A Method for Determining Weights of Criterias and Alternative of
Fuzzy Group Decision Making Problem
Jon JaeGyong, Mun JongHui, Ryang GyongIl

Faculty of Electronics & Automation, Kim Il Sung University,
Pyongyang, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
Abstract: In this paper, we constructed a model to determine weights of criterias and presented a
solution for determining the optimal alternative by using the constructed model and relationship analys is
between criterias in fuzzy group decision-making problem with different forms of preference information
of decision makers on criterias.
Keywords : fuzzy multi-criteria group decision making; final degree of satisfaction; criteria’s weight;
optimal alternative

1. Introduction
Determining optimal alternative in group decision making is very important in management.
Up to now, there are many researches for multipleobjective decision making problems that have more
than one optimize purpose, fuzzy decision making problem in which information of alternative on criteria
are fuzzy number, group decision making problem that have many decision makers.
To be concrete as follows:
Some researchers[1,2] paid their attention to group decision-making problems, in which
decision-makers provide their preference information on alternative using different preference forms.
Literature[12] further established a single-objective optimization model to determine a optimal
alternative from interval decision matrix and criteria weight intervals.
There are methods that get the optimal alternative by synthesizing conclusions of decision-makers when
information of criteria weight is given partially and degree of satisfaction on criterias are expressed by
triangle fuzzy number[3,4,5].
Literature[13] proposed a method for determining the preference of alternative by Borda’s method
based on preference of interval number when information of decision makers on evaluation alternative is
stated by interval number.
Literature[11] proposed a new method for solution of Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decis ion Making by
introducing score function G that remove the defect of S function and H function.
In general, there are benefit attributes and cost attributes in multiple-attribute decis ion-making problems,
and dimention of different attributes may be different.
Literatures[8,9] proposed a method that determine the optimal attribute based on Satisfactory Matrix
  (  ij ) mn which is mapped from D according to criteria type(benefit attribute or cost attribute)

Literatures[6,7] present a group decision making method that decreases disagreement of

1

decision-makers by fuzzy programming method when required information is given as a supplementary
decision matrix.
Literature[10] divided decision making problem into several subproblems when composition of
decision makers is very complex and scale of it is very large, and presented a method that determines the
solution of decision making problem based on the solution of every subproblem.
The shortcomings of preceding methods for fuzzy multi-criteria group decision-making are as follows:
First, in fuzzy multi-criteria group decision making problem, a method to determine of criterias ’ weight
was supported in case that required information of decision makers were given in different forms, but if any
decision makers gave their required information in form of multiplicative preference relation, then
supported model can not include in full requirement of decision makers.
Second, a method to determine optimal alternative based on relationship analysis between criterias was
supported in case that satisfactory matrixes were given by triangle fuzzy number in fuzzy multi-criteria
group decision making problem. But dividing algorithm of criterias that is subalgorithm of optimal
alternative determining algorithm unilaterally divides two subsets of all criterias, so conflict or irrelevant
criterias may be in one subset.
Third, in case that satisfactory matrix is given by triangle fuzzy number, final degree for evaluation of
alternatives is also triangle fuzzy number, so, satisfactory degree of alternative on criterias is not
quantitativelly expressed.
For this reason, in the second part of this paper, we propose a model to determine weights reasonably in
consideration of left or right limited value in case that there are decision makers who give their required
information in form of multiplicative preference relation in fuzzy multi-criterias group decision making
problem.
In the third part we newly support a dividing algorithm of criterias ’ set for determing optimal
alternative, thus all criterias of one subset cooperate with each other, and then a final evaluation degree to
evaluate alternatives based on relationship analys is between criterias in case that satisfactory matrixes are
represented by triangle fuzzy number.
In the fourth part we verified the effectiveness of supported methods by solving example.

2. A METHOD FOR DETERMI NI NG WEIGHTS OF CRITERIAS
2.1 Type of Information Expression of Decision-makers on criteria weights
In group decision-making problem, a decision-maker can represent weight information of criteria as
one of the following three different expression forms[9].
~
First, Utility values U  {u~1 ,u~ 2   u~ n } : u~ j  (ul j , um j , uu j ) indicates utility interval of criteria weights,
where

0  ul j  um j  uu j  1 ( j  1, n ), and ul j , um j , uu j are infimum, median, supremum of weight of

criteria c j .
~
pij  ( plij , pmij , pu ij ) indicates the preference degree of
pij ) nn : ~
Second, Preference relation P  ( ~

criteria ci over c j and is the preference information on pij that is described by the following formula

2

pij  0.5( wi  w j  1) ,

Where plij , pmij , pu ij are infimum, median, supremum of pij , and wi , w j are weights of criteria ci ,
cj .

