| Literature DB >> 33286540 |
Ping Li1, Ying Ji1, Zhong Wu1, Shao-Jian Qu2.
Abstract
Intuitionistic fuzzy distance measurement is an effective method to study multi-attribute emergency decision-making (MAEDM) problems. Unfortunately, the traditional intuitionistic fuzzy distance measurement method cannot accurately reflect the difference between membership and non-membership data, where it is easy to cause information confusion. Therefore, from the intuitionistic fuzzy number (IFN), this paper constructs a decision-making model based on intuitionistic fuzzy cross-entropy and a comprehensive grey correlation analysis algorithm. For the MAEDM problems of completely unknown and partially known attribute weights, this method establishes a grey correlation analysis algorithm based on the objective evaluation value and subjective preference value of decision makers (DMs), which makes up for the shortcomings of traditional model information loss and greatly improves the accuracy of MAEDM. Finally, taking the Wenchuan Earthquake on May 12th 2008 as a case study, this paper constructs and solves the ranking problem of shelters. Through the sensitivity comparison analysis, when the grey resolution coefficient increases from 0.4 to 1.0, the ranking result of building shelters remains stable. Compared to the traditional intuitionistic fuzzy distance, this method is shown to be more reliable.Entities:
Keywords: attribute weights; earthquake shelters; grey correlation analysis; intuitionistic fuzzy cross-entropy; multi-attribute emergency decision-making
Year: 2020 PMID: 33286540 PMCID: PMC7517319 DOI: 10.3390/e22070768
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Entropy (Basel) ISSN: 1099-4300 Impact factor: 2.524
A brief overview of preprocessing methods in intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute decision-making (IFMADM).
| Literatures | Methods |
|---|---|
| Xu [ | Similarity measure |
| Hu et al. [ | Similarity measure, Fuzzy entropy |
| Chen et al. [ | Score function |
| Hong et al. [ | Intuitionistic fuzzy precise function |
| Wu et al. [ | AHP, Score judgment matrix |
| Keshavarzfarda et al. [ | AHP, DEMATEL |
| Chatterjee et al. [ | TOPSIS, VIKOR |
| Wu et al. [ | ELECTRE, PROMETHEE |
| Meng et al. [ | Prospect theory |
| Luo et al. [ | Regret theory |
A brief literature list on the applications of multi-attribute decision-making (MADM) methods in emergency situations.
| Literatures | Methods | Applications |
|---|---|---|
| Xu et al. [ | Two-stage theory | Earthquake shelter selection |
| Xu et al. [ | Generalized asymmetric language | Fire and explosion accident |
| Li et al. [ | Risk decision analysis | Electric vehicle industry |
| Xiong et al. [ | Evolution and non-dominant sorting genetic algorithm | Ship collision |
| Wang et al. [ | Additive weighting | Electric vehicle industry |
| Wu et al. [ | Subjective imprecise estimation of binary language | Community development |
| Karimi et al. [ | The best and worst algorithm | Hospital maintenance |
Intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix.
| Alternative |
|
| … |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| … |
|
|
|
|
| … |
|
| … | … | … | … | … |
|
|
|
| … |
|
Figure 1Algorithm framework of intuitionistic fuzzy cross-entropy and grey correlation analysis.
Objective evaluation value of each alternative.
| Alternative |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive grey correlation coefficient of alternatives under different grey resolution coefficients based on completely unknown attribute weights.
| Alternative |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.8372 | 0.8544 | 0.8681 | 0.8793 | 0.8887 | 0.8967 | 0.9037 |
|
| 0.6807 | 0.7133 | 0.7388 | 0.7596 | 0.7769 | 0.7917 | 0.8045 |
|
| 0.8488 | 0.8730 | 0.8906 | 0.9039 | 0.9143 | 0.9226 | 0.9295 |
|
| 0.9479 | 0.9575 | 0.9641 | 0.9689 | 0.9726 | 0.9755 | 0.9779 |
|
| 0.7697 | 0.7930 | 0.8114 | 0.8266 | 0.8393 | 0.8501 | 0.8595 |
Figure 2Ranking results of alternatives with different grey resolution coefficients based on completely unknown attribute weights.
Attribute weight values under different grey resolution coefficients.
| Alternative |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.30 |
|
| 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.18 |
|
| 0.28 | 0.28 | 0.28 | 0.28 | 0.28 | 0.28 | 0.28 |
|
| 0.24 | 0.24 | 0.24 | 0.24 | 0.24 | 0.24 | 0.24 |
Comprehensive grey correlation coefficient of alternatives under different grey resolution coefficients based on known range of attribute weight.
| Alternative |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.8341 | 0.8517 | 0.8656 | 0.8771 | 0.8867 | 0.8948 | 0.9019 |
|
| 0.6805 | 0.7131 | 0.7387 | 0.7595 | 0.7768 | 0.7916 | 0.8044 |
|
| 0.8473 | 0.8718 | 0.8895 | 0.9029 | 0.9134 | 0.9218 | 0.9288 |
|
| 0.9476 | 0.9573 | 0.9639 | 0.9688 | 0.9725 | 0.9754 | 0.9778 |
|
| 0.7695 | 0.7928 | 0.8113 | 0.8264 | 0.8392 | 0.8500 | 0.8594 |
Change degree of comprehensive grey correlation coefficient of alternatives under fluctuation of grey resolution coefficient.
| Alternative |
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
| 0.0665 | 0.0678 |
|
| 0.1238 | 0.1239 |
|
| 0.0807 | 0.0815 |
|
| 0.0300 | 0.0302 |
|
| 0.0898 | 0.0899 |
Figure 3Ranking results of alternatives with different grey resolution coefficients based on known attribute weight range.
Figure 4The alternatives with different grey resolution coefficients based on completely unknown attribute weights.
Figure 5The alternatives with different grey resolution coefficients based on known attribute weight range.
Figure 6Deviation of comprehensive grey correlation coefficient in two cases.
Ranking results under different methods.
| Methods | Ranking Results |
|---|---|
| The traditional intuitionistic fuzzy distance |
|
| The intuitionistic fuzzy cross-entropy distance (unknown weight) |
|
| The intuitionistic fuzzy cross-entropy distance (weight range known) |
|