IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v12y2024i20p3255-d1500939.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Similarity Measures of Probabilistic Interval Preference Ordering Sets and Their Applications in Decision-Making

Author

Listed:
  • Qi Wei

    (School of Business Administration, Guangdong University of Finance and Economics, Guangzhou 510320, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Rui Wang

    (School of Business Administration, Guangdong University of Finance and Economics, Guangzhou 510320, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Chuan-Yang Ruan

    (School of Digital Economics, Guangdong University of Finance and Economics, Guangzhou 510320, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

Abstract

The concept of probabilistic interval preference ordering sets (PIPOSs) provides a scientific and intuitive framework for solving real-life multi-criteria group decision-making problems. In some areas such as investment decision-making and supplier selection, PIPOSs have a wider application space, and the development of similarity and distance measures based on PIPOSs holds great significance. Similarity measure is a basic and prominent tool for dealing with imperfect and ambiguous information in fuzzy sets, but it can also be used to deal with uncertain information in preference ordering. These metrics play an important role in the actual decision-making process, as they effectively quantify the degree of similarity between two PIPOSs, and further allow for the prioritization of different scenarios. In this article, we sort out the definitions and arithmetic rules of PIPOSs, and creatively propose several new similarity measures based on PIPOSs. Then, we propose a group decision-making method based on similarity measures and conduct a comparative study with three existing similarity measures to illustrate its advantages over existing metrics. Finally, we confirm its validity through numerical illustrations in the case study, and also conduct a comparative assessment to verify the scientific validity and effectiveness of the newly introduced measure against the existing metrics.

Suggested Citation

  • Qi Wei & Rui Wang & Chuan-Yang Ruan, 2024. "Similarity Measures of Probabilistic Interval Preference Ordering Sets and Their Applications in Decision-Making," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-26, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:12:y:2024:i:20:p:3255-:d:1500939
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/12/20/3255/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/12/20/3255/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zeshui Xu & Xiaoqiang Cai, 2013. "On Consensus of Group Decision Making with Interval Utility Values and Interval Preference Orderings," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(6), pages 997-1019, November.
    2. Thomas L. Saaty, 1987. "Risk—Its Priority and Probability: The Analytic Hierarchy Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 159-172, June.
    3. Samuel Fosso Wamba & Angappa Gunasekaran & Rameshwar Dubey & Eric W. T. Ngai, 2018. "Big data analytics in operations and supply chain management," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 270(1), pages 1-4, November.
    4. 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.
    5. Madjid Tavana & Mehdi Soltanifar & Francisco J. Santos-Arteaga, 2023. "Analytical hierarchy process: revolution and evolution," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 879-907, July.
    6. Cook, Wade D., 2006. "Distance-based and ad hoc consensus models in ordinal preference ranking," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(2), pages 369-385, July.
    7. 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.
    8. Yung-Fu Huang & Vu-Dung-Van Phan & Manh-Hoang Do, 2023. "The Impacts of Supply Chain Capabilities, Visibility, Resilience on Supply Chain Performance and Firm Performance," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-17, October.
    9. Cook, Wade D. & Kress, Moshe, 1986. "Ordinal ranking and preference strength," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 295-306, June.
    10. Jafar Namdar & Xueping Li & Rupy Sawhney & Ninad Pradhan, 2018. "Supply chain resilience for single and multiple sourcing in the presence of disruption risks," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(6), pages 2339-2360, March.
    11. Wade D. Cook & Moshe Kress, 1985. "Ordinal Ranking with Intensity of Preference," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 26-32, 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. Yeawon Yoo & Adolfo R. Escobedo, 2021. "A New Binary Programming Formulation and Social Choice Property for Kemeny Rank Aggregation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 296-320, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Jabeur, Khaled & Martel, Jean-Marc, 2007. "An ordinal sorting method for group decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 180(3), pages 1272-1289, August.
    4. 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.
    5. Zeshui Xu & Xiaoqiang Cai, 2013. "On Consensus of Group Decision Making with Interval Utility Values and Interval Preference Orderings," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(6), pages 997-1019, November.
    6. 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.
    7. Zendehdel, Kamran & Rademaker, Michael & De Baets, Bernard & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2008. "Qualitative valuation of environmental criteria through a group consensus based on stochastic dominance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 253-264, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Yucheng Dong & Yao Li & Ying He & Xia Chen, 2021. "Preference–Approval Structures in Group Decision Making: Axiomatic Distance and Aggregation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 273-295, December.
    10. Cook, Wade D., 2006. "Distance-based and ad hoc consensus models in ordinal preference ranking," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(2), pages 369-385, July.
    11. Yoo, Yeawon & Escobedo, Adolfo R. & Skolfield, J. Kyle, 2020. "A new correlation coefficient for comparing and aggregating non-strict and incomplete rankings," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 285(3), pages 1025-1041.
    12. Mazurek, Jiří, 2015. "On a preference analysis in a group decision making," MPRA Paper 64998, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. I. Contreras, 2012. "Ordered Weighted Disagreement Functions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 345-361, May.
    14. Xiaodong Yu & Atiq ur Rehman & Samina Ashraf & Muhammad Hussain & Shahzad Faizi, 2023. "Multiperson Decision-Making Using Consistent Interval-Valued Fuzzy Information with Application in Supplier Selection," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-14, February.
    15. Zendehdel, Kamran & Rademaker, Michael & De Baets, Bernard & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2008. "Increasing environmental sustainability by incorporating stakeholders' intensities of preferences into the policy formation," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44206, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Ignacio Contreras, 2010. "A Distance-Based Consensus Model with Flexible Choice of Rank-Position Weights," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 441-456, September.
    17. Xiaoyan Jiang & Sai Wang & Jie Wang & Sainan Lyu & Martin Skitmore, 2020. "A Decision Method for Construction Safety Risk Management Based on Ontology and Improved CBR: Example of a Subway Project," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-23, June.
    18. Franceschini, Fiorenzo & Maisano, Domenico, 2015. "Checking the consistency of the solution in ordinal semi-democratic decision-making problems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 57(PB), pages 188-195.
    19. Suriana Ramli & Norzanah Mat Nor & Mohammad Nazri & Sharizan Sharkawi, 2024. "COVID-19’S Impact on Malaysian SMEs: Supply Chain Risk Management Disruptions and Challenges for Business Recovery and Continuity," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 8(8), pages 153-163, August.
    20. Patrick Krieger & Carsten Lausberg, 2021. "Entscheidungen, Entscheidungsfindung und Entscheidungsunterstützung in der Immobilienwirtschaft: Eine systematische Literaturübersicht [Decisions, decision-making and decisions support systems in r," Zeitschrift für Immobilienökonomie (German Journal of Real Estate Research), Springer;Gesellschaft für Immobilienwirtschaftliche Forschung e. V., vol. 7(1), pages 1-33, April.

    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:20:p:3255-:d:1500939. 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.