See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317222939

Aggregation methods in group decision making: A decade survey

Article · January 2017

CITATIONS READS

23 1,911

2 authors:

Rosanisah Mohd Lazim Abdullah

Universiti Malaysia Terengganu Universiti Malaysia Terengganu
8 PUBLICATIONS 84 CITATIONS 257 PUBLICATIONS 2,955 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

New mathematical algorithms for solving advection-diffusion problem with non-sink moving boundary conditions View project

Forecasting PM10 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rosanisah Mohd on 24 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Informatica 41 (2017) 71–86 71

Aggregation Methods in Group Decision Making: A Decade Survey

Wan Rosanisah Wan Mohd and Lazim Abdullah
School of Informatics and Applied Mathematics
Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, 21030, Kuala Terengganu, Terengganu, Malaysia
E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

Overview paper

Keywords: aggregation phase, Choquet integral, MCDM, interacting, survey, interdependent

Received: August 3, 2016

A number of aggregation method has been proposed to solve various selected problems. In this work,
we make a survey of the existing aggregation method which were used in various fields from 2006 until
2016. The information of the aggregation method retrieved from some academic databases and
keywords that appeared through international journals from 2006 to 2016 are gathered and analyzed. It
is observed that eighteen over ninety five of journal articles or nineteen percent applied the Choquet
integral to the selection process. This survey shows this method most prominent compared to the other
aggregation method and it is a good indication to the researchers to expand the appropriate
aggregation method in MCDM. Besides that, this paper will give the useful information for other
researches since the information given in this survey provides the latest evidence about the aggregation
operator
Povzetek: Predstavljena je analiza metod za združevanje odločitev skupine.

1 Introduction MCDM method has basically four steps that support

making the most efficient and rational decisions.
Decision making is one of the most widely used According to Pohekar and Ramachandran [3], the first
management processes in dealing with real world basic step is structuring the decision process,
problems which is typically characterized by complex alternative selection and criteria formulation. The
and difficult task. Multiple criteria decision making second step is displaying tradeoff among criteria and
(MCDM) has been one of the fastest growing determine criteria weights. Applying value judgment
knowledge areas in decision sciences and has been concerning acceptable tradeoffs and evaluation is the
used extensively in many disciplines. For example, third step in most MCDM. Methods. The fourth step is
Roy [1] developed a multi criteria decision analysis for calculating the final aggregation prior to make a
renewable energy sources where it deals with the decision. Some literature also suggests that MCDM
process of making decisions in the presence of multiple can be divided into two phase process. The first phase
objective. Many researchers used other diverse is called as the rating phase where aggregation of the
methods of MCDM to solve the decision problem [2]. values of criteria for each alternative is made. Ranking
Basically, MCDM is a branch of operation research or ordering between the alternatives with respect to the
models and a well-known field of decision making. global consensus degree of satisfaction is another
Both quantitative as well as qualitative criteria and phase in MCDM. It can be seen that aggregation is one
attributes can be solved using the methods and it can of the fundamental phases in MCDM. Many MCDM
analyze conflict in criteria and decision makers as well methods such as ELECTRE I, II, PROMETHEE use
[3]. MCDM problems usually divided into two types: criteria weights in their aggregation process. Weights
continuous and discrete. MCDM problems have two of criteria play an important role for measuring overall
categories: multi-objective decision making (MODM) preferences of alternatives. It is necessary to aggregate
and multi-attribute decision making (MADM). By the available information in order to make decisions. In
MODM methods, the decision variable values can be other words, a central problem in multi-criteria
determined in a continuous or integer domain as it has problems are an aggregation of the satisfactions to the
a large number of alternative choices. Thus, MADM individual criteria to obtain a measure of satisfaction to
methods are generally discrete, with a limited number the overall collection of criteria [5]. The overall
of specified alternatives. Each matrix has four main evaluation value is then used to help select alternatives.
parts, namely: (a) alternatives, (b) attributes, (c) weight It can be seen that aggregation is the fundamental
or relative importance of each attribute and (d) prerequisite of the decision making, in which
measures of performance of alternatives with respect to descriptions on how to aggregate individual experts’
the attributes [4]. preference information on alternatives is succinctly
MCDM deals with the problem of helping the made [6].
decision maker to choose the best alternative according Aggregation is easily defined as the process of
to several criteria. In order to meet this objective, an combining several numerical scores with respect to
72 Informatica 41 (2017) 71–86 W.R.W. Mohd et al.

each criterion by using an aggregation operator in preference information and deriving collective
order to produce a global score [7]. Detyniecki [8] preference values for each alternative. That is to say,
defines an aggregation as ‘mathematical object that has the information aggregation is to combine individual
the function of reducing a set of numbers into a unique experts’ preference coming from different sources into
representative value’. Xu [9] defines aggregation is an a unique representative value by using an appropriate
essential process of gathering relevant information aggregation technique [15]. Aggregation operations are
from multiple source. According to the [10], used to rank the alternative decisions an expert or
aggregation is made to summarize information in decision support system, which are established and
decision making. Omar and Fayek [11] defines applied in fuzzy logic systems. The information
aggregation in the multi-criteria decision making aggregation has received much attention from
environments as a process of combining the values of a practitioners and researchers due to its practical and
set of attributes into one representative value for the significance in academic [16][17][18][19][20][21].
entire set of attributes. Aggregation is important in the The first overview of the aggregation operators in
decision making problem because it is used to derive a 2003 by Xu and Da [22]. The study is reviewed of the
collective decision made by the decision makers by existing main aggregation operators and proposed
representing in the individual opinions. In addition, some new aggregation operators that is induced
aggregation of individual judgments or preference is ordered weighted geometric averaging (IOWGA)
used to transform experts’ judgment knowledge and operator, generalized induced ordered weighted
expertise in relative weight. averaging (GIOWA) operator and hybrid weighted
The interest in the importance of aggregation is averaging (HWA) operator. In 2008, a review of
enhanced by judgments or preferences made by a aggregation functions which focus on some special
group of decision makers. In group decision problem classes of averaging, conjunctive and disjunctive is
where number of decision makers are multiple, it is reviewed by Mesiar et al. [23]. Furthermore, Martinez
assumed that there exists a finite number of and Acosta in 2015 [24] have made a review an
alternatives, as well as a finite set of experts. Each aggregation operators taking into account of
expert has their own opinions and may have a variety mathematical properties and behavioral measures such
of ideas about the performance of each alternative and as disjunctive degree (orness), dispersion, balance
cannot estimate his/her preferences with crisp operator, divergence instead of general mathematical
numerical value. Hence, a more realistic approach to properties whose verification might be desirable in
be used to represent the situation of the human expert, certain cases: boundary condition, continuity,
instead of using the crisp numerical values. Thus, each increasing, monotonicity etc. Since then, it is important
variable involved in the problem may be represented in to make a review of the aggregation operator which
linguistic terms. Under those circumstances, provide the latest method which will be used to solve
aggregation methods are the key to tackle the the aggregation in MCDM. Obviously, there is no
mechanism to realize the comprehensive features of review paper on aggregation operator from year to
group decision making [12]. Several related research year.
have been conducted to deal with multiplicity features Our aim in this survey article is to provide an
in group decision making. Many researchers have accessible overview of some key methods of
studied aggregation operation using different aggregation in MCDM. We focus on development of
aggregation methods. The way aggregation functions type of aggregation methods that have attracted many
are used depends on the nature of the profile that is researchers in this area without neglecting some
given to each user and the description of items [13]. technical details of the aggregation methods.
In the real world of decision making problems, Throughout this survey, the terms aggregation
decision makers like to pursue more than one function, aggregation operator, surveys on aggregation
aggregation methods to measure the aggregation in MCDM, an overview of aggregation operation will
information. In these kinds of problems, many refer to find the journal articles as well. The collected
aggregation methods have been developed in this area journals which is regarding the aggregation is
for the recent years for judging the alternatives. For retrieving from the various fields such as engineering,
example, Ogryczak [14] proposed reference point medical, operation research, image processing,
method and implemented to the fair optimization selection problems, project management selection and
method in analyzing the efficient frontier. The method etc.
was proposed based on the augmented max-min This paper is structured as follows. Section 2
aggregation. begins by laying out the various methods of
Aggregation operations on fuzzy sets are aggregation since 2006 until now. Section 3 presents
operations by which several fuzzy sets are combined an analysis out of the survey. Section 4 suggests some
together in some way to produce a single works that can be extended as future research direction.
representative either fuzzy or crisp set. Therefore, The last chapter concludes.
aggregation operation needs aggregation operator to
deal with the situation where the aggregation operator
is commonly tools that can be used to combine the
individual preference information into overall
Aggregation Methods in Group Decision... Informatica 41 (2017) 71–86 73

