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

net/publication/356762168

A probabilistic hesitant fuzzy Choquet integral-based TODIM method for

multi-attribute group decision-making

Article  in  Expert Systems with Applications · December 2021

DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2021.116266

CITATIONS READS

2 101

4 authors, including:

Mehdi Divsalar Elnaz Ebrahimi

University of Mazandaran Mazandaran University of Science and Technology
12 PUBLICATIONS   129 CITATIONS    5 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Alessio Ishizaka
NEOMA Business School
153 PUBLICATIONS   6,678 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Evaluation of LARG supply chain performance View project

measuring the performance of inventory system in closed loop supply chain View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mehdi Divsalar on 08 December 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Expert Systems With Applications xxx (xxxx) 116266

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Expert Systems With Applications

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa

F
OO
A probabilistic hesitant fuzzy Choquet integral-based TODIM method for
multi-attribute group decision-making
a, 1 , ⁎ b, 2 c, 3 d, 4
Mehdi Divsalar , Marzieh Ahmadi , Elnaz Ebrahimi , Alessio Ishizaka

PR
a Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Economic and Administrative Science, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran
b Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Economic and Administrative Science, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran
c Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Mazandaran University of Science and Technology, Babol, Iran
d NEOMA Business School, 1 rue du Maréchal Juin - BP 215, 76825 Mont-Saint-Aignan Cedex, France

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article history: A probabilistic hesitant fuzzy set (PHFS) is a generalization of the hesitant fuzzy set (HFS) that adds the probabil-

D
Received 10 May 2021 ity of occurrence to each possible value of the hesitant fuzzy element (HFE). It is a powerful tool for handling un-
Received in revised form 3 September 2021 certain information, especially when there is no complete consensus or full dissensus among decision-makers.
Accepted 19 November 2021
The TODIM (an acronym in Portuguese for interactive and multiple attribute decision-making) approach is a
multi-attribute decision-making (MADM) technique based on prospect theory. In this paper, we developed a Cho-
TE
Keywords: quet integral-based TODIM method under a probabilistic hesitant fuzzy environment. Firstly, we introduced both
MADM
a geometric score function and a geometric variance function of the probabilistic hesitant fuzzy element (PHFE).
Probabilistic hesitant fuzzy set
Furthermore, we proposed a novel comparison law between two PHFEs, and we defined a new distance measure
Prospect theory
TODIM of PHFEs. Considering the interaction between the criteria, we calculated the degree of importance of the criteria
Choquet integral with the Shapley value. Next, we introduced the principles and steps of the developed TODIM method. One of the
prominent components of the TODIM method is its risk aversion coefficient. However, it has not been sufficiently
EC

addressed in the research literature. In this regard, a novel optimization-based method is proposed to calculate
the attenuation factor of the TODIM method. Finally, we verify the effectiveness of the Choquet integral-based
probabilistic hesitant fuzzy-TODIM (PHF-TODIM) method using a supplier selection problem in the dairy indus-
try.
© 2021
RR

1. Introduction
Many problems in the real world involve a set of predetermined alter-
natives and multiple conflicting attributes (Ishizaka & Nemery, 2013;
Greco, Ehrgott, & Figueira, 2016). These problems from fields such as
economics, management, engineering, and technology are known as
CO
use crisp values to express their opinions (Yeni & Özçelik, 2019). The
complexity and uncertainty of real-world problems are increasingly
growing (P. Liu, Wang, Jia, & Fujita, 2020; Qi, Liang, & Zhang, 2015),
while MADM methods prove inadequate to cope with the inherent am-
biguity of the expert evaluation process and the uncertainty of real
cases (Krohling & De Souza, 2012; Nursal, Omar, Nasrun, & Nawi,

MADM problems (Bao, Xie, Long, & Wei, 2017; Yulin He, Wang, &
Huang, 2016). Up to now, several MADM methods have been used to
handle such problems and aid decision-makers (DMs) in finding the
preferred alternative among those available (Lourenzutti & Krohling,
2014; Tosun & Akyüz, 2015). In classical MADM methods, experts often
UN
2016). The fuzzy set theory is an efficient tool to describe uncertain sit-
uations (Mardani, Jusoh, & Zavadskas, 2015). Therefore, one way to
address uncertainty in decision-making issues is to utilise the fuzzy set
theory (G. Wei, Alsaadi, Hayat, & Alsaedi, 2017). Previous studies in
the field of MADM show that many such methods have been developed
based on various extensions of the fuzzy sets (Bustince et al., 2016;
Mardani et al., 2015; X. Peng & Dai, 2017; W. Zhang, Ju, & Liu, 2017).

Corresponding author.
⁎ Torra and Narukawa (2009) and Torra (2010) brought up the con-
E-mail addresses: mehdi.divsalar@gmail.com (M. Divsalar), cept of hesitant fuzzy sets (HFSs) as a generalized type of fuzzy set. The
alessio.ishizaka@neoma-bs.fr (A. Ishizaka). HFS permits membership degrees to attain possible values between 0
1 0000-0002-1590-2555
and 1. Despite its wide application in decision-making problems, HFS
2 0000-0003-3357-4820
3 0000-0002-5308-5277
in the group decision-making process can cause loss of original infor-
4 0000-0002-2531-292X
mation. The following example clarifies why. Suppose that, in a dairy

