Decision Making Methods Based On Fuzzy Aggregation Operators

2nd Reading
March 7, 2018 2:50:24pm WSPC/173-IJITDM 1830001 ISSN: 0219-6220
International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making

Vol. 17 (2018)
°c World Scienti¯c Publishing Company
DOI: 10.1142/S021962201830001X
Decision Making Methods Based on Fuzzy

Aggregation Operators: Three Decades
Review From 1986 to 2017
Abbas Mardani*,||, Mehrbakhsh Nilashi†,‡,**,

Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas§,††,
Siti Rahmah Awang*,‡‡, Habib Zare¶,§§ and
Noriza Mohd Jamal*,¶¶
*Faculty of Management
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
81310 UTM Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia
†
Faculty of Computing
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
81310 Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
‡
Department of Computer Engineering, Lahijan Branch
Islamic Azad University, Lahijan, Iran
§
Institute of Sustainable Construction
Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
Sauletekio al. 11, Vilnius LT-10223, Lithuania
¶
Faculty of Economic, Management & Accounting
Yazd University, Yazd, Iran
||abbas@management.utm.my; mabbas3@live.utm.my
**nilashidotnet@homail.com
††
edmundas.zavadskas@vgtu.lt
‡‡atieawang@hotmail.com
§§
dr.zarehabib@gmail.com
¶¶
m-noriza@utm.my
Published
In many real-life decision making (DM) situations, the available information is vague or
imprecise. To adequately solve decision problems with vague or imprecise information, fuzzy set
theory and aggregation operator theory have become powerful tools. In last three decades,
DM theories and methods under fuzzy aggregation operator have been proposed and developed
for e®ectively solving the DM problems and numerous applications have been reported in the
literature. While various aggregation operators have been suggested and developed, there is a
lack of research regarding systematic literature review and classi¯cation of study in this ¯eld.
Regarding this, Web of Science database has been nominated and systematic and meta-analysis
method called \PRISMA" has been proposed. Accordingly, a review of 312 published articles
appearing in 33 popular journals related to fuzzy set theory, aggregation operator theory and
DM approaches between July 1986 and June 2017 have been attained to reach a comprehensive
review of DM methods and aggregation operator environment. Consequently, the selected
||,§§ Corresponding authors.
1
2nd Reading
2 A. Mardani et al.
published articles have been categorized by name of author(s), the publication year, technique,
application area, country, research contribution and journals in which they appeared. The
¯ndings of this study found that, ordered weighted averaging (OWA) has been the highest
frequently accessed more than other areas. This systematic review shows that the DM theories
under fuzzy aggregation operator environment have received a great deal of interest from
researchers and practitioners in many disciplines.
Keywords: Fuzzy set theory; fuzzy aggregation operators; multiple criteria decision making;
ordered weighted averaging; PRISMA; systematic review.
1. Introduction
Decision making (DM) is a process that all humans carry out many times in their
daily activities and it consists in choosing, among several possible actions, the one
that is considered to give better pro¯t.1 An important part of the DM process is the
way that experts express their preferences about a set of possible alternatives.2 The
chosen method for the recollection and storage of the expert's information is vital
because, if it is not intuitive for them, they will not be able to express themselves
correctly. In such a case, the DM process would be hindered. Linguistic modeling
and multi-granular fuzzy linguistic model (FLM) methods can be used in order to
solve this problem.3,4 Aggregation operators play a very important role in many
¯elds such as DM. Aggregation operators play a very important role in many ¯elds
such as DM.5–11 Supply chain,12 personnel evaluation,13 ¯nancial investment.14
Bobillo and Straccia,5 combined aggregation operators and fuzzy ontologies. Ma
et al.15 proposed some two-tuple linguistic aggregation operators based on the
subjective sensation scale and objective numerical scale. Wang et al.,16 proposed a
decision-making technique based on a cloud model for solving problems of Multi-
Criteria Group Decision-Making (MCGDM) in the situations where the criteria
weights are known completely. Wang et al.17 proposed intuitionistic interval numbers
for solving problems regarding the MCGDM and de¯ned its operational laws and
comparison method. Zhou et al.18 introduced Intuitionistic Hesitant Linguistic Sets
(IHLSs) based on Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Sets (HFLSs) and Intuitionistic Linguistic
Sets (ILSs). Wang and Wang19 presented a novel triangular intuitionistic fuzzy ag-
gregation operator to solve MCDM problems. The selection of the most suitable
classi¯cation among a set of feasible ones and according to a set of prede¯ned criteria
can be faced as a Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) approach. Each clas-
si¯cation (alternative) is assessed by each of the considered criteria (evaluations).
MCDM problems normally consist of two steps20: aggregation and exploitation.
The aggregation step consists of combining with each alternative the single
evaluations into a collective evaluation in such a way that it summarizes the con-
ditions expressed in all the evaluations. The exploitation phase transforms the global
evaluation of the alternatives into a ranking of the alternatives. This can be done in
di®erent ways, the most common being the use of a ranking method to obtain a score
function.21 Many di®erent families of aggregation operators have been studied by
Wang and Liu,22 Zhu et al.,23 Jin et al.,24 Zeng et al.,25 Shouzhen and Yao,26
2nd Reading
Decision Making Methods Based on Fuzzy Aggregation Operators 3
Shouzhen,27 Qin et al.,28 Zeng et al.,29 Dymova et al.,30 Zhu et al.31 and Peng et al.32
Among them the Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA) operator proposed by Yager33
is one of the most widely used. Among the reasons to support this extensive use of the
OWA operator is that it allows the implementation of the concept of fuzzy majority
in the aggregation phase by means of a fuzzy linguistic quanti¯er Zadeh34 repre-
senting the proportion of satis¯ed criteria \necessary for a good solution".35 This is
done by using the linguistic quanti¯er in the computation of the weights associated
with the OWA operator. The most representative fuzzy integrals are the Choquet
integral and the Sugeno integral.36–39 It is well known that the OWA operator is a
particular case of Choquet integral, and consequently it is not necessary to assume
independence of criteria when using the OWA operator.40 Generally speaking, the
OWA operator based aggregation process consists of three steps: The ¯rst step is to
re-order the input arguments in descending order, the second step is to de¯ne the
weights for each operator and the third step, and the OWA weights were employed
to aggregate these re-ordered arguments.
In the literature, several aggregation operators have been developed by
researchers to aggregate numerical data in di®erent situations. Currently, at
least 90 di®erent families of aggregation operators have been studied Zhu
et al.8,23,28,30,32,36,38,40–50 The objective of the aggregation step is to combine a set of
criteria in such a way that the ¯nal aggregation output takes the entire single cri-
terion into account.51 The ¯nal selection of classi¯cations naturally derives from this
set of overall degrees and therefore valuable classi¯cations are not discarded for
having failed to meet few criteria. In recent years, previous studies have widely
conducted the systematic review in various areas by using di®erent techniques
and methods. Among these, some of the previous scholars reviewed MCDM
techniques52–61 and aggregation operators' area by using di®erent techniques
and methods individually.62–65 For example, He et al.66 studied about the OWA
operators based on 1213 bibliographic records between 1988 and 2015. This paper
analyzed the published papers based on several criteria such as in°uential journals,
disciplinary distribution, in°uential authors, in°uential journals and most cited
papers. In addition, Yu67 used CiteSpace II software for analyzing and visualizing the
aggregation operator development. The results of this paper showed the close rela-
tionship among di®erent clusters of important authors and the main journals.
Although some previous studies such as He et al.66 and Yu67 analyzed the published
papers regarding the development of pure aggregation operators based on biblio-
metric indicators, however, there is a lack in the previous studies concerning the
systematic review of hybrid MCDM and aggregation operators. In addition, further
study is needed to review hybrid MCDM and aggregation operators, since hybrid
MCDM and aggregation operators are still extensive and the application of these
methods in this domain are less mature compared to its usage in other research ¯elds.
Therefore, previous published articles on hybrid MCDM and aggregation operators
need to be reviewed to provide a comprehensive view towards the next generation of
hybrid MCDM and aggregation operators. In this review study, we systematically
2nd Reading
4 A. Mardani et al.
reviewed and classi¯ed selected articles which used hybrid MCDM and aggregation
operators published between July 1986 and June 2017. The aim of this review study
is to present an outline application of hybrid MCDM and aggregation operators.
2. Research Methodology
For our research methodology, this review paper proposed the Preferred Reporting
Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) provided by Moher
et al.68 PRISMA statement has two main parts including systematic reviews and
meta-analyses. Systematic reviews provide objective summaries of what has been
written and found out about research topics. This is especially valuable in wide
research areas, where many publications exist, each focusing on a narrow aspect of
the ¯eld.69 Systematic reviews aim to provide a full overview of research conducted
on a speci¯c ¯eld until the present date. All research procedures have to be made
explicitly before the actual conduct of the review to make the process objective and
replicable. Meta-analysis presents a means of mathematically integrating ¯ndings
employing diverse statistical approach from a diverse of previous articles. In this kind
of synthesis, primary studies that are compatible in their quality level are selected.70
This may help and highlight di®erent facts which individual primary studies fail to
do, e.g., it may prove that results are statistically considerable and important when
small primary studies provide questionable and uncertain results with large con¯-
dence interval.71 The main goal of PRISMA statement is to help researchers and
practitioners for completing the report of clear literature review.72 Several of the
previous studies have conducted PRISMA statement in various ¯elds to collect a
comprehensive literature review.72–74 In our review study, for conducting of PRISMA
method, we accomplished three main steps including; search in literature, choosing
the eligible published papers, extraction of data and summarizing.
2.1. Literature search