2 Review of aggregation method FNs, it is possible to analyze the real situation into the
fuzzy value. Here is the definition of OWA.
This chapter reviews aggregation methods that have
been developed to aggregate information in order to Definition 1: An OWA operator of dimension n
choose a desirable solution, decision makers have to
aggregate their preference information by means of is a mapping OWA: R n  R that has associated
some proper approaches. This review is made by weighting vector W of dimension n with w j  0,1 and
analyzing the method used based on the journals and n
conference proceedings that are collected from selected w
j 1
j 1 , such that [27]:
popular academic databases such as SpringerLink,
Scopus, ScienceDirect, IEEE Xplore Digital Library, n
ACM Digital Library, and Wiley Online Library from OWA a1 , a 2 ,..., an   w b j j
the year 2006 until the year 2016. j 1
The class of aggregation is huge, making the where b j is the j th largest of the ai .
problem of choosing the right method for a given
application is a difficult one [25]. In this paper, we There are some of the authors that being used
review the methods of aggregation and its various OWA as aggregation operators such that Xu [29]
applications. Firstly, we segregate the aggregation developed the intuitionistic fuzzy ordered weighted
methods by the basic ones which is the most often used averaging (IFOWA) operator, and the intuitionistic
aggregation operators. For example, the average fuzzy hybrid averaging (IFHA) operator. Xu and Chen
(arithmetic mean), geometric mean and harmonic [30] investigated the interval-valued intuitionistic
mean. Then, we proceed to the next aggregation fuzzy multi-criteria group decision making based on
operator by presenting a generalization of the classical arithmetic aggregation operators such as the interval-
one such as Bonferroni Mean (BM), power aggregation valued intuitionistic fuzzy weighted arithmetic
operator, fuzzy integral, hybrid aggregation operator, aggregation (IIFWA) operator, the interval-valued
prioritized average operator and the linguistic intuitionistic fuzzy ordered weighted aggregation
aggregation operator [26]. (IIFOWA) operator and the interval-valued
intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid aggregation (IIFHA)
2.1 Basic operators operator.
Li and Li [31][32] developed the generalized
2.1.1 Arithmetic mean operator OWA operators using IFSs to solve MADM in which
In real life decision situation, the aggregation problems weights and ratings of alternatives on attributes are
in the MCDM are solved using the scoring techniques expressed in IFS. Chang et al. and Merigo et al.
such as the weighted aggregation operator based on [33][34]proposed the fuzzy generalized ordered
multi attribute theory. The classical weighted weighted averaging (FGOWA) operator as it is an
aggregation is usually known by the weighted average extension of the GOWA operator for the uncertain
(WA) or simple additive weighting method. A very situation where the information given is in the form of
common aggregation operator is the ordered weighted fuzzy numbers. Zhao et al. [35] developed some new
averaging (OWA) operator which provides a generalized aggregation operators such as generalized
parameterized family aggregation operator between the intuitionistic fuzzy weighted averaging (GIFWA)
minimum, the maximum, the arithmetic average, and operator, generalized intuitionistic fuzzy ordered
the median criteria whose originally introduced by weighted averaging (GIFOWA) operator, generalized
Yager [27]. There are two features have been used to intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid averaging (GIFHA)
characterize the OWA operators. The first is the orness operator, generalized interval-valued intuitionistic
character and the second is the dispersion. The OWA fuzzy weighted averaging (GIIFWA) operator,
has been widely used because of its ability to model generalized interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid
linguistically expressed aggregation. Since the OWA average (GIIFHA) operator where the proposed
operator is coming out, the approach has been method is the extension of the GOWA operators taking
employed by the most authors in a wide range of into account of the characterization both of
applications such as engineering, neural networks, data intuitionistic fuzzy sets by a membership function and
mining, decision making, and image processing as well non membership function and interval-valued
as expert systems [28]. However, OWA operator was intuitionistic fuzzy sets whose fundamental
assumed that the available information includes crisp characteristic is the values of its membership function
number or singletons. In the real decision making is represented by the interval numbers rather than exact
situation, it is found this may not be the crisp number. numbers.
Sometimes, the available information is vague or Shen et al. [36] presented a new arithmetic
imprecise and it is not possible to analyze it with the aggregation operator which is induced intuitionistic
crisp numbers. Then, it is necessary to use another trapezoidal fuzzy ordered weighting aggregation
approach that is able to represent the uncertainty such operator and applied to group decision making.
as the use of fuzzy numbers (FNs). With the use of Furthermore, in 2011, Casanovas et al. [37] introduced
the uncertain induced probabilistic ordered weighted
74 Informatica 41 (2017) 71–86 W.R.W. Mohd et al.

averaging weighted averaging (UIPOWAWA) operator Some authors used geometric mean as aggregation
where it provides a parameterized family of operator. For example, Wu et al. [44] defined same
aggregation operators between minimum and families of geometric aggregation operators to
maximum in a unified framework between probability, aggregate trapezoidal IFNs (TrIFNs). Xu and Yager
the weighted average and the induced ordered [45], Xu and Chen [46], Wei [47], Das et al. [48]
weighted averaging (IOWA) operator. Merigo [38] developed some geometric aggregation operators based
developed a new aggregation model that unifies the on IFS, such as intuitionistic fuzzy weighted geometric
weighted average (WA) and the induced ordered (IFWG) operator, intuitionistic fuzzy ordered weighted
weighted average (IOWA) operator that is called geometric (IFOWG) operator and intuitionistic fuzzy
induced ordered weighted averaging-weighted average hybrid geometric (IFHG) operator. Tan [49] developed
(IOWAWA) operator by considering the degree of a generalized intuitionistic fuzzy geometric
importance that each concept has in the aggregation. aggregation operator for multiple criteria decision
Xu and Wang [39] proposed a new aggregation making by considering the interdependent or
operator which calling induced generalized interactive characteristics and preferences.
intuitionistic fuzzy ordered weighted averaging (I- Wei [50], Xu [51] and Xu and Chen [52] proposed
GIFOWA) operator by considering the characteristics approach based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy
of both the generalized IFOWA and the induced weighted geometric (IIFWG) operator, the interval-
IFOWA operator. In order to deal with the valued intuitionistic fuzzy ordered weighted geometric
intuitionistic fuzzy preference information in group (IIFOWG) operator and the interval-valued
decision making, the induced generalized intuitionistic intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid geometric (IIFHG) operator
fuzzy ordered weighted averaging (I-GIFOWA) in different point of view. Verma and Sharma [53]
operator based on GIFOWA and the I-IFOWA proposed geometric Heronian mean (GHM) under
operator. Yu [40] introduced generalized intuitionistic hesitant fuzzy environment by developing some new
trapezoidal fuzzy weighted averaging operator to GHM such that hesitant fuzzy generalized geometric
aggregate the intuitionistic trapezoidal fuzzy Herinian mean (HFGGHM) operator and weighted
information. Xia et al. [41] proposed several new hesitant fuzzy generalized geometric Herinian mean
hesitant fuzzy aggregation operators by extending (WHFGGHM) operator.
quasi-arithmetic means to hesitant fuzzy sets under
group decision making. Zhou et al. [42] introduced a 2.1.3 Harmonic mean operator
new operator for aggregating the interval-valued Harmonic mean is the reciprocal of the arithmetic
intuitionistic fuzzy values which called the continuous mean of reciprocal which is a conservative average to
interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy ordered weighted be used to provide for aggregation lying between the
averaging (C-IVIFOWA) operator. Both intuitionistic max and min operators and is widely used as a tool to
fuzzy ordered weighted averaging (IFOWA) operator aggregate central tendency data which is usually
and the continuous ordered weighted averaging (C- expressed in exact numerical values [54].
OWA) operator has combined to control the parameter Definition 3: An ordered weighted harmonic mean
and employed to diminish the fuzziness and improve operator of dimension n is a mapping OWHM:
the preciseness of the decision making.
Rn  R that has associated weighting vector
n
2.1.2 Geometric mean operator  
w  w1 , w 2 ,..., w n T with w j  0 and w j 1 , such that
The geometric mean operator is the traditional j 1
aggregation operator that proposed to aggregate [54]:
information given on a ratio scale measurement in
OWHMw a1 , a 2 ,..., an  
1
MCDM models. The main characteristics are its n

 a  
wj
guaranties the reciprocity property of the multiplicative
preference relations used to provide ratio preferences j 1 j
[43]. where  1, 2,... n is a permutation of 1,2,..., n ,
such that   j 1    j  for all j  2,..., n .
Definition 2: An OWG operator of dimension n
is a mapping OWG: Rn  R that has associated
 
T Some researchers proposed harmonic mean as a
weighting vector w  w1, w2 ,..., wn with w j  0 and method to solve aggregation in the decision making
n problem. For example, Xu [55] developed some fuzzy
w
j 1
j 1 , such that [43]: harmonic mean operators, such as fuzzy weighted
harmonic mean (FWHM) operator, fuzzy ordered
n weighted harmonic mean (FOWHM) operator, fuzzy
OWGw a1 , a 2 ,..., an   b
wj
j hybrid harmonic mean (FHHM) operator. The aim of
j 1 this paper is to extend the induced ordered weighted
where b j is the j th largest of the a j  j  1,2,..., n . harmonic mean (IOWHM) operator to fuzzy
environment and propose a new operator called the
Aggregation Methods in Group Decision... Informatica 41 (2017) 71–86 75

