Selecting cloud database services provider through multi-attribute group decision making: a probabilistic uncertainty linguistics TODIM model

References

• Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets. Inf Control. 1965;8:338–353. doi:10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atanassov KT. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Int J Bioautom. 2016;20:S1–S6. doi:10.1007/978-3-7908-1870-3_1.
   Google Scholar
• Cuong BC. Picture fuzzy sets. J Comp Sci Cybernet. 2015;30:409–420. doi:10.15625/1813-9663/30/4/5032.
   Google Scholar
• Yu X, Xu Z. Prioritized intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators. Inf Fusion. 2013;14:108–116. doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2012.01.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yager RR. Pythagorean membership grades in multicriteria decision making. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst. 2013;22:958–965.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu P, Xu H, Geng Y. Normal wiggly hesitant fuzzy linguistic power Hamy mean aggregation operators and their application to multi-attribute decision-making. Comput Ind Eng. 2020;140:1–21. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2019.106224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo D, Zeng S, Chen J. A probabilistic linguistic multiple attribute decision making based on a new correlation coefficient method and its application in hospital assessment. Mathematics. 2020;8:1–17. doi:10.3390/math8030340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mo H. An emergency decision-making method for probabilistic linguistic term sets extended by d number theory. Symmetry (Basel). 2020;12:12030380. doi:10.3390/sym12030380.
   Google Scholar
• Du Y, Liu D. A novel approach for probabilistic linguistic multiple attribute decision making based on dual muirhead mean operators and VIKOR. Int J Fuzzy Syst. 2021;23:243–261. doi:10.1007/s40815-020-00897-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He T, Wei G, Wu J, et al. QUALIFLEX method for evaluating human factors in construction project management with pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic information. J. Intell Fuzzy Syst 2021;40:4039–4050. doi:10.3233/JIFS-200379.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin M, Xu Z, Zhai Y, et al. Multi-attribute group decision-making under probabilistic uncertain linguistic environment. J Oper Res Soc. 2018;69:157–170. doi:10.1057/s41274-017-0182-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu X, Wang Z, Liu J. The impact of digital finance on household insurance purchases: evidence from micro data in China. Geneva Papers Risk Insurance Issues Practice. 2022;12:1039. doi:10.1057/s41288-022-00267-5.
   Google Scholar
• Aisaiti G, Liu L, Xie J, et al. An empirical analysis of rural farmers’ financing intention of inclusive finance in China: The moderating role of digital finance and social enterprise embeddedness. Ind Manag Data Syst. 2019;119:1535–1563. doi:10.1108/IMDS-08-2018-0374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He Y, Lei F, Wei G, et al. Edas method for multiple attribute group decision making with probabilistic uncertain linguistic information and its application to green supplier selection. Int J Comput Intell Sys. 2019;12:1361–1370. doi:10.2991/ijcis.d.191028.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gou X, Xiao P, Huang D, et al. Probabilistic double hierarchy linguistic alternative queuing method for real economy development evaluation under the perspective of economic financialization. Econom Res. 2021;34:3225–3244. doi:10.1080/1331677X.2020.1870520.
   Google Scholar
• Krishankumar R, Sivagami R, Saha A, et al. Cloud vendor selection for the healthcare industry using a big data-driven decision model with probabilistic linguistic information. Appl Intell. 2022;52:13497–13519. doi:10.1007/s10489-021-02913-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramadass S, Krishankumar R, Ravichandran KS, et al. Evaluation of cloud vendors from probabilistic linguistic information with unknown/partial weight values. Appl Soft Comput. 2020;97:106801. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106801.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feng X, Liu Q, Wei C. Probabilistic linguistic QUALIFLEX approach with possibility degree comparison. J. Intell Fuzzy Syst. 2019;36:719–730. doi:10.3233/JIFS-172112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei G, He Y, Lei F, et al. MABAC method for multiple attribute group decision making with probabilistic uncertain linguistic information. J. Intell Fuzzy Syst. 2020;39:3315–3327. doi:10.3233/JIFS-191688.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bashir Z, Ali J, Rashid T. Consensus-based robust decision making methods under a novel study of probabilistic uncertain linguistic information and their application in Forex investment. Artif Intell Rev. 2021;54:2091–2132. doi:10.1007/s10462-020-09900-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomes AMLF, Duncan RLA. An application of the TODIM method to the multicriteria rental evaluation of residential properties. Eur J Oper Res. 2009;193:204–211. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.10.046.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu P, Teng F. Probabilistic linguistic TODIM method for selecting products through online product reviews. Inf Sci (Ny). 2019;485:441–455. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2019.02.022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sang X, Liu X. An interval type-2 fuzzy sets-based TODIM method and its application to green supplier selection. J Oper Res Soc. 2016;67:722–734. doi:10.1057/jors.2015.86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He T, Wei G, Lu J, et al. A novel edas based method for multiple attribute group decision making with pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic information. Technol Econ Dev Econ. 2020;26:1125–1138. doi:10.3846/tede.2020.12733.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pamučar D, Ćirović G. The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using multi-attributive border approximation area comparison (MABAC). Expert Syst Appl. 2015;42:3016–3028. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.057.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krishankumar R, Saranya R, Nethra RP, et al. A decision-making framework under probabilistic linguistic term set for multi-criteria group decision-making problem. J. Intell Fuzzy Syst. 2019;36:5783–5795. doi:10.3233/JIFS-181633.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao H, Xu Z. A VIKOR-based method for hesitant fuzzy multi-criteria decision making. Fuzzy Optim Decis Mak. 2013;12:373–392. doi:10.1007/s10700-013-9162-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arya V, Kumar S. A novel TODIM-VIKOR approach based on entropy and Jensen–Tsalli divergence measure for picture fuzzy sets in a decision-making problem. Int J Intell Syst. 2020;35:2140–2180. doi:10.1002/int.22289.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gou X, Xu Z, Liao H, et al. Probabilistic double hierarchy linguistic term set and its use in designing an improved VIKOR method: The application in smart healthcare. J Oper Res Soc. 2021;72:2611–2630. doi:10.1080/01605682.2020.1806741.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao H, Jiang L, Lev B, et al. Novel operations of PLTSs based on the disparity degrees of linguistic terms and their use in designing the probabilistic linguistic ELECTRE III method. Appl Soft Comput J. 2019;80:450–464. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2019.04.018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang Y, Lin R, Chen X. An enhancement EDAS method based on prospect theory. Techn Econ Dev Econ. 2021;27:1019–1038. doi:10.3846/tede.2021.15038.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghorabaee MK, Zavadskas EK, Olfat L, et al. Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS). Informatica (Netherlands). 2015;26:435–451. doi:10.15388/Informatica.2015.57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Tre G, Hallez A, Bronselaer A. Performance optimization of object comparison. Int J Intell Syst. 2014;29:495–524. doi:10.1002/int.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang R, Xu Z, Gou X. ELECTRE II method based on the cosine similarity to evaluate the performance of financial logistics enterprises under double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic environment. Fuzzy Optim Decis Mak. 2022;21:1–19. doi:10.1007/s10700-022-09382-3.
   Google Scholar
• zhi Luo S, zhang Liang W. A hybrid TODIM approach with unknown weight information for the performance evaluation of cleaner production. Comput Appl Math. 2021;40:1–28. doi:10.1007/s40314-020-01401-6.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang D, Su Y, Zhao M, et al. CPT-TODIM method for interval neutrosophic magdm and Its application To third-party logistics service providers selection. Techn Econ Dev Econ. 2021;28:201–219. doi:10.3846/tede.2021.15758.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao M, Gao H, Guiwu W, et al. Model for network security service provider selection with probabilistic uncertain linguistic TODIM method based on prospect theory. Technol Econ Develop Econ. 2022;28:638–654. doi:10.3846/tede.2022.16483.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tian X, Niu M, Ma J, et al. A novel TODIM with probabilistic hesitant fuzzy information and Its application in green supplier selection. Complexity. 2020;2540798:1–26. doi:10.1155/2020/2540798.
   Google Scholar
• Ju Y, Liang Y, Luo C, et al. T-spherical fuzzy TODIM method for multi-criteria group decision-making problem with incomplete weight information. Soft Comput. 2021;25:2981–3001. doi:10.1007/s00500-020-05357-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li M, Li Y, Peng Q, et al. Evaluating community question-answering websites using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy DANP and TODIM methods. Appl Soft Comput. 2021;99:1–17. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106918.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao M, Wei G, Wei C, et al. Pythagorean fuzzy TODIM method based on the cumulative prospect theory for MAGDM and Its application on risk assessment of science and technology projects. Int J Fuzzy Syst. 2021;23:1027–1041. doi:10.1007/s40815-020-00986-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krishankumar R, Ravichandran KS, Tyagi SK. Solving cloud vendor selection problem using intuitionistic fuzzy decision framework. Neural Comput Appl. 2020;32:589–602. doi:10.1007/s00521-018-3648-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li Y, Shan Y, Liu P. An extended TODIM method for group decision making with the interval intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Math Probl Eng. 2015;2015:1–9. doi:10.1155/2015/672140.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irvanizam I, Marzuki M, Patria I, et al. An application for smartphone preference using TODIM decision making method. 2018 International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics (ICELTICs); 2018: pp. 122–126. doi:10.1109/ICELTICS.2018.8548820.
   Google Scholar
• Krishankumaar R, Mishra AR, Gou X, et al. New ranking model with evidence theory under probabilistic hesitant fuzzy context and unknown weights. Neural Comput Appl. 2022;34:3923–3937. doi:10.1007/s00521-021-06653-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irvanizam I, Usman T, Iqbal M, et al. An extended fuzzy TODIM approach for multiple-attribute decision-making with dual-connection numbers. Adv Fuzzy Sys. 2020;2020:1–10. doi:10.1155/2020/6190149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byabartta Kar M, Krishankumar R, Pamucar D, et al. A decision framework with nonlinear preferences and unknown weight information for cloud vendor selection. Expert Syst Appl. 2023;213:118982. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118982.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang D, Zhao M, Wei G, et al. Single-valued neutrosophic TODIM method based on cumulative prospect theory for multi-attribute group decision making and its application to medical emergency management evaluation. Econ Res. 2022;35:4520–4536. doi:10.1080/1331677X.2021.2013914.
   Google Scholar
• Su Y, Zhao M, Wei C, et al. PT-TODIM Method for probabilistic linguistic MAGDM and application to industrial control system security supplier selection. Int J Fuzzy Syst. 2022;24:202–215. doi:10.1007/s40815-021-01125-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Exp Environ Econom. 2018;1:143–172. doi:10.2307/1914185.
   Google Scholar
• xin Nie R, qiang Wang J. Prospect theory-based consistency recovery strategies with multiplicative probabilistic linguistic preference relations in managing group decision making. Arab J Sci Eng. 2020;45:2113–2130. doi:10.1007/s13369-019-04053-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gou X, Xu Z, Liao H, et al. Multiple criteria decision making based on distance and similarity measures under double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic environment. Comp Indus Eng. 2018;126:516–530. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2018.10.020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei G, Wei C, Guo Y. EDAS method for probabilistic linguistic multiple attribute group decision making and their application to green supplier selection. Soft Comput. 2021;25:9045–9053. doi:10.1007/s00500-021-05842-x.
   Google Scholar
• Verma AA, Razak F, Detsky AS. Understanding choice: Why physicians should learn prospect theory. J Am Med Assoc. 2014;311:571–572. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.285245.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan WU, Shachak A, Seto E. Understanding decision-making in the adoption of digital health technology: The role of behavioral economics’ prospect theory. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24:e32714. doi:10.2196/32714.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei G, Lei F, Lin R, et al. Algorithms for probabilistic uncertain linguistic multiple attribute group decision making based on the GRA and CRITIC method: application to location planning of electric vehicle charging stations. Econ Res. 2020;33:828–846. doi:10.1080/1331677X.2020.1734851.
   Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain. 1992;5:297–323. doi:10.1007/BF00122574.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gou X, Liao H, Wang X, et al. Consensus based on multiplicative consistent double hierarchy linguistic preferences: venture capital in real estate market. Int J Strat Prop Manage . 2019;24:1–23. doi:10.3846/ijspm.2019.10431.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yingming W. Using the method of maximizing deviation to make decision for multiindices. J Syst Eng Electron. 1997;8:21–26.
   Google Scholar
• Feng X, Liu Q, Wei C. Probabilistic linguistic QUALIFLEX approach with possibility degree comparison. J Intell Fuzzy Syst. 2019;36:719–730. doi:10.3233/JIFS-172112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao H, Wu X. DNMA: A double normalization-based multiple aggregation method for multi-expert multi-criteria decision making. Omega (UK). 2020;94:1–15. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2019.04.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Büyüközkan G, Mukul E. Evaluation of smart health technologies with hesitant fuzzy linguistic MCDM methods. J Intell Fuzzy Syst. 2020;39:6363–6375. doi:10.3233/JIFS-189103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irvanizam I, Zulfan Z, Nasir PF, et al. An extended MULTIMOORA based on trapezoidal fuzzy neutrosophic sets and objective weighting method in group decision-making. IEEE Access. 2022;10:47476–47498. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3170565.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irvanizam I, Syahrini I, Zi NN, et al. An improved EDAS method based on bipolar neutrosophic set and its application in group decision-making. Appl Comput Intell Soft Comp. 2021;1474629. doi:10.1155/2021/1474629.
   Google Scholar
• Irvanizam I, Zi NN, Zuhra R, et al. An extended MABAC method based on triangular fuzzy neutrosophic numbers for multiple-criteria group decision making problems. Axioms. 2020;9:1–18. doi:10.3390/axioms9030104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belarmino A, Raab C, Tang J, et al. Exploring the motivations to use online meal delivery platforms: before and during quarantine. Int J Hosp Manag. 2021;96:102983. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.102983.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chao X, Dong Y, Kou G, et al. How to determine the consensus threshold in group decision making: a method based on efficiency benchmark using benefit and cost insight. Ann Oper Res. 2021;316:143–177. doi:10.1007/s10479-020-03927-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nguyen VP. Evaluating the FinTech success factors model to achieve a sustainable financial technology business: an empirical study in Vietnam. Cogent Eng. 2022;9:2109317. doi:10.1080/23311916.2022.2109317.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar