The concepts of sequence, continuity and completeness were redefined for these spaces. Further, they gave an extension of Banach contraction principle (BCP) on this newly described shape and also applied their theorem to show the existence of a solution for a differential equation that cannot be attained using BCP. Many authors generalized BCP by using some control functions, see [15,22].

    First, we review some facts of O-metric spaces that we need in the sequel. The references [1,2,3,4,8,9,10,11,20] are useful.

    Definition 1.1. Let Eϕ and ⊥⊆E×E be a binary relation. If there is Ω0E such that ωΩ0 for all ωE or Ω0ω for each ωE, then E is called an O-set. We show this O-set by (E,).

    The following example gives a view on O-sets.

    Example 1.1. Let E=[0,1). Define: Ωω iff Ωω<1. Note that 12Ω for each Ω[0,1). Hence (E,) is an O-set.

    Definition 1.2. Let (E,) be an O-set. A sequence {Ωn}nN is called an O-sequence if for each n, ΩnΩn+1 or Ωn+1Ωn.

    The concept of continuity in such spaces is defined as follows.

    Definition 1.3. Let (E,,do) be an O-metric space. Then Υ:EE is O-continuous (or, -continuous) at aE provided that for each O-sequence {an}nN in E with ana, then Υ(an)Υ(a). Furthermore, Υ is -continuous on E if Υ is -continuous at each aE.

    Remark 1.1. Note that every continuous mapping is -continuous. In the following, the converse is not true.

    Example 1.2. Take E=R. Consider that Ωω iff Ω=0 or 0ωZ. Clearly, (E,) is an O-set. Given Υ:EE,

    Υ(Ω)={1,ifΩZ,0,ifΩEZ.

    Such Υ is -continuous, but it is not continuous on Z. On the other hand, if {Ωn} is an arbitrary O-sequence in E such that {Ωn} converges to ΩE, then we have the following cases:

    (i) If Ωn=0 for each n, then Ω=0 and Υ(Ωn)=11=Υ(Ω);

    (ii) If Ωn00 for some n0, then there is nZ such that ΩnZ for each nn0. Thus, ΩZ and Υ(Ωn)=11=Υ(Ω).

    It follows that Υ is -continuous on Z, but it is not continuous on Z.

    In the sequel, the following definition will be needed.

    Definition 1.4. Let (E,,do) be an O-set with a metric do. We say that E is O-complete, if every Cauchy O-sequence is convergent.

    Remark 1.2. Note that every complete metric space is O-complete, but the converse is not true.

    In the following, the concepts of -preserving and weakly -preserving in O-metric spaces are equivalent to the concepts of decreasing and increasing in metric spaces.

    Definition 1.5. Let (E,) be an O-set. We say that the mapping Υ:EE is -preserving if Υ(Ω)Υ(ω), when Ωω. Also, we say that Υ:EE is weakly -preserving if Υ(Ω)Υ(ω) or Υ(ω)Υ(Ω) when Ωω.

    Remark 1.3. Every -preserving is weakly -preserving. But, the converse is not true.

    Gordji et al. [13] considered a real extension of BCP.

    Theorem 1.1. Let (E,,do) be an O-complete metric space (not necessarily a complete metric space). Suppose that Υ:EE is -continuous, -preserving and an -contraction, i.e.,

    do(ΥΩ,Υω)λdo(Ω,ω)forallΩω,

    where 0<λ<1. Then Υ has a unique fixed point in E, say Ω. Also, Υ is a Picard operator, that is, limnΥn(Ω)=Ω for each ΩE.

    First, let S denote the class of functions β:[0,)[0,1) such that β(vn)1 implies vn0 as n. We begin with the following definition, which is useful to prove our main theorem. In fact, we extend the results in [1] by orthogonality and obtain some fixed point results in O-metric spaces.