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.116266
0957-4174/© 2021

Note: Low-resolution images were used to create this PDF. The original images will be used in the final composition.
2 M. Divsalar et al. / Expert Systems With Applications xxx (xxxx) 116266
company, five experts must rate the Gouda cheese flavour on a 0 to 1
scale. The five experts make their judgment. We consider three scenar-
ios:
(1) {0.4, 0.4, 0.4, 0.4, 0.6};
(2) {0.4, 0.4, 0.4, 0.6, 0.6};
(3) {0.4, 0.4, 0.4, 0.6} (the fifth expert has no opinion).
In all three scenarios, the experts evaluate using the same HFS rep-
resentation {0.4, 0.6}. Ignoring the different frequencies of the ele-
ments may lead to some loss of information. In other words, the occur-
rence probabilities of various values in the hesitant fuzzy element
(HFE) are the same (C. Wei, Ren, & Rodríguez, 2015). This implies that
the real degree of agreement or disagreement among the experts is en-
tirely unknown. The first scenario indicates majority agreement among
the experts on higher membership degrees. The second one represents a
relative majority agreement of the experts on lower membership de-
grees, and the third implies a dispersion of the experts’ opinions. There-
fore, the same membership degrees can express the different opinions
of the experts.
To better address the above issue, Zhu (2014) developed probabilis-
tic hesitant fuzzy sets (PHFSs). The PHFS adds the probabilities of possi-
ble membership values to the original elements of the HFS as an exten-
sion of HFS. Based on the concept of PHFS, the evaluation information
for the three situations in the above example can be denoted as situa-
tion (1):
ation (3):
situation (2): , and situ-
. The values in brackets correspond to
the occurrence probabilities of the membership values. The PHFS re-
duces to the original fuzzy set when there is complete convergence on a
ED
specific membership value. Also, the HFS is a particular case of the
PHFS if the experts fully diverge in opinion. Thus, the PHFS is a suitable
CT
tool for handling uncertainty when there is either complete divergence
or a lack of absolute convergence among the experts’ appraisals.
Jiang and Ma (2018) applied the Frank t-conorm and t-norm to
define some operation laws of PHFEs. The authors proposed proba-
bilistic hesitant fuzzy weighted arithmetic and geometric aggregation
operators. Furthermore, they investigated a hesitant probabilistic
RE
fuzzy-based method for solving decision-making problems. Zhang et
al. (2017) improved the definition of PHFSs and defined the continu-
ous version of PHFEs. They also developed some operations, distance
measures for continuous PHFEs, and applied them for handling an au-
tomotive industry problem. Zhou and Xu (2018) defined the uncertain
probabilistic hesitant fuzzy elements (UPHFEs) and uncertain hesitant
fuzzy preference relations (UHFPRs). They also investigated group
OR
consistency and proposed a group decision-making method under
UHFPR. Wu et al. (2019) utilised the GM(1,1) model to forecast prob-
abilistic hesitant fuzzy information. They developed a distance mea-
sure between two PHFEs and a mathematical programming model to
calculate the stage weights. Finally, the PHF-based TOPSIS method
was introduced and applied to evaluate explosion accidents at a coal
mine. Li et al. (2019) raised a discussion on the distribution function
C
of PHFEs and constructed the dominance matrix between PHFEs. Af-
ter that, the authors proposed the hybrid dominance matrix-BWM
method under probabilistic hesitant fuzzy information. He and Xu
UN
(2019) proposed distance measures among PHFEs and reference ideal
values. They also developed the reference ideal method (RIM) based
on PHF information. Liu et al. (2020) introduced two nonlinear math-
ematical programming models for determining the probabilities of
PHFEs. The authors presented a regret-theory-based method under a
probabilistic hesitant fuzzy environment considering DMs’ behav-
ioural features.
Most of the current MADM methods have been developed based on
the expected utility theory, assuming complete DMs’ rationality (Dai,
Zhong, & Qi, 2020; Ying, Li, Chin, Yang, & Xu, 2018). However, deci-
sion-making is not an entirely rational process in reality (Y. Peng & Liu,
2015). Kahneman and Tversky (1979) proposed prospect theory (PT) as
a suitable tool of behavioural theory for handling decision-making un-
der risky conditions. Prospect theory’s main characteristic is its value
function, wherein the outcome values represent gains and losses. The
values above the reference point are considered gains, and the values
below the reference point are considered losses (S. Liu & Liu, 2016).
The value function has an S-shaped curve that is concave in the first
F
quarter (gain domain) and convex in the third (loss domain). The DMs
are risk-averse in the face of gains and risk-taking in the face of losses
OO
(Abdellaoui, Bleichrodt, L’Haridon, & van Dolder, 2016). Gomes and
Lima (1992) suggested the TODIM methods (an acronym in Portuguese
for interactive and multiple attribute decision-making). This technique
is one of the pioneering MADM techniques that consider the DMs’ atti-
tude towards risk (Sen, Datta, & Mahapatra, 2015). In this method, the
degree of dominance of each alternative over the others is calculated
using the value function of the PT. Also, the ranking of each alternative
is determined by calculating the overall dominance value (Tseng, Tan,
PR
Lim, Lin, & Geng, 2014). A brief review of previous studies shows that
the classical TODIM method is incapable of describing uncertainty and
complexity (Krohling, Pacheco, & Siviero, 2013). To handle uncertain
information properly, some scholars put forward new methods based
on the combination of the TODIM method and fuzzy set extensions (R.
H. Chen, Lin, & Tseng, 2015; Krohling & De Souza, 2012; Qin, Liu, &
Pedrycz, 2017; Sang & Liu, 2016; Tseng, Lin, Lim, & Teehankee, 2015;
Yu, Wang, & Wang, 2016).
As we know, in many real MADM cases, there are some degrees of
interaction and dependence among criteria (Pasi, Viviani, & Carton,
2019). The Choquet integral is an efficient tool to address such correla-
tion among criteria in the MADM problems (L. Chen, Duan, Wang, &
Ma, 2020; C. Li, Gang, Suyun, & Junfeng, 2020; G. Tian et al., 2019).
Some of the Choquet integral- based MADM methods are extended un-
der different extensions of fuzzy sets (Büyüközkan & Göçer, 2017; Liao,
Liao, Tang, Al-Barakati, & Llopis-Albert, 2020; Nie, Tian, Wang, & Hu,
2019; Lina Wang, Wang, Xu, & Ren, 2019). As a further issue in the
group decision-making process, the decision-makers may hesitate be-
tween different membership values. However, full divergence among
decision-makers is not the case all the time. In other words, there may
be some degrees of convergence between their assessments. As dis-
cussed above, PHFS is a suitable tool for handling such situations. Thus,
in this paper, we develop a novel MADM technique by extending a Cho-
quet integral-based TODIM method in the hesitant probabilistic fuzzy
environment.
For this purpose, the rest of the paper is structured as follows: In
Section 2, we introduce the basic definitions and concepts of PHFSs, de-
fine a novel score function of PHFEs, and develop a distance measure
between two HPFEs by relaxing the equal cardinality assumption of two
PHFEs. In Section 3, the fuzzy measure and Choquet integral are intro-
duced. The Shapley value is also proposed to determine the degree of
importance of the criteria. Section 4 presents the principles and steps of
the proposed TODIM method. In Section 5, we discuss how to deter-
mine the attenuation factor based on the concept of the value function
in PT. Section 6 provides a numerical example to illustrate the validity
of the proposed method. Finally, we conclude in Section 7.
2. Preliminaries
As previously mentioned, the different occurrence probabilities of
the elements in the HFSs are not considered. Thus, using the HFSs may
lead to some deficiencies in real problem-solving. Therefore, Zhu
(2014) proposed the concept of PHFS. In this section, some basic defini-
tions and concepts associated with PHFSs will be recalled briefly.
A. Probabilistic hesitant fuzzy sets
Zhu (2014) defined the PHFS as follows:
 M. Divsalar et al. / Expert Systems With Applications xxx (xxxx) 116266 3

Definition 1.. Given a reference set X, a PHFS in X can be introduced by

the following mathematical symbol (Zhu, 2014): (5)

(1)
Definition 6.. Given a PHFE , the geomet-
where is a set of possible values in [0,1] explained by proba- ric variance is defined as follows:

F
bility distribution . For ease of notation, we refer to as a proba-
bilistic hesitant fuzzy element (PHFE) and display it as
(6)

OO
(2)

Here, , and is the number of elements in

Based on these newly defined score and variance functions, we pro-
. Also, is the occurrence probability of and .
pose a novel comparison method as follows:
We define the basic operations of the PHFEs based on the operations
of HFSs as follows: Definition 7.. Given two PHFEs and , the order relationship is
as follows:
Definition 2.. Given three PHFEs ,

PR
and , , and . If , then .
Based on Zhu (2014), the basic operations are defined as follows: If , then
.
In recent years, the concept of distance measures has attracted in-
creasing attention. Many scholars have formulated distance measures
for various extensions of fuzzy sets. These recently developed distance

For comparison of the PHFSs, Xu and Zhou (2016) proposed score

function, deviation function, and comparison laws as follows:
Definition 3.. For a PHFE
(Z. Xu & Zhou, 2016):
, the score function is defined as follows
ED measures are widely applied in decision-making (Lei Wang, Wang, Xu,
& Ni, 2014). The existing distance measures defined for different exten-
sions of HFSs sets are based on the following assumptions: 1- All ele-
ments in each fuzzy set must be arranged in increasing or decreasing or-
der, 2- Both fuzzy sets must have the same cardinality. This means that
the number of elements in the two fuzzy sets must be equal (Farhadinia,
2014). In this paper, we propose a novel distance measure for PHFEs by
CT
relaxing the aforementioned assumptions. To do this, we first bring up
(3) the axioms of distance measures.

