Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A reference ideal model with evidential reasoning for probabilistic-based expressions

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Due to experts' different cognitions, experiences, and knowledge backgrounds, their evaluations may be different, and none of them can be ignored, which leads to the development of the probabilistic linguistic term set (PLTS) and the probabilistic hesitant fuzzy set (PHFS). In practical situations, sometimes the optimal alternative exists in a reference ideal interval instead of the maximum or the minimum. This paper constructs a reference ideal model with evidential reasoning for the PLTS and the PHFS. At first, a maximum deviation method based on two hierarchical attributes is proposed, aiming at determining the attribute weights in a multi-attribute decision-making problem. Then, since the evaluations are provided with different forms and principles, a normalisation process can help to make the evaluations unified. Moreover, the evidential reasoning process is introduced to aggregate evaluation grades based on the probabilities in the probabilistic-based expressions. And the final decision results are obtained by applying the distance between the aggregated evaluation grades and the extreme values. Then, we use the proposed model for the potential chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patient evaluation to verify the operability. Besides, a comparative analysis is also conducted to prove the rationality of the model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Zhu B (2014) Decision making methods and applications. Southeast University

  2. Xu ZS, Zhou W (2017) Consensus building with a group of decision makers under the hesitant probabilistic fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Optim Decis Mak 16:481–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10700-016-9257-5

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Ding J, Xu ZS, Zhao N (2017) An interactive approach to probabilistic hesitant fuzzy multi-attribute group decision making with incomplete weight information. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 32:2523–2536. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-16503

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Guo J, Yin JL, Zhang L, et al (2020) Extended TODIM method for CCUS storage site selection under probabilistic hesitant fuzzy environment. Appl Soft Comput 93:106381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106381

  5. Jin FF, Garg H, Pei LD et al (2020) Multiplicative consistency adjustment model and data envelopment analysis-driven decision-making process with probabilistic hesitant fuzzy preference relations. Int J Fuzzy Syst 22:2319–2332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-020-00944-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Liu JP, Huang C, Song JS, et al (2021) Group decision making based on the modified probability calculation method and DEA cross-efficiency with probabilistic hesitant fuzzy preference relations. Comput Ind Eng 156:107262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107262

  7. Di LX, Wang ZW, Zhang ST, Garg H (2021) An approach to probabilistic hesitant fuzzy risky multiattribute decision making with unknown probability information. Int J Intell Syst 36:7665–7684. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Garg H, Krishankumar R, Ravichandran KS (2022) Decision framework with integrated methods for group decision-making under probabilistic hesitant fuzzy context and unknown weights. Expert Syst Appl 200:117082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.117082

  9. Pang Q, Wang H, Xu ZS (2016) Probabilistic linguistic term sets in multi-attribute group decision making. Inf Sci (Ny) 369:128–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2016.06.021

  10. Zhang YX, Xu ZS, Wang H, Liao HC (2016) Consistency-based risk assessment with probabilistic linguistic preference relation. Appl Soft Comput 49:817–833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2016.08.045

  11. Yu S, Du Z, Zhang X (2022) Clustering analysis and punishment-driven consensus-reaching process for probabilistic linguistic large-group decision-making with application to car-sharing platform selection. Int Trans Oper Res 29:2002–2029. https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.13049

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. You XL, Hou FJ (2022) A self-confidence and leadership based feedback mechanism for consensus of group decision making with probabilistic linguistic preference relation. Inf Sci (Ny) 582:547–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2021.09.044

  13. Du YF, Liu D (2021) An integrated method for multi-granular probabilistic linguistic multiple attribute decision-making with prospect theory. Comput Ind Eng 159:107500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107500

  14. Zhang YX, Hao ZN, Xu ZS, et al (2021) A process-oriented probabilistic linguistic decision-making model with unknown attribute weights. Knowledge-Based Syst 235:107594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2021.107594

  15. Shafer GA (1976) Mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Yang J-B, Xu D-L (2002) On the evidential reasoning algorithm for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty. IEEE Trans Syst Man, Cybern - Part A Syst Humans 32:289–304. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCA.2002.802746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Yang J-B, Xu D-L (2002) Nonlinear information aggregation via evidential reasoning in multiattribute decision analysis under uncertainty. IEEE Trans Syst Man, Cybern - Part A Syst Humans 32:376–393. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCA.2002.802809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Yang J-B, Liu J, Wang J et al (2006) Belief rule-base inference methodology using the evidential reasoning approach-RIMER. IEEE Trans Syst Man, Cybern - Part A Syst Humans 36:266–285. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCA.2005.851270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wang Y-M, Yang J-B, Xu D-L, Chin K-S (2006) The evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision analysis using interval belief degrees. Eur J Oper Res 175:35–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.03.034

  20. Wang Y-M, Yang J-B, Xu D-L, Chin K-S (2007) On the combination and normalization of interval-valued belief structures. Inf Sci (Ny) 177:1230–1247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2006.07.025