    Definition 2.1. Let (E,,do) be an O-metric space. A mapping Υ:EE is said to be a Geraghty -contraction if, for Ω,ωE,

    Ωωimpliesdo(Υ(Ω),Υ(ω))β(do(Ω,ω))do(Ω,ω), (2.1)

    where βS.

    Now, we give an example showing that every Geraghty contraction (for more details and results using this concept, see [2,3,4]) is a Geraghty -contraction, but the converse is not true.

    Example 2.1. Take E=[0,3) endowed with the Euclidean metric. Consider that Ωω iff ΩωΩ. Define Υ:EE by

    Υ(Ω)={Ω4,ifΩ2,0,ifΩ>2.

    The following cases hold:

    (i) If Ω=0,ω2,thenΥ(Ω)=0,Υ(ω)=ω4;

    (ii) If Ω=0,ω>2,thenΥ(Ω)=0=Υ(ω);

    (iii) If ω1,Ω2,thenΥ(Ω)=Ω4,Υ(ω)=ω4;

    (iv) If ω1,Ω>2,thenΥ(Ω)=0,Υ(ω)=ω4.

    Given β:[0,)[0,1) as β(do(Ω,ω))=11+do(Ω,ω), note that β(do(Ω,ω))1 implies do(Ω,ω)0. Also, |Υ(Ω)Υ(ω)||Ωω|1+|Ωω|. Hence, Υ is a Geraghty -contraction. But, Υ is not a Geraghty contraction. Indeed, for Ω=2 and ω=52, we have

    |Υ(2)Υ(52)|=12|252|1+|252|=13.

    An additional importance for applications of orthogonal spaces is represented by the richness of the structure of metric spaces that we may see in the following result.

    Theorem 2.1. Let (E,,do) be an O-complete metric space and let Υ:EE be -continuous, -preserving and a Geraghty -contraction. Then Υ has a unique fixed point in E. Also, Υ is a Picard operator.

    Proof. We first show that Υ has a fixed point. Since E is an O-set, there is Ω0E such that for every ωE, Ω0ω or ωΩ0. It follows that Ω0Υ(Ω0) or Υ(Ω0)Ω0. Since Υ is -preserving, by induction we obtain that

    Ω0Υ(Ω0)Υ2(Ω0)Υ3(Ω0)Υn(Ω0)Υn+1(Ω0)

    Set Ωn=Υn(Ω0) for n=1,2,. Since ΩnΩn+1 for each nN, by (2.1),

    do(Ωn+1,Ωn+2)=do(Υn+1(Ω0),Υn+2(Ω0))β(do(Ωn,Ωn+1))do(Ωn,Ωn+1)do(Ωn,Ωn+1).

    Then {do(Ωn,Ωn+1)} is an -preserving sequence and is bounded below, so limndo(Ωn,Ωn+1)=r0. Assume r>0, then, from (2.1), we have

    do(Ωn+1,Ωn+2)do(Ωn,Ωn+1)β(do(Ωn,Ωn+1)),n=1,2,

    The above inequality yields limnβ(do(Ωn,Ωn+1))=1. Since βS, we get that r=0. Then limndo(Ωn,Ωn+1)=0.

    Now, we show that {Ωn} is a Cauchy O-sequence. On the contrary, assume that

    lim supm,ndo(Ωn,Ωm)>0. (2.2)

    By the triangle inequality,

    do(Ωn,Ωm)do(Ωn,Ωn+1)+do(Ωn+1,Ωm+1)+do(Ωm+1,Ωm).

    Hence from (2.1),

    do(Ωn,Ωm)(1β(do(Ωn,Ωm)))1[do(Ωn,Ωn+1)+do(Ωm+1,Ωm)].

    Since lim supm,ndo(Ωn,Ωm)>0 and limndo(Ωn,Ωn+1)=0, we have

    lim supm,n(1β(do(Ωn,Ωm)))1=.

    We obtain lim supm,nβ(do(Ωn,Ωm))=1. But since βS, we get

    lim supm,ndo(Ωn,Ωm)=0.

