I.INTRODUCTION

GROUP decision making(GDM)is one of the common activities in human daily life,which consists of ranking a given set of alternatives and finding the most preferred one by a group of DMs.During group decision making,each DM is usually asked to provide his/her preference over alternatives and then the preference relations(PRs)are generated automatically[1].In some situations,however,due to the complexity and ambiguity of human mind,fuzzy judgments are often easier than precise ones to make,and DMs usually provide their uncertain and rough PRs in GDM.

As a practical yet valid theory for dealing with uncertain and vague information,intuitionistic fuzzy set(IFS)[2]has attracted many scholars’attention[3]−[6].The advantage of IFS is the capability of describing fuzzy judgments and the capability of representing positive,negative and hesitative viewpoint through membership function[7].When the membership of preference relations is characterized by intuitionistic fuzzy values(IFV,which are the basic components of IFS),the IFPR is generated.Namely,an IFPR is a matrix of values that are created by pairwise comparisons over the given alternatives,and each value implies the preference degree of one alternative over another[8].IFPR has found huge application in various aspects of group decision making[3]−[7],[9]−[15]and increasing attention has been paid to IFPR in recent years.The formal definition of IFPR was given by Szmidt and Kacprzyk[10],who investigated the mechanism of consensus reaching,and examined the extent of agreement in a group of DMs as well[11].Xu and Yager[12]introduce a similarity measure between IFSs and apply this measure in group decision making with consensus analysis based on IFPR.Gong et al.[13]employed the IFPR to study and evaluate the industry meteorological service for Meteorological Bureau of China.Liao and Xu[9]proposed some fractional models for group decision making with IFPRs and applied these models for ranking the main factors of electronic learning.

The consistency,the basic property of IFPR[14],ensures a DM’s judgment yields no self-contradiction during pairwise comparisons with alternatives.How to derive and rank priority weights from an IFPR is considered to be a major issue of use of consistency[15].Generally,existing consistency of IFPR can be classified into two categories,the multiplicative consistency and additive consistency.Numerous ways for acquiring priority weights have been suggested relying on the condition of consistency.Liao and Xu[16]pointed out there is a flaw in additive consistency because it conflicts with the[0,1]scale when used as preference value.In real decision-making problems,however,it is impractical and even impossible for a DM to provide a consistent IFPR due to the limitations of brain and inherent complexity in realistic environments.Since an inconsistent IFPR may lead to reasonable results,it is natural to take the consistency condition into consideration for deriving priority weights.

As to GDM analysis,determining the weights of all DMs is crucial during the process of decision making.Once the weight vector is confirmed,the IFPR of each DM can be directly aggregated to form a collective opinion[17].Xu et al.[3]developed an approach to GDM based on IFPR as well as an approach to GDM based on incomplete IFPR,respectively,where two types of intuitionistic fuzzy averaging operator were defined and employed to aggregate the intuitionistic fuzzy information.Li et al.[18]proposed the intuitionistic fuzzy set generalized ordered weighted averaging(OWA)operator to solve the GDM problem.Liao and Xu[9]develop some algorithms for GDM with multiplicative IFPR via deriving the weight of each DM directly from the individual IFPR.What should be pointed out,however,is that the relative weights of DMs under IFPR environment are determined subjectively in existing literatures.Subjective weights are determined only by DM’s expertise and judgment,otherwise objective weights are obtained via mathematical calculation.The methods of objective weights determination are particularly applicable in cases where reliable subjective weights are not available.

The methods mentioned above have succeeded in solving many GDM problems with IFPR information,however,some limitations in these methods still exist:

1)The relative weights of DMs under intuitionistic fuzzy environments in current literatures are regarded as the same or assigned by subjective weighting methods,which sound somewhat unpractical or even unreasonable in some situations.

2)Current methods[4],[6]−[9],[12],[13],[15],[16]for ranking alternatives in the form of IFPRs are without taking DM’s risk preference(attitude)into account.In practice,various DMs have different preference for risk.That is to say,results may vary in terms of DM’s risk preference for same decision-making problems.

