2019
DOI: 10.1631/fitee.1700434
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

TODIM and TOPSIS with Z-numbers

Abstract: In this paper, we present an approach that is able to handle with Z-numbers in the context of Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) problems. Z-numbers are composed of two parts, the first one is a restriction on the values that can be assumed, and the second part is the reliability of the information. As human beings we communicate with other people by means of natural language using sentences like: the journey time from home to university takes about half hour, very likely. Firstly, Z-numbers are converted t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
30
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 60 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
1
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Referring to Table 5, the comparison weights of criteria of established and proposed models are presented. Z-AHP [8] and Z-TOPSIS [29] give same ranking results for criteria with O>PE>S-C>ES>P, but different with proposed model which the ranking results of criteria is PE>O>S-C>P>ES. Both Z-AHP [8] and Z-TOPSIS [29] evaluate criteria simply by getting the aggregation results from several decision matrices The authors prefer to utilise consistent fuzzy preference relations technique order to avoid misleading solution in expressing the decision makers' opinions by means of preference relations.…”
Section: Phase 2: Fuzzy Weights Evaluation Using Consistent Fuzzy Prementioning
confidence: 60%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Referring to Table 5, the comparison weights of criteria of established and proposed models are presented. Z-AHP [8] and Z-TOPSIS [29] give same ranking results for criteria with O>PE>S-C>ES>P, but different with proposed model which the ranking results of criteria is PE>O>S-C>P>ES. Both Z-AHP [8] and Z-TOPSIS [29] evaluate criteria simply by getting the aggregation results from several decision matrices The authors prefer to utilise consistent fuzzy preference relations technique order to avoid misleading solution in expressing the decision makers' opinions by means of preference relations.…”
Section: Phase 2: Fuzzy Weights Evaluation Using Consistent Fuzzy Prementioning
confidence: 60%
“…The values of attributes correspond to z-numbers. The proposed model is compared with Z-AHP [8] and Z-TOPSIS [29] from the literature for comparative study.…”
Section: Case Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Compared with the classical fuzzy set, the Z-number takes into account the uncertainty in information generation process and the reliability of information. At present, it has been combined with many MCDM methods such as TOPSIS [36,37], VIKOR [38], Multi-Objective Optimization by Ratio Analysis (MOORA) [39], COmbinative Distance-based Assessment (CODAS) [40], PROMETHEE [41], TODIM (an acronym in Portuguese of interactive and multicriteria decision-making) [37], AHP [42], BWM [43] and Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) [44]. 1] are two TFNs, we can convert the Z-number to an ordinary fuzzy number [45].…”
Section: Z-numbermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…et al[49] [50] elaborate in detail the application of Z-number in an uncertain environment. Krohling et al[51] show the application of Z-number with phasified methods TOPSIS and TODIM. Sahrom and Dom[52] elaborate a hybrid model using the AHP-Z-number-DEA method, while Azadeh and Kokabi[53] use the DEA method with Z-number.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%