IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v12y2024i19p3074-d1489864.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fuzzy Assessment Mechanisms under Multi-Objective Considerations

Author

Listed:
  • Yu-Hsien Liao

    (Department of Applied Mathematics, National Pingtung University, Pingtung 900391, Taiwan)

Abstract

In many operational environments, it is essential to conduct comprehensive minimal assessments of the effects arising from various operational causes, with the goal of achieving effective outcomes. For instance, the aim might be to meet basic production targets in the shortest time possible, using the least cost and minimal labor. Given that actual operational behaviors are often vague and unpredictable, this study proposes a mechanism to assess the minimal effects generated by various operational causes under multi-objective and fuzzy behavior considerations. By considering the relative significance of operational causes or its behaviors under different environments, several weighted extensions are further developed. The mathematical correctness and practical applicability of these assessment mechanisms are analyzed by using an axiomatic characterization.

Suggested Citation

  • Yu-Hsien Liao, 2024. "Fuzzy Assessment Mechanisms under Multi-Objective Considerations," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-15, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:12:y:2024:i:19:p:3074-:d:1489864
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/12/19/3074/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/12/19/3074/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Branzei, Rodica & Dimitrov, Dinko & Tijs, Stef, 2004. "Hypercubes and compromise values for cooperative fuzzy games," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 155(3), pages 733-740, June.
    2. Hervé Moulin, 1995. "On Additive Methods To Share Joint Costs," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 46(4), pages 303-332, December.
    3. Li, Shujin & Zhang, Qiang, 2009. "A simplified expression of the Shapley function for fuzzy game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 196(1), pages 234-245, July.
    4. Satoshi Masuya & Masahiro Inuiguchi, 2016. "A fundamental study for partially defined cooperative games," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 281-306, September.
    5. Hart, Sergiu & Mas-Colell, Andreu, 1989. "Potential, Value, and Consistency," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 589-614, May.
    6. Ewa M. Bednarczuk & Janusz Miroforidis & Przemysław Pyzel, 2018. "A multi-criteria approach to approximate solution of multiple-choice knapsack problem," Computational Optimization and Applications, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 889-910, July.
    7. Jean-Pierre Aubin, 1981. "Cooperative Fuzzy Games," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 1-13, February.
    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. Yu-Hsien Liao, 2017. "Fuzzy games: a complement-consistent solution, axiomatizations and dynamic approaches," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 257-268, September.
    2. Branzei, Rodica & Dimitrov, Dinko & Tijs, Stef, 2004. "Egalitarianism in convex fuzzy games," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 313-325, May.
    3. C. Manuel & D. Martín, 2021. "A value for communication situations with players having different bargaining abilities," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 301(1), pages 161-182, June.
    4. Yan-An Hwang & Yu-Hsien Liao, 2010. "The unit-level-core for multi-choice games: the replicated core for TU games," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 161-171, June.
    5. Moulin, Herve, 2002. "Axiomatic cost and surplus sharing," Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, in: K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 6, pages 289-357, Elsevier.
    6. Boonen, Tim J. & De Waegenaere, Anja & Norde, Henk, 2020. "A generalization of the Aumann–Shapley value for risk capital allocation problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(1), pages 277-287.
    7. Li, Deng-Feng, 2012. "A fast approach to compute fuzzy values of matrix games with payoffs of triangular fuzzy numbers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(2), pages 421-429.
    8. Stefano Moretti & Fioravante Patrone, 2008. "Transversality of the Shapley value," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 16(1), pages 1-41, July.
    9. Boonen, T.J. & De Waegenaere, A.M.B. & Norde, H.W., 2012. "A Generalization of the Aumann-Shapley Value for Risk Capital Allocation Problems," Other publications TiSEM 2c502ef8-76f0-47f5-ab45-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    10. Yu-Hsien Liao, 2022. "A Weighted Solution Concept under Replicated Behavior," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, December.
    11. Yu-Hsien Liao, 2013. "The Shapley value for fuzzy games: TU games approach," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 33(1), pages 192-197.
    12. Keyzer, Michiel & van Wesenbeeck, Cornelia, 2011. "Optimal coalition formation and surplus distribution: Two sides of one coin," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 215(3), pages 604-615, December.
    13. Yan-An Hwang & Yu-Hsien Liao, 2020. "A Solution Concept and Its Axiomatic Results under Non-Transferable-Utility and Multi-Choice Situations," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-10, September.
    14. Tido Takeng, Rodrigue, 2022. "Uncertain production environment and communication structure," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    15. Fanyong Meng & Xiaohong Chen & Chunqiao Tan, 2016. "Cooperative fuzzy games with interval characteristic functions," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 1-24, April.
    16. M. A. Hinojosa & S. Lozano & A. M. Mármol, 2018. "DEA production games with fuzzy output prices," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 401-419, December.
    17. Conrado M. Manuel & Daniel Martín, 2020. "A Monotonic Weighted Shapley Value," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(4), pages 627-654, August.
    18. Calvo, Emilio & Santos, Juan Carlos, 2000. "A value for multichoice games," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 341-354, November.
    19. Boonen, Tim J. & Tsanakas, Andreas & Wüthrich, Mario V., 2017. "Capital allocation for portfolios with non-linear risk aggregation," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 95-106.
    20. Yan-An Hwang & Yu-Hsien Liao, 2008. "Potentializability and consistency for multi-choice solutions," Spanish Economic Review, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 10(4), pages 289-301, December.

    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:12:y:2024:i:19:p:3074-:d:1489864. 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.