To overcome these drawbacks,in this paper,we developed a new approach for intuitionistic fuzzy GDM based on IFPR with uncertain weights.The motivation of this paper is threefold.First,a new method is suggested for objective weight determination to aggregate each DM’s individual IFPR into a collective one.In this method,relative weights of DMs are derived mathematically from the given preference information and have nothing to do with DMs’subjectivity.Second,we introduce an approach for group decision making by analyzing the multiplicative consistent IFPR.Besides,we review a method that ranks intuitionistic fuzzy weights with considering risk preference of each DM.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows.In Section II,we briefly review some basic knowledge about the IFS,the IFPR and so on.In Section III,a nonlinear programming model is proposed for exploiting intuitionistic fuzzy weights based multiplicative consistency of individual and group IFPR,respectively;Moreover,a method for deriving relative weights of DMs from IFPRs is developed as well.Section IV investigates two numerical examples using the proposed method and compares three different methods.The paper concludes in Section V.

II.PRELIMINARIES

A.Intuitionistic Fuzzy Preference Relation

Owing to the increasing complexity of the decision-making environment,it is hard and even impossible for DMs,or experts to provide accurate preferences on the pairwise comparison of alternatives.In other words,DMs may not have full confidence in their judgments.In this case,intuitionistic fuzzy sets appear to be a suitable and effective way to deal with such uncertainty and vagueness[16].

Definition 1[2]:Let X=(x1,x2,...,xn)be a fixed nonempty set,an IFS A in X is defined as

2)if Sλ(α)=Sλ(β),then α=β.

Definition 2[3]:An IFPR˜R on the set X={x1,x2,...,xn}is characterized by an intuitionistic fuzzy judgments matrix˜R=(j)n×n⊂X×X with˜rij=(uij,vij),where

uijis the degree up to which xiis preferred over xj,vijis the degree to which xiis non-preferred to xj,andπij=1−uij−vij is expressed as the indeterminacy degree to which xiis preferred to xj.

Definition 3[4]:Let α=(uα,vα)be an IFV,the score function ofαis defined as

Thus,one can getdue to the fact thatwe have

whereπαis the hesitation degree of elementα;andλ∈[−1,1]is the risk parameter given by the DMs in consensus,reflecting a DM’s attitude towards risk.A smaller value ofλ is accompanied with higher levels of risk aversion.On the contrary,a bigger value means DMs are risk seeking.Whenλis close to 0,it indicates that DMs are risk-neutral and risk aversion(seeking)vanishes.Based on function(4),a ranking method for any two IFVαandβis as below:

1)if Sλ(α)＜ Sλ(β),then α＜β;

which is characterized by a membership function uA:X→[0,1]and non-membership function vA:X→[0,1]with the condition 0≤uA(x)+vA(x)≤1,∃x∈X.The value,πA(x)=1−uA(x)−vA(x)is called the indeterminacy degree or hesitation degree of element x in set A.Particularly,ifπA(x)=0,then the IFS A is reduced to a common fuzzy set.

B.Multiplicative Consistency of IFPR

Definition 4[16]:An intuitionistic fuzzy preference relation˜R=(˜rij)n×nwith˜rij=(uij,vij)is called multiplicative consistent if satisfying the following condition

As uij=vjifor any IFPR according to Definition 2,(5)can be rewritten as

Equation(6)contains only membership degrees of an IFPR,which facilitate our discussion later.

Definition 5[19]:An intuitionistic fuzzy weight vectoris said to be normalized if it satisfies the following conditions:

Once we obtain the weight vector of DMs,the IFPR given by each DM can be aggregated for building a collective goal programming model.As aforementioned in Section IV-A,we expect that the deviation between the given IFPRs,as well as the multiplicative consistent IFPRs approach to zero.This idea yields the following deviation variables:

whereandthen we have the following theorem.