From the definition, the following condition is satisfied
0  plij  pmij  pu ij  1 , plij  pu ji  pmij  pm ji  pu ij  pl ji  1 , plii  pmii  puii  0.5 ( i, j  1, n )

~
~ ~
Third, Multiplicative preference relation B  (bij ) nn : bij  (blij , bmij , buij ) indicates multiplicative

preference degree of criteria ci over c j and is the preference information on bij that is described by the
following formula
bij 

wi
wj

where bl ij , bmij , bu ij are infimum, median, supremum of bij , and wi , w j are weights of criteria ci ,
cj .

From the definition, the following condition is satisfied.
0  blij  bmij  bu ij , blij bu ji  bmij bm ji  buij bl ji  1 , blii  bmii  buii  1

( i, j  1, n )

Above three expression forms are the most general forms that can represent criteria weight
information .
2.2 A Method For Determining Weights of Criterias
In decision-making problem, let w1 , w2 ,   , wn be the determined weight of criterias.
If these weights satisfy the requirement of all decision-makers that are represented above three forms, the
following condition must be satisfied for i, j  1, n
ul j  w j  uu j

(1)

( w j  um j ) 2  em j   j1

(2)

plij  0.5( wi  w j  1)  puij

(3)

0.5(w  w
i

 1)  pmij   emij   ij 2

(4)

wi
 buij
wj

(5)

2

j

blij 

2

 wi


 bmij   emij   ij 3
w

 j


( wj  0 )

(6)

where  j1 ,  ij 2 ,  ij 3 are nonnegative real numbers that is small sufficiently.
Generally, it is difficult to satisfy all requirements of decision-makers.
Therefore, we must determine the reasonable criteria weight that relax the contradiction of information
as possible and satisfy requirements of the decision-makers as possible.
For group decision-making problems with t decision-makers, without loss of generality, we suppose
that decision maker k (k=1,…, t1 ) provides his preference information by means of the utility values,

3

decision maker k (k= t1  1 ,…, t 2 ) provides his preference information by means of the preference relation
and decision maker k (k= t 2  1 ,…, t ) provides his preference information by means of the multiplicative
preference relation.
In order to determine the weight vector of criterias, we establish the following linear programming
problem.
n
 n t
E  min   wJ (el (j d )  em (j d )  eu (j d ) )  
i , j 1
 j 1 d 1
1

[M]

d

t

w

d t1 1

Jd


(elij( d )  emij( d )  euij( d ) ) 


(7)

em(jd )  w j  um(jd )  , j  1, n, d  1, t1
2

s. t.

w j  ul (j d )  el (j d ) , j  1, n, d  1, t1
w j  uu (j d )  eu (j d ) , j  1, n, d  1, t1
el (j d ) , eu (j d )  0, j  1, n, d  1, t1

(d )
ij

em

 0.5( wi  w j  1)  pmij( d )  , i, j  1, n, d  t1  1, t 2
2

0.5( wi  w j  1)  plij( d )  elij( d ) , i, j  1, n, d  t1  1, t 2
0.5( wi  w j  1)  puij( d )  euij( d ) , i, j  1, n, d  t1  1, t 2
2

w

emij( d )   i  bmij( d )  , i, j  1, n, d  t 2  1, t
w

 j

wi
(d )
(d )
 blij  elij , i, j  1, n, d  t 2  1, t
wj

wi
 buij( d )  euij( d ) , i, j  1, n, d  t 2  1, t
wj
elij( d ) , euij( d )  0, i, j  1, n, d  t1  1, t
n

w

j

 1, w j  0, j  1, n

j 1

Where el (j d ) , eu (dj ) ( j  1, n, d  1, t1 ), elij( d ) , euij(d ) ( i, j  1, n , d  t1  1, t ) are preference information
deviation value of decision maker J d and wJ is weight of decision maker J d
d

Decision makers can adjust the preference information with nonzero deviation values by compromising
their requirement. Adjusting method is that it give a limited value at first, and then turn up supremum a
little, turn down infimum a little on equal terms with it doesn’t exceed limited interval. At this time amount
of change is proportionate with deviation value and extends the range of triangle fuzzy number that
represents required information a little wide.
And we establish the model again on the basis of changed preference information value and get the
deviation values again.
If this procedure is repeated until all of the deviation values come to zero, the final weight values is just
the optimal criteria weight vector satisfying the requirement of every decision makers.

