An extension on PROMETHEE based on the typical hesitant fuzzy sets to solve multi-attribute decision-making problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to extend the PROMETHEE method under typical hesitant fuzzy information for solving multi-attribute decision-making problem in which there is hesitancy among experts. Design/methodology/approach Different aggregation and distance functions were developed to deal with HFS. But it is rational that different operators applying in existing methods can produce different results. Also, it is difficult for decision makers to select suitable operators. To address the drawback, this paper develops the PROMETHEE method as an outranking approach to accommodate hesitant fuzzy information. Since the proposed method is constructed on the basis of the pair-wise comparisons, it is independent of the aggregation and distance functions. Findings To demonstrate the efficiency and accuracy of the proposed method, the authors provide a numerical example and a comparative analysis. The results indicate that outranking-based methods suggest a better ranking than the aggregation- and distance-based methods. Research limitations/implications The proposed approach does not consider the hesitant fuzzy linguistic information decision-making problem. Practical implications The proposed approach can be applied in many group decision-making problems in which there is hesitancy among experts. Originality/value This paper proposes an extension on PROMETHEE method under hesitant fuzzy information, which has not been reported in the existing academic literature.
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".