In this step, we have nominated Web of Science database to present a comprehensive
published studies in the areas of aggregation operators and DM. The literature
search was accomplished based on various keywords such as: \hesitant fuzzy set and
DM, two-tuple linguistic and DM, intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS) and DM, interval-
valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets (IVIFSs) and DM, type-2 fuzzy set (T2FS) and DM,
OWA and DM and fuzzy Choquet integral operator and DM". We attempted to
collect the current published papers from July 1986 and June 2017. In total, 8771
scholarly papers were extracted according to our strategy search. In the next step, we
checked the duplicated papers with redundant information and not relevance studies
after these steps 4430 papers were remained. Then, we removed 540 records due to
duplicates and 3890 records were not relevant, after this step, we screened papers
based on titles and abstracts and irrelevant papers were removed and in total 1490 of
potentially related papers were remaining (see Fig. 1).
2nd Reading

Identification
Search in database for aggregation operators and DM (1986-2017)

Science Direct (n=5,148); Emerald (n= 317); Springer (n= 41); Wiley (n=
1,227); Sage Publications (196); Taylor & Francis (n= 1,634); IEEE (n=208)
Total (n= 8,771)
Removed records due to duplicates

(n= 540)
Removed irrelevant papers

(n= 3,890)
Screening
Screened records based of abstract review

(n = 4,430)
Excluded records based of
abstract review
(n= 2,904)
Assessed full-text articles for eligibility

(n= 1,490)
Eligibility
Studies included in qualitative Excluded full-text articles,

synthesis with reasons
(n= 763) (n= 550)
Identified papers in references

(n= 40)
Included
Suggested papers by reviewers

(n= 59)
Included articles for meta-analysis

(n= 312)
Fig. 1. Study °owchart for the identi¯cation, screening, eligibility and inclusion of articles.
2.2. Articles eligibility

In this step of the review, for the purpose of eligibility, we reviewed the full text of
each manuscript independently which was extracted from the last step. In the last
step, we carefully identi¯ed the related articles to attain a consensus. Articles
which had used DM approaches and aggregation operators were chosen. Book
chapters, unpublished working papers, editorial notes, master dissertations and
2nd Reading
6 A. Mardani et al.
doctoral theses, textbooks, non-English papers were excluded. Several of the

previous studies only have used other methods such as MCDM approaches and
fuzzy set with other mathematical approaches. For selecting the papers related
to the DM approaches and aggregation operators, in this step we also excluded
those studies which used other mathematics approaches. In the end, we selected
213 articles related to DM approaches and aggregation operators. In addition,
we identi¯ed 40 papers in the references from 33 scholarly international journals
and conferences between July 1986 and June 2017 which met our inclusion
criteria and ¯nally 59 papers suggested by reviewers in the ¯rst revision of this
manuscript.
2.3. Data extraction and summarizing