3. A METHOD FOR DETERMI NI NG THE OPTIMAL ALTERNATIVE
For Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making Problem, here consider a new methodology for
selecting the appropriate alternative among feasible alternative set A in the case that d i j ( i  1, m , j  1, n )

4

is given by triangular fuzzy number, decision matrix D is mapping to the matrix of degree of satisfaction
and weight of decision makers is given as follows:
t

w

W J  ( wJ , wJ ,    , wJ ) ,
1

2

t

d 1

Jd

1

The the matrix of degree of satisfaction of decision maker J d ( d  1, t ) is expressed as follows:
~
 ( d )   ij( d ) ( x) mn

 11( d ) ( x) 12( d ) ( x)    1(nd ) ( x) 
 (d )

(d )
(d )
  21 ( x)  22 ( x)     2 n ( x) 

 , ( d  1, t )





  ( d ) ( x)  ( d ) ( x)     ( d ) ( x) 
m2
mn
 m1


(8)

where ij( d ) ( x)  ( ij( d ) ,  ij( d ) ,  ij( d ) ) .
When there are several criterias for evaluating the alternatives, generally, some relationships between
criterias exist.
If an increase of the degree of satisfaction for one criteria causes to increase the degree of satisfaction
for other criteria, then a pair of two criterias are said to be cooperative. If an increase of the degree of
satisfaction for one criteria causes to decrease the degree of satisfaction for other criteria, then a pair of two
criterias are said to be conflictive. If an increase of the degree of satisfaction for one criterion doesn’t cause
the variation of the degree of satisfaction, then a pair of two criterias are said to be independent
[Definition 1:]
Define a triangular fuzzy number  ijk (x) as follows.


 ijk ( x)   ik ( x) ⊖  jk (x)

where ⊖ denotes to extended subtraction of fuzzy numbers and  ijk (x) indicates the degree of
satisfaction of alternative ai , a j for criteria c k .
Assume that  ijk (x) is a triangular fuzzy number ijk ( x)  ( ijk ,  ijk ,  ijk ) .
[Difinition 2:] (Cooperative degree and conflicting degree)

 (|  ijk |  |  ijl |)

Cooperative degree:

 ( a , a )CP
i
j

cp (c k , cl ) 

 (|  ijk |  |  ijl |)

(9)

( ai , a j )AP

 (|  ijk |  |  ijl |)

Conflicting degree:

 ( a , a )CF
i
j

cf (c k , cl ) 

 (|  ijk |  |  ijl |)

( ai , a j )AP

c k , cl : two criterias, AP  {( ai , a j ) | ai , a j  A, i  j} : a set of alternatives pairs,

 

CP  {( ai , a j ) |    ijk ( x)    ijk ( x)     ijl ( x)    ijl ( x)  0}
x 0
x 0
 x 0
  x 0


 

CF  {( ai , a j ) |    ijk ( x)    ijk ( x)     ijl ( x)    ijl ( x)  0}
x 0
x 0
 x 0
  x 0


5

(10)

AP  CP ∪ CF ∪ IR

 

IR  {( ai , a j ) |    ijk ( x)    ijk ( x)     ijl ( x)    ijl ( x)  0}
x 0
x 0
 x 0
  x 0


CP ∩ CF = CF ∩ IR = CP ∩ IR  

In order to evaluate several alternatives for multi-criteria, devide overall set of criterias into two subsets
based on conflicting, cooperative and irrelevant relation such that all criterias in each subset cooperate with
each other.
The algorithm for dividing a set of criterias is as follows.
[Step 1] Setting the initial value.
S  {c2 , c3 ,  , cn } , q  1 , S1  {c1}

[Step 2] Calculation p j for all c j  S
pj 

 cp(c , c )  cf (c , c )
i

j

i

j

ciS q

[Step 3] Let be pk  max
p j , k  arg max p j
j
j
[Step 4]