fuzzy induced ordered weighted harmonic mean systematic investigation of a family of composing
(FIOWHM) operator. aggregation functions which generalize the Bonferroni
Wei and Yi [56] proposed an aggregation operator Mean (BM).
including trapezoidal fuzzy ordered weighted harmonic Zhu et al. [67] explored the geometric Bonferroni
averaging (ITFOWHA) operator and applied to the mean (GBM) by considering both BM and the
decision making. geometric mean (GM) under hesitant fuzzy
Wei [57] proposed a new aggregation operator environment. Xia et al. [68] developed the Bonferroni
called fuzzy induced ordered weighted harmonic mean geometric mean, which is a generalization of the
(FIOWHM) for fuzzy multi criteria group decision Bonferroni mean and geometric mean and can reflect
making. Zhou et al. [58] proposed the generalized the interrelationships among the aggregated arguments.
hesitant fuzzy harmonic mean operators including the Wei et al. [69] developed two aggregation operators
generalized hesitant fuzzy weighted harmonic mean called the uncertain linguistic Bonferroni mean
operator (GHFWHM), the generalized hesitant fuzzy (ULBM) operator and the uncertain linguistic
ordered weighted harmonic mean operator geometric Bonferroni mean (ULGBM) operator for
(GHFOWHM), the generalized hesitant fuzzy hybrid aggregating the uncertain linguistic information in the
harmonic mean operator (GHFHHM) using the multiple attribute decision making (MADM) problems.
technique of obtaining values in the interval to the Park and Park [70] extend the works Sun and Sun [61]
group decision making under hesitant fuzzy by considering the interactions of any three aggregated
environment. arguments instead of any two to develop generalized
Liu et al. [59] proposed a generalized interval- fuzzy weighted Bonferroni harmonic mean
valued trapezoidal fuzzy numbers (GIVFTN) is an (GFWBHM) operator and generalized fuzzy ordered
extended of ordered weighted harmonic averaging weighted Bonferroni harmonic mean (GFOWBHM)
operators to solve the problems in multiple attribute operator. Verma [71] proposed a new generalized
group decision making. Bonferroni mean operator called generalized fuzzy
number intuitionistic fuzzy weighted Bonferroni mean
(GFNIFWBM) operator which is able to aggregate the
2.2 Bonferroni mean (BM) fuzzy number intuitionistic fuzzy correlated
information.
The Bonferroni mean (BM) originally introduced by
Bonferroni [60]. The classical Bonferroni mean is an
extension of the arithmetic mean and its generalized by
some researchers based on the idea of the geometric 2.3 Power aggregation operators
mean [61]. The BM is differ from the other classic Yager [17] was first introduced a power average (PA)
means such as the arithmetic, the geometric and the operator which uses a non-linear weighted average
harmonic because this mean reflect the interdependent aggregation tool and a power ordered weighted average
of the individual criterion meanwhile on the classic (POWA) operator to provide aggregation tools which
means the individual criterion is independent [62]. The allow exact arguments to support each other in the
BM was originally introduced by Bonferroni [60], aggregation process. The weighting vectors of the PA
which was defined as follows: operator and the POWA operator depend on the input
arguments and allow arguments being aggregated to
Definition 4: Let p, q  0, and ai i  1,2,..., n be a support and reinforce each other. In contrast with
collection of nonnegative numbers. If most aggregation operators, the PA and POWA
1 operators incorporate information regarding the
  pq relationship between the values being combined.
 n 

B p, q a 1 , a 2 ,..., a n   1
 

aip a qj 
Recently, these operators have received much attention
 nn  1 i, j 1 
in the literature.
 i j 
 
Definition 5: The power average (PA) operator is
Then B p, q is called the Bonferroni mean (BM).
mapping PA: R n  R defined by the following
The Bonferroni mean (BM) operator is suitable for formula [17]:
n

 1  T a a
aggregating crisp data and can capture the expressed
i i
interrelationships among criteria, which plays a crucial
role in multi-criteria decision making problems [63].  
PA ai i  1,2,...n  i 1
n
Since the BM introduced, this aggregation operator has
received much attention from researchers and
 1  T a 
i 1
i

practitioners. Among them are, Yager [64] generalized n

the BM for enhancing its model capability and further
Xu and Yager [65] developed intuitionistic fuzzy BM
where T ai    Supa , a 
j 1
i j

(IFBM) and applied the weighted IFBM to multi j i

criteria decision making. Beliakov et al. [66] gave a
76 Informatica 41 (2017) 71–86 W.R.W. Mohd et al.

and Supai , a j  is the support for ai from a j . The hesitant fuzzy power weighted average (HFPWA),
support satisfies the following three properties: hesitant fuzzy power weighted geometric (HFPWG)
(1) Supai , a j  0,1; generalized hesitant fuzzy power weighted average
(GHFPWA), generalized hesitant fuzzy power
(2) Supai , a j   Supa j,ai ;
weighted geometric (GHFPWG) operators for multi-
criteria group decision making problems.
Wang et al. [88] proposed a dual hesitant fuzzy
(3) Supai , a j   Supas,at if ai  a j  as  at power aggregation operators based on Archimedean t-
conorm and t-norm for dual hesitant fuzzy information.
Motivated by the success of the PA and POWA, Das and Guha [89] proposed some new aggregation
Xu and Yager [72] proposed a power geometric operators such as trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy
average (PG) operator and a power ordered weighted weighted power harmonic mean (TrIFWPHM)
average (POWGA) operator. Besides that, power operator, trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy ordered
aggregation operators have been further extended to weighted power harmonic mean (TrIFOWPHM)
accommodate multi attribute group decision making operator, trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy induced
(MAGDM) under different uncertain environments. ordered weighted power harmonic mean
For instance, Xu and Cai [73] developed the uncertain (TrIFIOWPHM) operator and trapezoidal intuitionistic
power ordered weighted average (UPOWA) operator fuzzy hybrid power harmonic mean (TrIFhPHM)
on the basis of the PA operator and the UOWA operator to aggregate the decision information.
operator, Xu [74] introduced the uncertain ordered
weighted geometric average (UOWGA) operator based 2.4 Fuzzy integral
on the PG operator and the UOWA operator.
Another types of aggregation operators is fuzzy
Xu [75] under intuitionistic fuzzy and interval- integrals (FI). There are many types of FI, and most of
valued intuitionistic fuzzy decision making the well-known fuzzy integral are Choquet and Sugeno
environments, the linguistic power aggregation integral.
operators by Zhou et al. [76], generalized argument-
dependent power operators by Zhou and Chen [15] to
accommodate intuitionistic fuzzy preferences and 2.4.1 Choquet integral
power aggregation operators under interval-valued dual One of the popular aggregation operator fuzzy integrals
hesitant fuzzy linguistic environment and the power is the Choquet integral which is introduced by Choquet
aggregation operators by Wan [77] under trapezoidal [90]. Choquet integral is defined as a subadditive or
intuitionistic fuzzy decision making environments. superadditive to integrate functions with respect to the
Zhang [78] developed a wide range of hesitant fuzzy measures [91].
fuzzy power aggregation operators for hesitant fuzzy
information such as the hesitant fuzzy power average Definition 6. Let f be a real-valued function on
(HFPA) operators, the hesitant power geometric X , the Choquet integral of f with respect to a fuzzy
(HFPG) operators, the generalized hesitant fuzzy measure g on X is defined as [90]:
power average (GHFPA) operators, the generalized
hesitant fuzzy power geometric (GHFPG) operators,
the weighted generalized hesitant fuzzy power average C  fdg 
n 

    
  f xi   f  xi 1 g Ai 

(WGHFPA) operators, the generalized hesitant fuzzy i 1
power geometric (WGHFPG) operators, the hesitant (1)
fuzzy power ordered weighted average (HFPOWA)
operators, the hesitant fuzzy power ordered weighted or equally by
geometric (HFPOWG) operators, the generalized
hesitant fuzzy power ordered weighted average
(GHPOWA) operators and the generalized hesitant C  fdg 
n
  
 g Ai   g Ai 1 f xi 
i 1
  
fuzzy power ordered weighted geometric (GHPOWG)
(2)
operators.
However, the arguments of these power
aggregation operators are exact numbers. In practice,
where the parentheses used for indices represent a
we often confront situations in which the input
arguments cannot be expressed in the form of exact
permutation on X such that
numerical values instead, they have to take in the form
of interval numbers Qi et al. [79], intuitionistic fuzzy
numbers (IFNs) [80][81][82], interval-valued       
f x 1    f x n  , f x 0   0, Ai   x i  ,..., x n  ,
intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (IVIFNs) [83], linguistic
and An1   .
variables [84][85][86], uncertain linguistic variables
[67][87], or 2-tuples [88], hesitant fuzzy sets (HFS)
[81]. Gou et al. [81] developed a family of hesitant The Choquet integral is a very useful way of
fuzzy power aggregation operators, for instance the measuring the expected utility of an uncertain event
Aggregation Methods in Group Decision... Informatica 41 (2017) 71–86 77

[92]. It is a tool to model the interdependence or geometric operator and the generalized 2-tuple
correlation among different elements where a new correlated averaging operator based on the Choquet
aggregation operators can be defined. Choquet integral integral. Belles-sampera [10] developed the extensions
has been proposed by many authors as an adequate of the degree of balance, the divergence, the variance
aggregation operator that extends the weighted indicator and Renyi entropies to characterize the
arithmetic mean or OWA operator by taking into Choquet integral.
consideration the interactions among the criteria. Islam et al. [105] proposed Choquet integral using
Yager [93] extended the idea of order induced goal programming to multi-criteria based learning
aggregation to the Choquet aggregation and introduced which combines both experts’ knowledge and data.
the Choquet ordered averaging (I-COA) operator. In addition, Choquet integral is applied in the
Mayer and Roubens [94] aggregated the fuzzy numbers hesitant fuzzy environment. Some authors that used the
through the Choquet integral. In the other field, Choquet integral in the hesitant fuzzy environment are
Hlinena et al. [95] used Choquet integral with respect Yu et al. [106], Xia et al. [40]. For example, Yu et al.
to Lukasiewicz filters to present a partial solution to [106] proposed Choquet integral aggregation operator
look for an appropriate utility function in a given for hesitant fuzzy elements (HFEs) and applied it to the
setting. Ming-Lang et al. [96] proposed analytic MCDM problems, Xia et al. [40] applied the Choquet
network process (ANP) technique to get the integral to get the weights of criteria for group decision
relationships of feedback of criteria and Choquet making, Peng et al. [107] proposed Choquet integral
integral is used to eliminate the interactivity of the methods which is an approach to multi-criteria group
expert subjective judgment problem and apply in the decision making (MCGDM) problem to rank the
case study of selection of optimal supplier in supply alternatives where the criteria are interdependent or
chain management strategy (SCMS). interactive. Wang et al. [108] developed some Choquet
Buyukozkan and Ruan [97] proposed a two- integral aggregation operators with interval 2-tuple
addative Choquet integral to the software development linguistic information and applied them to MCGDM
experts and managers to enable them to position their problems.
projects in terms of associated risks. Murofushi and
Sugeno [91] used the Choquet integral to propose the 2.4.2 Sugeno integral
interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy correlated Sugeno integral is one of the fuzzy integral which
averaging operator and interval-valued intuitionistic introduced by M. Sugeno in the year of 1974 [109].
fuzzy correlated geometric operator to aggregate Sugeno integral is proposed to compute an average
interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy information and value of some function with respect to a fuzzy
applied them to a practical decision making problem. measure. In particular, the Sugeno integral uses only
Angilella et al. [98] proposed a non-additive robust weighted maximum and minimum functions [16]. The
ordinal regression on a set of alternatives by evaluating definition of Sugeno integral [109] as follows:
the utility in terms of Choquet integral which represent
the interaction among thecriteria modelled by the fuzzy Definition 7: The (discrete) Sugeno Integral of a
measure. Huang et al. [99] applied a generalized function f : X  0,1 with respect to  is defined as
Choquet integral with a signed fuzzy measure based on
the complexity to evaluate the overall satisfaction of
the patients.
 f (x)d  maxmin f x , A 
1i  n
i i

Demirel et al. [100] proposed generalization where f x1, f x2 , f x3 ,...., f xn  are the ranges and
Choquet integral by taking consideration of they are defined as f x1  f x2   f x3   ....  f xn  .
information fusion between criteria and linguistic
terms and fuzzy ANP as a fuzzy measure which can In recent years, some authors and practitioners that
handle the dependent criteria and hierarchical problem used Sugeno integral are Mendoza and Melin [110],
structure and applied to the multi-criteria warehouse Liu et al. [111], Tabakov and Podhorska [112], Dubois
location. et al. [113].
Tan and Chen [101] proposed intuitionistic fuzzy Mendoza and Melin [110] extended the Sugeno
Choquet integral based on t-norms and t-conorms integral with the interval type-2 fuzzy logic. The
meanwhile Tan [102] extended the TOPSIS method generalization composed the modifying the original
by combining the interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy equations of the Sugeno measures and Sugeno integral.
geometric aggregation operator with Choquet integral- This method is used to combine the simulation vectors
based Hamming distance to deal with multi-criteria into only one vector and lastly the system will be
interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy group decision decided the best choice of recognition in the same
making problems. manner than made with only one monolithic neural
Bustince et al. [103] proposed a new MCDM network, but the problem of complexity resolved.
method for interval-valued fuzzy preference relation Liu et al. [111] extended the componentwise
which was based on the definition of interval-valued decomposition theorem of lattice-valued Sugeno
Choquet integrals. Yang and Chen [104] introduced integral by introducing the concept of interval fuzzy-
some new aggregation operator including the 2-tuple valued, intuitionistic fuzzy-valued and interval
correlated averaging operator, the 2-tuple correlated intuitionistic fuzzy-valued Sugeno integral. As a result,
78 Informatica 41 (2017) 71–86 W.R.W. Mohd et al.

the intuitionistic fuzzy-valued Sugeno integrals and the fuzzy prioritized weighted geometric (IVIFPWG)
interval fuzzy-valued Sugeno integrals are operator to aggregate the IVIFNs.
mathematically equivalent. It shows that the interval Verma and Sharma [119] developed some
intuitionistic fuzzy-valued Sugeno integral can be prioritized weighted aggregation operators for
decomposed into the interval fuzzy-valued and aggregating trapezoid fuzzy linguistic information
intuitionistic fuzzy-valued Sugeno integrals or the motivated by the idea of prioritized weighted average
original Sugeno integrals. introduced by Yager [122] such that the trapezoid
Tabakov and Podhorska [112] proposed fuzzy linguistic prioritized weighted average (TFLPWA)
Sugeno integral as an aggregation operator of an operator, the trapezoid linguistic prioritized weighted
ensemble of fuzzy decision trees in order to classify the geometric (TFLWG), and the trapezoid linguistic
corresponding HER-2/neu classes. They used three prioritized weighted harmonic (TFLWH) operator.
different fuzzy decision trees which are built over Liao and Xu [120] introduced some new
different image characteristics, colour values and aggregation operators including the generalized
structural factors and texture information. The fuzzy hesitant fuzzy hybrid weighted averaging operator, the
Sugeno integral has been used as an aggregation generalized hesitant fuzzy hybrid weighted geometric
operator to design fuzzy trees and the final medical operator, and the generalized quasi hesitant fuzzy
decision support information generated. hybrid weighted geometric operator and their induced
Dubois et al. [113] proposed two new variants of forms.
weighted minimum and maximum where the criteria In 2016, Verma [121] proposed a new aggregation
weights play an important role of tolerance. The operator that based on the generalization of mean
Sugeno integral is proposed to the residuated called generalized trapezoid fuzzy linguistic prioritized
counterparts, which means, the weight support on weighted average (GTFLPWA) operator for fusing the
subsets of criteria. Then, the dual aggregation trapezoid fuzzy linguistic information. The prominent
operations called disintegrals are evaluated in terms of characteristics of the proposed operator does not only
its defects rather than in terms of its positive features take into account the prioritization among the attributes
proposed. The maximal disintegral is when no defects and decision makers but also has a flexible parameter.
at all are present and maximal integral when all the
merits are sufficiently present. 2.6 Prioritized operator
Prioritized Average (PA) operator is one of the
2.5 Hybrid aggregation operators aggregation operators which has a great interest among
The hybrid aggregation operator has been proposed by scholars. In practical situations, decision-makers
several authors. It is important to propose more than usually consider different criteria priorities. To deal
one aggregation operator so that a wide range of fuzzy with this issue, Yager [122] developed prioritized
aggregation operators can be used in a wide range of average (PA) operators by modeling the criteria
application in decision making problems. For instance, priority on the weights associated with the criteria,
Jianqiang and Zhong [114] developed the intuitionistic which depend on the satisfaction of higher priority
trapezoidal weighted average arithmetic average criteria. The PA operator has many advantages over
operator and the intuitionistic trapezoidal weighted other operators. For example, the PA operator does not
geometric average operator. need to provide weight vectors and, when using this
Zhang and Liu [115] proposed the weighted operator, it is only necessary to know the priority
arithmetic averaging operator and the weighted among the criteria.
geometric average operator to aggregate triangular Wei [123] extended the prioritized aggregation
fuzzy intuitionistic fuzzy information and applied it to operator to hesitant fuzzy sets and developed some
the decision making problem. prioritized hesitant fuzzy operators in multicriteria
Then, Merigo and Casanovas [116] proposed fuzzy decision making. As Yager [122] only discussed the
generalized hybrid aggregation operators where further criteria values and weights in the real number domain,
generalize the fuzzy geometric hybrid averaging thus Wang et al. [124] developed some prioritized
(FGHA) and the fuzzy induced geometric hybrid aggregation operators for aggregating interval-valued
average (FIGHA) by using quasi-arithmetic means and hesitant fuzzy linguistic information.
the new result are Quasi-FHA and the Quasi-FIHA Recently, some researchers have focused on fuzzy
operator. prioritized aggregation operator into intuitionistic
Xia and Xu [117] first proposed fuzzy weighted fuzzy sets (IFSs) such as Yu et al. [117], Chen [125]
averaging (HFWA), hesitant fuzzy weighted geometric proposed some interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy
(HFWG) operators, generalized hesitant fuzzy aggregation operators such as the interval-valued
weighted averaging (GHFWA), generalized hesitant intuitionistic fuzzy prioritized weighted average
fuzzy weighted geometric (GHFWG) operators in (IVIFPWA) operator and the interval-valued
solving decision making problems. intuitionistic fuzzy prioritized weighted geometric
Yu et al. [118] proposed the interval-valued (IVIFPWG) operator, Verma and Sharma [126]
intuitionistic fuzzy prioritized weighted average proposed two new aggregation operators such as
(IVIFPWA) operator and interval-valued intuitionistic intuitionistic fuzzy Einstein prioritized weighted
Aggregation Methods in Group Decision... Informatica 41 (2017) 71–86 79

average (IFEPWA) operator and the intuitionistic group decision making with incomplete weight
fuzzy Einstein prioritized weighted geometric information. Then, Merigo et al. [130] developed
(IFEPWG) operator for aggregating intuitionistic fuzzy linguistic weighted generalized mean (LWGM) and the
information meanwhile Liang et al. [127], Dong et al. linguistic generalized OWA (LGOWA) operator and
[128] developed some new aggregation operator called applied to the decision making problems.
generalized intuitionistic trapezoidal fuzzy prioritized Besides that, there are some authors that used 2-
weighted average operator and generalized tuple linguistic variables such as Wei [134] proposed
intuitionistic trapezoidal fuzzy prioritized weighted the GRA-based linear programming methodology for
geometric operator and apply to the multi-criteria multiple attribute group decision making with 2-tuple
group decision making. Verma and Sharma [129] also linguistic assessment information. Wei [135] utilized
proposed two new prioritized aggregation operators for the gray relational analysis method for 2-tuple
aggregate triangular fuzzy information called quasi linguistic multiple attribute group decision making
fuzzy prioritized weighted average (QFPWA) operator with incomplete weight information. Xu and Wang
and the quasi fuzzy prioritized weighted ordered [136] developed some 2-tuple linguistic power
weighted average (QFPWOWA) operator. aggregation operators. Wei [137] proposed some new
aggregation operators which is the 2-tuple linguistic
2.7 Linguistic aggregation operator weighted harmonic averaging (TWHA), 2-tuple
linguistic ordered weighted harmonic averaging
Often, human decision making is too complex or too
(TOWHA) and 2-tuple linguistic combined weighted
weakly defined to be represented by the numerical
harmonic averaging (TCWHA) operators for multiple
analysis. It is always considered the available
attribute group decision making. Zadeh [83] developed
information is vague or imprecise and impossible to
some new linguistic aggregation operators such as 2-
analyze it with numerical values. However, this may
tuple linguistic harmonic (2TLH) operator, 2-tuple
not represent the real situation found in the decision
linguistic weighted harmonic (2TLWH) operator, 2-
making problem. Therefore, the possible way to solve
tuple linguistic ordered weighted harmonic (2TLOWH)
such situation, it is necessary to use a qualitative
operator and 2-tuple linguistic hybrid harmonic
approach which is the linguistic variable to aggregate
(2TLHH) operator to utilize to aggregate preference
the fused information. The linguistic aggregation
information considering linguistic variables in the
operators are offered when the situations of the
decision making problem. Then, Li et al. [138]
information cannot be assessed with numerical values,
developed a new multiple attribute decision making
but it is possible to use linguistic assessment [130].
approach for dealing with 2-tuple linguistic variable
There are some authors used the linguistic variables to
based on induced aggregation operators and distance
aggregate the information in MCDM. For instance,
measure by presenting 2-tuple linguistic induced
Wang and Hao [131] presented a 2-tuple fuzzy
generalized ordered weighted averaging distance
linguistic evaluation model for selecting appropriate
(2LIGOWAD) operator which extension of the
agile manufacturing system in relation to MC
induced generalized ordered weighted distance
production. Herrera et al. [132] proposed a fuzzy
(IGWOD) with 2-tuple linguistic variables. The
linguistic methodology to deal with unbalanced
2LIGOWAD basically uses the IOWA operator
linguistic term sets. Chang et al. [33] proposed a
represented in the form of 2-tuple linguistic variables.
linguistic MCDM aggregation model to tackle to solve
Furthermore, Liu and Jin [139] introduced
two problems which are the aggregation operators are
operational laws, expected value definitions, score
usually independent of aggregation situation and there
functions and accuracy functions of intuitionistic
must be a feasible operator for dealing with the actual
uncertain linguistic variables and proposed two
evaluation scores.
approaches with intuitionistic uncertain linguistic
Xu and Chen [52] extended the well-known
information to the weighted geometric average
harmonic mean to represent the information in the
(IULWGA) operator and ordered weighted geometric
linguistic situation and developed some linguistic
(IULOWG) operator for multi attribute group decision
harmonic mean aggregation operators such as the
making.
linguistic weighted harmonic mean (LWHM) operator,
the linguistic ordered weighted harmonic mean
(LOWHM) operator, and the linguistic hybrid 3 Observation
harmonic mean (LHHM) operator for aggregating Throughout this study, hundred three journal articles
linguistic information. have been reviewed with different aggregation
Wei [133] proposed a method for multiple attribute methods within 2006 until 2016 searching via IEEE
group decision making based on the ET-WG and ET- explore, Science Direct, Springer Link and Wiley
OWG operators with 2-tuple linguistic information. online Library. In this paper, the methods and
Shen et al. [36] developed the belief structure- applications of aggregation are discussed in various
linguistic ordered weighted averaging (BS-LOWA), fields. Based on the Table 1, the most popular
the BS linguistic hybrid averaging (BS-LHA) and a aggregation operator is Choquet integral which is
wide range of particular cases. Wei [130] extended the 17.48%, then it follows by linguistic aggregation
TOPSIS method for 2-tuple linguistic multiple attribute operator (15.53%), arithmetic average operator
80 Informatica 41 (2017) 71–86 W.R.W. Mohd et al.

(14.74%), power aggregation operator and geometric

mean operator (9.71%) respectively, prioritized
aggregation operator (8.74), Benferroni Mean and
Hybrid aggregation operator (7.77%), harmonic mean
(4.85%) and Sugeno integral (3.88%). The details of
the percentage are shown in the Figure 1.
Table 1: Numbers and percentage of the
aggregation methods.
Aggregation No. of Percentage
Methods Authors (%)

Arithmetic 15 14.56
Mean

Geometric 10 9.71
Mean

Harmonic 5 4.85
Mean

Bonferroni 8 7.77
Mean (BM)

Power 10 9.71
Figure 1: Percentage of aggregation methods.
Choquet 18 17.48
Integral Other than that, one of the conventional
aggregation operators which is arithmetic mean also
Sugeno 4 3.88 received attention from many scholars. They have been
Integral widely used because the first aggregation operator
which introduced by Yager in 1988 is OWA which
Hybrid 8 7.77 provide parameterized the arithmetic mean. Then, it is
Prioritized 9 8.74 easy to compute. Since then, many researchers have
developed aggregation operator that based on the
Linguistic 16 15.53 arithmetic since because it is practical in the decision
making problem.
Total 103 100 Besides that, there are many aggregation operators
used in the decision making problem depending on
various kinds of factors investigated. For example,
Based on the Table 1 and Figure 1, the Choquet most of these operators, however, can only be used in
integral have attracted more attention because it is situations where the input arguments are the exact
usually known in the literature as a flexible values, and few of them can be used to aggregate the
aggregation operator and it is a generalization of the linguistic preference information.
weighted average (WA) or simple additive weighting
method, the ordered weighted average, and the max-
min operator [130].
4 Future work
In addition, the Choquet integral is the appropriate From the observations, there are many types of
tool to solve the interactions among the criteria in aggregation operator that have been used by the
decision making problem as the traditional multi- researchers. Recently, the most appealing and great
criteria decision making (MCDM) methods are based attention of researchers is Choquet integral because
on the additive concept along with the independence this method can represent the interaction between
assumption where, in fact, each individual criterion is criteria, ranging from negative interaction to positive
not completely independent [95]. interaction. Even the classical of aggregation operator,
Furthermore, the aggregation operator based on the power operator and linguistic variables have attracted
linguistic variable has received considerable attention numbers of researchers to apply to this field. It is
too. The linguistic information is used when the suggested that the Choquet integral in order to build a
information available is vague or imprecise, but unable more robust method and can be improved or extended
to analyze it using numerical values [131]. by taking into account a weighted combination of both
experts’ knowledge and data. This suggestion is based
on the only expert opinion can be overly subjective and
may not result in desired performance.
Aggregation Methods in Group Decision... Informatica 41 (2017) 71–86 81

The Choquet integral derives from the large method which based on the additive measure. On the
 n

numbers of coefficients 2  2 associated with a contrary, to approximate the human subjective decision
making process, it would be more suitable to apply
fuzzy measure, however, this flexibility can drive to be fuzzy measures, where it is not assuming additivity and
a serious drawback, especially when assigning real independence among decision making criteria
values to the importance of all possible combinations.
To tackle this problem, Choquet integral is a
Further research could be further in selecting the
powerful tool to solve the MCDM problems with
fuzzy measure to the Choquet integral. It is because
correlated criteria. In the Choquet integral model,
different fuzzy measure will be impacted to the
criteria can be interdependent, a fuzzy measure is used
Choquet integral. to define a weight on each combination of criteria, thus
Since the linguistic aggregation operator shows making it possible to model the interaction existing
more than fifty percent of overall, it is possible to
among the criteria. Besides that, Choquet integral
further to the next phase. In the future, it may extend
which taking into account for correlated inputs may
this approach to other situations that can be assessed
give a more accurate prediction of the users’ rating.
with other linguistic approaches and introducing the
Furthermore, it is a very useful tool to measure the
new aspects in the formulation by integrating them expected utility of an uncertain environment.
with other types of aggregation operators.
The arithmetic aggregation operator also shows the
highest percentage among other aggregation operator. 6 References
It is expected to expand in the future by using a [1] Roy, B. and PH. Vincke, Multicriteria Analysis
generalized aggregation operator, distance measures Survey and New Directions, European Journal of
and unified aggregation operators. Moreover, it can be Operational Research, vol. 8, pp. 207-218, 1981.
represented in the uncertain environment using fuzzy [2] E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis and S. Kildiene,
numbers and linguistic variables. State of Art Surveys of Overviews on
MCDM/MADM Methods, Technological and
5 Conclusion Economic Development of Economy, vol. 20, no.
1, 165-179, 2014.
The main purpose of this study is to find the
[3] S. D. Pohekar and M. Ramachandran,
appropriate aggregation operator that is able to present
Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Making to
aggregation by taking account the importance of the
Sustainable Energy Planning-A Review, Renew
data that being fused. Sustain Energy Rev, vol. 8, pp. 365-381, 2004.
In this paper, we have analyzed the method used [4] C. Diakaki, E. Grigoroudis, N. Kabelis, D.
based on the journals and conference proceedings that
Kolokotsa, K. Kalaitzakis, and G. Stavrakakis, A
are collected from selected popular academic
Multi-Objective Decision Model for the
databases.
Improvement of Energy Efficiency in Buildings,
From the collected journal, we have separated
Energy, vol. 35, pp. 5483-5496, 2010.
them according to the method that being used by the [5] R. R. Yager. On Generalized Bonferroni Mean
authors. Each of the aggregation method has been Operators for Multi-Criteria Aggregation.
presented in the percentage. See Table 1 and Figure 1
International Journal of Approximate Reasoning,
in section 3.
vol. 50, no. 8, pp. 1279–1286, 2009a.
From the observation, most of the criteria of the
[6] A. Sengupta and T. K. Pal, Fuzzy Preference
classical and linguistic aggregation operator in
Ordering of Interval Numbers in Decision
decision-making methods mentioned above are Problems. New York: Springer, Heidelberg,
assumed to be independent of one another, but in 2009.
reality, the criteria of the problems are often
[7] J. L. Marichal, Aggregation Operator for
interdependent or interactive. For real decision making
Multicriteria Decision Aid. Ph.D. Dissertations,
problems, it does not need the assumption that criteria
University of Liege, 1999.
or preferences are independent of one another and was [8] M. Detyniecki, Mathematical Aggregation
used to show as a powerful tool for modeling Operators and Their Application to Video
interaction phenomena in decision making [100].
Querying. PhD thesis. University of Paris, 2000.
Usually, there is interaction among preference of
[9] Z. S. Xu, Fuzzy Harmonic Mean Operators,
decision makers. This phenomenon is called correlated
International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol.
criteria.
24, no. 2, pp. 152-172, 2009.
In the real world of decision making problems, [10] J. Belles-sampera, J. M. Merigó and M.
most criteria have interdependent, interactive or Santolino, Some New Definitions of Indicators
correlative characteristics. The interaction phenomena
for the Choquet Integral, pp. 467–476, 2013.
among criteria or the preference of experts is
[11] M. N. Omar and A. R. Fayek, A TOPSIS-based
considered which is making it more feasible and
Approach for Prioritized Aggregation in Multi-
practical than other traditional aggregation operator. In
Criteria Decision-Making Problems, Journal of
addition, it is not suitable for us to aggregate them by Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 2016.
classical weighted arithmetic mean or geometric mean
82 Informatica 41 (2017) 71–86 W.R.W. Mohd et al.

[12] J. Vanicek, I. Vrana and S. Aly, Fuzzy [27] R. R. Yager, On Ordered Weighted Averaging
Aggregation And Averaging for Group Decision Aggregation Operators in Multicriteria Decision
Making: A Generalization and Survey. Making, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man,
Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 22, pp. 79-84, and Cybernetics, vol. 18, no. 1, 1988.
2009 [28] T. Calvo, G. Mayor and R. Mesiar, Aggregation
[13] A. K. Madan, M. S. Ranganath, Multiple Criteria Operators: New Trends and Application. Physica-
Decision Making Techniques in Manufacturing Verlag, New York, 2002.
Industries-A Review Study with Application of [29] Z. Xu, Multi-Person Multi-Attribute Decision
Fuzzy, International Conference of Advance Making Models Under Intuitionistic Fuzzy
Research and Innovation (ICARI-2014), pp. 136- Environment, Fuzzy Optim Decis Mak, vol. 6,
144, 2014. no. 3, pp. 221-236, 2007.
[14] Ogryczak, W. On Multicriteria Optimization with [30] Z. S. Xu and J. Chen, Approach to Group
Fair Aggregation of Individual Achievements. In: Decision Making Based on Interval-Valued
CSM’06: 20th Workshop on Methodologies and Intuitionistic Judgment Matrices, Systems
Tools for Complex System Modeling and Engineering-Theory and Practice, vol. 27, pp.
Integrated Policy Assessment, IIASA, Laxenburg, 126-133, 2007.
Austria, 2006. [31] D. F. Li, Multiattribute Decision Making Method
[15] L. G. Zhou and H. Y. Chen, A Generalization of Based on Generalized OWA Operators with
the Power Aggregation Operators for Linguistic Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets, Expert Systems with
Environment and Its Application In Group Applications, vol. 37, pp. 8673-8678, 2010.
Decision Making, Knowl Based Syst, vol. 26, pp. [32] D. F. Li, The GOWA Operator Based Approach
216-224, 2012. to Multiattribute Decision Making Using
[16] J. L. Marichal, On Sugeno Integral as an Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets, Mathematical and
Aggregation Function, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Computer Modelling, vol. 53, pp. 1182-1196,
vol. 114, pp. 347-365, 2000. 2011.
[17] R. R. Yager, The Power Average Operator, IEEE [33] J. R. Chang, S. Y. Liao and C. H. Cheng,
Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Situational ME-LOWA Aggregation Model for
vol. 31, pp. 724-731, 2001. Evaluating the Best Main Battle Tank,
[18] V. Torra, The Weighted OWA Operator, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference
International Journal Intelligent System, vol. 12, on Machine Learning and Cybernetics, pp. 1866-
pp. 153-166, 1977. 1870, 2007.
[19] H. F. Wang and S. Y. Shen, Group Decision [34] J. M. Merigo and M. Casanovas, The Fuzzy
Support with MOLP Applications. IEEE Trans Generalized OWA Operator And Its Application
Syst Man Cybern, vol. 19, pp. 143-153, 1989. In Strategic Decision Making, Cybernetics and
[20] R. Narasimhan, A Geometric Averaging Systems, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 359-370, 2010.
Procedure for Constructing Supertransitivity [35] H. Zhao, Z. S. Xu, M. F. Ni and S. S. Liu,
Approximation to Binary Comparison Matrices, Generalized Aggregation Operators for
Fuzzy Sets System, vol. 8, pp. 53-61, 1982. Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets. International Journal of
[21] S. Ovchinnikov, An Analytic Characterization of Intelligent Systems, vol. 25, pp. 1-30, 2010.
Some Aggregation Operator, International [36] L. Shen, H. Wang and X. Feng, Some Arithmetic
Journal Intelligent System, vol. 7, pp. 765-786, Aggregation Operators Within Intuitionistic
1998. Trapezoidal Fuzzy Setting and Their Application
[22] Z. S. Xu and Q. L. Da, An Overview of Operators to Group Decision Making. Management Science
for Aggregating Information, International and Industrial Engineering (MSIE), pp. 1053-
Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 18, pp. 953- 1059, 2011.
969, 2003. [37] M. Casanovas and J. M. Merigo, A New Decision
[23] R. Mesiar, A. Kolesarova, T. Calvo and M. Making Method with Uncertain Induced
Komornikova, A Review of Aggregation Aggregation Operator, Computational
Functions. Fuzzy Sets and Their Application Intelligence in Multicriteria Decision Making
Extensions: Representation, Aggregation, and (MCDM), pp. 151-158, 2011.
Models, 2008. [38] J. M. Merigo, A Unified Model Between The
[24] D. L. L. R. Martinez and J. C. Acosta, Weighted Average and The Induced OWA
Aggregation Operators Review-Mathematical Operator, Expert Systems with Applications, vol.
Properties and Behavioral Measures, International 38, no. 9, pp. 11560-11572., 2011.
Journal Intelligent Systems and Applications, vol. [39] Y. Xu and H. Wang, Approaches Based on 2-
10, pp. 63-76, 2015. Tuple Linguistic Power Aggregation Operators
[25] M. Grabisch, J. L. Marichal R. Mesiar and E. for Multiple Attribute Group Decision Making
Pap, Aggregation Functions: Means, Information Under Linguistic Environment, Applied Soft
Science, vol.181, pp. 1-22, 2011. Computing, vol. 11, pp. 3988-3997, 2011.
[26] M. Detyniecki, Fundamentals on Aggregation [40] D. Yu, Intuitionistic Trapezoidal Fuzzy
Operators. AGOP, Berkeley, 2001. Information Aggregation Methods and Their
Aggregation Methods in Group Decision... Informatica 41 (2017) 71–86 83

Applications to Teaching Quality Evaluation, Engineering Theory & Practice, vol. 27, no. 4, pp.
Journal of Information & Computational Science, 126-133, 2007.
vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 1861-1869, 2013. [53] R. Verma and B.D. Sharma, Hesitant Fuzzy
[41] M. Xia, Z. Xu, and B. Zhu, Geometric Bonferroni Geometric Heronian Mean Operators and Their
Means with Their Application in Multi-Criteria Application to Multi-Criteria Decision Making,
Decision Making, Knowledge-Based Systems, Mathematica Japonica, 2015.
vol. 40, pp. 88-100, 2013. [54] Z. S. Xu, Harmonic Mean Operator for
[42] L. Zhou, Z. Tao, H. Chen and J. Liu, Continuous Aggregating Linguistic Information, Fourth
Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Aggregation International Conference on Natural Computing,
Operators and Their Applications to Group IEEE Computer Society, pp. 204-208, 2008.
Decision Making, Applied Mathematical [55] Z. S. Xu, Fuzzy Harmonic Mean Operators,
Modelling, vol. 38, pp. 2190-2205, 2014. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol.
[43] F. Chiclana, F. Herrera and E. Herrera-Viedma, 24, pp. 152-172, 2009.
The Ordered Weighted Geometric Operator: [56] G. Wei and W. Yi, Induced Trapezoidal Fuzzy
Properties and Applications in MCDM Problems, Ordered Weighted Harmonic Averaging
Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 173-183, 2002. Operator, Journal of Information &
[44] J. Wu and Q. W. Cao, Same Families of Computational Science, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 625-
Geometric Aggregation Operators with 630, 2010.
Intuitionistic Trapezoidal Fuzzy Numbers, [57] G. W. Wei, Some Harmonic Aggregation
Applied Mathematical Modelling, vol. 37, no. 1, Operators with 2-Tuple Linguistic Assessment
pp. 318-327, 2013. Information And Their Application to Multiple
[45] Z. Xu and R. R. Yager, Some Geometric Attribute Group Decision Making, International
Aggregation Operators, IEEE Transact Fuzzy Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and
Syst, vol. 15, pp. 1179-1187, 2006. Knowledge-Based System, vol. 19, no. 6, pp.
[46] Z. Xu and J. Chen, On Geometric Aggregation 977-998, 2011.
over Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy [58] H. Zhou, Z. Xu and F. Cui, Generalized Hesitant
Information. Fourth International Conference on Fuzzy Harmonic Mean Operators and Their
Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery, IEEE Applications in Group Decision Making.
Computer Society Press, pp. 466-471, 2007. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, pp. 1-12,
[47] G. U. Wei, Some Geometric Aggregation 2015.
Functions and Their Application to Dynamic [59] P. Liu, X. Zhang and F. Jin, A Multi-Attribute
Multiple Attribute Decision Making in the Group Decision-Making Method Based on
Intuitionistic Fuzzy Setting, International Journal Interval-Valued Trapezoidal Fuzzy Numbers
Uncertain Fuzzy Knowledge-Based System, vol. Hybrid Harmonic Averaging Operators, Journal
17, no. 2, pp. 179-196, 2009. of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, vol. 23, no. 5, pp.
[48] S. Das, S. Karmakar, T. Pal and S. Kar, Decision 159-168, 2012.
Making with Geometric Aggregation Operators [60] C. Bonferroni, Sulle Medie Multiple Di Potenze.
based on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets, 2014 2nd Bolletino Matematica Italiana, vol. 5, no. 3, pp.
International Conference on Business and 267-270, 1950.
Information Management (ICBIM), pp. 86-91, [61] H. Sun and M. Sun, Generalized Bonferroni
2014. Harmonic Mean Operators and Their Application
[49] C. Tan, Generalized Intuitionistic Fuzzy to Multiple Attribute Decision Making, Journal of
Geometric Aggregation Operator And Its Computational Information Systems, vol. 8, no.
Application to Multi-Criteria Group Decision 14, pp. 5717-5724, 2012.
Making, Soft Computing, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 867– [62] M. Sun and J. Liu, Normalized Geometric
876, 2011. Bonferroni Operators of Hesitant Fuzzy Sets and
[50] G. W. Wei and X. R. Wang, Some Geometric Their Application in Multiple Attribute Decision
Aggregation Operators Based on Interval-Valued Making, Journal of Information & Computational
Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets and Their Application Science, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 2815-2822, 2013.
To Group Decision Making, International [63] P. D. Liu and F. Jin, The Trapezoidal Fuzzy
Conference on Computational Intelligence and Linguistic Bonferroni Mean Operators and Their
Security, IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 495- Application to Multiple Attribute Decision
499, 2007. Making, Scientia Iranica, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1947-
[51] Z. S. Xu, Approaches to Multiple Attribute Group 1959, 2012.
Decision Making Based on Intuitionistic Fuzzy [64] R. R. Yager, Prioritized OWA Aggregation.
Power Aggregation Operators, Knowledge-Based Fuzzy Optimization Decision Making, vol. 8, pp.
Systems, vol. 24, pp. 749-760, 2011. 245-262, 2009.
[52] Z. S. Xu and J. Chen, An Approach to Group [65] Z. Xu and R. R Yager, Intuitionistic Fuzzy
Decision Making Based on Interval-Valued Bonferroni Means, IEEE Transactions on
Intuitionistic Judgment Matrices, System Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B
(Cybernetics), vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 568-578, 2011.
84 Informatica 41 (2017) 71–86 W.R.W. Mohd et al.

