A Method for Multi-attribute Decision Making Under Uncertainty Using Evidential Reasoning and Prospect Theory

References

• N. J. Nillsson. Probabilistic logic. Artificial Intelligence, 28: 71–87 (1986). doi: 10.1016/0004-3702(86)90031-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• L. A. Zadeh. Fuzzy set. Information and Control, 8: 338–353 (1965). doi: 10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J. L. Deng. Control problem of Grey System. Systems and Control Letters, 1(5): 288–294 (1982). doi: 10.1016/S0167-6911(82)80025-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Z. Pawlak. Rough sets. International Journal of Computer and Information Sciences, 11(5): 341–356 (1982). doi: 10.1007/BF01001956
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Z. S. Xu, Q. L. Da. An overview of operators for aggregating. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 18: 953–969 (2003). doi: 10.1002/int.10127
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• G. Y. Wang. Unascertained information and its mathematical treatment. Journal of Harbing Engineering University, 4(23): 1–9 (1990). (in Chinese)
   Google Scholar
• Y. Xu, J. Liu, L. Martłnez, D. Ruan. Some views on information fusion and logic based approaches in decision making under uncertainty. Journal of Universal Computer Science. 16(1): 3–21 (2010).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J. Q. Wang, R. R. Nie, H. Y. Zhang, X. H. Chen. Intuitionistic fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method based on evidential reasoning. Applied Soft Computing, 13: 1823–1831 (2013). doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2012.12.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K. S. Chin, C. Fu. Integrated evidential reasoning approach in the presence of cardinal and ordinal preferences and its applications in software selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 41: 6718–6727 (2014). doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2014.04.046
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S. Yao, W. Q. Huang. Induced ordered weighted evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision analysis with uncertainty. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 29: 906–925 (2014). doi: 10.1002/int.21669
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• I. Montes, E. Miranda, S. Montes. Decision making with imprecise probabilities and utilities by means of statistical preference and stochastic dominance. European Journal of Operational Research, 234: 209–220 (2014). doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2013.09.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• C. Park, S. Ahn, S. Lee. A bayesion decision model based on expected utility and uncertainty risk. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 242: 643–648 (2014). doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2014.06.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• C. Fu, S. L. Yang. An evidential reasoning based consensus model for multiple attribute group decision analysis problems with interval-valued group consensus requirements. European Journal of Operational Research, 223: 167–176 (2012). doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2012.05.048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M. Guo, J. B. Yang, K. S. Chin, H. W. Wang. Evidential reasoning based preference programming for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research, 182: 1294–1312 (2007). doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2006.09.064
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J. von Neumann, O. Morgenstem. Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press, (1944).
   Google Scholar
• D. Kahneman, A. Tversky. Prospect Theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2): 263–291 (1979). doi: 10.2307/1914185
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• G. Gurevich, D. Kliger, O. Levy. Decision-making under uncertainty—A field study of cumulative prospect theory. Journal of Banking and Finance, 33: 1221–1229 (2009). doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2008.12.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• P. Liu, F. Jin, X. Zhang, et al. Research on the multi-attribute decision-making under risk with interval probability based on prospect theory and the uncertain linguistic variables. Knowledge-Based Systems, 24: 554–561 (2011). doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2011.01.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. E. Attema, W. B. F. Brouwer, O. lHaridon. Prospect theory in the health domain: A quantitative assessment. Journal of Health Economics, 32: 1057–1065 (2013). doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2013.08.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U. Schmidt, H. Zank. A simple model of cumulative prospect theory. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 45(3): 308–319 (2009). doi: 10.1016/j.jmateco.2008.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• E. Kemel, C. Paraschiv. Prospect theory for joint time and money consquences in risk and ambiguity. Transportation Research Part B, 56: 81–95 (2013).
   Google Scholar
• S. Dhami, A. al-Nowaihi. Why do people pay taxes? Prospect theory versus expected utility theory. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 64: 171–192 (2007). doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2006.08.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. Tversky, D. Kahneman. Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5: 297–323 (1992). doi: 10.1007/BF00122574
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J. B. Yang. Rule and utility based evidential reasoning approach for multiattribute decision analysis under uncertainties. European Journal of Operational Research, 131: 31–61 (2001). doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00441-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J. B. Yang, D. L. Xu. On the evidential reasoning algorithm for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics—Part A: Systems and Humans,32(3): 289–304 (2002). doi: 10.1109/TSMCA.2002.802746
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J. B. Yang, D. L. Xu. Nonlinear information aggregation via evidential reasoning in multiattribute decision analysis under uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics—Part A: Systems and Humans, 32(3): 376–393 (2002). doi: 10.1109/TSMCA.2002.802809
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J. B. Yang, D. L. Xu. Evidential reasoning rule for evidence combination. Artificial Intelligence, 205: 1–29 (2013). doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2013.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J. B. Yang, M. G. Singh. An evidential reasoning approach for multiple-attribute decision making with uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 24(1): 1–11 (1994). doi: 10.1109/21.259681
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J B. Yang, Y. M. Wang, D. L. Xu, K. S. Chin. The evidential reasoning approach for MADM under both probabilistic and fuzzy uncertainties. European Journal of Operational Research, 171: 309–343 (2006). doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2004.09.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M. Zhou, X. B. Liu, J. B. Yang, et al. Group evidential reasoning approach for MADA under fuzziness and uncertainties. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems,6 (3): 423–441 (2013). doi: 10.1080/18756891.2013.780732
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• L. Q. Jin, Y. Xu, X. Fang. A rule base and its inference method using evidential reasoning. The 11th International FLINS Conference on Decision Making and Soft Computing (FLINS2014), Joao Pessoa, Brazil, August 17–20: 330–335 (2014).
   Google Scholar
• J. Ma, Z. P. Fan, L. H. Huang. A subjective and goal integrated approach to determine attribute weights. European Journal of Operational Research, 112: 397–404 (1999). doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00141-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Z. P. Fan, X. Zhang, F. D. Chen, Y. Liu. Multiple attribute decision making considering aspiration-levels: A method based on prospect theory. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 65: 341–350 (2013). doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2013.02.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• E. H. Shortliffe. MYCIN: Computer-Based Medical Consultations. New York: Elsevier Press (1976).
   Google Scholar
• D. Meng. Fuzzy aggregation analysis method based on interval value. Journal of Liaoning Normal University (Natural Science Edition), 26(2): 113–116 (2003). (in Chinese)
   Google Scholar
• G. Deschrijver, E. E. Kerre. On the relationship between some extensions of fuzzy set theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 133(2): 227–235 (2003). doi: 10.1016/S0165-0114(02)00127-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• T. Y. Chen, C. Y. Tsao. The interval-valued fuzzy TOPSIS method and experimental analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 159(11): 1410–1428 (2008). doi: 10.1016/j.fss.2007.11.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• N. G. Mankiw, X. M. Liang, L. Liang. Principles of Economics (5th Edition), Beijing: Peking University Press (2009).
   Google Scholar
• W. T. Xiong. Research on methods for interval multi-criteria decision making and their applications. Huazhong University of Science and Technology (2011). (in Chinese)
   Google Scholar
• F. E. Boran, S. Genc, M. Kurt, D. Akay. A multicriteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method. Expert Systems with Applications, 2009(36): 11363–11368 (2009). doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2009.03.039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K. H. Guo, W. L. Li. An attitudinal-based method for constructing intuitionistic fuzzy information in hybrid MADM under uncertainty. Information Sciences, 208: 28–38 (2012). doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2012.04.030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• G. Shafer. A mathematical theory if evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1976).
   Google Scholar
• C. Heath, R. P. Larrick, G. Wu. Goals as reference points. Cognitive Psychology, 38: 79–109 (1999). doi: 10.1006/cogp.1998.0708
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• P. P. Wakker, H. Zank. A simple preference foundation of cumulative prospect theory with power utility. European Economic Review, 46: 1253–1271 (2002). doi: 10.1016/S0014-2921(01)00141-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D. Prelec. The probability weighting function. Econometrica, 66(3): 497–527 (1998). doi: 10.2307/2998573
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J. M. Zeng. An experimental test on cumulative prospect theory. Journal of Jinan University (Natural Science), 28(1): 44–47, 65 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• P. Li, S. F. Liu, J. J. Zhu. Intuitionistic fuzzy stochastic multi-criteria decision-making methods based on MYCIN certainty factor and prospect theory. Systems Engineering-Theory and Practice, 33(6): 1510–1515 (2013). (in Chinese)
   Google Scholar