If pk  0 , then
S q  S q  {ck }, S  S  {ck }

and go to step 2,
or else print S q and set as follows
q  q  1, S q  {ck }, S  S  {ck }

[Step 5] If S   , then print S q and exit the algorithm, or else go to step 2.
This algorithm, first assigns the criteria c1 to S1 , then takes away the criteria which belongs to S 2
and has maximum cooperative degree with criterias of S1 to that subset, so we get one subset in which all
criterias cooperate with each other. Then, we apply above introduced method to remaining criterias ’ set. In
result, all criterias are classified into several classes.
Next the final degree of satisfaction is calculated as follows:


 ( d ) (ak )   wi( d )  ki( d ) ( x)

(11)

ciSq( d )

where q satisfies following relation.

w

(d )
i

ciSq( d )



 max   wi( d ) ,  wi( d ) ,  ,

c S
c S
i

(d )
1

i

(d )
2

w

(d )
i

ciS z(dd )







Next, we get an intergrated final degree of satisfaction by intergrating the final degree of satisfaction of
all decision-makers.
The intergrated final degree of satisfaction is calculated as follows:


t

 ( a k )   wJ  ( d ) ( a k )
d

d 1

where wJ is a weight of decision-maker J d .
d

6

(12)

An alternative that has maximum intergrated final degree of satisfaction is a optimal alternative.

4. A NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
J  {J1, J 2 , J 3 , J 4 , J 5 } , a set of alternatives is

Suppose that a set of decision makers is

A  {a1, a2 , a3 , a4 , a5}, a set of criterias is C  {c1 , c2 , c3 , c4 } .
Decision maker 1 gives his requirement information for criteria weight in form of utility, decision
maker 2 and 3 give in form of preference relation, decision maker 4 and 5 give in form of multiplicative
preference relation.
The weight of decision makers is as follows:

WJ  {wJ1 , wJ 2 , wJ 3 , wJ 4 , wJ 5 }  {0.2, 0.25, 0.2, 0.2, 0.15}
The requirement information for criteria weight and the satisfactory matrix of decision makers is as
follows.
~
U (1)  {u~1(1) , u~2(1) , u~3(1) , u~4(1) } 
  (0.15, 0.20, 0.30), (0.05,0.15, 0.20), (0.30,0.35, 0.40), (0.20,0.30, 0.35)}
 (0.50, 0.50, 0.50)

~ ( 2)
 (0.65, 0.70, 0.80)
( 2)
~
P  ( pij ) 4 4  
(0.60, 0.70, 0.75)

 (0.40, 0.45, 0.50)


(0.20, 0.30, 0.35) (0.25, 0.30, 0.40) (0.50, 0.55, 0.60) 

(0.50, 0.50, 0.50) (0.50, 0.65, 0.75) (0.80, 0.85, 0.95) 
(0.25, 0.35, 0.50) (0.50, 0.50, 0.50) (0.65, 0.70, 0.80) 

(0.05, 0.15, 0.20) (0.20, 0.30, 0.35) (0.50, 0.50, 0.50) 

 (0.50, 0.50, 0.50)

~ (3)
 (0.70, 0.75, 0.75)
(3)
~
P  ( pij ) 4 4  
(0.60, 0.65, 0.70)

 (0.75, 0.80, 0.85)


(0.25, 0.25, 0.30) (0.30, 0.35, 0.40) (0.15, 0.20, 0.25) 

(0.50, 0.50, 0.50) (0.55, 0.60, 0.65) (0.40, 0.45, 0.50) 
(0.35, 0.40, 0.45) (0.50, 0.50, 0.50) (0.25, 0.30, 0.40) 

(0.50, 0.55, 0.60) (0.60, 0.70, 0.75) (0.50, 0.50, 0.50) 

~
B ( 4)

 (1.00, 1.00, 1.00) (0.38, 0.40, 0.42) (0.33, 0.34, 0.36) (0.42, 0.43, 0.45) 


~ ( 4)
 (2.40, 2.50, 2.60) (1.00, 1.00, 1.00) (0.55, 0.59, 0.62) (2.20, 2.30, 2.40) 
 (bij ) 4 4  
(2.80, 2.90, 3.00) (1.60, 1.70, 1.80) (1.00, 1.00, 1.00) (2.50, 2.60, 2.70) 


