A systematic review on multi-criteria group decision-making methods based on weights: analysis and classification scheme

Interest in group decision-making (GDM) has been increasing prominently over the last decade. Access to global databases, sophisticated sensors which can obtain multiple inputs or complex problems requiring opinions from several experts have driven interest in data aggregation. Consequently, the field has been widely studied from several viewpoints and multiple approaches have been proposed. Nevertheless, there is a lack of general framework. Moreover, this problem is exacerbated in the case of experts’ weighting methods, one of the most widely-used techniques to deal with multiple source aggregation. This lack of general classification scheme, or a guide to assist expert knowledge, leads to ambiguity or misreading for readers, who may be overwhelmed by the large amount of unclassified information currently available. To invert this situation, a general GDM framework is presented which divides and classifies all data aggregation techniques, focusing on and expanding the classification of experts’ weighting methods in terms of analysis type by carrying out an in-depth literature review. Results are not only classified but analysed and discussed regarding multiple characteristics, such as MCDMs in which they are applied, type of data used, ideal solutions considered or when they are applied. Furthermore, general requirements supplement this analysis such as initial influence, or component division considerations. As a result, this paper provides not only a general classification scheme and a detailed analysis of experts’ weighting methods but also a road map for researchers working on GDM topics or a guide for experts who use these methods. Furthermore, six significant contributions for future research pathways are provided in the conclusions.The first author acknowledges support from the Spanish Ministry of Universities [grant number FPU18/01471]. The second and third author wish to recognize their support from the Serra Hunter program. Finally, this work was supported by the Catalan agency AGAUR through its research group support program (2017SGR00227). This research is part of the R&D project IAQ4EDU, reference no. PID2020-117366RB-I00, funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/ 501100011033.Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version

Intertemporal Choice of Fuzzy Soft Sets

This paper first merges two noteworthy aspects of choice. On the one hand, soft sets and fuzzy soft sets are popular models that have been largely applied to decision making problems, such as real estate valuation, medical diagnosis (glaucoma, prostate cancer, etc.), data mining, or international trade. They provide crisp or fuzzy parameterized descriptions of the universe of alternatives. On the other hand, in many decisions, costs and benefits occur at different points in time. This brings about intertemporal choices, which may involve an indefinitely large number of periods. However, the literature does not provide a model, let alone a solution, to the intertemporal problem when the alternatives are described by (fuzzy) parameterizations. In this paper, we propose a novel soft set inspired model that applies to the intertemporal framework, hence it fills an important gap in the development of fuzzy soft set theory. An algorithm allows the selection of the optimal option in intertemporal choice problems with an infinite time horizon. We illustrate its application with a numerical example involving alternative portfolios of projects that a public administration may undertake. This allows us to establish a pioneering intertemporal model of choice in the framework of extended fuzzy set theorie

New group decision making method in intuitionistic fuzzy setting based on TOPSIS

In multiple attribute group decision making, the weights of decision makers are very crucial to ranking results and have gained more and more attentions. A new approach to determining experts’ weights is proposed based on the TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution) method in intuitionistic fuzzy setting. The weights determined by our method have two advantages: the evaluation value has a large weight if it is close to the positive ideal evaluation value and far from negative ideal evaluation values at the same time, otherwise it is assigned a small weight; experts have different weights for different attributes, which are more appropriate for real decision making problems since each expert has his/her own knowledge and expertise. The multiple attribute intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making algorithm has been proposed which is suitable for different situations about the attribute weight information, including the attribute weights are known exactly, partly known and unknown completely. A supplier selection problem and the evaluation of murals in a metro line are finally used to illustrate the feasibility, efficiency and practical advantages of the developed approaches

An interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy multiattribute group decision making framework with incomplete preference over alternatives

This article proposes a framework to handle multiattribute group decision making problems with incomplete pairwise comparison preference over decision alternatives where qualitative and quantitative attribute values are furnished as linguistic variables and crisp numbers, respectively. Attribute assessments are then converted to interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (IVIFNs) to characterize fuzziness and uncertainty in the evaluation process. Group consistency and inconsistency indices are introduced for incomplete pairwise comparison preference relations on alternatives provided by the decision-makers (DMs). By minimizing the group inconsistency index under certain constraints, an auxiliary linear programming model is developed to obtain unified attribute weights and an interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy positive ideal solution (IVIFPIS). Attribute weights are subsequently employed to calculate distances between alternatives and the IVIFPIS for ranking alternatives. An illustrative example is provided to demonstrate the applicability and effectiveness of this method