METHODS OF FUZZY MULTICRITERIA GROUP DECISION-MAKING FOR EVACUATION TASKS IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to analyze the current state of research in the field of fuzzy
multicriteria optimization methods, as well as the development of aggregation operators and algorithms
using fuzzy multicriteria group decision-making using an intuitionistic attitude of linguistic
preferences. The most well-known fuzzy methods of multicriteria optimization are presented:
ELECTRE, PROMETHEE, VIKOR, TOPSIS, AHP, ANP, MACBETH, DEMATEL, Shoke integral
and DEA, their features, applications and the most cited articles are considered. Most real optimization
problems may have conflicting goals. The method of fuzzy multi-purpose decision-making
FMODM is also presented for situations where there are inaccuracies and uncertainty in some
goals and variables on which they depend; methods of fuzzy multi-purpose linear programming
FMOLP, fuzzy multi-objective target programming FMOGP and fuzzy heuristic decision-making
methods. The problem of fuzzy multicriteria group decision-making during evacuation with an
intuitive relation of linguistic preferences is considered. It is noted that fuzzy logic methods are
particularly suitable for making evacuation decisions when there is little data, knowledge of
cause-and-effect relationships is inaccurate, and observations and criteria can be expressed in
linguistic qualitative terms. The main stages of group making the best decision among alternatives
in a fuzzy environment are presented: combining expert assessments; obtaining a final assessment
for each alternative represented by a linguistic variable; ranking alternatives; group making the
most preferred decision. An approach to group decision-making with an intuitive preference relationship
based on aggregation procedures is proposed. The group model of decision-making and
the concept of fuzzy group decision and linguistic variables used in predicting an emergency situation
and planning evacuation are considered. It is noted that the well-known operators of ordered
weighted averaging OWA, LOWA do not take into account the weights of experts. The Low operator
is defined, which allows taking into account the weight values of experts, as well as an approach
to determining a fuzzy group solution of aFCS as a type 2 set. Algorithms for determining
a fuzzy group multicriteria solution based on aFCS are presented
References
«Akademiya», 2009.
2. Zade L.A. Ponyatie lingvisticheskoy peremennoy i ego primenenie k prinyatiyu priblizhennykh
resheniy [The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to making approximate decisions].
Moscow: Mir, 1976.
3. Garibaldi J.M., Jaroszewski M., Musikasuwan S. Nonstationary Fuzzy Sets, IEEE Transactions
on Fuzzy Systems, 2008, Vol. 16 (4), pp. 1072-1086.
4. Torra V. Hesitant fuzzy sets, Jour. Int. Intell. Syst., 2010, Vol. 25 (6), pp. 529-539.
5. Bender M.J., Simonovic S.P. A fuzzy compromise approach to water resource systems planning
under uncertainty, Fuzzy Sets Syst., 2000, Vol. 115 (1), pp. 35-44.
6. Vahdani B., Hadipour H. Extension of the ELECTRE method based on interval-valued fuzzy
sets, Soft Comput., 2011, Vol. 15 (3), pp. 569-579.
7. Rouyendegh B., Erkan T. An Application of the Fuzzy ELECTRE Method for Staff Selection,
Hum. Factor Ergon. Man., 2013, Vol. 23 (2), pp. 107-115.
8. Kaya T., Kahraman C. A fuzzy approach to ebanking website quality assessment based on an
integrated AHP-ELECTRE method, Technological and Economic Development of Economy,
2011, 17 (2), pp. 313-334.
9. Wu M.-C., Chen T.-Y. The ELECTRE multicriteria analysis approach based on Atanassov’s
intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Expert Syst. Appl., 2011, Vol. 38 (10), pp. 12318-12327.
10. Chen T.-Y. An ELECTRE-based outranking method for multiple criteria group decision making
using interval type-2 fuzzy sets, Inform. Sciences, 2014, Vol. 263, pp. 1-21.