 (2.20, 2.30, 2.40) (0.42, 0.43, 0.45) (0.37, 0.38, 0.40) (1.00, 1.00, 1.00) 



~
~
B (5)  (bij(5) ) 4 4



 (1.00, 1.00, 1.00) (1.60, 1.70, 1.80) (1.00, 1.10, 1.30) (2.00, 2.10, 2.20) 


 (0.50, 0.60, 0.63) (1.00, 1.00, 1.00) (0.60, 0.63, 0.67) (1.70, 1.80, 1.90) 

(0.77, 0.90, 1.00) (1.50, 1.60, 1.70) (1.00, 1.00, 1.00) (1.80, 1.90, 2.00) 


 (0.45, 0.48, 0.50) (0.53, 0.56, 0.60) (0.50, 0.53, 0.56) (1.00, 1.00, 1.00) 





~
 (1)  ~ij(1) ( x) 54





~
 ( 2)  ~ij( 2) ( x) 54

 (0.3,

 (0.2,
  (0.2,

 (0.4,

 (0.6,

0.5,
0.3,
0.3,
0.6,
0.7,

0.6)
0.5)
0.4)
0.7)
0.8)

(0.4,
(0.3,
(0.4,
(0.4,
(0.5,

0.5,
0.4,
0.5,
0.5,
0.6,

0.7)
0.5)
0.6)
0.6)
0.7)

(0.5,
(0.4,
(0.4,
(0.3,
(0.3,

0.7,
0.5,
0.5,
0.4,
0.5,

0.8)
0.7)
0.6)
0.6)
0.6)

(0.4,
(0.3,
(0.3,
(0.5,
(0.6,

0.6,
0.5,
0.4,
0.6,
0.7,

0.7) 

0.6) 
0.5) 

0.7) 

0.8) 

(13)

 (0.4,

 (0.3,
  (0.3,

 (0.6,

 (0.6,

0.5,
0.4,
0.5,
0.7,
0.7,

0.6)
0.5)
0.6)
0.8)
0.8)

(0.5,
(0.4,
(0.4,
(0.3,
(0.6,

0.6,
0.5,
0.6,
0.4,
0.7,

0.7)
0.6)
0.7)
0.6)
0.8)

(0.6,
(0.3,
(0.4,
(0.3,
(0.3,

0.7,
0.5,
0.6,
0.4,
0.4,

0.8)
0.7)
0.7)
0.5)
0.5)

(0.4,
(0.4,
(0.3,
(0.5,
(0.7,

0.5,
0.6,
0.4,
0.7,
0.8,

0.6) 

0.7) 
0.6) 

0.8) 

0.9) 

(14)

7





~
 (3)  ~ij(3) ( x) 54





~
 ( 4)  ~ij( 4) ( x) 54

~
 ( 5)

 (0.4,

 (0.3,
  (0.2,

 (0.6,

 (0.7,

0.5,
0.4,
0.3,
0.8,
0.8,

0.6)
0.5)
0.5)
0.9)
0.9)

(0.5,
(0.4,
(0.6,
(0.3,
(0.6,

0.7,
0.6,
0.7,
0.4,
0.8,

0.8)
0.7)
0.8)
0.5)
0.9)

(0.5,
(0.4,
(0.4,
(0.3,
(0.3,

0.6,
0.5,
0.6,
0.4,
0.5,

0.7)
0.6)
0.7)
0.5)
0.7)

(0.5,
(0.4,
(0.3,
(0.6,
(0.6,

0.6,
0.6,
0.5,
0.7,
0.8,

0.7) 

0.7) 
0.6) 

0.8) 

0.9) 

(15)

 (0.4,

 (0.4,
  (0.3,

 (0.7,

 (0.7,

0.6,
0.6,
0.5,
0.8,
0.8,

0.7)
0.8)
0.7)
0.9)
0.9)

(0.6,
(0.4,
(0.7,
(0.3,
(0.6,

0.7,
0.5,
0.8,
0.5,
0.7,

0.8)
0.7)
0.9)
0.6)
0.9)

(0.6,
(0.3,
(0.5,
(0.2,
(0.3,

0.7,
0.4,
0.6,
0.3,
0.5,

0.9)
0.5)
0.7)
0.4)
0.6)

(0.6,
(0.3,
(0.2,
(0.7,
(0.7,

0.7,
0.5,
0.4,
0.8,
0.8,

0.8) 