Definition 8.. If and ,

where n is the number of elements in . are two HPFEs, then the distance measure between and
Definition 4.. For a PHFE , the deviation function is defined as fol- is symbolised by which meets the following proper-
RE

lows (Xu & Zhou, 2016): ties:

(4)

where n is the number of elements in . The comparison laws of

Every form of distance measure should satisfy these axiomatic prop-
OR

two PHFEs and are presented as follows: erties, respectively. Here, we propose a novel distance measure be-
tween two PHFEs based on Definition 8.
1. If , then .
2. If , then . Definition 9.. Let and
, be two HPFEs. The distance
Despite its applications, the comparison law introduced sometimes measure between the two HPFEs is defined as follows:
provides counter-intuitive results. We show this deficiency in the fol-
C

lowing example.
Example 1.. Given two PHFEs
and
UN

Example 2.. Let and

, we have and . According to Definition 9, we have
. Based on the abovementioned comparison method,
despite our intuition, which indicates that both of them convey
the same information. To overcome such contradiction, and motivated by
the study of Alcantud et al. (2015), we propose the geometric mean score
and geometric variance of PHFEs for comparing two PHFEs.
Definition 5.. Given a PHFE , the geomet-
ric score function is defined as follows:
4 M. Divsalar et al. / Expert Systems With Applications xxx (xxxx) 116266

That (.) represents a permutation of X, such that

, and

The Shapley value appears as a solution concept in game theory

when some players contribute more to the coalition. It is utilised to
measure the importance of each player to the overall cooperation

F
(Zhang et al., 2017). In decision-making problems, the interaction be-
tween the criteria and their overall importance are determined through
(8)
the Shapley value as follows (S. Zhang, Xu, & He, 2017):

OO
(13)

wherein n and k indicate the number of elements in X and S, respec-

tively, and based on the definition of a fuzzy measure, for any i,
and . This means that is the weight
vector of the criteria.

PR
3. Fuzzy measure, Choquet integral, and Shapley value

4. Probabilistic hesitant TODIM method

By traditional definition, measure, as one of the main concepts in
mathematics, must be additive. Despite its effectiveness, additivity is a
In this section, we propose a MADM approach by developing the
restrictive feature in real-world decision-making problems with inter-
TODIM method under probabilistic hesitant fuzzy information. This hy-
dependent criteria (Wei et al., 2017). A fuzzy measure is a non-additive
brid method has already been proposed in a different version by Tian et
measure wherein monotonicity replaces additivity. In this section, the
al. (2020). Consider a MADM problem that includes m decision alterna-
definitions of fuzzy measure, λ-fuzzy measure, Shapley value, and Cho-
quet integral are as follows:
Definition 10.. A fuzzy measure on X is a set function
such that the following axioms are satisfied (G. Wei et al., 2017):
ED tives,
Suppose that
and a set of n attributes, .
is a decision matrix displayed as

(14)
CT
If the set of criteria is , then is
referred to as the degree of importance of the criteria. Thus, in addition
to each criterion, the weights of any combination of criteria are also in which the PHFE signifies the evaluation of alternative Ai for
computable. According to Definition 10, 2n − 2 values should be calcu- attribute Cj. The steps of the Choquet integral based on probabilistic
lated to determine the fuzzy measures for n criteria (W. Zhang et al., hesitant fuzzy TODIM (CIBPHF-TODIM) are described as follows:
2017). This requires complex and time-consuming calculations. The λ-
RE

Step 1. Normalise the decision matrix to

fuzzy measure was introduced by Sugeno, satisfying the following prop-
as follows:
erties to deal with such difficulty (Nie et al., 2019):

(9) (15)

where and .
where is the complement of .
OR

If X is a finite set, , the λ-fuzzy measure g holds the fol-

Step 2. The dominance of alternative Ai over alternative Ak regard-
lowing equation (Nie et al., 2019):
ing attribute Cj is obtained as follows:

(10)

Since , the parameter λ can be determined by solving the (16)

C

following equation (Nie et al., 2019):

(11)
UN

where represents the Shapley weight value of criterion j, and

Definition 11.. Given the real-valued function f and fuzzy measure λ
on X , the discrete generalised Choquet integral of f regarding λ is formu-
lated as follows (Chen & Huang, 2020):
(12)
expresses the distance measure between and
. The parameter represents the attenuation factor of the losses.
In the next section, we discuss how to determine the value based on
prospect theory.
Step 3. The overall dominance degree of alternative Ai over alterna-
tive Ak is calculated based on the following expression:
(17)
 M. Divsalar et al. / Expert Systems With Applications xxx (xxxx) 116266 5

where (.) represents a permutation on X, such that

(22)
, and ,
, , . such that is a parameter between 0 and 1, and adjusts the curva-
Subsequently, we can construct the overall dominance degree ma- ture of the value function. Parameter represents the loss aversion of
trix as follows: individuals in PT, which is the same as the attenuation factor in the
TODIM method. In addition, parameter controls the convexity/con-

F
cavity of the probability function, and indicates overweighting of low
probabilities and underweighting of high probabilities.
In the TODIM method, the dominance values of alternatives derive

OO
from the value function of the PT. The value function is an S-shaped
nonlinear function (see Fig. 1). It is concave for gains and convex for
losses in the first and third quadrants, respectively. Furthermore, the
loss slope is steeper than the gain slope (Gomes, Machado, & Rangel,
Step 4. The global value of the alternative Ai is determined as fol-
2013). In our proposed TODIM method, the value function is demon-
lows:
strated by Eq. (24), which is a square root mathematical expression.
The different θ values alter the slope of the S-shaped value function in

PR
the third quadrant (Chen et al., 2015; Gomes, Rangel, & Maranhão,
(19)
2009). As mentioned above, the value function slope at each loss is
larger than the value function slope at the equivalent gain, whereas the
absolute value function of a particular amount of loss should be greater
Step 5. The alternatives are ranked in descending order according than that of the same amount of gain. As shown in Fig. 1, the terms v
to their global value . The alternative Ai with the larger value of (x) and v(−x) describe the value functions of the gain outcome (x) and
is ranked higher. loss outcome (−x), respectively. The following requirements should al-
ways be satisfied based on the PT:
5. A novel method to calculate loss aversion

To assess the impact of the parameter θ on decision-making results,

sensitivity analysis is usually carried out by varying the value of θ. A
comprehensive review of previous studies indicates that the authors as-
ED where the prime demonstrates the derivative of the function. In-
(23)

sume the value of parameter θ without any methodical calculation. In spired by the abovementioned requirement in the TODIM method, the
most cases, the value of θ varies from 1 to 10 (Fan, Zhang, Chen, & Liu, following conditions for the same amount of gain and loss should be
CT
2013; Hu, Yang, & Chen, 2018; Y. Jiang, Liang, & Liang, 2017; Krohling satisfied:
& De Souza, 2012; P. Liu & Teng, 2016; Qin et al., 2017; Ren, Xu, &
Gou, 2016; Tosun & Akyüz, 2015; Yu et al., 2016). In some other cases,
the value is between 1 and 5 (Gomes & Rangel, 2009; Liang Wang,
(24)
Wang, & Martínez, 2020). Some researchers have also added values
smaller than 1 to previous intervals (Ji, Wang, Zhang, & Wang, 2018; Y.
RE

Jiang et al., 2017). However, the main question is how and on what ba-
sis is parameter θ set to such value? To the best of our knowledge, this
By simplifying the above inequality, we have
crucial question has not been adequately addressed in previous publica-
tions. Indeed, it can be claimed that there is no well-established method for each criterion. Since this relationship applies to all criteria, then
for measuring the attenuation factor and, subsequently, the setting up .
of the θ lacks reasonable justification (Hu et al., 2018). In this section, Based on the previous paragraphs, a few studies adhere to the above
OR

we invoke the determination of parameter θ based on the PT. As we
know, the TODIM method is one of the first MADM techniques to han-
dle risky decisions (Qin et al., 2017). The theoretical and mathematical
foundation of this approach is based on PT.
Assume that is a prospect with two possible outcomes × and
y and the corresponding probabilities p and 1-p, respectively. The gen-
eral utility function of PT is as follows:
C
relationship in the sensitivity analysis. This may lead to a violation of
the basic principles of prospect theory. As an example, Gomes and
Rangel (2009) carried out the sensitivity analysis varying the value
of θ from 1 to 5. Since the weight of the most significant criterion
is W1 = 0.25, the maximum permissible value of the attenuation factor

(20)
UN

where is the weighting function of probabilities, and is the

value function of outcomes. The value function is formulated as fol-
lows:

(21)

Moreover, the weighting function of probabilities is as follows:

Fig. 1. Value function of the TODIM method (Xu, Zhou, & Xu, 2011).
6 M. Divsalar et al. / Expert Systems With Applications xxx (xxxx) 116266

is . Thus, assigning values greater than 4 to θ contradicts the utility of each participant at the switching point of Series 3. Since the
prospect theory. Table 1 presents the difference measure between value of depends on the values and , it cannot be elicited just from
and and the dominance degree of A1 over Aj concern- the switching point of Series 3. Therefore, the optimisation model is de-
ing C1 for and . According to Fig. 2, veloped with the information obtained from all three series. The in-
dices, parameters, and decision variables of this model are defined in
and consequently should be greater than , even
Table 2.
though this is not the case for , and it conflicts with prospect the- The mathematical model is presented as follows:

F
ory.
As mentioned above, there is no straightforward method for calcu-
lating the attenuation factor of the TODIM method so far, and in most

OO
(2
cases the authors merely assume the value of parameter θ. Thus, we de-
veloped a method to overcome this drawback. To do so, we conducted
an experimental survey based on Tanaka et al.’s (2010) questionnaire. s.t.
In this survey, participants were confronted with three series of paired
lotteries, as displayed in Table 3. Series 1 and Series 2 consist of gain-
only lotteries, and Series 3 includes mixed lotteries. There are two op- (2
tions of A and B in each series, and each option contains two payoffs in

PR
dollars, based on its corresponding probabilities. The respondents were
asked to determine which row they switched from Option A to Option B
in each series. It should be noted that they may either switch to Option
B in the first row, or not switch to Option B at all.
The switching points in Series 1 and 2 are applied to measure para-
meters and . Also, the parameter is calculated at the switching
point of Series 3. Logically, we expect the best possible utility for partic- Table 2
ipants at the switching points. So, in order to calculate the attenuation The indices, parameters and variables of the proposed model.
factor, we formulate an optimisation model to maximise the prospect

Table 1
The difference measure between A1 and Aj and dominance degree of A1 over
Aj concerning C1 for θ = 1 and θ = 5.
ED Indices:

1
2
3
Paired lotteries of series 1
Paired lotteries of series 2
Paired lotteries of series 3
i Switching point of series 1
for for j Switching point of series 2
CT
k Switching point of series 3
A Lotteries of Option A
B Lotteries of Option B
m Participant of experiment
Parameters:
Larger payoff in row i, Option A, series 1
Probability of
RE

Smaller payoff in row i, Option A, series 1

Probability of
Larger payoff in row i, Option B, series 1
Probability of
Smaller payoff in row i, Option B, series 1
Probability of
OR

Larger payoff in row j, Option A, series 2

Probability of
Smaller payoff in row j, Option A, series 2

Probability of
Larger payoff in row j, Option B, series 2

Probability of
C

Smaller payoff in row j, Option B, series 2

Probability of
Larger payoff in row k, Option A, series 3
UN

Probability of
Smaller payoff in row k, Option A, series 3
Probability of
Larger payoff in row k, Option B, series 3
Probability of
Smaller payoff in row k, Option B, series 3
Probability of
Maximum weight of criteria
Variables:
Inverse S-shaped transformation of the weighting function for
participant m
Fig. 2. The dominance degree of A1 over Aj concerning C1 for Gomes and Risk aversion factor of participant m
Rangel (2009). Attenuation factor of participant m
 M. Divsalar et al. / Expert Systems With Applications xxx (xxxx) 116266 7

Table 3 ity. It indicates the difference between the utility of Options B and A at
Three series of paired lotteries (in dollars). the switching point of series 3. Constraint (26) expresses that the
Option A Option B prospect utility of Option A is greater than that of Option B in row k-
1 of series 3. Constraint (27) ensures that Option B has greater prospect
Series 1 utility than Option A at the switching point of series 2 (row j). Con-
Payoff1 P1 Payoff2 P2 Payoff1 P1 Payoff2 P2 straint (28) shows that Option A has more utility than Option B in
row j-1 of series 2. Constraint (29) shows that the prospect utility of Op-

F
1 800 0.3 200 0.7 1360 0.1 100 0.9 tion B is greater than that of Option A in the ith row of series 1. Finally,
2 800 0.3 200 0.7 1500 0.1 100 0.9 constraint (30) ensures that Option A has greater prospect utility than

OO
3 800 0.3 200 0.7 1660 0.1 100 0.9 Option B at row i-1 of series 1.
4 800 0.3 200 0.7 1860 0.1 100 0.9 Here, a numerical example is given to illustrate the proposed
5 800 0.3 200 0.7 2120 0.1 100 0.9
method.
6 800 0.3 200 0.7 2500 0.1 100 0.9
7 800 0.3 200 0.7 3000 0.1 100 0.9 Example 3.. Assume that expert No. 1 determines the switching of rows
8 800 0.3 200 0.7 3700 0.1 100 0.9
from Option A to Option B in each series. As demonstrated in Table 4, the
9 800 0.3 200 0.7 4400 0.1 100 0.9
10 800 0.3 200 0.7 6000 0.1 100 0.9
shaded rows of the table indicate the switching points of each series. Also,
11 800 0.3 200 0.7 8000 0.1 100 0.9 suppose that the maximum weight value of the criteria is 0.25. Thus, we

PR
12 800 0.3 200 0.7 12,000 0.1 100 0.9 have
13 800 0.3 200 0.7 20,000 0.1 100 0.9
14 800 0.3 200 0.7 34,000 0.1 100 0.9
Option A Option B
Series 2
Payoff1 P1 Payoff2 P2 Payoff1 P1 Payoff2 P2
1 800 0.9 600 0.1 1080 0.7 100 0.3
2 800 0.9 600 0.1 1120 0.7 100 0.3
3 800 0.9 600 0.1 1160 0.7 100 0.3
4
5
6
7
8
9
800
800
800
800
800
800
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
600
600
600
600
600
600
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1200
1240
1300
1360
1440
1540
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
100
100
100
100
100
100
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
ED According to the above presented data, the mathematical model is
formulated as follows:

10 800 0.9 600 0.1 1660 0.7 100 0.3

CT
11 800 0.9 600 0.1 1800 0.7 100 0.3
12 800 0.9 600 0.1 2000 0.7 100 0.3
13 800 0.9 600 0.1 2200 0.7 100 0.3
14 800 0.9 600 0.1 2600 0.7 100 0.3
Option A Option B
Series 3
Payoff1 P1 Payoff2 P2 Payoff1 P1 Payoff2 P2
RE

1 500 0.5 −80 0.5 600 0.5 −400 0.5

2 80 0.5 −80 0.5 600 0.5 −400 0.5
3 20 0.5 −80 0.5 600 0.5 −400 0.5
4 20 0.5 −80 0.5 600 0.5 −320 0.5
5 20 0.5 −160 0.5 600 0.5 −320 0.5
6 20 0.5 −160 0.5 600 0.5 −280 0.5
7 20 0.5 −160 0.5 600 0.5 −220 0.5
OR

Table 4
(27)
Switching points determined by expert No. 1.
Option A Option B

Series 1
(28)
C

Payoff1 P1 Payoff2 P2 Payoff1 P1 Payoff2 P2

2 800 0.3 200 0.7 1500 0.1 100 0.9

(29)
UN

3 800 0.3 200 0.7 1660 0.1 100 0.9

4 800 0.3 200 0.7 1860 0.1 100 0.9
Option A Option B
Series 2
(30) Payoff1 P1 Payoff2 P2 Payoff1 P1 Payoff2 P2
9 800 0.9 600 0.1 1540 0.7 100 0.3
10 800 0.9 600 0.1 1660 0.7 100 0.3
11 800 0.9 600 0.1 1800 0.7 100 0.3
(31)
Option A Option B
Series 3
The objective function displayed in Eq. (25) is extended using Eqs. Payoff1 P1 Payoff2 P2 Payoff1 P1 Payoff2 P2
(20), (21), and (22). It is based on the fact that the individual evaluates 1 500 0.5 −80 0.5 600 0.5 −400 0.5
each prospect and chooses the candidate with the highest overall util- 2 80 0.5 −80 0.5 600 0.5 −400 0.5
3 20 0.5 −80 0.5 600 0.5 −400 0.5
8 M. Divsalar et al. / Expert Systems With Applications xxx (xxxx) 116266

6. Case study Table 6

Probabilistic hesitant fuzzy decision-making.
In order to validate the possibility and effectiveness of our proposed C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
method, we consider a supplier selection problem in a dairy plant.
The company under study is a large organisation with more than A1 {0.6(0.2),0.7 {0.5(0.7),0.7 {0.3(0.4),0.6 {0.4(0.3),0.5 {0.5(0.4),0.6
2,000 tons of daily production and over 150 product groups. This (0.4),0.9 (0.2),0.8 (0.4),0.9 (0.3),0.9 (0.5),0.8
company aims to produce a healthy product with an extended shelf (0.4)} (0.1)} (0.2)} (0.4)} (0.1)}

F
A2 {0.7(0.3),0.8 {0.5(0.3),0.8 {0.4(0.5),0.7 {0.5(0.4),0.6 {0.4(0.3),0.6
life and less chance of contamination. Thus, it is crucial to pay spe-
(0.4),0.9 (0.3),0.9 (0.2),0.8 (0.3),0.7 (0.5),0.8
cial attention to the packaging process. One of the main materials in (0.3)} (0.4)} (0.3)} (0.3)} (0.2)}

OO
the packaging process of the case company is aluminium foil, with a A3 {0.5(0.4),0.6 {0.6(0.2),0.7 {0.4(0.4),0.5 {0.5(0.4),0.6 {0.6(0.6),0.7
monthly consumption of 100 tons, worth two million dollars. Given (0.3),0.8 (0.4),0.9 (0.4),0.7 (0.4),0.7(2)} (0.2),0.8
these details, it is very important to source aluminium foil of the (0.3)} (0.4)} (0.2)} (0.2)}
A4 {0.5(0.4),0.6 {0.5(0.5),0.7 {0.2(0.3),0.4 {0.4(0.3),0.5 {0.3(0.2),0.5
right quality at an affordable price and at the right time. Thus, the
(0.3),0.9 (0.1),0.9 (0.5),0.7 (0.5),0.7 (0.4),0.7
supplier selection problem is one of the managers’ main concerns. (0.3)} (0.4)} (0.2)} (0.2)} (0.4)}
There are four suppliers working with the case company. Table 5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
lists the 10 criteria selected from the literature review. A1 {0.6(0.4),0.7 {0.4(0.5),0.6 {0.3(0.3),0.6 {0.4(0.4),0.5 {0.5(0.4),0.7
(0.4),0.8 (0.2),0.8 (0.4),0.7 (0.2),0.7 (0.5),0.9

PR
The experts in this research are 10 managers with at least 5 years of (0.2)} (0.3)} (0.3)} (0.4)} (0.1)}
related work experience. The evaluation values of the alternatives A2 {0.5(0.6),0.6 {0.3(0.5),0.5 {0.4(0.4),0.6 {0.5(0.5),0.6 {0.5(0.4),0.6
concerning the criteria are given by the (0.3),0.9 (0.1),0.6 (0.3),0.8 (0.3),0.8 (0.5),0.8
PHFEs . The probabilistic hesitant fuzzy decision matrix is pre- (0.1)} (0.4)} (0.3)} (0.2)} (0.1)}
A3 {0.5(0.5),0.7 {0.4(0.5),0.5 {0.4(0.5),0.6 {0.5(0.4),0.7 {0.5(0.6),0.7
sented in Table 6.
(0.2),0.8 (0.4),0.7 (0.3),0.7 (0.2),0.8 (0.3),0.9
First of all, we determine the Shapley weight vector of the criteria. (0.3)} (0.1)} (0.2)} (0.4)} (0.1)}
Based on the experts’ assessment, the fuzzy measure of each criterion is A4 {0.4(0.3),0.6 {0.4(0.3),0.7 {0.2(0.3),0.5 {0.4(0.3),0.6 {0.4(0.2),0.5
as below: (0.3),0.8 (0.3),0.8 (0.6),0.7 (0.5),0.7 (0.5),0.7

According to Eq. (11), the λ value obtained is: . The fuzzy

ED (0.4)} (0.4)} (0.1)} (0.2)}

sought to first measure the attenuation factor for all experts. They were
asked to determine the switching point from Option A to Option B in
the three series given in Table 3. The values of and were cal-
(0.3)}

measures of the criteria are also calculated based on Eq. (10). For culated based on the mathematical model developed in the previous
brevity, the result is not included in this paper, but is available from the section. This optimisation problem is classified as a constrained nonlin-
CT
authors upon request. ear optimisation problem. In order to solve this problem, we employed
Based on the obtained fuzzy measures, the Shapley weight of the cri- the fmincon function from MATLAB’s Optimization Toolbox. Table 7
teria is computed as follows: presents the obtained values of the three parameters. The results show
that the 4th expert is the most loss-averse and the 7th is the least loss-
averse. In order to derive the parameters of cumulative prospect theory
(CPT), especially the loss aversion parameter, we calculated the aver-
RE

In the next step, we estimated the dominance of alternative Ai over age value for each parameter. We find the values ,
alternative Ak under the criterion using Eq. (16). With this aim, we implying that the respondents in our research overweight/underweight
low/high probabilities and are risk-averse. In the TODIM method, the
dominance of each option over the others is obtained from Eq. (21) by
Table 5 inserting the value of sigma as 0.5. Thus, the value calculated in our
Criteria for supplier selection. case, 0.535, is close to the value applied in the TODIM method. Finally,
OR

Criteria References the average value of is utilised in our case as the value of the
attenuation factor.
Cost (C1) (Fallahpour, Udoncy Olugu, Nurmaya Musa, Yew Wong, & Noori, After measuring , we computed the dominance of each alternative
2017; Kannan, 2018; Luthra, Govindan, Kannan, Mangla, & Garg,
over the others based on Eq. (16). Table 8 presents the dominance de-
2017; Memari, Dargi, Akbari Jokar, Ahmad, & Abdul Rahim,
2019; Stević, Pamučar, Puška, & Chatterjee, 2020; Zimmer, gree matrices.
Fröhling, & Schultmann, 2016) After that, we calculated the overall dominance degree of alterna-
Quality (C2) (Fallahpour et al., 2017; Jain & Singh, 2020; Kannan, 2018; tive Ai over alternative Ak based on Eq. (17). The results are demon-
C

Luthra et al., 2017; Memari et al., 2019; Stević et al., 2020; strated in Table 9.
Zimmer et al., 2016)
In the next step, the global value of the alternative Ai is obtained ac-
Delivery (C3) (Fallahpour et al., 2017; Jain & Singh, 2020; Kannan, 2018;
Luthra et al., 2017; Memari et al., 2019; Stević et al., 2020; cording to Eq. (19). The achieved result is shown in Table 10.
UN

Zimmer et al., 2016) Based on Table 10, the ranking order of the alternatives is
Flexibility (C4) (Fallahpour et al., 2017; Jain & Singh, 2020; Kannan, 2018; , with A1 being the best alternative.
Luthra et al., 2017; Zimmer et al., 2016)
Reliability (C5) (Jain & Singh, 2020; Zimmer et al., 2016)
Long-term (Jain & Singh, 2020; Kannan, 2018; Zimmer et al., 2016)
Table 7
relationship
(C6)
The obtained values of and for each expert.

