IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v254y2016i2p610-621.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Generalized asymmetric linguistic term set and its application to qualitative decision making involving risk appetites

Author

Listed:
  • Zhou, Wei
  • Xu, Zeshui

Abstract

The linguistic term set is an applicable and flexible technique in qualitative decision making (QDM). To further develop the linguistic term set, this paper proposes a generalized asymmetric linguistic term set (GALTS) based on the asymmetric sigmoid semantics, which belongs to an asymmetric and non-uniform linguistic term set, and can be used to address the QDM problems involving risk appetites of the decision maker (DM). Then, a value-at-risk fitting (VARF) approach is designed for obtaining the risk appetite parameters of the GALTS and six desirable properties of the GALTS are analyzed, i.e., asymmetry, non-uniformity, generality, variability, range consistency, and diminishing-utility. Based on the above approaches and the generalized asymmetric linguistic preference relations (GALPRs), a QDM process involving risk appetites of the DM is designed. Because the GALPRs consist of subjective information provided by the DM, the process is not perfectly consistent and is usually difficult to change or repeat. Thus, a transitivity improvement approach is investigated, and the corresponding calculation steps are provided. Finally, an example dealing with the problem of investment decision making is provided, and the results fully demonstrate the validity of the proposed methods for QDM involving risk appetites.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhou, Wei & Xu, Zeshui, 2016. "Generalized asymmetric linguistic term set and its application to qualitative decision making involving risk appetites," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 254(2), pages 610-621.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:254:y:2016:i:2:p:610-621
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2016.04.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037722171630220X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.04.001?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. Ngwenyama, Ojelanki K. & Bryson, Noel, 1999. "Eliciting and mapping qualitative preferences to numeric rankings in group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(3), pages 487-497, August.
    2. Yan, Hong-Bin & Ma, Tieju, 2015. "A group decision-making approach to uncertain quality function deployment based on fuzzy preference relation and fuzzy majority," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(3), pages 815-829.
    3. Dong, Yucheng & Xu, Yinfeng & Li, Hongyi & Dai, Min, 2008. "A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 229-242, April.
    4. K K F Yuen, 2012. "Pairwise opposite matrix and its cognitive prioritization operators: comparisons with pairwise reciprocal matrix and analytic prioritization operators," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 63(3), pages 322-338, March.
    5. Xu, Zeshui, 2005. "Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations in group decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 249-254, June.
    6. Montibeller, Gilberto & Belton, Valerie, 2009. "Qualitative operators for reasoning maps: Evaluating multi-criteria options with networks of reasons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 195(3), pages 829-840, June.
    7. Wang, Shih-Yuan & Chang, Sheng-Lin & Wang, Reay-Chen, 2009. "Assessment of supplier performance based on product-development strategy by applying multi-granularity linguistic term sets," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 215-226, February.
    8. Sun, Bingzhen & Ma, Weimin, 2015. "An approach to consensus measurement of linguistic preference relations in multi-attribute group decision making and application," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 83-92.
    9. Wu, Desheng Dash & Zhang, Yidong & Wu, Dexiang & Olson, David L., 2010. "Fuzzy multi-objective programming for supplier selection and risk modeling: A possibility approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(3), pages 774-787, February.
    10. Cabrerizo, Francisco Javier & Herrera-Viedma, Enrique & Pedrycz, Witold, 2013. "A method based on PSO and granular computing of linguistic information to solve group decision making problems defined in heterogeneous contexts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 230(3), pages 624-633.
    11. Brugha, Cathal M., 1998. "The structure of qualitative decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 46-62, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xuanhua Xu & Yanxia Huang & Ke Chen, 2019. "Method for large group emergency decision making with complex preferences based on emergency similarity and interval consistency," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 97(1), pages 45-64, May.
    2. Jinyi Hu, 2023. "Linguistic Multiple-Attribute Decision Making Based on Regret Theory and Minimax-DEA," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-14, October.
    3. Dheeraj Kumar Joshi & Ismat Beg & Sanjay Kumar, 2018. "Hesitant Probabilistic Fuzzy Linguistic Sets with Applications in Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making Problems," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-20, March.
    4. Wu, Xingli & Liao, Huchang, 2021. "Modeling personalized cognition of customers in online shopping," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    5. Hui Lin & Zhou-Jing Wang, 2017. "Linguistic Multi-Attribute Group Decision Making with Risk Preferences and Its Use in Low-Carbon Tourism Destination Selection," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-14, September.
    6. Zhang, Zhiying & Liao, Huchang & Tang, Anbin, 2022. "Renewable energy portfolio optimization with public participation under uncertainty: A hybrid multi-attribute multi-objective decision-making method," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    7. Xingli Wu & Huchang Liao, 2022. "A gained and lost dominance score method with conflict analysis for green economy development evaluation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 316(1), pages 623-655, September.
    8. Xingli Wu & Huchang Liao, 2021. "Learning judgment benchmarks of customers from online reviews," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 43(4), pages 1125-1157, December.
    9. Wang, Mingwei & Zhang, Junping & Liang, Decui, 2024. "Multi-period share pledging with sequential three-way proportion decision," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    10. Zeshui Xu & Wei Zhou, 2017. "Consensus building with a group of decision makers under the hesitant probabilistic fuzzy environment," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 481-503, December.
    11. Wu, Xingli & Liao, Huchang, 2019. "A consensus-based probabilistic linguistic gained and lost dominance score method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(3), pages 1017-1027.