0.7) 
0.5) 

0.9) 

0.9) 

(16)

(0.5,
(0.2,
(0.5,
(0.5,
(0.2,

0.6,
0.3,
0.7,
0.6,
0.4,

0.7)
0.4)
0.9)
0.7)
0.6)

(0.6,
(0.2,
(0.6,
(0.6,
(0.2,

0.7,
0.4,
0.7,
0.7,
0.3,

0.8)
0.5)
0.8)
0.8)
0.4)

(0.5,
(0.3,
(0.2,
(0.4,
(0.3,

0.6,
0.4,
0.3,
0.6,
0.4,

0.7) 

0.5) 
0.4) 

0.7) 

0.5) 

(17)

 (0.3,

 (0.2,
( 5)
~
 ij ( x) 54   (0.2,

 (0.4,

 (0.7,





0.4,
0.3,
0.3,
0.6,
0.8,

0.5)
0.4)
0.4)
0.8)
0.9)

First, determine the weight of criterias.
The optimization model to determine weight of criterias is as follows;

E  min



4

4

5

 wJ (el(j1)  em(j1)  eu(j1) )    wJ
1

j 1

i , j 1 d  2


(d )
(d )
(d ) 
(
el

em

eu
)
ij
ij
ij
d



s. t.
w j  ul (j1)  el (j1) , j  1, 4
w j  uu(j1)  eu(j1) , j  1, 4
el (j1) , eu(j1)  0, j  1, 4
0.5( wi  w j  1)  plij( d )  elij( d ) , i, j  1, 4, d  2, 3
0.5( wi  w j  1)  puij( d )  euij( d ) , i, j  1, 4, d  2, 3

w j  ul (j1)  el (j1) , j  1, 4
wi
 buij( d )  euij( d ) , i, j  1, 4, d  4, 5
wj
elij( d ) , euij( d )  0, i, j  1, 4, d  2, 5
4

 w j  1, w j  0, j  1, 4
j 1

Where





2





2

em (j1)  w j  um (j1) , j  1, 4 , emij( d )  0.5( wi  w j  1)  pmij( d ) , i, j  1, 4, d  2, 3 ,
2

emij( d )

w

  i  bmij( d )  , i, j  1, 4, d  4, 5
 wj




Above model is solved by using mathematical problem solving tool MATHEMATICA, then
semi-optimal errors are as follows;

8

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

( 2)
( 2)
( 2)
( 2)
( 2)
( 2)
 0.12 , eu13
 0.02 , el23
 0.04 , el24
 0.28 , el34
 0.09 ,
eu2(1)  0.06 , eu12
 0.03 , el14
*

*

(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
( 3)
( 4)
(3)
 0.23 , el23
 0.32 ,
 0.09 , eu24
eu12
 0.17 , eu13
 0.03 , eu14
 0.02 , eu34
 0.16 , eu12
*

*

( 4)
( 4)
(5)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
( 5)
 0.41 , eu23
 1.04 , el34
 0.99 , el12
 0.87 , el13
eu13
 0.21 , eu14
 0.15 , el24
 0.43 ,
*

*

*

*

( 5)
( 5)
( 5)
( 5)
 0.54 , el34
el14
 1.15 , eu23
 0.29 .
 0.10 , el24

The other errors are zero. Therefore, according to step 3, requirement information of decision makers
are changed as follows;
'
( 2) '
( 2) '
( 2) '
p13
 (0.25, 0.30, 0.43) , ~
u~2(1)  (0.05, 0.15, 0.26) , ~p12
p14
 (0.48, 0.55, 0.60) ,
 (0.20, 0.30, 0.47) , ~

( 2) '
( 2) '
( 2) '
(3) '
~
p23
 (0.46, 0.65, 0.75) , ~
p34
 (0.56, 0.70, 0.80) , ~
p24
 (0.52, 0.85, 0.95) , ~
p12
 (0.25, 0.25, 0.47) ,
(3) '
(3) '
(3) '
~
(3) '
p13
 (0.30, 0.35, 0.43) , ~p14
p23
 (0.46, 0.60, 0.65) , ~
p24
 (0.40, 0.45, 0.52) ,
 (0.15, 0.20, 0.48) , ~