Warranties (C7) (Jain & Singh, 2020; Kannan, 2018) Expert 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

number
Eco-design (C8) (Fallahpour et al., 2017; Jain & Singh, 2020; Kannan, 2018;
(m)
Luthra et al., 2017; Zimmer et al., 2016; Kannan, Mina, Nosrati-
Abarghooee, & Khosrojerdi, 2020)
0.86 0.66 0.68 0.76 0.62 0.73 0.57 0.72 0.65 0.79
Availability (C9) (Jain & Singh, 2020; Kannan, 2018; Memari et al., 2019)
0.49 0.56 0.63 0.58 0.71 0.64 0.47 0.52 0.34 0.41
Reputation (C10) (Jain & Singh, 2020; Memari et al., 2019; Stević et al., 2020) 5.21 4.29 0.46 2.08 3.75 3.01 5.44 4.07 3.06 3.81
 M. Divsalar et al. / Expert Systems With Applications xxx (xxxx) 116266 9

Table 8 nique under probabilistic hesitant fuzzy information is given in Table

The dominance matrix of Ai over Ak concerning attributes C1 to C10. 11:
A1 A2 A3 A4 A1 A2 A3 A4 The results indicate that the top two alternatives are the same as in
our approach. The ranking of the last two alternatives (A3 and A4) is dif-
A1 0 −0.15 0.111 0.111 A1 0 −0.427 −0.483 −0.291 ferent in both approaches. This discrepancy may be due to the follow-
A2 0.060 0 0.126 0.126 A2 0.131 0 −0.225 0.096 ing reasons: First, TOPSIS calculates the difference between the alterna-
tive and the PIS or the NIS. TODIM is more precise as it computes the

F
A3 −0.279 −0.317 0 −0.155 A3 0.148 0.069 0 0.118
A4 −0.279 −0.317 0.062 0 A4 0.089 −0.312 −0.385 0 difference between each pair of alternatives. Second, the TODIM tech-
A1 A2 A3 A4 A1 A2 A3 A4
nique takes into account the psychological behaviour of DMs, whilst

OO
TOPSIS assumes the DM to be completely rational. TODIM is therefore
A1 0 −0.259 0.103 0.127 A1 0 0 0.053 0.073
closer to the behaviour of a real decision-maker.
A2 0.127 0 0.133 0.046 A2 −0.218 0 0.066 0.086
As mentioned in section 4, Tian et al. (2020) published another ver-
A3 −0.208 −0.269 0 0.133 A3 −0.462 −0.46 0 −0.414
sion of the PHF-TODIM method, which has some differences from our
A4 −0.259 −0.094 −0.269 0 A4 −0.204 −0.241 0.149 0
proposed method. The authors applied a comparison law, which has
A1 A2 A3 A4 A1 A2 A3 A4 some deficiencies in resolution as shown in Example 1. We proposed a
A1 0 0.042 −0.216 0.095 A1 0 0.134 0.111 0.08 novel comparison law to overcome such shortcoming. Furthermore, the
A2 −0.147 0 −0.196 0.085 A2 −0.330 0 −0.227 −0.265 distance measure utilised in Tian et al. (2020) is based on some assump-

PR
A3 0.062 0.056 0 0.085 A3 −0.147 −0.184 0 0.075 tions, like the same cardinality and ascending (descending) sort of PH-
A4 −0.332 −0.298 −0.298 0 A4 −0.204 −0.241 −0.21 0 FEs. We introduced a new distance measure in which these assumptions
A1 A2 A3 A4 A1 A2 A3 A4 are not required. Unlike Tian et al. (2020), who ignored the interrela-
A1 0 0.118 0.141 −0.255 A1 0 −0.227 0.066 0.1 tion among criteria, we have considered this phenomenon in our re-
A2 −0.212 0 −0.208 −0.329 A2 0.054 0 0.064 0.085 search. They used the transformed probability weight instead of the
A3 −0.253 0.116 0 −0.255 A3 −0.279 −0.270 0 0.085 original weight to better address the overestimation (underestimation)
A4 0.142 0.183 0.142 0 A4 −0.425 −0.359 −0.359 0
of low probability (high probability).

A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
0
0.073
0.063
0.071
A2
−0.334
0
0.059
A3
−0.290
−0.272
0
A4
−0.326
0.067
0.032
0
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
0
−0.258
−0.325
A2
0.068
0
0.093
A3
0.086
−0.352
0
A4
0.083
0.077
0.083
0
ED
8. Conclusion

PHFS is an extension of HFS that assigns a probability of occurrence

to each value of the HFE. In some decision-making cases, decision-
−0.309 −0.148 −0.313 −0.292 −0.313 makers will hesitate between different possible values, but their opin-
ions will not diverge entirely. In such situations, the PHFS can deal with
CT
Table 9 uncertainty better than HFS. In recent years, the development of
The overall dominance matrix of Ai over Ak with regard to attributes. MADM methods under a probabilistic hesitant fuzzy environment has
A1 A2 A3 A4
attracted greater attention. The TODIM method is one of the PT-based
MADM techniques, which takes into account the DMs’ attitude to risk.
A1 0 −0.159 −0.079 −0.09 But it cannot handle the decision-making problems appropriately under
A2 −0.145 0 −0.153 −0.111 uncertainty. Also, the interaction among the criteria should be taken
RE

A3 −0.211 −0.13 0 −0.039

into account in many real-world cases. In this regard, we utilised the
Shapley value to determine the weight of these correlative criteria. In
A4 −0.21 −0.179 −0.296 0
this paper, we developed the Choquet integral-based TODIM technique
under probabilistic hesitant fuzzy information. For this purpose, we
Table 10 first defined a geometric mean score function and a geometric variance
The overall dominance matrix of Ai over Ak with regard to attributes. function of a PHFE. Besides, we proposed a novel comparison method
between two PHFEs. Then, we introduced a new distance measure of
OR

A1 A2 A3 A4
PHFEs. After that, we developed the Choquet integral-based PHF-
1 0.772 0.853 0 TODIM method using the proposed distance measure. As a significant
novelty, we discussed setting the values of and proposed an optimisa-
7. Comparative analysis tion model to calculate parameter based on an experimental survey.
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that pro-
In this section, a comparative analysis is carried out to show the va- poses a computational method for determining the attenuation factor.
Finally, to investigate the validity and feasibility of the proposed
C

lidity of the PHF-TODIM technique. Since TODIM is a distance-based

method, we compare our proposed method with the TOPSIS approach, method, we present a numerical example to evaluate the supplier selec-
which is another distance-based technique. With this aim, the PHF- tion process helping managers make better and more accurate deci-
based TOPSIS method introduced by Li et al. (2020) is applied to the sions.
UN

case example. The various steps are as follows:

Uncited reference
1- Determine positive ideal solution (PIS) and negative ideal
solution (NIS). .
2- Obtain the Euclidean distance between each alternative to the PIS
and NIS.
Table 11
3- Calculate the ranking index of each alternative and sort the The ranking result of the PHF-TOPSIS method.
alternatives in decreasing order.
Alternative A1 A2 A3 A4

