IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/matcom/v207y2023icp267-287.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A two-dimensional approach to flexibility degree of XOR numbers with application to group decision making

Author

Listed:
  • Liu, Fang
  • Chen, Ya-Ru
  • Zhou, Da-Hai

Abstract

Uncertainty is an inevitable challenge in the process of complex decision-making. The “exclusive-or” (XOR) logic is a novel tool to model some uncertainty. An uncertain quantity always exhibits flexibility degree (FD), which has been defined for fuzzy numbers. In this paper, we extend the concept of FD to XOR numbers, report the method for computing the FD of XOR pairwise comparison matrices (XOR-PCMs) and develop a group decision making (GDM) model. First, the comparability between the linguistic term “or”, the XOR logic and pairwise comparisons of alternatives is investigated. It is pointed out the linguistic term “or” may be non-exclusive. Second, the two-dimensional method of computing the FD of XOR numbers is proposed, and some properties are studied. Third, the method for computing FD of XOR-PCMs is proposed, and the FD-driven aggregation operator is developed to aggregate individual XOR-PCMs. The more importance is offered to the decision maker (DM) with the less FD of the provided XOR-PCM. Finally, the proposed model is illustrated by carrying out a case study, where the sensitivity of attitudes and weights of DMs to the optimal solution is analyzed.