~ '
~ '
~ '
(3) '
~
p34
 (0.25, 0.30, 0.56) , b12( 4)  (0.38, 0.40, 0.74) , b13( 4)  (0.33, 0.34, 0.57) , b14( 4)  (0.42, 0.43, 0.86) ,

~ ( 4) '
~ '
~ '
~ '
b23
 (0.55, 0.59, 0.77) , b24( 4)  (1.16, 2.30, 2.40) , b34( 4)  (1.51, 2.60, 2.70) , b12(5)  (0.73, 1.70, 1.80) ,
~ '
~ ( 5) '
~ '
~ '
 (0.60, 0.63, 0.77) , b24(5)  (1.16, 1.80, 1.90) ,
b13(5)  (0.57, 1.10, 1.30) , b14(5)  (0.85, 2.10, 2.20) , b23
~ '
b34(5)  (1.51, 1.90, 2.00) .

According to step 4, we make the optimal model again, and get semi-optimal error again. After two
playing

these

process,

all

errors

are

zero.

At

this

time,

semi-optimal

weight

vector

W *  (0.189, 0.257, 0.333, 0.221) is just the optimal weight vector of this problem.
To evaluate the effectiveness of supported algorithm, we compared this weight vector with

W  (0.205, 0.259, 0.313, 0.223) which is gotten by precedent method[9].
The sum of errors that weight by precedent method and real weight is 1.226, the sum of errors that
weight by supported method and real weight is 1.077. So supported determining method of weights reduces
errors to 87.8%.
At this time, we evaluate the effectiveness of determing method of optimal alternative.
At first, we use the precedent method. If we use only infimum, then the result is a1  a5  a3  a2  a4 ,
if use only median, thent it is

a3  a4  a1  a5  a2 , if we use only supremum, then it is

a5  a4  a2  a1  a3 . That is, results are different.

Then we get the optimal alternative of this problem by using supported method.
Accorind to step 1, every decision maker calculates the cooperative degree and conflicting degree of
criterias’ pair, the result is as table 1.

9

Table 1. Cooperative degree and conflicting degree of criterias’ pair

cp ,

J1

J2

J3

J4

J5

cf
cp

cf

cp

cf

cp

cf

cp

cf

cp

cf

(c1, c2 )

0.833

0.067

0.500

0.400

0.478

0.522

0.188

0.750

0.348

0.522

(c1, c3 )

0.294

0.706

0.188

0.812

0.132

0.763

0.139

0.806

0.208

0.604

(c1, c4 )

1.000

0.000

0.833

0.139

1.000

0.000

0.947

0.053

0.571

0.286

( c 2 , c3 )

0.500

0.450

0.567

0.333

0.786

0.143

0.889

0.111

0.905

0.048

(c 2 , c 4 )

0.818

0.091

0.529

0.471

0.531

0.469

0.263

0.684

0.500

0.472

( c3 , c 4 )

0.385

0.615

0.056

0.917

0.167

0.750

0.310

0.643

0.579

0.237

criterias’ pair

We divide overall criterias’ set by using supported dividing algorithm in this paper.
Table 2. Dividing result of criterias’ set
J
J1

J2

J3

J4

J5

S1

c1 , c 4

c1 , c 4

c1 , c 4

c1 , c 4

c1 , c 4

S2

c 2 , c3

c2

c2

c 2 , c3

c2

c3

c3

subset

S3

c3

The final degree of satisfaction is as table 3.
Table 3. the final degree of satisfaction
J
A

J1

J2

J3

J4

J5

a1

(0.278,0.356,0.448)

(0.293,0.359,0.426) (0.315,0.407,0.474) (0.354,0.413,0.505) (0.328,0.387,0.446)

a2

(0.181,0.270,0.356)

(0.248,0.337,0.403) (0.248,0.362,0.429) (0.203,0.262,0.346) (0.118,0.210,0.269)

a3

(0.207,0.274,0.340)

(0.226,0.337,0.426) (0.258,0.347,0.433) (0.346,0.405,0.464) (0.328,0.413,0.498)

a4

(0.289.0.375,0.441)

(0.301,0.390,0.482) (0.323,0.409,0.475) (0.144,0.228,0.287) (0.328,0.387,0.446)

a5 (0.375,0.441,0.508)

(0.422,0.489,0.556) (0.419,0.534,0.600) (0.254,0.346,0.431) (0.118,0.203,0.287)