In the ¯nal step of our methodology, 312 articles were reviewed and summarized.
In the following, all selected articles were classi¯ed into di®erent classi¯cations
(see Table 1). In addition, articles were summarized and reviewed based on various
criteria such as: author(s) name, the year of publication, technique, country, study
contribution and journals in which they appeared. We believe that the reviewing,
summarizing and classifying of articles can help us to achieve various critical and
important hints. Consequently, some suggestions and recommendations for future
studies were proposed. Furthermore, we believe that, this review paper was ac-
complished very carefully and it presented a comprehensive source regarding the DM
approaches and aggregation operators. It should be noted that the main di±culty
during using PRISMA method was about implicit expressing of methodologies in the
abstract and research method section of the selected articles. Thus, we required to go
through the full content of articles and take a deeper look with more details to DM
approaches and aggregation operator. Although a considerable amount of time in
selection step was spent, it helped us to choose the most suitable publications in
conducting this review.
3. Results
3.1. Application areas classi¯cation
Although categorizing and combining articles in ¯elds of DM and aggregation
operator is complex, for this classi¯cation, we used the opinions of experts. Conse-
quently, based on opinions of experts, we categorized articles in nine di®erent
application areas including: hesitant fuzzy set, two-tuple linguistic, IFS, IVIFSs,
type-2 fuzzy sets (T2FSs), OWA, fuzzy Choquet integral operator, Pythagorean
fuzzy set (PFS) and other OWA operators (see Table 1). In the following section, all
selected articles were summarized and reviewed based on various criteria including:
author(s) name, the year of publication, technique, country, study contribution and
journals in which they appeared.
2nd Reading
Table 1. Classi¯cation of paper based on DM and aggregation

operators.
Classi¯cation Frequently Percentage
Hesitant Fuzzy Set 35 11.22%

Fuzzy Choquet integral 22 7.05%
Type-2 Fuzzy Sets (T2FSs) 12 3.85%
2-Tuple Linguistic 22 7.05%
IVIFSs 34 10.90%
OWA 81 25.96%
IFS 23 7.37%
PFS 29 9.29%
Other Aggregation Operators 54 17.31%
Total 312 100.00%
3.1.1. Hesitant fuzzy set

Several of the previous studies have investigated the application of DM approaches
and aggregation operators in di®erent ¯elds. Because of the advantages in dealing
with uncertainty and fuzziness, wide attention has been paid to hesitant fuzzy sets by
previous researchers. Hesitant fuzzy sets are very valuable for dealing with GDM
problems when experts have a hesitation between various potential memberships for
each factor to a set. In these regards, Torra75 suggested the new hesitant fuzzy set
having the possible values set and discussed the relationship between IFS and hes-
itant fuzzy set and found that IFS can be covered through hesitant fuzzy set. Xia
and Xu,76 presented some new hesitant fuzzy sets and suggested some operators
under several conditions and discussed about the relationship among them. Xu
and Xia77 suggested the various distance measures regarding the hesitant fuzzy
sets and extended the various measures related to hesitant ordered weighted simi-
larity and hesitant ordered weighted distance. Xu and Xia78 suggested the correla-
tion and distance measures regarding the hesitant fuzzy set and discussed about the
relationship in detail. Xia et al.,79 extended various types of aggregation operators for
hesitant fuzzy set and helping with quasi-arithmetic means. Wei et al.80 extended
two di®erent aggregation operators related to hesitant fuzzy Choquet integral for
solving multiple attribute DM problems, these two operators were Hesitant Fuzzy
Choquet Ordered Geometric (HFCOG) operator and Hesitant Fuzzy Choquet
Ordered Averaging (HFCOA). In addition, they suggested two di®erent operators
including the Generalized Hesitant Fuzzy Choquet Ordered Geometric (GHFCOG)
and Generalized Hesitant Fuzzy Choquet Ordered Averaging (GHFCOA). Accord-
ing to the ideal of ranked M aggregation operators, (Refs. 81 and 82), Wei83 extended
some di®erent prioritized aggregation operators regarding the aggregating hesitant
fuzzy information, and then used them for extending of some methods for solving
hesitant fuzzy Multi Attribute Decision Making (MADM) problems. Zhu et al.84
presented some operators for solving MCDM problems; these operators were the
Hesitant Fuzzy Choquet Geometric Bonferroni Mean (HFCGBM), the Weighted
2nd Reading
8 A. Mardani et al.
Hesitant Fuzzy Geometric Bonferroni Mean (WHFGBM), Weighted Hesitant Fuzzy

Choquet Geometric Bonferroni Mean (WHFCGBM) and the Hesitant Fuzzy Geo-
metric Bonferroni Mean (HFGBM). Gu et al.85 examined the assessment method for
risk investment with hesitant fuzzy set. They employed the Hesitant Fuzzy Weighted
Averaging (HFWA) to aggregate the hesitant fuzzy set corresponding to each option,
and ranked the options and choose the most desirable one (s) based on the score
function. Wang et al.86 suggested some measures including Hesitant Fuzzy Ordered
Weighted Distance (GHFOWD), Generalized Hesitant Fuzzy Weighted Distance
(GHFWD) and the Generalized Hesitant Fuzzy Hybrid Weighted Distance
(GHFHWD) based on Xu and Xia77 study. Wang et al.87 proposed three types of
distance measures related to dual hesitant fuzzy sets based on Archimedean t-conorm
and t-norm for dual hesitant fuzzy information. Wang et al.88 used the linguistic scale
functions for conducting the transformation between qualitative information and
quantitative data based on hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets (HFLTSs). Zhou and
Xu89 introduced the discrete ¯tting aggregation and simpli¯ed optimal discrete ¯tting
aggregation for solving problems of group DM. Chen et al.90 proposed some operators
such as proportional HFLTSs (PHFLTSs), Proportional Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic
Weighted Averaging (PHFLWA) and Proportional Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic
Ordered Weighted Averaging (PHFLOWA) for using the description of hesitant
situations. Lee and Chen91 proposed new fuzzy MCDM and fuzzy group DM based on
likelihood-based comparison relations of HFLTs, HFLWA, Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic
Weighted Geometric (HFLWG), HFLOWA and Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Ordered
Weighted Geometric (HFLOWG). Meng et al.92 de¯ned a new class of fuzzy sets called
Linguistic Hesitant Fuzzy Sets (LHFSs) based on LHFSs, Generalized Linguistic
Hesitant Fuzzy Hybrid Weighted Averaging (GLHFHWA), Generalized Linguistic
Hesitant Fuzzy Hybrid Geometric Mean (GLHFHGM), Generalized Linguistic Hes-
itant Fuzzy Hybrid Shapley Weighted Averaging (GLHFHSWA) and Generalized
Linguistic Hesitant Fuzzy Hybrid Shapley Geometric Mean (GLHFHSGM). Peng
et al.93 presented a Generalized Hesitant Fuzzy Synergetic Weighted Distance
(GHFSWD) measure and Generalized Hesitant Fuzzy Weighted Distance
(GHFWD). Chen et al.94 introduced a new type of fuzzy preference structure, called
interval-valued hesitant preference relations, to describe uncertain evaluation infor-
mation in Group DM (GDM) processes. According to the literature and previous
studies, Table 2 shows valuable distribution results of DM methods and aggregation
operators based on author(s) name, the year of publication, technique and research
contribution. Findings shown in this table indicate that 35 papers have used DM
methods and aggregation operators. Table 2 presents all the information regarding the
papers that were published in the ¯eld of DM methods and aggregation operators.
3.1.2. Fuzzy Choquet integral operator