Suggested Citation

  • Liu, Fang & Chen, Ya-Ru & Zhou, Da-Hai, 2023. "A two-dimensional approach to flexibility degree of XOR numbers with application to group decision making," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 207(C), pages 267-287.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:matcom:v:207:y:2023:i:c:p:267-287
    DOI: 10.1016/j.matcom.2022.12.030
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378475422005171
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.matcom.2022.12.030?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Atef, Mohammed & Nada, Shokry I., 2021. "On three types of soft fuzzy coverings based rough sets," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 452-467.
    2. Wu, Zhibin & Xu, Jiuping, 2016. "Managing consistency and consensus in group decision making with hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 28-40.
    3. David V. Budescu & Eva Chen, 2015. "Identifying Expertise to Extract the Wisdom of Crowds," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(2), pages 267-280, February.
    4. Hocine, Amine & Kouaissah, Noureddine, 2020. "XOR analytic hierarchy process and its application in the renewable energy sector," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    5. Durbach, Ian & Lahdelma, Risto & Salminen, Pekka, 2014. "The analytic hierarchy process with stochastic judgements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 238(2), pages 552-559.
    6. Mohammed Atef & Shokry Nada & Abdu Gumaei & Ashraf S. Nawar & naeem jan, 2021. "On Three Types of Soft Rough Covering-Based Fuzzy Sets," Journal of Mathematics, Hindawi, vol. 2021, pages 1-9, January.
    7. Yucheng Dong & Jiuping Xu, 2016. "Consensus Building in Group Decision Making," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-981-287-892-2, November.
    8. Dražen Prelec & H. Sebastian Seung & John McCoy, 2017. "A solution to the single-question crowd wisdom problem," Nature, Nature, vol. 541(7638), pages 532-535, January.
    9. Saaty, Thomas L. & Vargas, Luis G., 1987. "Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 107-117, October.
    10. Hu, Chaoming & Wan, Zhao Man & Zhu, Saihua & Wan, Zhong, 2022. "An integrated stochastic model and algorithm for constrained multi-item newsvendor problems by two-stage decision-making approach," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 280-300.
    11. Jie Lu & Guangquan Zhang & Da Ruan & Fengjie Wu, 2007. "Fuzzy Group Decision Making," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Multi-Objective Group Decision Making Methods, Software and Applications with Fuzzy Set Techniques, chapter 10, pages 207-227, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    13. Mohammadi, Majid & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Bayesian best-worst method: A probabilistic group decision making model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    14. Herrera, F. & Herrera-Viedma, E. & Chiclana, F., 2001. "Multiperson decision-making based on multiplicative preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(2), pages 372-385, March.
    15. Jie Lu & Guangquan Zhang & Da Ruan & Fengjie Wu, 2007. "Group Decision Making," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Multi-Objective Group Decision Making Methods, Software and Applications with Fuzzy Set Techniques, chapter 3, pages 39-51, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    16. Jie Lu & Guangquan Zhang & Da Ruan & Fengjie Wu, 2007. "Multi-Objective Group Decision Making:Methods, Software and Applications with Fuzzy Set Techniques(With CD-ROM)," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number p505, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wu, Zhibin & Huang, Shuai & Xu, Jiuping, 2019. "Multi-stage optimization models for individual consistency and group consensus with preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(1), pages 182-194.
    2. Zhang, Hengjie & Dong, Yucheng & Chiclana, Francisco & Yu, Shui, 2019. "Consensus efficiency in group decision making: A comprehensive comparative study and its optimal design," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(2), pages 580-598.
    3. Liu Fang & Peng Yanan & Zhang Weiguo & Pedrycz Witold, 2017. "On Consistency in AHP and Fuzzy AHP," Journal of Systems Science and Information, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 128-147, April.
    4. Hocine, Amine & Kouaissah, Noureddine, 2020. "XOR analytic hierarchy process and its application in the renewable energy sector," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    5. Ian Durbach, 2019. "Scenario planning in the analytic hierarchy process," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(2), June.
    6. Xu, Zeshui & Chen, Jian, 2008. "Some models for deriving the priority weights from interval fuzzy preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 266-280, January.
    7. Fang Liu & Mao-Jie Huang & Cai-Xia Huang & Witold Pedrycz, 2022. "Measuring consistency of interval-valued preference relations: comments and comparison," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 371-399, March.
    8. Li, Kevin W. & Wang, Zhou-Jing & Tong, Xiayu, 2016. "Acceptability analysis and priority weight elicitation for interval multiplicative comparison matrices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(2), pages 628-638.
    9. Wenjing Luo & Zhi Qiu & Yurika Yokoyama & Shengyuan Zheng, 2022. "Decision-Making Mechanism of Joint Activities for the Elderly and Children in Integrated Welfare Facilities: A Discussion Based on “Motivation–Constraint” Interaction Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-23, August.
    10. Zeshui Xu, 2013. "Compatibility Analysis of Intuitionistic Fuzzy Preference Relations in Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 463-482, May.
    11. Wanke, Peter Fernandes & Chiappetta Jabbour, Charbel José & Moreira Antunes, Jorge Junio & Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, Ana Beatriz & Roubaud, David & Sobreiro, Vinicius Amorim & Santibanez Gonzalez‬, Erne, 2021. "An original information entropy-based quantitative evaluation model for low-carbon operations in an emerging market," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    12. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Stochastic preference analysis in numerical preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(2), pages 628-633.
    13. Vijay Pereira & Umesh Bamel, 2023. "Charting the managerial and theoretical evolutionary path of AHP using thematic and systematic review: a decadal (2012–2021) study," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 635-651, July.
    14. Jacinto González-Pachón & Carlos Romero, 2007. "Inferring consensus weights from pairwise comparison matrices without suitable properties," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 123-132, October.
    15. Eduardo Fernández & Claudia Gómez-Santillán & Nelson Rangel-Valdez & Laura Cruz-Reyes, 2022. "Group Multi-Objective Optimization Under Imprecision and Uncertainty Using a Novel Interval Outranking Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 945-994, October.
    16. Lucas, Rochelle Irene & Promentilla, Michael Angelo & Ubando, Aristotle & Tan, Raymond Girard & Aviso, Kathleen & Yu, Krista Danielle, 2017. "An AHP-based evaluation method for teacher training workshop on information and communication technology," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 93-100.
    17. Amelia Bilbao-Terol & Mar Arenas-Parra & Raquel Quiroga-García & Celia Bilbao-Terol, 2022. "An extended best–worst multiple reference point method: application in the assessment of non-life insurance companies," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 5323-5362, November.
    18. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    19. May, Jerrold H. & Shang, Jennifer & Tjader, Youxu Cai & Vargas, Luis G., 2013. "A new methodology for sensitivity and stability analysis of analytic network models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 224(1), pages 180-188.
    20. Yibin Zhang & Kevin W. Li & Zhou-Jing Wang, 2017. "Prioritization and Aggregation of Intuitionistic Preference Relations: A Multiplicative-Transitivity-Based Transformation from Intuitionistic Judgment Data to Priority Weights," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 409-436, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:matcom:v:207:y:2023:i:c:p:267-287. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/mathematics-and-computers-in-simulation/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.