    This contradicts (2.2), so {Ωn} is a Cauchy O-sequence in E. Since (E,do) is an O-complete metric space, there is tE such that limnΩn=t. To prove that t is a fixed point of Υ, in the case that Υ is -continuous, one writes

    t=limnΩn=limnΥn(Ω0)=limnΥn+1(Ω0)=Υ(limnΥn(Ω0))=Υ(t).

    Hence Υ(t)=t, i.e., t is a fixed point.

    Let Ω be another fixed point of Υ. So, we have

    Υn(Ω)=Ω,Υn(ω)=ω,for eachnN.

    By choosing Ω0 in the first part of proof, we get

    (Ω0Ω,Ω0ω)or(ΩΩ0,ωΩ0).

    Since Υ is -preserving, we infer that

    (Υn(Ω0)Υn(Ω),Υn(Ω0)Υn(ω))for eachnN

    or

    (Υn(Ω)Υn(Ω0),Υn(ω)Υn(Ω0))for eachnN.

    By the triangle inequality, we obtain

    do(Ω,Υn(Ω0))=do(Υn(Ω),Υn(Ω0))β(do(Υn1(Ω),Υn1(Ω0)))do(Υn1(Ω),Υn1(Ω0))do(Υn1(Ω),Υn1(Ω0))=do(Ω,Υn1(Ω0)). (2.3)

    Since γn=do(Ω,Υn(Ω0)) is nonnegative and -preserving,

    limndo(Ω,Υn(Ω0))=γ0.

    We show that γ=0. On the contrary, suppose that γ>0. By passing to subsequences, if necessary, assume that limnβ(γn)=λ exists. From (2.3), we deduce that λγ=γ, so λ=1. Since βS, we obtain that

    γ=limnγn=limndo(Ω,Υn(Ω0))=0.

    This contradiction implies that γ=0. Similarly, limndo(ω,Υn(Ω0))=0. Therefore,

    do(Ω,ω)do(Ω,Υn(Ω0))+do(Υn(Ω0),ω)0(asn).

    Consequently, do(Ω,ω)=0, so Ω=ω.

    Finally, suppose that ω is an arbitrary element in E. Similarly,

    (Ω0Ω,Ω0ω)or(ΩΩ0,ωΩ0)

    and

    (Υn(Ω0)Υn(Ω),Υn(Ω0)Υn(ω))

    or

    (Υn(Ω)Υn(Ω0),Υn(ω)Υn(Ω0))

    for each nN. By the triangle inequality, we get

    do(Ω,Υn(ω))=do(Υn(Ω),Υn(ω))β(do(Υn1(Ω),Υn1(ω)))do(Υn1(Ω),Υn1(ω))do(Υn1(Ω),Υn1(ω))=do(Ω,Υn1(ω)).

    Similar to the above reasoning, limndo(Ω,Υn(ω))=0. So Υ is a Picard operator.

    In the following example, we show that Theorem 2.1 is a genuine generalization of Theorem 2.1 in [1].

    Example 2.2. According to Example 2.1 and by using Theorem 2.1, one can see that Υ has a unique fixed point. However, Υ is not a Geraghty contraction; so, by Theorem 2.1 in [1], we cannot find any fixed point for Υ.

    We have the following corollary.

    Corollary 2.1. The notions of O-completeness and O-continuity on O-metric spaces are weaker than the concepts of completeness and continuity on metric spaces. Therefore, Theorem 2.1 is a generalization of the corresponding results in [1].

    In this section, our purpose is to apply Theorem 2.1 to prove the existence of a solution for the following first-order problem:

    {Ω()=γ(,Ω()),J=[0,L]Ω(0)=Ω(L). (3.1)

    Let A denote the class of functions ψ:[0,)[0,) such that

    (i) ψ is increasing;

    (ii) for each ξ>0, ψ(ξ)<ξ;

    (iii) β(ξ)=ψ(ξ)ξS.

    Assume that γ:J×RR is an integrable function so that

    (k1) γ(,ξ)0 for all ξ0 and J;

    (k2) there are ψA and λ>0 such that for all ξ,μR with ξ,μ0 and μξ0 and for J, we have

    0γ(,μ)+λμ[γ(,ξ)+λξ]λ(μξ).

    Theorem 3.1. Under the above conditions, the ordinary differential equation (3.1) has a unique positive solution.

    Proof. Take E={ΩC(J):Ω()0,forallJ}. Consider the following O-relation on E:

    xyiffy()x()0foreachJ.

    Define do(x,y)=sup{|x()y()|:J} for all x,yE. Clearly, (E,do) is a metric space. We show that E is O-complete (not necessarily complete). Take the Cauchy O-sequence {xn}E. Now, we show that {xn} is converging to an element x in C(J). To ensure this, it suffices that xE. Fix J. Since xn()0 for each nN, the convergence of this real sequence to x() implies that x()0. But, J is arbitrary; therefore, x0 and consequently, xE.

    Problem (3.1) can be expressed as

    {Ω()+λΩ()=γ(,Ω())+λΩ(),J=[0,L]Ω(0)=Ω(L). (3.2)

    This problem is equivalent to the integral equation

    Ω()=L0G(,h)[γ(h,Ω(h))+λΩ(h)]dh,

    where

    G(,h)={eλ(L+h)eλL1,0h<L,eλ(h)eλL1,0<hL.

    Define Γ:EE as

    Γu()=L0G(,h)[γ(h,u(h))+λu(h)]dh.

    Note that a fixed point of Γ is a solution of (3.2). We claim that the hypotheses of Theorem 2.1 hold.

    Step 1) Γ is -preserving.

    For xy and J,

    Γy()=L0G(,h)[γ(h,y(h))+λy(h)]dhL0G(,h)[γ(h,x(h))+λx(h)]dh=Γx()

    which yields that Γy()Γx()0. Therefore, ΓxΓy.

    Step 2) Γ is a Geraghty -contraction.

    For xy and J, condition (k2) implies that

    do(Γy,Γx)=supJ|Γy()Γx()|supJL0G(,h)|γ(h,y(h))+λy(h)γ(h,x(h))λx(h)|dhsupJL0G(,h).λ.ψ(y(h)x(h))dh.

    As ψ is increasing, ψ(y(h)x(h))ψ(do(x,y)). Then

    do(Γy,Γx)supJL0G(,h).λ.ψ(y(h)x(h))dhλ.ψ(do(x,y)).supJL0G(,h)dh=λ.ψ(do(x,y)).supJ1eλL1(1λeλ(L+h)|0+1λeλ(h)|L)=λ.ψ(do(x,y)).1λ(eλL1)(eλL1)=ψ(do(x,y))=ψ(do(x,y))do(x,y)do(x,y)=β(do(x,y))do(x,y).

    For xy, we get

    do(Γx,Γy)β(do(x,y))do(x,y).

    Hence, Γ is a Geraghty -contraction.

    Step 3) Γ is -continuous.

    Let {xn}E be an O-sequence converging to xE. Thus, xn+1xn or xnxn+1 for each n. Hence, xnxn+1 or xn+1xn. Therefore, xn()x()0 or x()xn()0 for all J and nN. In the case that xn()x()0 for each n, condition (k2) implies that

    do(Γxn,Γx)supJL0G(,h).λ.ψ(xn(h)x(h))dhβ(do(xn,x))do(xn,x).

    Thus,

    do(Γxn,Γx)β(do(xn,x))do(xn,x),

    for each nN. This implies that ΓxnΓx. In the case that x()xn()0 for each n, the similar argument shows that ΓxnΓx. Consequently, Γ is -continuous.

    By Theorem 2.1, we deduce the uniqueness of a solution of (3.1).

    In this study, we have defined the notion of Geraghty -contraction mappings and have established a fixed point theorem for such mappings in the setting of O-complete metric space which is not necessarily complete. Further, as an application, we solved an ordinary differential equation with the help of our main theorem.

    The authors declare to have no competing interests.



    [1] T. L. Saaty, The analytic hierarchy process, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980. https://doi.org/10.21236/ADA214804
    [2] T. Tanino, Fuzzy preference orderings in group decision making, Fuzzy Set. Syst., 12 (1984), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(84)90032-0 doi: 10.1016/0165-0114(84)90032-0
    [3] C. C. Li, Y. C. Dong, Y. J. Xu, F. Chiclana, E. Herrera-Viedma, F. Herrera, An overview on managing additive consistency of reciprocal preference relations for consistency-driven decision making and fusion: Taxonomy and future directions, Inform. Fusion, 52 (2019), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2018.12.004 doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2018.12.004
    [4] Y. J. Xu, Q. Q. Wang, F. Chiclana, E. Herrera-Viedma, A local adjustment method to improve multiplicative consistency of fuzzy reciprocal preference relations, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cy.-S., 53 (2023), 5702–5714. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2023.3275167 doi: 10.1109/TSMC.2023.3275167
    [5] M. Q. Li, Z. Y. Wang, Y. J. Xu, W. J. Dai, Two-stage group decision making methodology with hesitant fuzzy preference relations under social network: Multiplicative consistency determination and personalized feedback, Inform. Sciences, 681 (2024), 121155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2024.121155 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2024.121155
    [6] X. Liu, Y. Y. Zhang, Y. J. Xu, M. Q. Li, E. Herrera-Viedma, A consensus model for group decision-making with personalized individual self-confidence and trust semantics: A perspective on dynamic social network interactions, Inform. Sciences, 627 (2023), 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2023.01.087 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2023.01.087
    [7] F. Herrera, A sequential selection process in group decision making with a linguistic assessment approach, Inform. Sciences, 85 (1995), 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0255(95)00025-K doi: 10.1016/0020-0255(95)00025-K
    [8] V. Torra, Hesitant fuzzy sets, Int. J. Intell. Syst., 25 (2010), 529–539. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.20418 doi: 10.1002/int.20418
    [9] M. W. Jang, J. H. Park, M. J. Son, Probabilistic picture hesitant fuzzy sets and their application to multi-criteria decision-making, AIMS Math., 8 (2023), 8522–8559. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2023429 doi: 10.3934/math.2023429
    [10] A. Nazra, Jenison, Y. Asdi, Zulvera, Generalized hesitant intuitionistic fuzzy N-soft sets-first result, AIMS Math., 7 (2022), 12650–12670. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2022700 doi: 10.3934/math.2022700
    [11] W. Y. Zeng, R. Ma, D. Q. Li, Q. Yin, Z. S. Xu, A. M. Khalil, Novel operations of weighted hesitant fuzzy sets and their group decision making application, AIMS Math., 7 (2022), 14117–14138. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2022778 doi: 10.3934/math.2022778
    [12] A. Dey, T. Senapati, M. Pal, G. Y. Chen, A novel approach to hesitant multi-fuzzy soft set based decision-making, AIMS Math., 5 (2020), 1985–2008. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2020132 doi: 10.3934/math.2020132
    [13] R. M. Rodríguez, L. Martı́nez, F. Herrera, Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets for decision making, IEEE T. Fuzzy Syst., 20 (2012), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2011.2170076 doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2011.2170076
    [14] M. M. Xia, Z. S. Xu, Managing hesitant information in GDM problems under fuzzy and multiplicative preference relations, Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzz., 21 (2013), 865–897. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218488513500402 doi: 10.1142/S0218488513500402
    [15] Y. J. Xu, W. J. Dai, J. Huang, M. Q. Li, E. Herrera-Viedma, Some models to manage additive consistency and derive priority weights from hesitant fuzzy preference relations, Inform. Sciences, 586 (2022), 450–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2021.12.002 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2021.12.002
    [16] Y. J. Xu, M. Q. Li, F. Chiclana, E. Herrera-Viedma, Multiplicative consistency ascertaining, inconsistency repairing, and weights derivation of hesitant multiplicative preference relations, IEEE T. Syst. Man Cy-S., 52 (2022), 6806–6821. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2021.3099862 doi: 10.1109/TSMC.2021.3099862
    [17] B. Zhu, Z. S. Xu, Consistency measures for hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relation, IEEE T. Fuzzy Syst., 22 (2014), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2013.2245136 doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2013.2245136
    [18] Z. M. Zhang, C. Wu, On the use of multiplicative consistency in hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations, Knowl.-Based Syst., 72 (2014), 13–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2014.08.026 doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2014.08.026
    [19] Z. B. Wu, J. P. Xu, Managing consistency and consensus in group decision making with hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations, Omega, 65 (2016), 28–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.12.005 doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2015.12.005
    [20] X. Chen, L. J. Peng, Z. B. Wu, W. Pedrycz, Controlling the worst consistency index for hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations in consensus optimization models, Comput. Ind. Eng., 143 (2020), 106423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2020.106423 doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2020.106423
    [21] C. L. Zheng, Y. Y. Zhou, L. G. Zhou, H. Y. Chen, Clustering and compatibility-based approach for large-scale group decision making with hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations: An application in e-waste recycling, Expert Syst. with Appl., 197 (2022), 116615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.116615 doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.116615
    [22] P. Wu, L. G. Zhou, H. Y. Chen, Z. F. Tao, Additive consistency of hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relation with a new expansion principle for hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets, IEEE T. Fuzzy Syst., 27 (2019), 716–730. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2018.2868492 doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2018.2868492
    [23] Y. J. Xu, F. J. Cabrerizo, E. Herrera-Viedma, A consensus model for hesitant fuzzy preference relations and itsapplication in water allocation management, Appl. Soft Comput., 58 (2017), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.04.068 doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2017.04.068
    [24] C. C. Li, R. M. Rodríguez, F. Herrera, L. Martínez, Y. C. Dong, Consistency of hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations: An interval consistency index, Inform. Sciences, 432 (2018), 347–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.12.018 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2017.12.018
    [25] C. C. Li, R. M. Rodríguez, L. Martínez, Y. C. Dong, F. Herrera, Personalized individual semantics based on consistency in hesitant linguistic group decision making with comparative linguistic expressions, Knowl.-Based Syst., 145 (2018), 156–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.01.011 doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2018.01.011
    [26] Y. J. Xu, X. W. Wen, H. Sun, H. M. Wang, Consistency and consensus models with local adjustment strategy for hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations, Int. J. Fuzzy Syst., 20 (2018), 2216–2233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-017-0438-3 doi: 10.1007/s40815-017-0438-3
    [27] H. B. Liu, L. Jiang, Optimizing consistency and consensus improvement process for hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations and the application in group decision making, Inform. Fusion, 56 (2020), 114–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2019.10.002 doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2019.10.002
    [28] M. Fedrizz, S. Giove, Incomplete pairwise comparison and consistency optimization, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 183 (2007), 303–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.09.065 doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2006.09.065
    [29] Z. S. Xu, Incomplete linguistic preference relations and their fusion, Inform. Fusion, 7 (2006), 331–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2005.01.003 doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2005.01.003
    [30] Y. J. Xu, C. Y. Li, X. W. Wen, Missing values estimation and consensus building for incomplete hesitant fuzzy preference relations with multiplicative consistency, Int. J. Comput. Int. Syst., 11 (2018), 101–119. https://doi.org/10.2991/ijcis.11.1.9 doi: 10.2991/ijcis.11.1.9
    [31] Y. L. Lu, Y. J. Xu, E. Herrera-Viedma, Consensus progress for large-scale group decision making in social networks with incomplete probabilistic hesitant fuzzy information, Appl. Soft Comput., 126 (2022), 109249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2022.109249 doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2022.109249
    [32] Y. L. Lu, Y. J. Xu, J. Huang, J. Wei, Social network clustering and consensus-based distrust behaviors management for large-scale group decision-making with incomplete hesitant fuzzy preference relations, Appl. Soft Comput., 117 (2022), 108373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2021.108373 doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2021.108373