④网架散件组装将网架散件吊运至脚手平台上，均匀地滩铺，控制网架材料均匀铺荷转小于1kNm。仔细核对施工图纸，按照设计要求，进行组装。临时支点设置在临时支点的支的时候，以千斤顶为主要的设备，对数量、位置和高度要进行统一的安排，确保支点下部及时的加固，防止支点受到施工因素的影响发生下沉现象。做好对注定的抽线和中心线的放样和施工，并且采用水准仪进行检查。再复测各柱网间的几何尺寸及标高，结合设计要求进行确认，确认各个施工点都达到设计要求之后进行加固，加固焊接固定法。

Theorem 1:Assume that the elements of=(ij)n×nare defined by,then˜P is a multiplicative consistent IFPR.

Proof:It is apparent that,we have

基地选择：海拔200～2 000 m；土壤为沙壤土或红壤土，中性至微酸性(pH值5.5～7.0)，肥沃；坡度10°～30°，便于排灌。

As per Definition 2,˜P=(˜pij)n×nis an IFPR.Moreover,by(8),this gives

and

Apparently,As per Definition 4,it is confirmed thatis a multiplicative consistent IFPR.■

Based on Theorem 1,one can easily obtain the corollary as follows.

Corollary 1:Letbe an IFPR,if there exists a normalized intuitionistic fuzzy weight vectorsuch that

thenis a multiplicative consistent IFPR.

沧州市中心医院始建于1898年，前身为英国传教士创办的博施教会医院，发展至今已跨越三个世纪。“感谢那些曾经为医院的发展进步或奔走呼号、或开拓奠基、或默默奉献的前辈先贤，感谢用逆境砥砺我们斗志和用顺境加速医院发展的这沧桑百年！”院长温秀玲在医院建院120周年之际举办的2018公立医院改革与发展峰会上的发言深情满满却又客观写实。

III.GENERATE THE INTUITIONISTIC FUZZY WEIGHTS BASED ON IFPR

In this section,we propose nonlinear goal programming models for deriving intuitionistic fuzzy weight vector from individual and group IFPRs,respectively.

A.Individual Decision Making With IFPR

It is noted that S()is increasing with,the membership degree of,nevertheless decreasing withthe nonmember ship degree ofTherefore values of score function associated to alternatives can be understood as a sort of preference by DMs.

The smaller the absolute difference,the better the results will be produced.This leads to an objective function such that,

AsHence,(11)is equivalent to consider only the upper diagonal elements.Besides,we find(11)contains the absolute value,similar to the disposition in Wang et al.[20].Let

胎儿窘迫为产妇分娩过程中常见的一种并发症,通常是由于子宫内胎儿缺氧所致,会对母婴的生命安全造成极大的危害。临床上可用来处理此种情况的术式较多,但其均有不同的适应性及有效性,故本次研究旨在对剖宫产术与阴道助产术在足月妊娠临产胎儿窘迫中的应用效果作探讨,现将所获各项临床数据作下述报道。

By using some popular optimization tools like MATLAB,WinSQB and so on,model(14)can be solved and an optimal intuitionistic fuzzy weight vector for is obtained.The optimal weight vector is denoted as

Apparent that when J∗=0,we have=0.It implies the IFPRP˜ provided by a DM is multiplicative consistent,and thus,the obtained weight vector is credible.

传统的英语教学法主要依靠教师自己和黑板这两种要素。教师把所讲内容熟记于心，站在讲台前或者学生面前，用生动的语言、形象的比喻、大方的肢体语言和学生进行交流，以此来营造课堂气氛和传授英语知识。传统的教学中经常会出现集体朗诵英语单词、英语课文，或抽查个别学生背诵课文等教学环节。传统教学法也会出现一些录音机或者幻灯片等设备，但是教学准备时间长，工作量大，教学灵活度差，教学方式单一。书本是学生和教师最大的知识来源。应用传统教学法的英语课堂使学生的学生学习范围和获得知识的方式受到了很大的局限。

B.GDM With IFPR Under Uncertain Weights

In real-world situations,decisions are usually made by a group of DMs(or experts)rather than an individual.Hence,group decision making is a more significant topic in current management science that has attracted considerable attention[14],[16],[18],[21],[22].