For the sake of brevity, computational details have been omitted but
TOPSIS index 1 3 2 4
are available from the author. The ranking result of the TOPSIS tech- Ranking 1 4 2 3
10 M. Divsalar et al. / Expert Systems With Applications xxx (xxxx) 116266
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Mehdi Divsalar: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – orig-
inal draft. Marzieh Ahmadi: Software, Data curation. Elnaz
Ebrahimi: Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis. Alessio
Ishizaka: Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.116266.
References
Abdellaoui, M., Bleichrodt, H., L’Haridon, O., & van Dolder, D. (2016). Measuring Loss
Aversion under Ambiguity: A Method to Make Prospect Theory Completely Observable.
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 52(1), 1–20.
Alcantud, J. C. R., de Andrés Calle, R., & González-Arteaga, T. (2015). A new health
classification scheme based on fuzzy hesitant information. In. IFSA-EUSFLAT.
Bao, T., Xie, X., Long, P., & Wei, Z. (2017). MADM method based on prospect theory and
evidential reasoning approach with unknown attribute weights under intuitionistic fuzzy
environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 88, 305–317.
Bustince, H., Barrenechea, E., Pagola, M., Fernandez, J., Xu, Z., Bedregal, B., … De Baets,
B. (2016). A historical account of types of fuzzy sets and their relationships. IEEE
Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 24(1), 179–194.
Büyüközkan, G., & Göçer, F. (2017). Application of a new combined intuitionistic fuzzy
MCDM approach based on axiomatic design methodology for the supplier selection problem.
ED
Applied Soft Computing Journal, 52, 1222–1238.
Chen, C.-Y., & Huang, J.-J. (2020). Integration of genetic algorithms and neural networks for
CT
the formation of the classifier of the hierarchical Choquet integral. Information Sciences,
537, 46–61.
Chen, L.i., Duan, G., Wang, S., & Ma, J. (2020). A Choquet integral based fuzzy logic
approach to solve uncertain multi-criteria decision making problem. Expert Systems with
Applications, 149, 113303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113303.
Chen, N.a., Xu, Z., & Xia, M. (2013). Interval-valued hesitant preference relations and their
applications to group decision making. Knowledge-Based Systems, 37, 528–540.
Chen, R.-H., Lin, Y., & Tseng, M.-L. (2015). Multicriteria analysis of sustainable development
RE
indicators in the construction minerals industry in China. Resources Policy, 46, 123–133.
Dai, W.-F., Zhong, Q.-Y., & Qi, C.-z. (2020). Multi-stage multi-attribute decision-making
method based on the prospect theory and triangular fuzzy MULTIMOORA. Soft Computing,
24(13), 9429–9440.
Fallahpour, A., Udoncy Olugu, E., Nurmaya Musa, S., Yew Wong, K., & Noori, S. (2017). A
decision support model for sustainable supplier selection in sustainable supply chain
management. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 105, 391–410.
Fan, Z.-P., Zhang, X., Chen, F.-D., & Liu, Y. (2013). Extended TODIM method for hybrid
OR
multiple attribute decision making problems. Knowledge-Based Systems, 42, 40–48.
Farhadinia, B. (2014). Distance and similarity measures for higher order hesitant fuzzy sets.
Knowledge-Based Systems, 55, 43–48.
Gomes, L. F. A. M., Machado, M. A. S., & Rangel, L. A. D. (2013). Behavioral multi-criteria
decision analysis: The TODIM method with criteria interactions. Annals of Operations
Research, 211(1), 531–548.
Gomes, L. F. A. M., Rangel, L. A. D., & Maranhão, F. J. C. (2009). Multicriteria analysis of
natural gas destination in Brazil: An application of the TODIM method. Mathematical and
Computer Modelling, 50(1–2), 92–100.
C
Autran Monteiro Gomes, L. F., & Duncan Rangel, L. A. (2009). An application of the TODIM
method to the multicriteria rental evaluation of residential properties. European Journal of
Operational Research, 193(1), 204–211.
Gomes, L., & Lima, M. (1992). TODIM: Basics and application to multicriteria ranking of
UN
projects with environmental impacts. Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences, 16
(4), 113–127.
Greco, S., Ehrgott, M., & Figueira, J. R. (2016). Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of
the art surveys. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science,
Springer-Verlag New York.
He, Y., Wang, X., & Huang, J. Z. (2016). Recent advances in multiple criteria decision making
techniques. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13042-015-0490-y.
He, Y., & Xu, Z. (2019). Multi-attribute decision making methods based on reference ideal
theory with probabilistic hesitant information. Expert Systems with Applications, 118,
459–469.
Hu, J., Yang, Y., & Chen, X. (2018). A Novel TODIM Method-Based Three-Way Decision
Model for Medical Treatment Selection. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 20(4),
1240–1255.
Ishizaka, A., & Nemery, P. (2013). Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Methods and Software.
Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Jain, N., & Singh, A. R. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection under must-be criteria through
Fuzzy inference system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 248, 119275. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119275.
Ji, P., Wang, H. Z. J., Zhang, H., & Wang, J. (2018). A projection-based TODIM method
under multi-valued neutrosophic environments and its application in personnel selection.
Neural Computing and Applications, 29(1), 221–234.
Jiang, F., & Ma, Q. (2018). Multi-attribute group decision making under probabilistic hesitant
fuzzy environment with application to evaluate the transformation efficiency. Applied
Intelligence, 48(4), 953–965.
F
Jiang, Y., Liang, X., & Liang, H. (2017). An I-TODIM method for multi-attribute decision
making with interval numbers. Soft Computing, 21(18), 5489–5506.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.
OO
Econometrica, 47(2), 263. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185.
Kannan, D. (2018). Role of multiple stakeholders and the critical success factor theory for the
sustainable supplier selection process. International Journal of Production Economics, 195,
391–418.
Kannan, D., Mina, H., Nosrati-Abarghooee, S., & Khosrojerdi, G. (2020). Sustainable
circular supplier selection: A novel hybrid approach. Science of the Total Environment, 722,
137936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137936.
Krohling, R. A., & de Souza, T. T. M. (2012). Combining prospect theory and fuzzy numbers to
multi-criteria decision making. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(13), 11487–11493.
Krohling, R. A., Pacheco, A. G. C., & Siviero, A. L. T. (2013). IF-TODIM: An intuitionistic
PR
fuzzy TODIM to multi-criteria decision making. Knowledge-Based Systems, 53, 142–146.
Li, C., Gang, D., Suyun, W., & Junfeng, M. (2020). A Choquet Integral based Fuzzy Logic
Approach to Solve Uncertain Multi-Criteria Decision Making Problem. Expert Systems with
Applications, 113303.
Li, J., Wang, J.-Q., & Hu, J.-H. (2019). Multi-criteria decision-making method based on
dominance degree and BWM with probabilistic hesitant fuzzy information. International
Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 10(7), 1671–1685.
Liao, Z., Liao, H., Tang, M., Al-Barakati, A., & Llopis-Albert, C. (2020). A Choquet integral-
based hesitant fuzzy gained and lost dominance score method for multi-criteria group
decision making considering the risk preferences of experts: Case study of higher business
education evaluation. Information Fusion, 62, 121–133.
Liu, P., & Teng, F. (2016). An extended TODIM method for multiple attribute group decision-
making based on 2-dimension uncertain linguistic Variable. Complexity, 21(5), 20–30.
Liu, P., Wang, Y., Jia, F., & Fujita, H. (2020). A multiple attribute decision making three-way
model for intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning,
119, 177–203.
Liu, S., & Liu, X. (2016). A Sample Survey Based Linguistic MADM Method with Prospect
Theory for Online Shopping Problems. Group Decision and Negotiation, 25(4), 749–774.
Liu, X., Wang, Z., Zhang, S., & Liu, J. (2020). Probabilistic hesitant fuzzy multiple attribute
decision-making based on regret theory for the evaluation of venture capital projects.
Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja, 33(1), 672–697.
Lourenzutti, R., & Krohling, R. A. (2014). The Hellinger distance in Multicriteria Decision
Making: An illustration to the TOPSIS and TODIM methods. Expert Systems with
Applications, 41(9), 4414–4421.
Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S. K., & Garg, C. P. (2017). An integrated
framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 140, 1686–1698.
Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2015). Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making
techniques and applications - Two decades review from 1994 to 2014. Expert Systems with
Applications, 42(8), 4126–4148.
Memari, A., Dargi, A., Akbari Jokar, M. R., Ahmad, R., & Abdul Rahim, A. R. (2019).
Sustainable supplier selection: A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method. Journal
of Manufacturing Systems, 50, 9–24.
Nie, R.-X., Tian, Z.-P., Wang, J.-Q., & Hu, J.-H. (2019). Pythagorean fuzzy multiple criteria
decision analysis based on Shapley fuzzy measures and partitioned normalized weighted
Bonferroni mean operator. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 34(2), 297–324.
Nursal, A. T., Omar, M. F., Nasrun, M., & Nawi, M. (2016). Criteria Requirement for IBS
Vendor Selection Criteria Requirement for IBS Vendor Selection. International Journal of
Supply Chain Management, 5(August), 108–114.
Pasi, G., Viviani, M., & Carton, A. (2019). A Multi-Criteria Decision Making approach based
on the Choquet integral for assessing the credibility of User-Generated Content. Information
Sciences, 503, 574–588.
Peng, X., & Dai, J. (2017). Approaches to Pythagorean Fuzzy Stochastic Multi-criteria Decision
Making Based on Prospect Theory and Regret Theory with New Distance Measure and
Score Function. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 32(11), 1187–1214.
Peng, Y., & Liu, X. (2015). Bidding decision in land auction using prospect theory. International
Journal of Strategic Property Management, 19(2), 186–205.
Qi, X., Liang, C., & Zhang, J. (2015). Generalized cross-entropy based group decision making
with unknown expert and attribute weights under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy
environment. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 79, 52–64.
Qin, J., Liu, X., & Pedrycz, W. (2017). An extended TODIM multi-criteria group decision
making method for green supplier selection in interval type-2 fuzzy environment. European
Journal of Operational Research, 258(2), 626–638.
Ren, P., Xu, Z., & Gou, X. (2016). Pythagorean fuzzy TODIM approach to multi-criteria
decision making. Applied Soft Computing Journal, 42, 246–259.
Sang, X., & Liu, X. (2016). An interval type-2 fuzzy sets-based TODIM method and its
application to green supplier selection. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 67(5),
722–734.
Sen, D. K., Datta, S., & Mahapatra, S. S. (2015). Extension of TODIM combined with grey
numbers: An integrated decision making module. Grey Systems: Theory and Application, 5
(3), 367–391.
Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Puška, A., & Chatterjee, P. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection in
healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking
according to COmpromise solution (MARCOS). Computers and Industrial Engineering,
 M. Divsalar et al. / Expert Systems With Applications xxx (xxxx) 116266
140, 106231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231.
Tanaka, T., Camerer, C. F., & Nguyen, Q. (2010). Risk and time preferences: Linking
experimental and household survey data from Vietnam. American Economic Review, 100
(1), 557–571.
Tian, G., Hao, N., Zhou, M., Pedrycz, W., Zhang, C., Ma, F., & Li, Z. (2019). Fuzzy Grey
Choquet Integral for Evaluation of Multicriteria Decision Making Problems With Interactive
and Qualitative Indices. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, PP,
1–14.
Tian, X., Niu, M., Ma, J., Xu, Z., & Silva, T. C. (2020). A Novel TODIM with Probabilistic
Hesitant Fuzzy Information and Its Application in Green Supplier Selection. Complexity,
2020, 1–26.
Torra, V. (2010). Hesitant fuzzy sets. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 25(6),
529–539.
Torra, V., & Narukawa, Y. (2009). On hesitant fuzzy sets and decision. In Fuzzy systems,
2009. FUZZ-IEEE 2009. IEEE International Conference on (pp. 1378–1382). IEEE.
Tosun, Ö. m., & Akyüz, G. (2015). A Fuzzy TODIM Approach for the Supplier Selection
Problem. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 8(2), 317–329.
Tseng, M.-L., Lin, Y. H., Lim, M. K., & Teehankee, B. L. (2015). Using a hybrid method to
evaluate service innovation in the hotel industry. Applied Soft Computing Journal, 28,
411–421.
Tseng, M. L., Tan, K. H., Lim, M., Lin, R. J., & Geng, Y. (2014). Benchmarking eco-
efficiency in green supply chain practices in uncertainty. Production Planning and
Control, 25(October 2014), 1079–1090.
Wang, L., Wang, H., Xu, Z., & Ren, Z. (2019). The interval-valued hesitant Pythagorean fuzzy
set and its applications with extended TOPSIS and Choquet integral-based method.
International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 34(6), 1063–1085.
Wang, L., Wang, Q., Xu, S., & Ni, M. (2014). Distance and similarity measures of dual hesitant
fuzzy sets with their applications to multiple attribute decision making, Vol. 22, 88–92.
Wang, L., Wang, Y.-M., & Martínez, L. (2020). Fuzzy TODIM method based on alpha-level
sets. Expert Systems with Applications, 140, 112899. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.eswa.2019.112899.
Wei, C., Ren, Z., & Rodríguez, R. M. (2015). A Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic TODIM Method
(4), 701–712.
Wei, G., Alsaadi, F. E., Hayat, T., & Alsaedi, A. (2017). A Linear Assignment Method for
ED
Based on a Score Function. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 8
CT
RE
C OR
UN
View publication stats
11
Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis with Hesitant Fuzzy Sets Based on Fuzzy Measure.
International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 19(3), 607–614.
Wu, J., Liu, X.-D., Wang, Z.-W., & Zhang, S.-T. (2019). Dynamic emergency decision-making
method with probabilistic hesitant fuzzy information based on GM(1,1) and TOPSIS. IEEE
Access, 7, 7054–7066.
Xu, H., Zhou, J., & Xu, W. (2011). A decision-making rule for modeling travelers’ route choice
behavior based on cumulative prospect theory. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging
Technologies, 19(2), 218–228.
Xu, Z., & Zhou, W. (2016). Consensus building with a group of decision makers under the
F
hesitant probabilistic fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 16,
481–503.
Yeni, F. B., & Özçelik, G. (2019). Interval-Valued Atanassov Intuitionistic Fuzzy CODAS
OO
Method for Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Problems. Group Decision and
Negotiation, 28(2), 433–452.
Ying, C.-S., Li, Y.-L., Chin, K.-S., Yang, H.-T., & Xu, J. (2018). A New Product Development
Concept Selection Approach Based on Cumulative Prospect Theory and Hybrid-Information
MADM. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 122, 251–261.
Yu, S. M., Wang, J., & Wang, J. Q. (2016). An extended TODIM approach with intuitionistic
linguistic numbers. International Transactions in Operational Research, 0, 1–25.
Zhang, S., Xu, Z., & He, Y. (2017). Operations and integrations of probabilistic hesitant fuzzy
information in decision making. Information Fusion, 38, 1–11.
Zhang, W., Ju, Y., & Liu, X. (2017). Multiple criteria decision analysis based on Shapley fuzzy
PR
measures and interval-valued hesitant fuzzy linguistic numbers. Computers and Industrial
Engineering, 105, 28–38.
Zhou, W., & Xu, Z. (2018). Probability Calculation and Element Optimization of Probabilistic
Hesitant Fuzzy Preference Relations Based on Expected Consistency. IEEE Transactions on
Fuzzy Systems, 26(3), 1367–1378.
Zhu, B. (2014). Decision method for research and application based on preference relation.
Nanjing: Southeast University.
Zimmer, K., Fröhling, M., & Schultmann, F. (2016). Sustainable supplier management - A
review of models supporting sustainable supplier selection, monitoring and development.
International Journal of Production Research, 54(5), 1412–1442.