11. Goumas M., Lygerou V. An extension of the PROMETHEE method for decision making in
fuzzy environment: Ranking of alternative energy exploitation projects, Eur. Jour. Oper. Res.,
2000, Vol. 123 (3), pp. 606-613.
12. Chang T.H. Fuzzy VIKOR method: A case study of the hospital service evaluation in Taiwan,
Inform. Sciences, 2014, Vol. 271, pp. 196-212.
13. Kacprzyk J., Zadrozny S., Nurmi H., Bozhenyuk A. Towards Innovation Focused Fuzzy Decision
Making, IEEE Int. Conf. on Fuzzy Systems, 2021, pp. 256-268.
14. Ebrahimnejad S., et. el. Risk ranking in mega projects by fuzzy compromise approach:
A comparative analysis, Jour. Intell. Fuzzy Systems, 2014, Vol. 26 (2), pp. 949-959.
15. Sanayei A., Mousavi S.F., Yazdankhah A. Group decision making process for supplier selection
with VIKOR under fuzzy environment, Expert Syst. Appl., 2010, Vol. 37 (1), pp. 24-30.
16. Chen S., Hwang C.L. Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and Applications.
Springer Verlag, 1992.
17. Ye F., Li Y.N. An extended TOPSIS model based on the Possibility theory under fuzzy environment,
Knowl.-Based Systems, 2014, Vol. 67, pp. 263-269.
18. Boran F.E., et. al. A multicriteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection
with TOPSIS method, Expert Systems Appl., 2009, Vol. 36 (8), pp. 11363-11368.
19. Zeng J., An M., Smith N.J. Application of a fuzzy based decision making methodology to construction
project risk assessment, Int. Jour. of Project Management, 2007, Vol. 25 (6), pp. 589-600.
20. Rodzin S., Rodzina O. Metaheuristics memes and biogeography for trans computational combinatorial
optimization problems, Proc. of the 6th Int. Conf. – Cloud System and Big Data Engineering,
2016, pp. 1-5.
21. Xu Z., Liao H. Intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Systems,
2014, Vol. 22 (4), pp. 749-761.
22. Wang Y., et. al. Selecting a cruise port of call location using the fuzzy-AHP method: A case
study in East Asia, Tourism Management, 2014, Vol. 42, pp. 262-270.
23. El-Khatib S., Rodzin S., Skobtsov Yu. Investigation of optimal heuristical parameters for mixed
ACO-k-means segmentation algorithm for MRI images, Proc. 3rd Int. Scientific Conf. on Information
Technologies in Science, Management, Social Sphere and Medicine (ITSMSSM),
2016, Vol. 51, pp. 216-221.
24. Cho J., Lee J. Development of a new technology product evaluation model for assessing
commercialization opportunities using Delphi method and fuzzy AHP approach, Expert Syst.
Appl., 2013, Vol. 40 (13), pp. 5314-5330.
25. Chan F.T.S., Kumar N. Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy extended
AHP-based approach, Omega-Int. Jour. Manage Syst., 2007, Vol. 35 (4), pp. 417-431.
26. Saaty T.L. Theory and applications of the analytic network process. RWS Publications, 2005.
27. Onut S., Kara S.S., Isik E. Long term supplier selection using a combined fuzzy MCDM approach:
A case study for a telecommunication company, Expert Syst. Appl., 2009, Vol. 36 (2),
pp. 3887-3895.
28. Pourjavad E., Shirouyehzad H. Evaluating manufacturing systems by fuzzy ANP: A case
study, Int. Jour. of Appl. Manag. Science, 2014, Vol. 6 (1), pp. 65-83.
29. Tadic S., et. al. A novel hybrid MCDM model based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and f
VIKOR for city logistics concept selection, Expert Systems with Appl., 2014, Vol. 41 (18),
pp. 8112-8128.
30. Ertay T. et. al. Evaluation of renewable energy alternatives using MACBETH and fuzzy AHP
multicriteria methods: the case of Turkey, Technological and Economic Development of Economy,
2013, Vol. 19 (1), pp. 38-62.
31. Chang B., Chang C.-W., Wu C.-H. Fuzzy DEMATEL method for developing supplier selection
criteria, Expert Syst Appl., 2011, Vol. 38 (3), pp. 1850-1858.
32. Wu W.-W., Lee Y.-T. Developing global managers’ competencies using the fuzzy DEMATEL
method, Expert Syst. Appl., 2007, Vol. 32 (2), pp. 499-507.
33. Xu Z. Choquet integrals of weighted intuitionistic fuzzy information, Inform. Sciences., 2010,
Vol. 180 (5), pp. 726-736.
34. Liu S.-T. A fuzzy DEA/AR approach to the selection of flexible manufacturing systems,
Comput. Ind. Eng., 2008, Vol. 54 (1), pp. 66-76.
35. Nogin V.D. Prinyatie resheniy pri mnogikh kriteriyakh [Decision-making under many criteria].
St. Petersburg: Izd-vo «YuTAS», 2007.
36. Borisov A.I. Prinyatie resheniy na osnove nechetkikh modeley [Decision-making based on
fuzzy models]. Moscow: Nauka, 1990.
37. Larichev O.I. Verbal'nyy analiz resheniy [Verbal analysis of solutions]. Moscow: Nauka, 2006.
38. Podinovskiy V.V. Pareto-optimal'nye resheniya mnogokriterial'nykh zadach [Pareto-optimal
solutions to multi-criteria problems]. Moscow: Fizmatlit, 2007.
39. Rodzin S.I., Rodzina L.S. Bioinspirirovannyy poisk resheniy: teoriya i prilozheniya dlya
obrabotki problemno-orientirovannykh znaniy v geoinformatike [Bioinspired search for solutions:
theory and applications for processing problem-oriented knowledge in geoinformatics],
Izvestiya YuFU. Tekhnicheskie nauki [Izvestiya SFedU. Engineering Sciences], 2015, No. 4,
pp. 203-216.
40. Kahraman C., Cevik S., Oztaysi B. Fuzzy Multicriteria Decision-Making: A Literature Review,
Int. Jour. of Computational Intelligence Systems, 2015, No. 8 (4), pp. 637-666.
41. Rodzin S.I. Bioevristiki mnogokriterial'noy optimizatsii: proektirovanie i gibridizatsiya [Bio
heuristics of multicriteria optimization: design and hybridization], Tr. mezhd. kongressa
IS&IT'18 [Proceedings of the international congress IS&IT'18]. Taganrog: Izd-vo Stupina
S.A., 2018, Vol. 1, pp. 33-47.
42. Gerasimenko E.M., Kureychik V.V., Rodzin S.I., Kukharenko A.P. Primenenie nechetkoy logiki
dlya prinyatiya resheniy ob evakuatsii pri navodnenii [Application of fuzzy logic for decisionmaking
on evacuation in case of flooding], Izvestiya YuFU. Tekhnicheskie nauki [Izvestiya
SFedU. Engineering Sciences], 2022, No. 4, pp. 15-29.
43. Rodzina O.N. Problemno-orientirovannye algoritmy myagkikh vychisleniy [Problem-oriented
algorithms of soft computing]. Cheboksary: Izdatel'skiy dom «Sreda», 2020, 96 p.
44. Atanassov K. Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets: Theory and Applications. Physica, 1999.
45. Szmidt E., Kacprzyk J. Using intuitionistic fuzzy sets in group decision making, Control and
Cybernetics, 2002, Vol. 31, pp. 1055-1057.
46. Yager R.R. On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decision
making, IEEE Trans. on systems. Man and Cybernetics, 1988, Vol. 18 (1), pp. 183-190.
47. Llamazares B. Choosing OWA operator weights in the field of Social Choice, Information
Sciences, 2007, Vol. 177 (21), pp. 4745-4756.
