Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JOURNAL
OF OPERATIONAL
RESEARCH
ELSEVIER European Journal of Operational Research 95 (1996) 649-655
Abstract
In this paper, a new approach for handling fuzzy AHP is introduced, with the use of triangular fuzzy numbers for
pairwise comprison scale of fuzzy AHP, and the use of the extent analysis method for the synthetic extent value Si of the
pairwise comparison. By applying the principle of the comparison of fuzzy numbers, that is, V ( M l >1M 2) = 1 iff mj >i
m z, V ( M z >/M~) = hgt(M~ A M z) =/xM,(d), the vectors of weight with respect to each element under a certain criterion are
represented by d( A i) = min V(S i >1 Sk), k = 1, 2 . . . . . n; k -4=i. This decision process is demonstrated by an example.
Keywords: Fuzzy AHP; Triangular fuzzy mumbers;Extent analysis; Comparisonof fuzzy numbers
1) exists x 0 ~ R such that /,,~M(Xo) ~-- 1. where all the Mgij ( j = 1, 2, , m ) are triangular
"'"
2) For any a ~ [0, 1], fuzzy numbers.
Aa=[x,/xA~ (x)>la] Definition 3. L e t M g l, , M g2, , . . . . M g,m be values of
is a closed interval.Here F(R) represents all fuzzy extent analysis of ith object for m goals. Then the
sets, and R is the set of real numbers. value of fuzzy synthetic extent with respect to the
i-th object is defined as [1]
Definition 2. We define a fuzzy number M on R to
be a triangular fuzzy number if its membership
function /XM(X): R ~ [0, 1] is equal to
Si= ~ M~ O M~ . (7)
j=l i j=l
Table 2
C 1 C2 C3 C4 WC
Cl (1, 1, 1) (0.86, 1.17, 1.56) (0.67, 1, 1.5) (0.33, 0.39, 0.49) 0.13
C2 (0.64, 0.85, 1.16) (1, 1, 1) (2.5, 3, 3.5) (0.95, 1.33, 1.83) 0.41
C3 (0.87, 1, 1.49) (0.29, 0.33, 0.40) (1, 1, 1) (0.4, 0.5, 0.67) 0.03
Ca (2.04, 2.56, 3.03) (0.55, 0.75, 1.05) (1.49, 2, 2.5) (1, 1, 1) 0.43
Table 3c Table 3d
The matrix -~3 The matrix ~ 4
C3 AI A2 A3 C4 At A2 A3
A, (I, I, l) (~,3, ~) (-~,3, ½) A, (1, 1, l) - q, 2, ~)
q, 3, -~)
(½, 2, ~)
A2 - (1, I, I) (~, 2, ~)
A2 (2, ~, 2) (1, 1, 1) q, 1, ~)
(÷, ~, ~) , _2) 2 ~ :_.) (1, 1, 1)
(3, 2, -~)
Table 3a'
Ci A1 A2 A3 Wc,
A~ (1, 1, 1) (0.67, 1, 1.5) (0.54, 0.75, 1.1) 0.28
A2 (0.67, I, 1.5) (1, 1, 1) (0.4, 0.5, 0.6) 0.21
A3 (0.91, 1.33, 1.85) (1.5, 2, 2.5) (1, 1, 1) 0.51
Table 3b'
C2 Al A2 A3 Wc2
A~ (0.33, 0.33, 0.34) (0.28, 0.33, 0.39) (0.25, 0.33, 0.42) 0.66
A2 (0.29, 0.33, 0.4) (0.33, 0.33, 0.34) - 0.16
A3 (0.24, 0.32, 0.43) - (0.33, 0.33, 0.34) 0.19
Table 3c'
C3 At A2 m3 Wcs
AI (0.33, 0.33, 0.34) (0.27, 0.33, 0.40) (0.28, 0.33, 0.39) 0.35
A2 (0.29, 0.32, 0.4) (0.33, 0.33, 0.34) (0.21, 0.32, 0.47) 0.33
As (0.28, 0.32, 0.39) (0.21, 0.32, 0.47) (0.33, 0.33, 0.34) 0.32
654 D.-Y. Chang~European Journal of Operational Research 95 (1996) 649-655
Table 3d'
C4 A~ A2 WA 3 Wc 4
AI (1, 1, 1) - (0.95, 1.25, 1.59) 0.22
A2 (1, l, l) (1.5, 2, 2.5) 0.42
A3 (0.95, 1.25, 1.59) (0.4, 0.5, 0.67) (l, 1, l) 0.36
As before, these matrices are used to estimate Let us to count the number of times of multiplica-
weights, in this case the weights of each candidate tion with respect to the two methods, respectively.
under each criterion separately. The results are given Formulas (7), (10) and (14) are major formulas of
in Table 4. EAM. In formula (7), to count S i (i = 1, 2 . . . . . n),
Finally, adding the weights per candidate multi- we need to use multiplication 6n times. In formula
plied by the weights of the corresponding criteria, a (10), via pairwise comparison of S~, S2 . . . . . S,, the
final score is obtained for each candidate. Table 5 number of times of multiplication is
shows these scores.
p2=n(n-1).
The ordering relation between the candidates is
exactly the same as in [3]. According to the final Finally, in formula (14), we also need to use multi-
scores, it is clear that candidate A~ is the preferred plication n times.
candidate. Therefore, the time complexity of EAM is
T,=6n+n(n-1)+n=n(n+6). (15)
6. Comparison of the extent analysis method and In the LLSM, the normalized weight vectors are
LLSM