  21. Guo M, Yang J-B, Chin K-S et al (2009) Evidential reasoning approach for multiattribute decision analysis under both fuzzy and interval uncertainty. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 17:683–697. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2008.928599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhou M, Liu B-X, Chen Y-W, Yang J-B (2018) Evidential reasoning rule for MADM with both weights and reliabilities in group decision making. Knowledge-Based Syst 143:142–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2017.12.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wang H, Zhang H-T (2018) Multi-attribute group decision-making based on the evidential reasoning with different probabilistic linguistic term sets. In: 2018 International Conference on Applied Mechanics, Mathematics, Modeling and Simulation. pp 209–216

  24. Fang R, Liao HC (2020) A prospect theory-based evidential reasoning approach for multi-expert multi-criteria decision-making with uncertainty considering the psychological cognition of experts. Int J Fuzzy Syst 23:584–598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-020-00967-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ma ZZ, Zhu JJ, Chen Y (2018) A probabilistic linguistic group decision-making method from a reliability perspective based on evidential reasoning. IEEE Trans Syst Man, Cybern Syst 99:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2018.2815716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Qin JD, Xi Y, Pedrycz W (2020) Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) for risk assessment based on interval type-2 fuzzy evidential reasoning method. Appl Soft Comput 89:106134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106134

  27. Dong YL, De LX, Dezert J et al (2021) Evidential reasoning with hesitant fuzzy belief structures for human activity recognition. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 29:3607–3619. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2021.3079495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Dymova L, Kaczmarek K, Sevastjanov P (2022) An extension of rule base evidential reasoning in the interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy setting applied to the type 2 diabetes diagnostic. Expert Syst Appl 201:117100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.117100

  29. Zhang S, Xu ZS, He Y (2017) Operations and integrations of probabilistic hesitant fuzzy information in decision making. Inf Fusion 38:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2017.02.001

  30. Yang JB, Singh MG (1994) An evidential reasoning approach for multiple-attribute decision making with uncertainty. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 24:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1109/21.259681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Yang J-B, Sen P (1994) A general multi-level evaluation process for hybrid MADM with uncertainty. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 24:1458–1473. https://doi.org/10.1109/21.310529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Yang J-B, Xu D-L (2014) A study on generalising bayesian inference to evidential reasoning. In: Cuzzolin F (ed) International Conference on Belief Functions. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 180–189

    Google Scholar 

  33. Cables E, Lamata MT, Verdegay JL (2016) RIM-reference ideal method in multicriteria decision making. Inf Sci (Ny) 337–338:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2015.12.011

  34. Wang Y-M (1997) Using the method of maximizing deviation to make decision for multiindices. J Syst Eng Electron 8:21–26

    Google Scholar 

  35. (2006) WHO air quality guidelines for particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide: Summary of risk assessment. Geneva

  36. Jin FF, Liu JP, Zhou LG, Martínez L (2021) Consensus-Based Linguistic Distribution Large-Scale Group Decision Making Using Statistical Inference and Regret Theory. Gr Decis Negot 30:813–845. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-021-09736-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Zheng YH, He Y, Xu ZS, Pedrycz W (2018) Assessment for hierarchical medical policy proposals using hesitant fuzzy linguistic analytic network process. Knowledge-Based Syst 161:254–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.07.005

  38. Fu C, Liu WY, Chang WJ (2020) Data-driven multiple criteria decision making for diagnosis of thyroid cancer. Ann Oper Res 293:833–862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-018-3093-7

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Joshi R, Banwet DK, Shankar R (2011) A Delphi-AHP-TOPSIS based benchmarking framework for performance improvement of a cold chain. Expert Syst Appl 38:10170–10182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.02.072

  40. Li H, Adeli H, Sun J, Han J-G (2011) Hybridizing principles of TOPSIS with case-based reasoning for business failure prediction. Comput Oper Res 38:409–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2010.06.008

  41. Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making methods and applications. Springer, Berlin

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  42. Wu XL, Liao HC (2019) A consensus-based probabilistic linguistic gained and lost dominance score method. Eur J Oper Res 272:1017–1027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2018.07.044

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 72201103), Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation (No. 2022A1515011029).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sichuan University West China Second University Hospital, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China

    Yue He

  2. Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children (Sichuan University), Ministry of Education, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610064, China

    Yue He

  3. Alliance Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M15 6PB, UK

    Dongling Xu & Jianbo Yang

  4. Business School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610064, Sichuan, China

    Zeshui Xu

  5. School of Business Administration, Chongqing Technology and Business University, Chongqing, 400067, China

    Nana Liu

Authors
  1. Yue He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dongling Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jianbo Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zeshui Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nana Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Yue He: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing-Original Draft. Dong-Ling Xu: Validation, Writing-Review & Editing. Jian-Bo Yang: Methodology, Writing-Review & Editing. Zeshui Xu: Methodology, Writing-Review & Editing, Supervision. Nana Liu: Writing-Review & Editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zeshui Xu.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

He, Y., Xu, D., Yang, J. et al. A reference ideal model with evidential reasoning for probabilistic-based expressions. Appl Intell 53, 21283–21298 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-023-04653-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-023-04653-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation