Heterogeneous group decision making with thermodynamical parameters

References

• Atanassov, K. (1983). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Sofia. In V. Sgurev (Ed.), VII ITKR's Session, Sofia.
   Google Scholar
• Atanassov, K. (1986). Intuitionistic fuzzy set. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 20(1), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(86)80034-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bateman, I. J., Harwood, A. R., Mace, G. M., Watson, R. T., Abson, D. J., Andrews, B., Binner, A., Crowe, A., Day, B. H., Dugdale, S., Fezzi, C., Foden, J., Hadley, D., Haines-Young, R., Hulme, M., Kontoleon, A., Lovett, A. A., Munday, P., Pascual, U., … Termansen, M. (2013). Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: Land use in the United Kingdom. Science (New York, N.Y.), 341(6141), 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1234379
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buyukozkan, G., & CifcI, G. (2011). A novel fuzzy multi-criteria decision framework for sustainable supplier selection with incomplete information. Computers in Industry, 62, 164–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buyukozkan, G., & Guleryuz, S. (2016). An integrated DEMATEL-ANP approach for renewable energy resources selection in Turkey. International Journal of Production Economics, 182, 435–448.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charles, L., & Herbert, K. (1980). Thermal physics. Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Cheng, S. W. (2010). New energy and low carbon economy. Business Review, 22, 4–8.
   Google Scholar
• Coban, V., & Onar, S. C. (2021). Emergency decision making problem of power cut in Turkey using Pythagorean fuzzy thermodynamic approach with prospect theory [Paper presentation].Intelligent and Fuzzy Techniques: Smart and Innovative Solutions. INFUS 2020 Conference (Vol. 1197, pp. 415–422).
   Google Scholar
• Farahani, R. Z., & Asgari, N. (2007). Combination of MCDM and covering techniques in a hierarchical model for facility location: A case study. European Journal of Operational Research, 176(3), 1839–1858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.10.039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomes, L., & Lima, M. (1992). TODIM: Basics and application to multicriteria ranking of projects with environmental impacts. Foundations of Computing and Decision Science, 16, 113–127.
   Google Scholar
• Herrera, F., & Martinez, L. (2000). An approach for combining linguistic and numerical information based on the 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model in decision-making. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 08(05), 539–562. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218488500000381
   Google Scholar
• Humphreys, P., McIvor, R., & Chan, F. (2003). Using case-based reasoning to evaluate supplier environmental management performance. Expert Systems with Applications, 25(2), 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0957-4174(03)00042-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansson-Stenman, O. (2018). Animal welfare and social decisions: Is it time to take Bentham seriously. Ecological Economics, 145, 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.08.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, C., Onar, S. C., & Oztaysi, B. (2015). Fuzzy multicriteria decision-making: A literature review. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 8, 637–666.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292. [Database] https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaya, I., Colak, M., & Terzi, F. (2019). A comprehensive review of fuzzy multi criteria decision making methodologies for energy policy making. Energy Strategy Reviews, 24, 207–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.03.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, A. H. I., Kang, H. Y., Hsu, C. F., & Hung, H. C. (2009). A green supplier selection model for high-tech industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(4), 7917–7927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.11.052
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leiser, D., & Azar, O. H. (2008). Behavioral economics and decision making: Applying insights from psychology to understand how people make economic decisions. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29(5), 613–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2008.08.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, D. F., Huang, Z. G., & Chen, G. H. (2010). A systematic approach to heterogeneous multiattribute group decision making. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 59(4), 561–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2010.06.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang, Y. Y., Qin, J. D., Martínez, L., & Liu, J. (2020). A heterogeneous QUALIFLEX method with criteria interaction for multi-criteria group decision making. Information Sciences, 512, 1481–1502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2019.10.044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao, H. C., & Xu, Z. S. (2015). Approaches to manage hesitant fuzzy linguistic information based on the cosine distance and similarity measures for HFLTSs and their application in qualitative decision making. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(12), 5328–5336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.02.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao, H. C., Wu, D., Huang, Y. L., Ren, P. J., Xu, Z. S., & Verma, M. (2018). Green logistic provider selection with a hesitant Fuzzy linguistic thermodynamic method integrating cumulative prospect theory and PROMETHEE. Sustainability, 10(4), 1291. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041291
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao, H. C., Xu, Z. S., & Zeng, X.-J. (2014). Distance and similarity measures for hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and their application in multi-criteria decision making. Information Sciences, 271, 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2014.02.125
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, M., Milke, M. W., Heiler, D., & Giovinazzi, S. (2018). Postearthquake decision making on sewer recovery and the roles of damage and repair data: Case study of Christchurch, New Zealand. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 24(1), 05017007.1–05017007.11. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000406
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lourenzutti, R., Krohling, R. A., & Reformat, M. Z. (2017). Choquet based TOPSIS and TODIM for dynamic and heterogeneous decision making with criteria interaction. Information Sciences, 408, 41–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.04.037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, L. Y. Y., Wu, C. H., & Kuo, T. C. (2007). Environmental principles applicable to green supplier evaluation by using multi-objective decision analysis. International Journal of Production Research, 45(18–19), 4317–4331. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540701472694
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mendoza, R. L. (2018). Bringing the patient back in: Behavioral decision-making and choice in medical economics. Journal of Medical Economics, 21(4), 313–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2018.1434532
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mori, Y., Mizutani, Y., Kang, J. D., & Idota, H. (2018). Upgrade decision-making for earthquake-vulnerable wooden houses using probabilistic damage index functions. ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering, 4(1), 04017037. https://doi.org/10.1061/AJRUA6.0000945
   Google Scholar
• Noci, G. (1997). Designing “green” vendor rating systems for the assessment of a suppliers environmental performance. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 3(2), 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-7012(96)00021-4
   Google Scholar
• Peng, D. H., Gao, C. Y., & Wu, L. X. (2011). TOPSIS-based multi-criteria group decision making under heterogeneous information setting. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 378–379, 525–530.
   Google Scholar
• Perrot, P. (1998). A to Z of thermodynamics. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rani, P., Mishra, A. R., Mardani, A., Cavallaro, F., Alrasheedi, M., & Alrashidi, A. (2020). A novel approach to extended fuzzy TOPSIS based on new divergence measures for renewable energy sources selection. Journal of Cleaner Production, 257, 120352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120352
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ren, P. J., Xu, Z. S., & Hao, Z. N. (2017a). Hesitant fuzzy thermodynamic method for emergency decision making based on prospect theory. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 47(9), 2531–2543. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2016.2638498
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ren, P. J., Xu, Z. S., Liao, H. C., & Zeng, X.-J. (2017b). A thermodynamic method of intuitionistic fuzzy MCDM to assist the hierarchical medical system in China. Information Sciences, 420, 490–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.08.070
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ren, P. J., Xu, Z. S., Wang, X. X., & Zeng, X. J. (2021). Group decision making with hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations based on modified extent measurement. Expert Systems with Applications, 171, 114235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.114235
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez, R. M., Martínez, L., & Herrera, F. (2012). Hesitant fuzzy linguistic terms sets for decision making. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 20(1), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2011.2170076
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salinas, G. (2017). The decision to attack: Military and intelligence cyber decision-making. Perspectives on Politics, 15(1), 283–284. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592716005119
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sánchez-Lozano, J. M., Serna, J., & Dolón-Payán, A. (2015). Evaluating military training aircrafts through the combination of multi-criteria decision making processes with fuzzy logic. A case study in the Spanish Air Force Academy. Aerospace Science and Technology, 42, 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2014.12.028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santoyo-Castelazo, E., & Azapagic, A. (2014). Sustainability assessment of energy systems: Integrating environmental, economic and social aspects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 80, 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.061
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strantzali, E., & Aravossis, K. (2016). Decision making in renewable energy investments: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 55, 885–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan, R. P., Zhang, W. D., Yang, L. H., & Chen, S. Q. (2019). Multi-attribute decision-making method based on prospect theory in heterogeneous information environment and its application in typhoon disaster assessment. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 12, 881–896.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torra, V. (2010). Hesitant fuzzy sets. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 25, 529–539. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.20418
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verma, M., & Rajasankar, J. (2017). A thermodynamical approach towards group multi-criteria decision making (GMCDM) and its application to human resource selection. Applied Soft Computing, 52, 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2016.10.033
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verma, M., Rajasankar, J., Anandavalli, N., Prakash, A., & Iyer, N. R. (2015). Fuzzy similarity approach for ranking and health assessment of towers based on visual inspection. Advances in Structural Engineering, 18(9), 1399–1414. https://doi.org/10.1260/1369-4332.18.9.1399
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, M. W., Liang, D. C., Xu, Z. S., & Ye, D. J. (2020). The evaluation of mobile health apps: A psychological perception-based probabilistic linguistic belief thermodynamic multiple attribute decision making method. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 8, 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, X. X. (2017). Review of researches on green supplier selection. Economic Research Guide, 4, 194–196.
   Google Scholar
• Wessel, J., Bidwell, R., & Pullen, E. J. (1984). Decision making in coastal engineering. Water Science and Technology, 16(3–4), 759–765. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.1984.0109
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, J., Wan, S. P., & Dong, J. Y. (2016). Aggregating decision information into Atanassov’s intuitionistic fuzzynumbers for heterogeneous multi-attribute group decision making. Applied Soft Computing, 41, 331–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.12.045
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, Z. S. (2005). Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations in group decision making. Omega, 33(3), 249–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2004.04.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, Z. S. (2007). Multiple-attribute group decision making with different formats of preference information on attributes. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics), 37, 1500–1511.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yue, C. (2019). A normalized projection-based group decision-making method with heterogeneous decision information and application to software development effort assessment. Applied Intelligence, 49(10), 3587–3605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-019-01473-w
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information Control, 8(3), 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X
   Google Scholar
• Zadeh, L. A. (1975). The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning-Part I. Information Sciences, 8(3), 199–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0255(75)90036-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, B. W., Dong, Y. C., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2019). Group decision making with heterogeneous preference structures: An automatic mechanism to support consensus reaching. Group Decision and Negotiation, 28(3), 585–617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-018-09609-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, H. H., Kou, G., & Peng, Y. (2019). Soft consensus cost models for group decision making and economic interpretations. European Journal of Operational Research, 277(3), 964–980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.03.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, Z. M., & Wu, C. (2014). On the use of multiplicative consistency in hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations. Knowledge-Based Systems, 72, 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2014.08.026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zheng, J., Wang, Y. M., & Zhang, K. (2020). Solution of heterogeneous multi-attribute case-based decision making problems by using method based on TODIM. Soft Computing, 24(10), 7081–7091. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-020-04844-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu, B., & Xu, Z. S. (2014). Consistency measures for hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 22(1), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2013.2245136
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar