IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v10y2022i9p1369-d797431.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Research on Consistency Checking and Improvement of Probabilistic Linguistic Preference Relation Based on Similarity Measure and Minimum Adjustment Model

Author

Listed:
  • Huimin Xiao

    (School of Computer and Information Engineering, Henan University of Economics and Law, Zhengzhou 450046, China)

  • Shouwen Wu

    (School of Computer and Information Engineering, Henan University of Economics and Law, Zhengzhou 450046, China)

  • Chunsheng Cui

    (School of Computer and Information Engineering, Henan University of Economics and Law, Zhengzhou 450046, China)

Abstract

In the process of decision making, the probabilistic linguistic term set (PLTS) is a useful tool to express the evaluation information provided by decision makers (DMs). On the basis of PLTS, the probabilistic linguistic preference relation (PLPR) has been proposed, which can well describe the uncertainty of preferences when experts conduct pairwise comparison between any two alternatives. The consistency analysis is an essential process to check whether the preferences are reasonable and logical. For the consistency checking and improvement of PLPR, some methods have been developed to conduct the work. However, the previous methods seldom consider whether the information of original preferences is distorted after the adjustment of inconsistency preferences, and the adjustment processes are complicated in much of the literature. To overcome the defects of existing methods, we developed a novel PLPR consistency analysis model, and this paper mainly contains two sections. On the one hand, a new consistency index and the consistency checking method are proposed based on similarity measure, respectively. On the other hand, based on the idea of minimum adjustment, we constructed an optimization model to improve the consistency level and develop the process of decision making on the basis of consistency analysis. A numerical example about talent recruitment is given to verify the feasibility of the proposed method. We have a comparative analysis with Zhang’s method from many aspects including the decision results, consistency checking and improvement, as well as adjusted preferences, adjustment costs and consistence threshold. At length, the conclusion of this research is that the proposed consistency analysis model is superior to the previous method on the determination of adjustment parameter, as well as the adjustment cost and the retention of original preferences. To show the effectiveness and superiority, we have a comparative analysis with other approaches. At length, the conclusion of this study is drawn.

Suggested Citation

  • Huimin Xiao & Shouwen Wu & Chunsheng Cui, 2022. "The Research on Consistency Checking and Improvement of Probabilistic Linguistic Preference Relation Based on Similarity Measure and Minimum Adjustment Model," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-18, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:10:y:2022:i:9:p:1369-:d:797431
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/9/1369/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/9/1369/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dong, Yucheng & Xu, Yinfeng & Li, Hongyi, 2008. "On consistency measures of linguistic preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 189(2), pages 430-444, September.
    2. Hong-gang Peng & Jian-qiang Wang, 2020. "Multi-criteria sorting decision making based on dominance and opposition relations with probabilistic linguistic information," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 435-470, December.
    3. Sui-zhi Luo & Hong-yu Zhang & Jian-qiang Wang & Lin Li, 2019. "Group decision-making approach for evaluating the sustainability of constructed wetlands with probabilistic linguistic preference relations," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 70(12), pages 2039-2055, December.
    4. Pei Liang & Junhua Hu & Bo Li & Yongmei Liu & Xiaohong Chen, 2020. "A group decision making with probability linguistic preference relations based on nonlinear optimization model and fuzzy cooperative games," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 499-528, December.
    5. Fu, Chao & Chang, Wenjun & Xue, Min & Yang, Shanlin, 2019. "Multiple criteria group decision making with belief distributions and distributed preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(2), pages 623-633.
    6. Xiangqian Feng & Xiaodong Pang & Lan Zhang, 2020. "On consistency and priority weights for interval probabilistic linguistic preference relations," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 529-560, December.
    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. Min Xue & Chao Fu & Shanlin Yang, 2022. "A comparative analysis of probabilistic linguistic preference relations and distributed preference relations for decision making," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 71-97, March.
    2. Juan Antonio Morente-Molinera & Francisco Javier Cabrerizo & Sergio Alonso & Ignacio Javier Pérez & Enrique Herrera-Viedma, 2020. "Assisting Users in Decisions Using Fuzzy Ontologies: Application in the Wine Market," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-18, October.
    3. Pei Liang & Junhua Hu & Bo Li & Yongmei Liu & Xiaohong Chen, 2020. "A group decision making with probability linguistic preference relations based on nonlinear optimization model and fuzzy cooperative games," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 499-528, December.
    4. Feifei Jin & Chang Li & Jinpei Liu & Ligang Zhou, 2021. "Distribution Linguistic Fuzzy Group Decision Making Based on Consistency and Consensus Analysis," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(19), pages 1-19, October.
    5. Yan, Hong-Bin & Ma, Tieju & Huynh, Van-Nam, 2017. "On qualitative multi-attribute group decision making and its consensus measure: A probability based perspective," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 94-117.
    6. González-Arteaga, T. & Alcantud, J.C.R. & de Andrés Calle, R., 2016. "A cardinal dissensus measure based on the Mahalanobis distance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(2), pages 575-585.
    7. Fu, Chao & Yang, Shanlin, 2011. "An attribute weight based feedback model for multiple attributive group decision analysis problems with group consensus requirements in evidential reasoning context," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 212(1), pages 179-189, July.
    8. Meimei Xia & Jian Chen & Juliang Zhang, 2015. "Multi-criteria decision making based on relative measures," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 229(1), pages 791-811, June.
    9. Fu, Chao & Yang, Shanlin, 2012. "An evidential reasoning based consensus model for multiple attribute group decision analysis problems with interval-valued group consensus requirements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(1), pages 167-176.
    10. Yu Zhang & Wen Jiang & Xinyang Deng, 2019. "Fault diagnosis method based on time domain weighted data aggregation and information fusion," International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, , vol. 15(9), pages 15501477198, September.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Mamata Sahu & Anjana Gupta, 2019. "Improving the consistency of incomplete hesitant multiplicative preference relation," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 56(1), pages 324-343, March.
    14. Liguo Fei & Jun Xia & Yuqiang Feng & Luning Liu, 2019. "A novel method to determine basic probability assignment in Dempster–Shafer theory and its application in multi-sensor information fusion," International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, , vol. 15(7), pages 15501477198, July.
    15. Xiao-kang Wang & Sheng-hui Wang & Hong-yu Zhang & Jian-qiang Wang & Lin Li, 2021. "The Recommendation Method for Hotel Selection Under Traveller Preference Characteristics: A Cloud-Based Multi-Criteria Group Decision Support Model," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(6), pages 1433-1469, December.
    16. Li, Yanhong & Kou, Gang & Li, Guangxu & Peng, Yi, 2022. "Consensus reaching process in large-scale group decision making based on bounded confidence and social network," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 303(2), pages 790-802.
    17. Fu, Chao & Yang, Shan-Lin, 2010. "The group consensus based evidential reasoning approach for multiple attributive group decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(3), pages 601-608, November.
    18. Jia Huang & Hu-Chen Liu & Chun-Yan Duan & Ming-Shun Song, 2022. "An improved reliability model for FMEA using probabilistic linguistic term sets and TODIM method," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 312(1), pages 235-258, May.
    19. Shu-Rong Yan & Khalid A. Alattas & Mohsen Bakouri & Abdullah K. Alanazi & Ardashir Mohammadzadeh & Saleh Mobayen & Anton Zhilenkov & Wei Guo, 2022. "Generalized Type-2 Fuzzy Control for Type-I Diabetes: Analytical Robust System," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-20, February.
    20. Ergu, Daji & Kou, Gang & Peng, Yi & Shi, Yong, 2011. "A simple method to improve the consistency ratio of the pair-wise comparison matrix in ANP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 213(1), pages 246-259, August.

    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:gam:jmathe:v:10:y:2022:i:9:p:1369-:d:797431. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.