2009 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Computational Intelligence 2009
DOI: 10.1109/aici.2009.208
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Application of Gray Analytic Hierarchy Process in Project Risk Evaluation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The setting principle of action direction is if the growth of the index is conducive to reducing the EEP, the action direction is negative; if the growth of this index is conducive to the increase in the EEP, the action direction is positive. In this paper, AHP is one of the important methods to calculate the weight [25]. First, the AHP is used to determine the index weight, and then the TOPSIS method is used to evaluate the system.…”
Section: Indicator Systemmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The setting principle of action direction is if the growth of the index is conducive to reducing the EEP, the action direction is negative; if the growth of this index is conducive to the increase in the EEP, the action direction is positive. In this paper, AHP is one of the important methods to calculate the weight [25]. First, the AHP is used to determine the index weight, and then the TOPSIS method is used to evaluate the system.…”
Section: Indicator Systemmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since different evaluation indicators have different degrees of influence and contribution rates to the research objects, evaluation indicators need to be distinguished by weight values. In this paper, the analytic hierarchy process is used for weight assignment, and the specific content can be found in the literature [17,18] and will thus not be repeated here.…”
Section: Determination Of Indicator Weightmentioning
confidence: 99%