Fuzzy Grey Choquet Integral for Evaluation of Multicriteria Decision Making Problems With Interactive and Qualitative Indices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multicriteria decision making (MCDM) problems are often encountered in complex system design. Most of them need to be evaluated with a large number of interactive and qualitative indices, which are difficult to be addressed effectively through the existing methods. In this paper, a novel fuzzy Choquet integral-based grey comprehensive evaluation (GCE) method, called fuzzy grey Choquet integral (FGCI), is proposed to evaluate MCDM problems with many interactive and qualitative indices. In this method, expert evaluation of qualitative indices is represented through fuzzy linguistic values. Fuzzy values are defuzzified and standardized to obtain the original evaluation matrix. The original values are replaced by the correlation coefficients, which, to a certain extent, eliminate the influence of experts' subjective preference. An improved teaching-learning-based optimization algorithm is employed to identify λ-fuzzy-measures following the weights given by experts in order to enhance the consistency of weights. Then the correlation coefficients are aggregated through Choquet integral among λ-fuzzy-measures, which can reflect interactions among indices. In addition, according to the characteristics of λ-fuzzy-measures, the construction guidelines for a corresponding index system are given to overcome the limitations of FGCI. Finally, the performance of the proposed method is demonstrated via a practical example of green design evaluation and compared with the GCE method. The results validate its feasibility and effectiveness.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".