A Fuzzy Topsis Method for Prioritized Aggregation in Multi‐Criteria Decision Making Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aggregation in a decision making environment requires the fusion of opinions of a group of decision makers. The group of decision makers are required to analyse a set of interrelated criteria that are usually measured on a linguistic scale. This process requires, in many instances, to capture experts experience, intuition and thinking that are traditionally expressed in a linguistic fashion rather than a numerical fashion. Furthermore, the necessity of considering the relationship between the criteria to the overall decision must be considered by the group of decision makers. This paper extends the application of fuzzy numbers, fuzzy relative importance scores (FRIS), fuzzy relative weights (FRW) and the fuzzy technique of order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) in prioritized aggregation. This extension provides a mean to systematically aggregate a group of decision makers' views for a set of interrelated criteria that are measured on a linguistic scale. First, an overview of the application of fuzzy numbers and the characteristics of aggregating fuzzy numbers in multi‐criteria decision making problems are presented. Then, the application of TOPSIS in fuzzy environments is presented. Next, past research is highlighted to present prioritized aggregation and the different aggregation operators' classes. Subsequently, a new prioritized aggregation method is presented. This method utilizes fuzzy TOPSIS with prioritized aggregation in fuzzy environments. Finally, the fuzzy prioritized aggregation method presented in this paper is applied on an actual case study. According to the results, the method presented in this paper provides a systematic approach to capture the uncertainty and imprecision associated with quantifying linguistic measurements in multi‐criteria decision making problems. Furthermore, it considers the relationship between the set of linguistically measured criteria undergoing prioritized aggregation in a fuzzy environment. Lastly, findings, conclusions and future work are presented. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".