    [33] J. Huang, Y. J. Xu, X. W. Wen, X. T. Zhu, E. Herrera-Viedma, Deriving priorities from the fuzzy best-worst method matrix and its applications: A perspective of incomplete reciprocal preference relation, Inform. Sciences, 634 (2023), 761–778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2023.03.125 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2023.03.125
    [34] P. Wu, H. Y. Li, J. M. Merigó, L. G. Zhou, Integer programming modeling on group decision making with incomplete hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations, IEEE Access, 7 (2019), 136867–136881. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2942412 doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2942412
    [35] H. B. Liu, Y. Ma, L. Jiang, Managing incomplete preferences and consistency improvement in hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations with applications in group decision making, Inform. Fusion, 51 (2019), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2018.10.011 doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2018.10.011
    [36] Z. L. Li, Z. Zhang, W. Y. Yu, Consensus reaching with consistency control in group decision making with incomplete hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations, Comput. Ind. Eng., 170 (2022), 108311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2022.108311 doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2022.108311
    [37] P. J. Ren, Z. N. Hao, X. X. Wang, X. J. Zeng, Z. S. Xu, Decision-making models based on incomplete hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relation with application to site selection of hydropower stations, IEEE T. Eng. Manage., 69 (2022), 904–915. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2019.2962180 doi: 10.1109/TEM.2019.2962180
    [38] Y. M. Song, G. X. Li, A mathematical programming approach to manage group decision making with incomplete hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations, Comput. Ind. Eng., 135 (2019), 467–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.06.036 doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2019.06.036
    [39] F. Herrera, E. Herrera-Viedma, J. L. Verdegay, Direct approach processes in group decision making using linguistic OWA operators, Fuzzy Set. Syst., 79 (1994), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(95)00162-X doi: 10.1016/0165-0114(95)00162-X
    [40] Z. S. Xu, A method based on linguistic aggregation operators for group decision making with linguistic preference relations, Inform. Sciences, 166 (2004), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2003.10.006 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2003.10.006
    [41] Y. C. Dong, Xu, Y. F., H. Y. Li, On consistency measures of linguistic preference relations, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 189 (2008), 430–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.06.013 doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2007.06.013
    [42] H. Wang, Extended hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and their aggregation in group decision making, Int. J. Comput. Int. Syst., 8 (2015), 14–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.06.013 doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2007.06.013
    [43] H. C. Liao, Z. S. Xu, X.-J. Zeng, J. M. Merigó, Qualitative decision making with correlation coefficients of hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets, Knowl.-Based Syst., 76 (2015), 127–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2014.12.009 doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2014.12.009
    [44] E. Herrera-Viedma, F. Herrera, F. Chiclana, M. Luque, Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 154 (2004), 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00725-7 doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00725-7
    [45] Y. J. Xu, K. W. Li, H. M. Wang, Incomplete interval fuzzy preference relations and their applications, Comput. Ind. Eng., 67 (2014), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2013.10.010 doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2013.10.010
    [46] M. Tang, H. C. Liao, Z. M. Li, Z. S. Xu, Nature disaster risk evaluation with a group decision making method based on incomplete hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations, Int. J. Env. Res. Pub. He, 15 (2018), 751. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15040751 doi: 10.3390/ijerph15040751
    [47] Y. J. Xu, F. Ma, F. Tao, H. M. Wang, Some methods to deal with unacceptable incomplete 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic preference relations in group decision making, Knowl.-Based Syst., 56 (2014), 179–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2013.11.008 doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2013.11.008
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(586) PDF downloads(34) Cited by(0)

Figures and Tables

Tables(2)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog