A Method Based on Bivariate Almost Stochastic Dominance for Multiple Criteria Group Decision Making With Probabilistic Dual Hesitant Fuzzy Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Probabilistic dual hesitant fuzzy sets (PDHFSs) are sound information granules to describe decision maker's aleatory and epistemic uncertainty in multiple criteria group decision making (MCGDM) process. In this paper, a bivariate almost stochastic dominance-based PROMETHEE-II method is presented to solve probabilistic dual hesitant fuzzy MCGDM problems which consider correlation averse behavior of decision makers. First, probabilistic dual hesitant fuzzy power Bonferroni mean (PDHFPBM) operator and probabilistic dual hesitant fuzzy power geometric Bonferroni mean (PDHFPGBM) operator are proposed to acquire collective preference information of decision makers. Second, based on the defined bivariate almost stochastic dominance (BASD) and BASD degree, qualitative and quantitative relationships between two probabilistic dual hesitant fuzzy elements (PDHFEs) with corresponding to all criteria are obtained. Third, distance-based correlation coefficient method for computing combined weight with respect to all criteria is proposed. Finally, a BASD-based PROMETHEE-II method is developed to determine the ranking results. Three illustrative examples followed by comparative analysis are included to show the practicality and effectiveness of the proposed method.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".