[66] G. Beliakov, S. James, J. Mordelova and T. Based on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets, Information
Ruckschlossova, and R. R. Yager, Generalized Sciences, vol. 181, pp. 2139-2165, 2011.
Bonferroni Mean Operators in Multi-Criteria [80] K. H. Gou, and W. L. Li, An Attitudinal-Based
Aggregation. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 161, Method for Constructing Intuitionistic Fuzzy
pp. 2227-2242, 2011. Information in Hybrid MADM Under
[67] B. Zhu, Z. S. Xu and M. Xia, Hesitant Fuzzy Uncertainty, Information Sciences, 189, 77-92,
Geometric Bonferroni Means, Information 2012.
Science, vol. 205, pp. 72-85, 2012 [81] J. Z. Wu, F. Chen, C. P. Nie and Q. Zhang,
[68] M. Xia, Z. S. Xu, and N. Chen, Some hesitant Intuitionistic Fuzzy-Valued Choquet Integral and
fuzzy aggregation operators with their application Its Application in Multicriteria Decision Making,
in group decision making, Group Decis, Negotiat, Information Sciences, vol. 222, pp. 509-527,
vol. 22, pp. 259-279, 2013. 2013.
[69] G. Wei, X. Zhao, R. Lin and H. Wang, Uncertain [82] Z. S. Xu, Induced Uncertain Linguistic OWA
Linguistic Bonferroni Mean Operators and Their Operators Applied to Group Decision Making,
Application to Multiple Attribute Decision Information Fusion, vol. 7, pp. 231-238, 2006.
Making, Applied Mathematical Modelling, vol. [83] L. A. Zadeh, The Concept of A Linguistic
37, pp. 5277-5285, 2013. Variable and Its Application to Approximate
[70] J. H. Park and E. J. Park, Generalized Fuzzy Reasoning Part 1, 2 and 3, Information Sciences,
Bonferroni Harmonic Mean Operators and Their vol. 8, pp. 199-249, 1975.
Applications in Group Decision Making, Journal [84] L. A. Zadeh, A computational approach to fuzzy
of Applied Mathematics, vol. 2013, 1-14, 2013. quantifiers in natural languages. Computers &
[71] R. Verma, Generalized Bonferroni Mean Mathematics with Applications, vol. 9, pp. 149-
Operator For Fuzzy Number Intuitionistic Fuzzy 184, 1983.
Sets And Their Application to Multi Attribute [85] J. J. Zhu and K. W. Hipel, Multiple Stages Grey
Decision Making,” International Journal of Target Decision Making Method with Incomplete
Intelligent Systems, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 499-519, Weight Based on Multi-Granularity Linguistic
2015. Label. Information Sciences, vol. 212, pp. 15-32,
[72] Z. S. Xu and R. R. Yager, Power-Geometric 2012.
Operators and Their Use in Group Decision [86] Z. S. Xu, Uncertain Linguistic Aggregation
Making, IEEE Transaction on Fuzzy Systems, Operators Based Approach to Multiple Attribute
vol. 18, pp. 94-105, 2010. Group Decision Making Under Uncertain
[73] Z. S. Xu and X. Q. Cai, Uncertain Power Average Linguistic Environment. Information Sciences,
Operators for Aggregating Interval Fuzzy vol. 168, pp. 171-184, 2004.
Preference Relations. Group Decision and [87] L. Martinez and F. Herrera, An Overview on the
Negotiation, 2010. 2-Tuple Linguistic Model for Computing with
[74] Z. S. Xu, Approach to Multiple Attribute Group Words in Decision Making: Extensions,
Decision Making Based on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Application and Challenges, Information
Power Aggregation Operator, Knowledge-Based Sciences, vol. 207, pp. 1-18, 2012.
Systems, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 746-760, 2011. [88] L. Wang, Q. Shen and L. Zhu, L. Dual Hesitant
[75] L. Zhou, H. Chen and J. Liu, Generalized Power Fuzzy Power Aggregation Operators Based on
aggregation Operators and Their Applications in Archimedean T-Conorm and T-Norm And Their
Group Decision Making, Computers and Application to Multiple Attribute Group Decision
Industrials Engineering, vol. 62, pp. 989-999, Making, Applied Soft Computing, vol. 38, pp.
2012. 23-50, 2016.
[76] S. P. Wan, Power Average Operators of [89] S. Das and D. Guha, Power Harmonic
Trapezoidal Intuitionistic Fuzzy Numbers And Aggregation Operator With Trapezoidal
Application to Multi-Attribute Group Decision Intuitionistic Fuzzy Numbers For Solving
Making, Applied Mathematical Modelling, vol. MAGDM Problems, Iranian Journal of Fuzzy
37, no. 6, pp. 4112-4126, 2013. Systems, vol.12, no. 6,pp. 41-74, 2015.
[77] Z. Zhang, Hesitant Fuzzy Power Aggregation [90] G. Choquet, Theory of capacities. Annales de
Operators and Their Application to Multiple I’Institut Fourier, vol. 5, pp. 131-295, 1953.
Attribute Group Decision Making. Information [91] T. Murofushi and M. Sugeno, An Interpretation
Science, vol. 234, pp. 150-181, 2013. of Fuzzy Measure and the Choquet Integral as an
[78] X. Qi, C. Liang and J. Zhang, Multiple Attribute Integral with Respect to A Fuzzy Measure, Fuzzy
Group Decision Making Based on Generalized Sets and Systems, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 201-227,
Power Aggregation Operators under Interval- 1989.
Valued Dual Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic [92] Z. S. Xu, Choquet Integrals of Weighted
Environment, Int. J. Mach. & Cyber, 2015. Intuitionistic Fuzzy Information, Information
[79] T. Y. Chen, Bivariate Models of Optimism and Sciences, vol. 180, pp. 726-736, 2010.
Pessimism in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making
Aggregation Methods in Group Decision... Informatica 41 (2017) 71–86 85

[93] R. R. Yager. Induced Aggregation Operators, [106] D. Yu, Y. Wu and W. Zhou, Multi-Criteria
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 137, pp. 59-69, Decision Making Based on Choquet Integral
2003. under Hesitant Fuzzy Environment, Journal of
[94] P. Mayer and M. Roubens, On The Use of the Computational Information Systems, vol. 7, no.
Choquet Integral with Fuzzy Numbers in 12, pp. 4506-4513, 2011.
Multiple Criteria Decision Support, Fuzzy Sets [107] J. J. Peng, J. Q. Wang, H. Zhou and X. H.
and Systems, vol. 157, pp. 927-938, 2006. Chen, A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making
[95] D. Hlinena, M. Kalina, and P. Kral, Choquet Approach Based on TODIM and Choquet
Integral with Respect to Lukasiewicz Filters, and Integral Within Multiset Hesitant Fuzzy
Its Modifications, Information Sciences, vol. 179, Environment, Applied Mathematics &
pp. 2912-2922, 2009. Information Sciences, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 2087-
[96] T. Ming-Lang, J. H. Chiang and L. W. Lan, 2097, 2015.
Selection of Optimal Supplier in Supply Chain [108] J. Q. Wang, D. D. Wang, Y. H. Zhang and X.
Management Strategy With Analytic Network H. Chen, Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making
Process And Choquet Integral, Computer & Method Based on Interval 2-Tuple Linguistic and
Industrial Engineering, vol. 57, pp. 330-340, Choquet Integral Aggregation Operators, Soft
2009. Computing, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 389-405, 2015.
[97] G. Buyukozkan, and D. Ruan,. Choquet Integral [109] M. Sugeno, Theory of Fuzzy Integral and Its
Based Aggregation Approach to Software Application. Doctoral Dissertation, Tokyo
Development Risk Assessment. Information Institute of Technology, 1974.
Science, vol. 180, pp. 441-451, 2010. [110] O. Mendoza and P. Melin, Extension of the
[98] S. Angilella,, S. Greco and B. Matarazzo, Non- Sugeno Integral with Interval Type-2 Fuzzy
Additive Robust Ordinal Regression : A Multiple Logic, Fuzzy Information Processing Society,
Criteria Decision Model Based on the Choquet 2008. NAFIPS 2008. Annual Meeting of the
Integral, European Journal of Operational North American, pp. 1-6, 2008.
Research, vol. 201, no. 1, pp. 277–288, 2010. [111] Y. Liu, Z. Kong and Y. Liu, Interval
[99] K. Huang, J. Shieh, K. Lee and S. Wu, Applying Intuitionistic Fuzzy-Valued Sugeno Integral,
A Generalized Choquet Integral with Signed 2012 9th International Conference on Fuzzy
Fuzzy Measure Based on the Complexity to Systems and Knowledge Discovery (FSKD
Evaluate the Overall Satisfaction of the Patients. 2012), pp. 89-92, 2012.
Proceeding of the Nineth International [112] M. Tabakov and M. Podhorska-Okolow,
Conference on Machine Learning and Using Fuzzy Sugeno Integral as an Aggregation
Cybernetics, Qingdao, 11–14 July 2010. Operator of Ensemble of Fuzzy Decision Trees in
[100] T. Demirel, N. C. Demiral and C. Kahraman, the Recognition of HER2 Breast Cancer
Multi-Criteria Warehouse Location Using Histopathology Images, 2013 International
Choquet Integral, Expert Systems with Conference on Computer Medical Applications
Application, vol. 37, pp. 3943-3952, 2010. (ICCMA), pp. 1-6, 2013.
[101] C. Tan and X. Chen, Intuitionistic Fuzzy [113] D. Dubois, H. Prade and Agnes. Rico,
Choquet Integral Operator for Multi-Criteria Residuated Variants of Sugeno Integrals:
Decision Making, Expert Systems with Towards New Weighting Schemes for Qualitative
Application, vol. 37, pp. 149-157, 2010. Aggregation Methods, Information Sciences, vol.
[102] C. Tan, A Multi-Criteria Interval-Valued 329, pp. 765-781, 2016.
Intuitionistic Fuzzy Group Decision Making with [114] W. Jianqiang and Z. Zhong, Aggregation
Choquet Integral-Based TOPSIS, Expert Systems Operators on Intuitionistic Trapezoidal Fuzzy
with Application, vol. 38, pp. 3023-3033, 2011. Number And Its Application to Multi-Criteria
[103] H. Bustince, J. Fernandez, J. Sanz, M. Galar, Decision Making Problem, Journal of Systems
R. Mesiar and A. Kolesarova, Multicriteria Engineering and Electronics, vol. 20, no. 2, pp.
Decision Making by Means of Interval-Valued 321-326, 2009.
Choquet Integrals. Advances in Intelligent and [115] Z. Zhang and P. Liu, Method for Aggregating
Soft Computing, vol. 107, pp. 269-278, 2012. Triangular Fuzzy Intuitionistic Fuzzy Information
[104] W. Yang and Z. Chen, New Aggregation and Its Application to Decision Making,
Operators Based on the Choquet Integral and 2- Technological and Economic Development of
Tuple Linguistic Information, Expert Systems Economy, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 280-290, 2010.
with Applications, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 2662–2668, [116] J. M. Merigo and M. Casanovas, Fuzzy
2012. Generalized Hybrid Aggregation Operators and
[105] M. A. Islam, D. T. Anderson and T. C. Its Application In Fuzzy Decision Making,
Havens, Multi-Criteria Based Learning of the International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, vol. 1,
Choquet Integral using Goal Programming. no. 1, pp. 15-23, 2010.
Conference on Soft Computing (WConSC), 2015 [117] M. Xia and Z. S. Xu, Hesitant Fuzzy
Annual Conference of the North American, pp. 1- Information Aggregation in Decision Making,
6, 2015.
 86 Informatica 41 (2017) 71–86 W.R.W. Mohd et al.

International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, Fuzziness and Knowledge Based Systems, vol.
vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 395-407, 2011. 24, no. 2, pp. 265-289, 2016.
[118] W. Yu, Y. Wu and T. Lu, Interval-Valued [130] J. M. Merigó, M. Casanovas and L. Martinez,
Intuitionistic Fuzzy Prioritized Operators and Linguistic Aggregation Operators for Linguistic
Their Application in Group Decision Making, Decision Making Based on the Dempster–Shafer
Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 30, pp. 57-66, Theory of Evidence, International Journal
2012. Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-based
[119] R. Verma and B. D. Sharma, Trapezoid Fuzzy Systems, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 287–304, 2011.
Linguistic Prioritized Weighted Average [131] J. H. Wang and J. Hao, A New Version of 2-
Operators and Their Application to Multiple Tuple Fuzzy Linguistic Representation Model for
Attribute Group Decision Making,” Journal of Computing with Words, IEEE Transaction on
Uncertainty Analysis and Applications, vol. 2, pp. Fuzzy Systems, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 435-445, 2006.
1-19, 2014. [132] F. Herrera, E. Herrera-Viedma and L.
[120] H. Liao and Z. Xu, Extended Hesitant Fuzzy Martinez, A Fuzzy Linguistic Methodology to
Hybrid Weighted Aggregation Operators and Deal with Unbalanced Linguistic Term Sets,
Their Application in Decision Making. Soft IEEE Transaction on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 16, no.
Computing, vol. 19, pp. 2551–2564, 2015. 2, pp. 354-370, 2008.
[121] R. Verma, Multiple Attribute Group Decision [133] G. U. Wei, Extension of TOPSIS Method for
Making based on GeneralizedTrapezoid Fuzzy 2-Tuple Linguistic Multiple Attribute Group
Linguistic Prioritized Weighted Average Decision Making with Incomplete Weight
Operator, International Journal of Machine Information. Know. Inf. Syst., vol. 25, pp. 623-
Learning and Cybernetics, 2016. DOI: 634, 2010.
10.1007/s13042-016-0579-y [134] G. U. Wei, GRA-based Linear-Programming
[122] R. R. Yager. Prioritized Aggregation Methodology for Multiple Attribute Group
Operators, International Journal Approximate Decision Making with 2-Tuple Linguistic
Reasoning, vol. 48, pp. 263-274, 2008. Assessment Information. International
[123] G. W. Wei, Hesitant Fuzzy Prioritized Interdiscipline Journal, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1105-
Operators and Their Application to Multiple 1110, 2011.
Attribute Group Decision Making, Knowledge- [135] G. W. Wei, Grey Relational Analysis Method
Based System, vol. 31, pp. 176-182, 2012. for 2-Tuple Linguistic Multiple Attribute Group
[124] J. Q. Wang, J. T. Wu, J. Wang, H. Y. Zhang Decision Making with Incomplete Weight
and X. H. Chen, Interval-Valued Hesitant Fuzzy Information, Expert Systems with Applications,
Linguistic Sets and Their Application in Multi- vol. 38, pp. 4824-4828, 2011.
Criteria Decision-Making Problems, Information [136] Y. Xu and H. Wang, Approaches based on 2-
Sciences, vol. 288, pp. 55-72, 2014. Tuple Linguistic Power Aggregation Operators
[125] T. Y. Chen, A Prioritized Aggregation for Multiple Attribute Group Decision Making
Operator-Based Approach to Multiple Criteria Under Linguistic Environment, Applied Soft
Decision Making Using Interval-Valued Computing, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 3988-3997, 2011.
Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets: A Comparative [137] G. H. Wei, FIOWHM Operator and Its
Perspective, Information Science, vol. 281, pp. Application to Multiple Attribute Group Decision
97-112, 2014. Making, Expert Systems with Applications, vol.
[126] R. Verma and B. D. Sharma, Intuitionistic 38, no. 4, pp. 2984–2989, 2011.
Fuzzy Einstein Prioritized Weighted Operators [138] C. Li, S. Zeng, T. Pan and L. Zheng, A
and Their Application to Multiple Attribute Method based on Induced Aggregation Operators
Group Decision Making, Applied Mathematics and Distance Measures to Multiple Attribute
and Information Sciences, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 3095- Decision Making Under 2-Tuple Linguistic
3107, 2015. Environment, Journal of Computer and System
[127] C. Liang, S. Zhao and J. Zhang, Multi-Criteria Sciences, vol. 80, pp. 1339-1349, 2014.
Group Decision Making Method Based on [139] P. D. Liu and F. Jin, Methods for aggregating
Generalized Intuitionistic Trapezoidal Fuzzy intuitionistic uncertain linguistic variables and
Prioritized Aggregation Operators, Int. J. Mach. their application to group decision making,
& Cyber, 2015. Information Sciences, vol. 205, pp. 58-71, 2012.
[128] J. Dong, D. Y. Yang and S. P. Wan,
Trapezoidal Intuitionistic Fuzzy Prioritized
Aggregation Operators and Application to Multi-
Attribute Decision Making, Iranian Journal of
Fuzzy Systems, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1-32, 2015.
[129] R. Verma, Prioritized Information Fusion
Method for Triangular Fuzzy Information and Its
Application to Multiple Attribute Decision
Making, International Journal of Uncertainty,

View publication stats