    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. 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.
    2. Meng, Fanyong & Tan, Chunqiao & Chen, Xiaohong, 2017. "Multiplicative consistency analysis for interval fuzzy preference relations: A comparative study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 17-38.
    3. Peláez, José Ignacio & Bernal, Rubén, 2016. "Selective majority additive ordered weighting averaging operatorAuthor-Name: Karanik, Marcelo," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(3), pages 816-826.
    4. Sun, Bingzhen & Ma, Weimin, 2015. "An approach to consensus measurement of linguistic preference relations in multi-attribute group decision making and application," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 83-92.
    5. Zeshui Xu, 2009. "An Interactive Approach to Multiple Attribute Group Decision Making with Multigranular Uncertain Linguistic Information," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 119-145, March.
    6. Oliva, Gabriele & Scala, Antonio & Setola, Roberto & Dell’Olmo, Paolo, 2019. "Opinion-based optimal group formation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 164-176.
    7. Amirmahdi Malek & Sadoullah Ebrahimnejad & Reza Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, 2017. "An Improved Hybrid Grey Relational Analysis Approach for Green Resilient Supply Chain Network Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-28, August.
    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. 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.
    10. Mukherjee, Krishnendu, 2014. "Supplier selection criteria and methods: past, present and future," MPRA Paper 60079, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Kevin Kam Fung Yuen, 2014. "The Least Penalty Optimization Prioritization Operators for the Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Revised Case of Medical Decision Problem of Organ Transplantation," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 442-461, December.
    12. Ni Li & Minghui Sun & Zhuming Bi & Zeya Su & Chao Wang, 2014. "A new methodology to support group decision-making for IoT-based emergency response systems," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 16(5), pages 953-977, November.
    13. 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.
    14. Xunjie Gou & Zeshui Xu & Huchang Liao, 2019. "Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Possibility Degree-Based Linear Assignment Method for Multiple Criteria Decision-Making," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(01), pages 35-63, January.
    15. Gong, Zaiwu & Guo, Weiwei & Słowiński, Roman, 2021. "Transaction and interaction behavior-based consensus model and its application to optimal carbon emission reduction," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    16. Faiza Hamdi & Ahmed Ghorbel & Faouzi Masmoudi & Lionel Dupont, 2018. "Optimization of a supply portfolio in the context of supply chain risk management: literature review," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 29(4), pages 763-788, April.
    17. Kevin Kam Fung Yuen, 2022. "Decision models for information systems planning using primitive cognitive network process: comparisons with analytic hierarchy process," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 1759-1785, July.
    18. Keunho Choi & Gunwoo Kim & Yongmoo Suh & Donghee Yoo, 0. "Assignment of collaborators to multiple business problems using genetic algorithm," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-19.
    19. Jorge L. García-Alcaraz & Aidé A. Maldonado-Macías & Juan L. Hernández-Arellano & Julio Blanco-Fernández & Emilio Jiménez-Macías & Juan C. Sáenz-Díez Muro, 2016. "Agricultural Tractor Selection: A Hybrid and Multi-Attribute Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-16, February.
    20. Nishat Alam Choudhary & Shalabh Singh & Tobias Schoenherr & M. Ramkumar, 2023. "Risk assessment in supply chains: a state-of-the-art review of methodologies and their applications," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 322(2), pages 565-607, 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:ejores:v:254:y:2016:i:2:p:610-621. 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.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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.