Let eee ={e1,e2,...,es}be the set of DMs who are invited to express their opinions on alternatives XXX ={x1,x2,...,xn},given that the IFPRgiven by DM ek,k=1,2,...,s is denoted asThe set of weight vector of DMs is ccc =(c1,c2,...,cs),where ck is the kth DM’s weight and satisfying ck＞ 0 andk=1,2,...,s.To determine the weights of each DM is the prerequisite for any GDM problems.A simple way to do that is average assignment if there are no special differences among them.However,a DM may not be able to grasp all aspects of a problem but on some parts of it for which the person is capable[23].So it is natural and reasonable to assume each DM should have a different weight,which is uncertain beforehand and needs to be determined.

3.1.2 个人出版物的海外传播现状 对于个人出版物来说，作者由于长期在某一国家从事武术教学工作，对该国的语言较为了解，能够保证语言的表达更加准确，但是出版物中的教学内容却缺乏标准。当前，许多在国外从事武术教学的教师，武术习练背景参差不齐，许多没有赴外教学许可的人员也在传播中国武术。由于教学人员自身业务素质的不足，导致其出版的纸质教材或视频影像中，教学内容不标准，动作错误频出，为中国武术的海外传播带来了阻碍。

In order to determine the weights cknumerically,consider the score function of

乳酸脱氢酶是一种糖酵解酶，在缺氧条件下能够将丙酮酸转化成乳酸，当机体受到外界某种应激，乳酸脱氢酶活力会升高[22]。如图4所示，保活5、7、9和11 h后血清中乳酸脱氢酶含量都显著高于未处理前的值（p＜0.05），分别上升 30.53%、32.33%、37.38%和58.40%，保活时间达到11 h时，乳酸脱氢酶含量骤增。清水中复苏24 h后，保活5、7、9 h基本恢复麻醉前的水平。这与聂小宝等[19]人研究的低温无水状态下LDH的变化趋势一致。

Every IFPR built by DMs are expected to be consistent,is the basis for reasonable prioritization as mentioned in Section I.Multiplicative consistency guarantees a DM’s judgment is logical and understandable rather than random.However,in real decision making scenario,it is harsh or sometime impossible for a DM to provide such multiplicative consistent IFPR.Under this case,it is expected that the absolute difference between given IFPRs and the multiplicative consistent IFPRswhich yielded by(9),should be as small as possible.So,we introduce the following deviation variablesφijandϕijto gauge the difference.

Let

在新媒体渠道中开展信用卡全面营销策略，不仅需要充分了解客户需求，而且还应注重借助新媒体信息发布优势，既能增强客户体验，同时还能获取有效的信息反馈，并在不断调整自身定位、完善整体服务的同时，得到客户的认同，由此吸引更多潜在用户，进而形成信用卡信息发布与客户增量的良性循环。

As aforementioned,since the S()can be interpreted as the degree of preference of xiover xjby DM ek,accordingly tikcan be seen as the overall degree of preference of xiover all the other(n−1)alternatives xj(j=1,2,...,n,j/=i).Obviously,greater values of tikare associated with higher levels of preference on xiby a DM[17].Thus,the overall degree of preference of all DMs can be concisely expressed in the matrix format as below:

作为一种新型经济模式和商业模式，物流业发展共享经济中难免会遇到质疑和困难，有些问题会引起政府或者有关部门的干涉和禁止。在共享经济的快速发展与应用中，其更新速度远远超出了目前政府所监管的范畴和能力，政府还没有一个针对性地健全监管制度，一定程度上阻碍了物流业共享经济的发展。基于这种背景，为了更好地利用共享经济促进我国绿色物流的建设、实现对社会物流费用的有效降低，政府要充分发挥出其监管作用，建立起针对物流共享平台搭建以及合理运行的相关监管制度，形成一个允许试错、宽容、多元化、开放的经济环境，打破一味禁止和限制的监管弊端，完善经济环境，为物流共享经济的发展提供必要保障。