The intergrated final degree of satisfaction is as follows:

 (a1 )  (0.306, 0.383, 0.459 )

 (a2 )  (0.206, 0.295, 0.367 )
 (a3 )  (0.268, 0.351, 0.429 )

 (a4 )  (0.276, 0.358, 0.428)

10

 (a5 )  (0.333, 0.417 , 0.490 )
 (x)

a3 a 4

a2

1

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

a1

a5

0.4

0.45

x

0.5

The integrated final degrees of satisfactrion are arranged by using fuzzy arranging function. Here let be

p  1 , q  1/ 2 , a2  a3 , PL  1 , PR  1 . Then

F

1,

F1, 1 / 2 (  (a1 )) 

0.306  2  0.383  0.459
 0.383
4

F1, 1 / 2 (  (a2 )) 

0.206  2  0.295  0.367
 0.291
4

F1, 1 / 2 (  (a3 )) 

0.268  2  0.351  0.429
 0.350
4

F1, 1 / 2 (  (a4 )) 

0.276  2  0.358  0.428
 0.355
4

F1, 1 / 2 (  (a5 )) 

0.333  2  0.417  0.490
 0.414
4

1 (  (a5 )) 
2

F

1,

1 (  (a1 )) 
2

F

1,

1 (  (a4 )) 
2

F

1,

1 (  (a3 )) 
2

F

1,

1 (  (a2 ))
2

Therefore

 (a5 )   (a1 )   (a4 )   (a3 )   (a2 )
In other words, the optimal alternative is a5 , the fifth alternative is the best one.
The precedent method cann’t consider various conditions, so its result is not stabilitied. But the
suggested method in this paper is so considering all possible conditions that its result is stabilitied.

5. CONCLUSION
In this paper, we supported a model to determine the weight of criterias based on considering infimum
and supremum of information in case that the requirement information of decision makers were given in
various forms, and suggested a dividing algorithm of criterias’ set to determine the optimal alternative.
Also we defined a new final evaluation criterion and evaluated the effectiveness of suggested method
through solving actual problem.

11

REFERENCES
[1] J.Ma, Z.P.Fan, Y.P.Jiang, and J.Y.Mao, An optimization approach to multiperson decision making
based on different forms of preference imformation, IEEE Trans.Syst.,Man,Cybern. A,Syst.,Humans, 36, 5,
876-889, sep. 2006.
[2]

F.Herrera,

Multiperson

decision-making

based

on

multiplicative

preference relations,

Eur.J.Oper.Res., 129, 372-385, 2001
[3] Ze-Shui Xu, Jian Chen, An interactive method for fuzzy multiple attribute group decision making,
Information Sciences, 177, 248-263, 2007.
[4] Su Bian-Ping, Analys is of multiple linear regression based on gray system theory, Mathematics in
Practice and Theory, 36, 8, 219-223, 2006.
[5] D. M. Kilgour, Coalition analys is in group decision Support, Group Dec. Negotiation, 10, 159-175,
2001.
[6] L. Mikhailov, A Fuzzy programming method for deriving priorities in the analytic hierarchy process,
J. Oper. Res. Soc., 51, 2, 341-349, 2000.
[7] Predrag Prodanovic, Slobodan Simonovic, Fuzzy Compromise Programming for Group Decision
Making, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern. A Systems and Humans, 33, 3, 358-365, 2003.
[8] Ze-Shui Xu, Multiple-Attribute Group Decision Making With Different Formats of Preference
Information on Attributes, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part B, Cybernetics, 37, 6,
1500-1511, 2007.
[9] Xu Xuan-hua, Research of the Group Decision Making Based Kit Oriented Toward Compelx Large
Group, Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, 9, 9, 6053-6057, 2007
[10]. Zeng Xuelan, An Optimal Algorithm of Group Decision Making Based on Linguistic Fuzzy
Preference Information, Proceedings of the 26th Chinese Control Conference, 430-433, 2007.
[11] Qiang Zhang, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, October
8-11, Taipei, Taiwan, 3800-3803, 2006.
[12] Z.S.Xu, Uncertain Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Beijing, china:
Tsinghua Univ . press, 2004
[13] Abdoos Monireh, Mozayani Nasser. Fuzzy Decision Making based on Relationship Analys is
between Criteria, 2005 Annual Meeting of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society,
pp.743-747.

12