For the IFPRprovided by ek,we define an index,the standard deviation between tikandgiven by

wherwe have

Then(18)can be equivalently written as

Note thatσk=0 if tik=0,i=1,2,...,n.In this case,the removal of tik(i=1,2,...,n)from matrix TTT has little effect on final prioritization.That is to say,the IFPRcan be removed without little impact on group decision making.Therefore,it should be assigned a relatively small weight.Conversely,the greater theσk,the bigger difference among tik(i=1,2,...,n),which implies a stronger preference of the ekdue to(18).From the DM’s perspective,a biggerσkindicates it is more important for group decision making[24],and naturally be assigned a relatively big weight.

As a result,a nonlinear goal programming model can be built to derive the intuitionistic fuzzy weights as follow.

Based upon the above analysis,we concluded that greater values of weights should be assigned to those preferences with big deviation.It is reasonable that the relative weights going to be determined should maximize the sum of deviation of the s overall degree of preferences.Thus,a self-evident optimization model to determine the weights of DMs is constructed as follows:

Clearly,model(20)is a single linear optimization problem,which can be easily solved by the Simplex method or some mathematical optimization toolkits.

Determination of the DMs’relative weights is a key issue in any group decision making.Let us now consider a more general version of weight vector ccc =(c1,c2,...,cs),and denote it aswhich satisfies α＞1 be a positive parameter that offers flexible choice of weights for DMs.Thus,model(20)can be converted into the following model:

instead of the normalized weight constrainwhere

Regarding this optimization model,we have the following theorems.

Theorem 2:be the optimal solution to model(22),thenis a bounded vector and Z is a continuous function of,k=1,2,...,s,there must exist a maximum point that model(22)holds.To obtain the optimal solution,we using the Lagrangian multiplier method,and the Lagrangian function derived from(22)can be formulated as below:

拟制定出符合教育部《大学英语课程教学要求》和院系本科人才培养定位的大学英语教学大纲。构建以实用性内容为主的、培养学生语言应用能力的课程内容体系；建立以学习者为中心的，适应个性发展的分级教学模式，合理安排教学内容和方法，提高教学效率，提升本专业学生英语四级通过率和英语口语沟通能力，调动学生学习积极性与主动性。

Proof:Since

taking the partial derivatives of L within˜ckand letting them be 0,yields that

小学语文中收录的课文均有代表性，且很多文章都有点睛之处。文章的点睛之处通常是一句话或者一个词语，学生在阅读时能够找出点睛之笔，可以帮助学生理解课文，并且唤醒学生阅读文章的欲望与积极性。在具体进行语文教学时，教师也需抓住文章的点睛之笔引导学生进行阅读，一边阅读一边寻找可以概括文章主旨大意的词语及句子，从而培养学生阅读理解能力。

Inspired by the score function,Wang and Luo[19]introduced a formula to rank IFVs,which was in the restricted form as

区域供水与需水的动态过程受到多方面因素影响，主要包括两类：一方面，气温、降水等自然水循环要素使供需态势受到影响；另一方面，经济社会发展增加用水需求，加大供水系统压力。通常由于降水偏少、天气干燥、蒸发量增大而发生气象干旱。

It follows that

Hence,we obtain

After normalization,(28)becomes,

From(29),we find thatis an exponential function of factorα.We denotedαas the weight assignment factor.When αis approaching to+∞,then=1/s,k=1,2,...s.

Motivated by the multiplicative consistent FPR and(7),we suppose that

Thus,a group goal programming model was constructed in a similar way of model(14)to derive an intuitionistic fuzzy weight

Note that,for all i=1,2,...,n−1,j=i+1,...,n,k=1,2,...,s.If we multiply ckon both sides of this formula,we get

Sinceadding all these s formulas together,it yields

Likewise,we can obtain

LetThe model(31)can be transformed into the following optimization model naturally,

3.监管力度升级。一是社区矫正工作人员依据心理测评报告，制定调整更为具体的矫正措施，达到因人施矫、因情监控；二是对测评筛选出的有较为明显抑郁情绪、焦虑情绪、攻击性倾向的社区服刑人员，列为重点管控对象，给予重点关注，全方位深入了解他们的生活思想状况，对心理测评结果进行印证，并安排专业心理咨询师开展心理咨询和干预。

By solving model(35),it gives an overall intuitionistic fuzzy weight vectorfor GDM withObviously,model(35)has less computational complexity as it can be accomplished in linear time.

IV.NUMERICAL ILLUSTRATION

To illustrate the proposed method,two numerical examples are examined to show how to apply it to generate the intuitionistic fuzzy weights from IFPR for prioritization.Meanwhile,a comparison analysis of the obtained solutions with other methods is carried out in this section.

A.Description and Decision Model

Example 1:Consider a DM with risk-attitude representing his/her IFPR over a set of alternatives{x1,x2,x3},which are taken from Wang[15].

It can be checked via(6)thatdoes not satisfy the condition of multiplicative consistent.According to model(14),the goal programming model is built as follow:

By using Lingo 11 to solve this model,we have the following results:

Therefore,the optimal intuitionistic fuzzy weight vector0.932)).As we knowλ=0,and calculated by(4),we get which gives the ranking of x2≻x3≻x1.

Wang[15]used the additive consistency-based method to derive a priority weight vector,and Liao and Xu[16]constructed a fractional programming model to extract priority weights based on multiplicative consistency-based method.Their findings are listed in Table I which led to the same ranking:x2≻x3≻x1as our method does,but with slightly different membership degree of preference.

With the development of weapon and the requirement of modern warfare,many state-of-the-art technologies,Such as Markovian jumping systems,dynamic feedback control[25]etc.,have been applied to military weapons and equipment.In pursuit of high performance of modern weapons,however,there is more risk in their application.That is to say,military high-techs are generally accompanied with higher risk.They are often lacking of necessary and precious data for evaluating associated technological risk,which may cause a serious effect on finalization of the military and industrial products.In this situation,intuitionistic fuzzy value as well as preference relation is a powerful tool in estimating underlying technical risk by experts.

A research institute of Nanjing military region in China planned to have an evaluation of technical risk of a tentative armored vehicle.Three experts e1,e2and e3were invited to join this plan.The research institute had hesitation in determining the weight of each expert owing to lack of cooperation basis.There are four potential risk factors identified by experts for further estimating,which include maturity(x1),complexity(x2),reliability(x3)and prospective(x4)of technology.Each expert ek(k=1,2,3),is asked to have a pair-wise comparison for these factors,resulting in the following intuitionistic fuzzy preference relation(k=1,2,3).

By using(16)and(17),the overall degree of preference of all the experts is denoted by matrix TTT ,as follows:

Based on TTT,the priority weights vector of experts can be derived by(29).Suppose the weight assignment parameter α=2.0,thus the relative weight of each expert can be obtained as:c1=0.381,c2=0.361,c3=0.258.According to model(34),a nonlinear programming model for GDM can be constructed,and solving this model by using Lingo 11 software toolkit,we obtained the optimal intuitionistic fuzzy weights

Consider the experts are all risk-neutral,leads toλk=0,k=1,2,3.As per(4),we can easily getwhich gives the ranking of x1≻x4≻x2≻x3.Hence,the maturity of technology(x1),should be given first priority during the process of technical risk evaluation of armored equipment.

From the results we have,the factor of maturity(x1)ranks first in the risk control process.This is somewhat in conformity with our intuition in that the factor of maturity in any modern military equipment should be placed in a fundamental position.

Remark 1:We compare the results,by varying DMs’risk preference from risk-neutral to risk aversion,and risk seeking as well.Assume that the DMs feel an aversion to factors x1 and x2,but in favor of risk-seeking to the two others yet.Given that the risk parameter for each factor after negotiation beλ1= −0.5,λ2=−0.75,λ3=0.8,λ4=0.35.As per(4),it yields that=−0.088,respectively.

As can be seen from Table II,if DMs vary their risk preference,the priorities of these factors are also change.This shows that it is reasonable and necessary to bring the risk parameter into consideration during a GDM course.Besides,it is deserving to point out that these existing methods without considering risk preference are just a special case of our method when risk parameters are all equal to zero.

B.Comparison Analysis

A comparative study was conducted to contrast between our method and other ones.As the same problem of Example 2,we use several different approaches to tackle this problem.To facilitate our analysis,we suppose that all DMs are riskneutral.We use Xu et al.normalizing rank summation method[5] firstly.For simplicity,suppose each DM has the same relative weight and similarly hereinafter.The intuitionistic fuzzy weights produced by this method are=(0.232,0.661),=(0.195,0.697),=(0.169,0.755),=(0.220,0.658),and the values of the corresponding score function are,S()=−0.4748,S()=−0.5566,S()=−0.6307,S(˜w4)=−0.4911.

Secondly,we use the approach in Liao and Xu[16]to derivate the weights of alternative.Then we obtain optimal relative weights such that=(0.432,0.257),=(0.076,0.678),

Moreover,we employ Gong et al.goal-programming-based model[13],which need to transform the given IFPRs into interval FPR before(for more details refer to[13]).By building and solving a goal programming model,we obtain w1=[0.242,0.376],w2=[0.208,0.234],w3=[0.166,0.189],w4=[0.206,0.362].Through the equationwhere w+and w−are upper and lower bounds of a range,these interval-value weights can be transformed into intuitionistic fuzzy weights as−0.50.We show in Table III the ranking order of alternatives obtained by these methods.

V.CONCLUSIONS

In this paper,we have put forward an efficient approach for decision making where preference information on alternatives is IFPRs and is extended to GDM surrounding.The main idea of this method is first to minimize the absolute deviation between the given IFPRs and the converted consistent IFPRs,then the prioritization of alternatives is obtained based on multiplicative consistent constraint.It is necessary to point out that the proposed method is simple and does not need to solve the fractional programming model as Liao and Xu[16]does.Thus,the standard deviation,an index of overall degree of preferences,was defined and adopted to measure the importance of DMs in a group.By minimizing this index,the weights of DMs were determined.Thus,the model was extended from individual to group application by IFPRs aggregation.Specifically,the risk preference of each DM was considered for rank alternatives which makes this approach more general and flexible.In the future,we will improve our approach and apply it to correlated multi-attribute,and dynamic hybrid multi-attribute GDM problems with IFPRs.

REFERENCES

[1]S.A.Orlovsky, “Decision-making with a fuzzy preference relation,”Fuzzy Sets Syst.,vol.1,no.3,pp.155−167,Jul.1978.

[2]K.T.Atanassov,“Intuitionistic fuzzy sets,”Fuzzy Sets Syst.,vol.20,no.1,pp.87−96,Aug.1986.

[3]Z.S.Xu and H.C.Liao,“A survey of approaches to decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations,”Knowl.Based Syst.,vol.80,131−142,May 2015.

[4]Z.S.Xu,“Intuitionistic preference relations and their application in group decision making.Inf.Sci.,vol.177,no.11,pp.2363−2379,Jun.2007.

[5]Z.S.Xu and H.C.Liao,“Intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process,”IEEE Trans.Fuzzy Syst.,vol.22,no.4,pp.749−761,Aug.2014.

[6]H.W.Liu and G.J.Wang,“Multi-criteria decision-making methods based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets,”Eur.J.Operat.Res.,vol.179,no.1,pp.220−233,May 2007.

[7]H.Behret,“Group decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations,”Knowl.Based Syst.,vol.70,pp.33−43,Nov.2014.

[8]T.L.Saaty, “Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process,”Manag.Sci.,vol.32,no.7,pp.841−855,Feb.1986.

[9]H.C.Liao and Z.S.Xu,“Some algorithms for group decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy preference information,”Int.J.Unc.Fuzz.Knowl.Based Syst.,vol.22,no.4,pp.505−529,Aug.2014.

[10]E.Szmidt and J.Kacprzyk,“A consensus-reaching process under intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations,”Int.J.Intell.Syst.,vol.18,no.7,pp.837−852,Jul.2003.

[11]E.Szmidt and J.Kacprzyk,“A new concept of a similarity measure for intuitionistic fuzzy sets and its use in group decision making,”in Modeling Decisions for Artificial Intelligence,V.Torra,Y.Narukawa,and S.Miyamoto,Eds.Berlin Heidelberg:Springer,2005,pp.272−282.

[12]Z.S.Xu and R.R.Yager,“Intuitionistic and interval-valued intutionistic fuzzy preference relations and their measures of similarity for the evaluation of agreement within a group,”Fuzzy Optim.Decis.Making,vol.8,no.2,pp.123−139,Jun.2009.

[13]Z.W.Gong,L.S.Li,F.X.Zhou,and T.X.Yao,“Goal programming approaches to obtain the priority vectors from the intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations,”Comput.Ind.Eng.,vol.57,no.4,pp.1187−1193,Nov.2009.

[14]F.Chiclana,E.Herrera-Viedma,S.Alonso,R.Alberto,and M.Pereira,“Preferences and consistency issues in group decision making,”Fuzzy Sets and Their Extensions:Representation,Aggregation and Models,H.Bustince,F.Herrera,and J.Montero,Eds.Berlin Heidelberg:Springer,2008,pp.219−237.

[15]Z.J.Wang,“Derivation of intuitionistic fuzzy weights based on intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations,”Appl.Math.Modell.,vol.37,no.9,pp.6377−6388,May 2013.

[16]H.C.Liao and Z.S.Xu,“Priorities of intuitionistic fuzzy preference relation based on multiplicative consistency,”IEEE Trans.Fuzzy Syst.,vol.22,no.6,pp.1669−1681,Dec.2014.

[17]Y.M.Wang and Z.P.Fan,“Fuzzy preference relations:aggregation and weight determination,”Comput.Ind.Eng.,vol.53,no.1,pp.163−172,Aug.2007.

[18]D.F.Li,L.L.Wang,and G.H.Chen,“Group decision making methodology based on the Atanassov’s intuitionistic fuzzy set generalized OWA operator,”Int.J.Unc.Fuzz.Knowl.Based Syst.,vol.18,no.6,pp.801−817,Dec.2010.

[19]Z.X.Wang and X.P.Luo,“A method for ranking intuitionistic fuzzy numbers based on the risk preference of the decision maker,”Fuzzy Syst.Math.,vol.28,no.6,pp.129−136,2014.

[20]Y.M.Wang,J.B.Yang,D.L.Xu,and K.S.Chin,“On the combination and normalization of interval-valued belief structures,”Inf.Sci.,vol.177,no.5,pp.1230−1247,Mar.2007.

[21]S.P.Wan,F.Wang,L.L.Lin,and J.Y.Dong,“An intuitionistic fuzzy linear programming method for logistics outsourcing provider selection,”Knowl.Based Syst.,vol.82,pp.80−94,Jul.2015.

[22]Y.J.Zhang,P.J.Ma,X.H.Su,and C.P.Zhang,“Multi-attribute group decision making under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment,”Acta Autom.Sinica,vol.38,no.2,pp.220−227,Feb.2012.

[23]E.N.Weiss and V.R.Rao,“AHP design issues for large-scale systems,”Decis.Sci.,vol.18,no.1,pp.43−61,Jan.1987.

[24]Y.M.Wang,C.Parkan,and Y.Luo,“Priority estimation in the AHP through maximization of correlation coefficient,”Appl.Math.Modell.,vol.31,no.12,pp.2711−2718,Dec.2007.

[25]Y.L.Wei,J.B.Qiu,H.R.Karimi,and M.Wang,“New results on H∞dynamic output feedback control for Markovian jump systems with time-varying delay and defective mode information,”Opt.Control Appl.Methods,vol.35,no.6,pp.656−675,Nov.−Dec.2014.