Choquet116 investigated fuzzy integrals as an important type and powerful tool
for modeling in various application areas with various factors. The main di®erence
2nd Reading
Table 2. Distribution of papers based on hesitant fuzzy set.
Authors Year Techniques and approaches Study contribution

87
Wang et al. 2016 Interval-valued hesitant Proposed three types of distance measures
fuzzy sets IVHFSs related to dual hesitant fuzzy sets based on
Archimedean t-conorm and t-norm for dual
hesitant fuzzy information.
Qin et al.7 2016 Hesitant fuzzy set Developed some new aggregation operators
based on Frank t-norms for hesitant fuzzy
set (HFS).
He et al.95 2016 IVHFSs Proposed the novel ranking approach for
IVHFSs.
Farhadinia96 2016 HFLTSs Introduced the entropy measure HFLTSs.
Zhu et al.31 2016 Linguistic hesitant fuzzy Examined MADM problems by using linguistic
information hesitant fuzzy information.
Chen et al.90 2016 Hesitant fuzzy linguistic Proposed some operators such as proportional
HFLTSs, proportional HFLTSs
(PHFLTSs), PHFLWA and PHFLOWA
operators for using the description of
hesitant situations.
Wang and Xu97 2016 Extended hesitant fuzzy Extended the total orders of EHFLTSs by using
linguistic term sets aggregation functions.
(EHFLTSs)
Liao et al.98 2015 Hesitant fuzzy element Introduced the new correlation coe±cient
for measurement of two HFSs including
hesitant fuzzy element (HFE), the hesitant
degree of a HFE.
Liao et al.99 2015 Hesitant fuzzy linguistic Introduced the new approach based on
term sets (EHFLTSs) correlation coe±cients of hesitant fuzzy
linguistic term sets (EHFLTSs) and
correlation measures.
Wang et al.88 2015 Hesitant fuzzy linguistic Used the linguistic scale functions for conduct-
ing the transformation between qualitative
information and quantitative data based on
HFLTSs.
Zhou and Xu89 2015 Hesitant fuzzy set Introduced the discrete ¯tting aggregation and
simpli¯ed optimal discrete ¯tting aggrega-
tion for solving problems of group DM.
Peng et al.32 2015 Extended elimination and Extended ELECTRE method with MHFSs for
choice expressing reality solving MCDM problems.
(ELECTRE) and multi-
hesitant fuzzy sets
(MHFSs)
Chen and Xu100 2015 Hesitant fuzzy sets Proposed a novel model based ELECTRE II
(HFSs)-ELECTRE II and hesitant fuzzy sets (HFSs) for handling
the divers' ideas for solving MCDM
problems.
Wang and Xu101 2015 Linguistic preference rela- Presented the concept of EHFLPRs.
tions (LPRs), Extended
hesitant fuzzy linguistic
term sets (EHFLTSs)
and extended hesitant
fuzzy linguistic
preference relations
(EHFLPRs)
2nd Reading
10 A. Mardani et al.
Table 2. (Continued )
Lee and Chen91 2015 Hesitant fuzzy linguistic Proposed new fuzzy MCDM and fuzzy group
DM based on likelihood-based comparison
relations of HFLTSs, HFLWA, HFLWG,
HFLOWA and HFLOWG.
Meng et al.102 2014 Induced Generalized De¯ned two Induced Generalized Hesitant
Hesitant Fuzzy Shapley Fuzzy Hybrid (IGHFH) Operators
Hybrid Weighted including; Induced Generalized Hesitant
Averaging (IG- Fuzzy Shapley Hybrid Weighted Averaging
HFSHWA) and Induced (IG-HFSHWA) and IG-HFSHGM
Generalized Hesitant operators.
Fuzzy Shapley Hybrid
Geometric Mean
(IG-HFSHGM)
Liao et al.103 2014 Hesitant fuzzy linguistic Investigated and developed di®erent types
of distance and similarity measures for
HFLTSs.
Wang et al.104 2014 HFLTSs Suggested an approach of multi-criteria
decision-making based on HFLTSs.
Wang et al.105 2014 Interval-Valued Hesitant Developed two kinds of prioritized aggregation
Fuzzy Linguistic Set operators of Interval-Valued Hesitant Fuzzy
(IVHFLS) Linguistic Numbers (IVHFLNs) for MCDM
problems.
Meng et al.92 2014 LHFSs, GLHFHWA, De¯ned a new class of fuzzy sets called LHFSs
GLHFHGM, based on LHFSs, GLHFHWA, GLHFHGM,
GLHFHSWA and GLHFHSWA.
Zhang and Xu106 2014 Linear Programming Employed LINMAP for present interval
Technique for Multidi- programming to solve problems in MAGDM
mensional Analysis of methods.
Preference (LINMAP)
Zhang and Wu107 2014 Hesitant fuzzy linguistic Proposed a characterization about the
preference relations multiplicative consistency of HFLPRs.
(HFLPRs)
Rodríguez et al.108 2013 Hesitant fuzzy linguistic Proposed a new linguistic group decision model
that facilitates the elicitation of °exible and
rich linguistic expressions.
Zhang109 2013 Hesitant fuzzy power Developed a wide range of hesitant fuzzy power
aggregation operators aggregation operators for hesitant fuzzy
information.
Xu and Zhang110 2013 Hesitant fuzzy set and Developed a novel approach based on TOPSIS
Technique for Order of and the maximizing deviation method for
Preference by Similarity solving MADM problems.
to Ideal Solution
(TOPSIS)
Qian et al.111 2013 Generalized hesitant fuzzy Extended T-HFSs to generalized hesitant fuzzy
sets (G-HFSs) sets (G-HFSs).
Chen et al.94 2013 IVHFS Introduced a new type of fuzzy preference
structure, called interval-valued hesitant
preference relations, to describe uncertain
evaluation information in GDM processes.
2nd Reading
Yu et al.13 2013 Generalized hesitant fuzzy Explored aggregation methods for prioritized
prioritized weighted hesitant fuzzy elements and their applica-
average (GHFPWA) tion on personnel evaluation.
and generalized hesitant
fuzzy prioritized
weighted geometric
(GHFPWG) operators
Zhang and Wei112 2013 VIseKriterijumska Optimi- Developed the E-VIKOR TOPSIS for solve
zacija I Kompromisno the MCDM problems with hesitant fuzzy
Resenje (VIKOR), set information.
TOPSIS and hesitant
fuzzy set
Peng et al.93 2013 GHFSWD and GHFWD Presented a GHFSWD Generalized Hesitant
operators Fuzzy Synergetic Weighted Distance
(GHFSWD) and GHFWD.
Wei83 2012 Hesitant fuzzy prioritized Investigated the hesitant fuzzy multi-criteria
weighted average decision-making (FMCDM) problems in
(HFPWA) and Hesitant which the attributes are in di®erent
fuzzy prioritized weight- priority levels.
ed geometric
(GHFPWG) operators
Xia and Xu76 2011 Hesitant fuzzy set Developed a series of aggregation operators for
hesitant fuzzy information.
Yu113 2015 Hesitant Fuzzy Set (DHFS) Proposed two new aggregation operators based
on Hesitant Fuzzy Set (DHFS) which
called t-norm (ATT) and the Archimedean
t-conorm.
He et al.114 2015 Hesitant fuzzy power geo- Integrated the PA operator with the BM in
metric Bonferroni mean hesitant fuzzy environments and extended
and the hesitant fuzzy the hesitant fuzzy power geometric Bonfer-
power Bonferroni mean roni mean and the hesitant fuzzy power
Bonferroni mean.
Wei et al.115 2014 Hesitant fuzzy ordered Developed and investigated aggregation theory
weighted averaging for HFLTSs for proposed two aggregation
(LOWA) operator and operators including hesitant fuzzy LOWA
hesitant fuzzy linguistic operator and hesitant fuzzy LWA operators.
weighted arithmetic
(LWA)
between fuzzy integral and classical integral is about additive and non-additive cases;
classical integral emphasizes on additive cases and fuzzy integral emphasizes on non-
additive cases. Fuzzy Choquet integral operator is the tool for solving problems in
the context of MCDM. Because of several advantages of Fuzzy Choquet integral
operator, a number of previous published papers have been used this technique.
Fuzzy Choquet integral operator for information complementarity and redundancy
employs the fuzzy measurement to calculate the interaction between all possible
indicators. Recently, several of previous studies have used Choquet integral in
DM117–119 especially in fuzzy MADM problems. Meng et al.,120 de¯ned four operators
2nd Reading
including interval-valued intuitionistic uncertain linguistic Choquet averaging

(IVIULCA), interval-valued intuitionistic uncertain linguistic Choquet geometric
mean (IVIULCGM), generalized Shapley interval-valued intuitionistic uncertain
linguistic Choquet averaging (GS-IVIULCA) and generalized Shapley interval-val-
ued intuitionistic uncertain linguistic Choquet geometric mean (GS-IVIULCGM).
Bortot and Marques Pereira121 proposed an extension of the standard Analytic Hi-
erarchy Process (AHP) aggregation scheme on the basis of the Shapley values as-
sociated with the criteria. Ashayeri et al.12 proposed a new intuitionistic fuzzy
Choquet integral operator based method for selection of con¯guration and partners.
Tan122 developed a generalized interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy geometric ag-
gregation (IVIFGA) for aggregating all individual DM, DMs' opinions under inter-
val-valued intuitionistic fuzzy geometric (IVIFG) DM environment. Combining this
operator with TOPSIS on Choquet integral- based Hamming distance; a multi-
criteria interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy (IVIF) fuzzy GDM is investigated.
Galand et al.123 presented lower bound for the Choquet integral and computable in
polynomial time based on di®erent algorithms for multi-objective optimization. Tan
and Chen40 and Xu124 proposed some new intuitionistic fuzzy Choquet integral
operators. Liginlal and Ow125 applied fuzzy measure analysis to characterize the risk
seeking behavior of humans which complements the numerous theoretical studies
reported in contemporary literature. Gheorghe et al.126 constructed a two-parameter
fuzzy outranking relation from the fuzzy evaluations of alternatives on a given cri-
terion. Grabisch et al.127 extended pseudo-Boolean based on Choquet and the Šipoš
integral for criteria interaction in MCDM problems. Table 3 shows valuable distri-
bution results of DM methods and aggregation operators based author (s) name, the
year of publication, technique and research contribution. Findings shown in this
table indicate that 22 studies have used fuzzy Choquet integral in DM. Table 3
presents all the information regarding the papers that were published in the ¯eld of
DM methods and fuzzy Choquet integral.
3.1.3. Type-2 fuzzy sets (T2FSs)

Decision maker judgments including preference information are highly appropriate
stated in linguistic terms. There are many approaches proposed for modeling the
decision linguistic term sets. Zadeh de¯ned the linguistic variable as a variable whose
values are words or sentences in a natural or arti¯cial language in his three conse-
cutive papers Zadeh,141 Zadeh142 and Zadeh.143 Hence, T2FSs have been proposed as
an extension to T1FSs to handle uncertainties. T1FSs have the speci¯c membership
functions which are crisp numbers, whereas, T2FSs have membership functions
which are fuzzy themselves which can be any subset in the interval [0, 1]. This can be
the main advantage of T2FSs when compared to TIFSs. Recently, Morente-Molinera
et al.1 provided a systematic review of fuzzy linguistic modeling approaches for the
last decade. The reviewed methods are classi¯ed into six categories based on di®erent
approaches. In addition, recently Bustince et al.144 focused on the history, de¯nition
2nd Reading
Table 3. Distribution of papers based on fuzzy Choquet integral operator.
Anderson 2016 Fuzzy Choquet integral Examined the di®erent extensions of the fuzzy
et al.128 Choquet integral for fusing probability
distributions and homogeneous
possibility.
Pinar et al.129 2014 Choquet integral Used Choquet integral aggregation for
Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM)
sustainability index development.
Menget al.120 2014 Interval-valued intuitionistic De¯ned four operators including IVIULCA,
uncertain linguistic Choquet IVIULCGM, GS-IVIULCA and
averaging (IVIULCA), GS-IVIULCGM.
interval-valued intuitionistic
uncertain linguistic Choquet
geometric mean (IVIULCGM),
generalized Shapley interval-
valued intuitionistic uncertain
linguistic Choquet averaging
(GS-IVIULCA) and
generalized Shapley interval-
linguistic Choquet geometric
mean (GS-IVIULCGM)
operators
Wu et al.130 2014 Linguistic Choquet integral (LCI) Used LCI for selection of solar thermal power.
Wu et al.131 2013 Intuitionistic fuzzy-valued Showed the integration properties of the
Choquet integral (IFVCI) intuitionistic fuzzy valued Choquet
integrals.
Bortot and 2013 AHP and Choquet integration Proposed an extension of the standard AHP
Pereira121 aggregation scheme on the basis of the
Shapley values associated with the
criteria.
Li et al.132 2013 Choquet Integral Introduced Choquet Integral in MCDM
process for travelers.
Ashayeri 2012 Intuitionistic fuzzy Choquet Proposed a new intuitionistic fuzzy Choquet
et al.12 integral integral operator based method for
selection of con¯guration and partners.
Tan122 2011 IVIFS operator and Choquet Developed a generalized interval-valued
integral-based TOPSIS intuitionistic fuzzy geometric aggregation
(IVIFGA) for aggregating all individual
DMs' opinions under IVIFG DM
environment. Combining this operator
with TOPSIS on Choquet integral- based
Hamming distance, a multi-criteria IVIF
fuzzy GDM is investigated.
Angilella 2010 Choquet integral Proposed non-additive robust ordinal
et al.133 regression based on Choquet integral.
Galand et al.123 2010 Choquet integral Presented lower bound for the Choquet
integral and computable in polynomial
time based on di®erent algorithms for
multiobjective optimization.
Tan and 2010 Fuzzy Choquet integral operator Proposed an intuitionistic fuzzy Choquet
Chen40 integral for MCDM.
2nd Reading
Grabisch 2008 Choquet integral and multi- Reviewed methods for identi¯cation of
et al.134 attribute utility theory capacity in Choquet integral based on
(MAUT) MAUT.
Kojadinovic135 2007 Choquet integral Improved Choquet integral for interaction
between criteria.
Labreuche and 2006 Choquet integral and CPT Generalized Choquet integral and CPT for
Grabisch136 handle bipolar scales.
Liginlal and 2006 Choquet integral Applied fuzzy measure analysis to character-
Ow125 ize the risk seeking behavior of humans
complements the numerous theoretical
studies reported in contemporary
literature.
Gheorghe 2005 Choquet integral and Fuzzy Constructed a two-parameter fuzzy
et al.126 preference structure outranking relation from the fuzzy
evaluations of alternatives on a given
criterion.
Yager137 2003 Choquet integral and OWA Introduced an extension of the fuzzy measure
operators called the monitored heavy fuzzy measure.
Grabisch 2003 pseudo-Boolean, Choquet and the Extended pseudo-Boolean based on Choquet
et al.127 Šipoš integral and the Šipoš integral for criteria interac-
tion in MCDM problems.
Jung-Hsien138 1999 Choquet fuzzy integral Investigated the Choquet fuzzy integral-based
method to implementation of hierarchical
network for decision analysis.
Chen et al.139 2014 Choquet integral Developed a generalized prioritized measure-
guided aggregation operator based on the
Choquet integral.
Bustince 2013 Interval-valued Choquet integral Introduced the new interval-valued Choquet
et al.140 integral with focusing on admissible order
based on the admissible pair of
aggregation functions.
and basic properties fuzzy sets types and relationships between the di®erent types of
fuzzy sets. This paper discussed about several types of fuzzy sets and analyzed the
relationships between such fuzzy sets such as interval valued fuzzy sets (IVFSs),
Atanassov's intuitionistic fuzzy sets (AIFS), Interval-valued Atanassov intuitionistic
fuzzy sets (IVAIFSs), Hesitant fuzzy sets (HFSs), Set-Valued Fuzzy Sets (SVFSs)
and T2FSs. Cabrerizo et al.145 found that linguistic term sets are sometimes not
uniformly and symmetrically distributed and proposed a methodology which is able
to manage the unbalanced fuzzy linguistic information. Words mean di®erent things
to di®erent people. The uncertainty of the relative importance among criteria can be
further given by words. Zadeh146 originated the phrase computing with Words (CW
or CWW) one that is a methodology for which the propositions are extracted from a
human language. There are many various CWW approaches applying to DM task
with linguistic terms. To overcome the drawback \loss of information" while using
2nd Reading
linguistic information in CWW, Herrera and Martínez147 proposed a two-tuple

fuzzy linguistic representation model for CWW. Also, they claimed that such kind
of model is more precise than the previous ones. Zhou et al.148 was the ¯rst study
that extends the OWA operator for Type 1 Fuzzy Set (T1FS) quanti¯ers and
arguments. For the T2FS linguistic quanti¯ers, Zhou et al.148 also provided the
procedure for obtaining the linguistic weights for the T1FS OWA operator. Later,
Zhouet al.149 and Zhou et al.150 proposed the T2FS OWA operator which is a
direct approach to the aggregation of Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Set (IT2FS). The
centroid value is one of the defuzzi¯cation method used in the ¯nal stage of AHP
for T1FS scales. However, the centroid of an IT2FS has no universal de¯nition.
Some of the systematic studies about IT2FS centroid are Karnik and Mendel,151
Mendel and Wu152 and Karnik and Mendel.151 Green¯eld et al.153 proposed a
defuzzi¯cation approach of IT2FS by introducing a collapsing method to convert
IT2FS into T1FS representative embedded set. They claim that such approach is
comparatively more accurate.151 Chiclana and Zhou154 developed a method to
determine the centroid of the IT2FS by using T1FS OWA. Torshizi et al.155 give a
literature review for IT2FS type reduction studies. Chen and Lee156 presented a
new method for handling fuzzy multiple criteria hierarchical GDM problems based
on arithmetic operations and fuzzy preference relations of Interval Type-2 Fuzzy
Sets (IT2FSs). Chen and Lee157 and Lee and Chen158 presented an IT2 fuzzy
TOPSIS method to handle fuzzy MAGDM problems based on IT2FSs, and used
some examples to illustrate the fuzzy MADM process of the proposed method.
Wang et al.159 established some optimization models to determine the weights of
attributes based on the average centroid matrix and the given attribute weight
information. Mendel et al.160 proposed some basic de¯nitions of interval type-2
fuzzy sets. Chen and Lee161 proposed the de¯nition of possibility degree of trap-
ezoidal interval type-2 fuzzy numbers and some arithmetic operations. Chen and
Lee also proposed a new method157 based on TOPSIS to further handle MCDM.
Mitchell162 and Zeng and Li163 designed methods to calculate the similarity among
interval type-2 fuzzy sets. To reduce the limitations in these methods, Wu and
Mendel164 developed a new method named Vector Similarity Method (VSM) to
transform interval type-2 fuzzy sets into words more e®ectively. The other aspect
is the application of interval type-2 fuzzy sets in real world. Linda and Manic165
employed the interval type-2 fuzzy sets to develop a fuzzy voter design for fault
tolerant systems. Shu et al.166 proposed a new approach based on interval type-2
fuzzy logic systems to analyze and estimate the network lifetime for wireless sensor
networks. Wu and Mendel167 de¯ned linguistic weighted average and employed it
to deal with hierarchical multi-criteria DM problems. Han and Mendel168
employed interval type-2 fuzzy numbers in choosing logistics location and the
result has been proved to be more satisfying. Wang et al.159 established some
optimization models based on ranking value to solve MCDM problems of interval
type-2 fuzzy number. Table 4 shows valuable distribution results of DM methods
and aggregation operators based author (s) name, the year of publication,
2nd Reading
Table 4. Distribution of papers based on type-2 fuzzy set.

169
Chiao 2016 AHP and T2FS Developed an integrated method for MCDM
and multiple experts DM problems by
extend AHP and using type 2 fuzzy sets.
Cheng 2016 Interval type-2 fuzzy set Suggested the new autocratic DM approach by
et al.170 employ the group recommendations and
ranking interval type-2 fuzzy sets.
Qin et al.28 2015 Interval type-2 fuzzy Extended the VIKOR method based on interval
type-2 fuzzy circumstances.
Dymova 2015 Interval type-2 fuzzy Introduced the new interval type-2 fuzzy
et al.30 extension of the TOPSIS method.
Chen171 2015 Interval type-2 trapezoidal and Used of likelihoods in addressing MCDA
Generalized Interval- problems based on interval type-2
Valued Trapezoidal Fuzzy trapezoidal fuzzy numbers.
Numbers Weighted
Geometric Aggregation
(GITFNWGA) operator
Chen172 2014 Fuzzy LINMAP Developed a LINMAP to address MCDA
problems within the interval type-2 fuzzy
environment based on interval type-2
trapezoidal fuzzy numbers.
173
Chen 2014 ELECTRE, Interval type-2 Developed an ELECTRE based outranking
fuzzy set and Interval type-2 method for multiple criteria group decision-
trapezoidal fuzzy number making within the environment of interval
type-2 fuzzy sets.
Qin and 2014 Interval type-2 fuzzy set Investigated a new method to handle under
Liu174 and Interval type-2 fuzzy interval type-2 fuzzy environment
entropy
Hu et al.175 2013 Interval type-2 fuzzy number Proposed a new approach based on possibility
degree to solve MCDM problems in which
the criteria value takes the form of interval
type-2 fuzzy number.
Wang, Liu 2012 Interval type-2 fuzzy sets Investigated the GDM problems by using IT2
and (IT2 FSs) fuzzy decision matrices and attribute
Qin159 weights.
Zhou et al.148 2008 Type-1 OWA and type-2 De¯ned a new type of OWA operator, the type-1
linguistic quanti¯ers OWA operator that works as an uncertain
OWA operator to aggregate type-1 fuzzy sets
with type-1 fuzzy weights.
Wang et al.176 2015 IT2FNs Proposed new approach for solving problems
regarding to MCGDM based on IT2FNs and
arithmetic operations.
Chiao169 2016 AHP and T2FS Developed an integrated method for MCDM
and multiple experts DM problems by
extend AHP and using type 2 fuzzy sets.
technique and research contribution. Findings shown in this table indicate

that 12 studies have used type-2 fuzzy sets in DM. Table 4 presents all the in-
formation regarding the papers that were published in the ¯eld of DM methods
and type-2 fuzzy set.
2nd Reading
3.1.4. Two-tuple linguistic

Several aggregation operators have been developed to solve problems regarding the
group DM with linguistic data. There are some advantages of the two-tuple linguistic
compared to other fuzzy sets such as the linguistic domain which could be contin-
uous, while in the classical types it is tread as discrete. Another advantage of two-
tuple linguistic is that this method carries out processes of computing with word
easily and without loss of information. In addition, this method representation of
symbolic approach is based on the extension principle in computing with words
(CW) in terms of feasibility and complexity. In order to, avoid the distortion and loss
of information in linguistic information procedure, Herrera and Martínez147 built a
two-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model to make decision e®ectively.
According to two-tuple linguistic, several linguistic aggregation operators such as
two-tuple linguistic OWA operator Herrera and Martínez,147 two-tuple linguistic
Ordered Weighted Geometric (OWG) averaging operator Xu and Huang,177 two-
tuple linguistic hybrid averaging operator Xu and Huang,177 two-tuple linguistic
harmonic averaging operator Park et al.178 two-tuple linguistic power aggregation
operator Xu and Wang179 and induced two-tuple linguistic generalized aggregation
operator Merig o and Gil-Lafuente180 have been proposed. Many interval two-tuple
linguistic aggregation operators have been introduced in the literatures. Zhang and
Fan181 presented the uncertain two-tuple linguistic OWA operator to solve multiple
attribute group DM with uncertain linguistic information. Jianqiang and
Xiaohong182 transformed the linguistic variables into two-tuple linguistic informa-
tion, and utilized the weighted continuous ordered weighted operator to aggregate
the interval linguistic labels. Zhang183 developed a new score function and accuracy
function for ranking interval-valued two-tuple linguistic variables, and introduced
the interval-valued two-tuple linguistic weighted averaging operator and interval-
valued two-tuple linguistic OWA operator in detail. Furthermore, Liu et al.184
developed the application of interval-valued two-tuple linguistic OWA operator to
material selection. The two-tuple semantic model aims at solving the fuzzy partition
problem in unbalanced linguistic terms. After that, Truck46 introduced the two-tuple
symbolic model which is based on the symbolic framework proposed in Ref. 185.
Then, Truck46 made a comparison between the two-tuple semantic model and the
two-tuple symbolic model, and proved that there are links between these two models.
The above researches show that the models based on linguistic two-tuples appear to
be an important emerging topic. Moreover, in order to solve multiple attribute group
decision making (MAGDM) problem, several two-tuple linguistic aggregation
operators have also been proposed, such as two-tuple averaging operator Herrera and
Martínez,147 two-tuple weighted geometric operator Jiang and Fan,186 hybrid two-
tuple linguistic aggregation operator Wan,187 induced two-tuple linguistic general-
ized aggregation operators Merig o and Gil-Lafuente,180 two-tuple linguistic power
average (LPA) operator Xu and Wang,179 two-tuple linguistic harmonic operator
Park et al.,178 interval-valued two-tuples aggregation operator Zhang188 and
2nd Reading
two-tuple linguistic extended Bonferroni mean aggregation operator Dutta et al.189

The linguistic aggregation operators based on the two-tuple linguistic representation
model which represents the linguistic information with a pair of values called two-
tuple, composed by a linguistic term and number, including two-tuple weighted
averaging operator Herrera and Martínez,147 two-tuple OWA operator Herrera and
Martínez,147 two-tuple weighted geometric averaging (TWGA) operator Xu and
Huang,177 two-tuple ordered weighted geometric averaging (TOWGA) operator Xu
and Huang177 and two-tuple hybrid geometric averaging (2THGA) operator.177
Herrera and Herrera-Viedma190 developed the two-tuple arithmetic average (2TAA)
operator, two-tuple weighted average (2TWA) operator, two-Tuple Ordered
Weighted Averaging (2TOWA) operator and extended two-Tuple Weighted Aver-
age (ET-WA) Operator. Herrera et al.191 proposed a fuzzy linguistic methodology to
deal with unbalanced linguistic term sets. Wei192 proposed a method for multiple
attribute group decision-making based on the Extended Two-Tuple Geometric
Averaging (ET-WG) and Extended Two-Tuple Ordered Weighted Geometric
ET-OWG operators with two-tuple linguistic information. Wei193 proposed the
GRA-based linear-programming methodology for multiple attribute group DM with
two-tuple linguistic assessment information. Merigo et al.194 developed the Belief
Structure-Linguistic Ordered Weighted Averaging (BS-LOWA), the BS-Linguistic
Hybrid Averaging (BS-LHA) and a wide range of particular cases. Pei-de195 pre-
sented an approach based on two-tuple to solve the hybrid multiple attribute DM
problem with weight information unknown. Wei196 extended the TOPSIS method
for two-tuple linguistic multiple attribute group DM with incomplete weight infor-
mation. Wei197 utilized the gray relational analysis method for two-tuple linguistic
multiple attribute group DM with incomplete weight information. Xu and Wang179
developed some two-tuple linguistic power aggregation operators. Table 5 provi-
des the ¯ndings of this section. According to this paper, 22 studies utilized the
application of two-tuple linguistic in DM methods. In addition, this table shows
results of DM methods and two-tuple linguistic based author(s) name, the year of
publication, technique and research contribution. Table 5 presents all the informa-
tion regarding the papers that were published in the ¯eld of DM methods and two-
tuple linguistic.
3.1.5. Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets

Atanassov and Gargov211 proposed the IVIFS approach based on of the notion of
IFS. For addressing ambiguous and uncertain properties, the IVIFS method sug-
gested an intuitive. IVIFSs with more degrees of freedom in relation to the other
fuzzy sets such as classical IFSs have more advantages on dealing with information
that covers uncertainty and fuzziness; this advantage lead to reduce the loss of
information. In addition, IVIFSs help to handle uncertainty and imprecision infor-
mation in diverse directions. In the last decades, various researchers have used
IVIFSs for solving problems in various application areas such as management and
2nd Reading
Table 5. Distribution of papers based on two-tuple linguistic.

23
Zhu et al. 2016 Two-dimension linguistic lattice Presented two-dimension linguistic
implication algebra (2DL-LIA) labels (2DLLs) by two two-tuples
in a 2DL-LIA regarding
computing and aggregating
two-dimension linguistic
information.
Lin et al.43 2015 Two-tuple linguistic Proposed a novel which called
interval linguistic the generalized
interval two-tuple linguistic
Shapley chi-square averaging
operator based on two-tuple
linguistic and Shapley value.
Truck46 2015 Two-tuple linguistic Investigated two two-tuple
linguistic models including
two-tuple semantic and the
two-tuple symbolic.
Li et al.198 2014 Two-tuple linguistic induced generalized Developed a new DM model called
ordered weighted averaging distance 2LIGOWAD operator.
(2LIGOWAD), two-tuple linguistic
induced ordered weighted averaging
distance (2LIOWAD) and two-tuple
linguistic induced Euclidean OWA
distance (2LIEOWAD)
Doukas199 2014 Two-Tuple TOPSIS and two-tuple Proposed framework is based on
LOWA operator the developed two-tuple TOPSIS
method.
Estrella et al.200 2014 Two-Tuple linguistic and Flintstones Proposed a fuzzy linguistic decision
tools so-called Flintstones is to
solve linguistic DM problems
based on the two-tuple linguistic
model.
Xu et al.201 2014 Two-Tuple fuzzy linguistic Proposed a four-way procedure
preference relations (FLPRs) to estimate missing
preference values when dealing
with acceptable incomplete
FLPRs.
Liu et al.202 2014 Interval two-tuple hybrid weighted Proposed risk ranking model by
distance (ITHWD) use interval two-tuple hybrid
weighted distance (ITHWD).
Park et al.178 2013 Two-Tuple linguistic harmonic (2TLH), Developed some new linguistic
two-tuple linguistic weighted aggregation operators such as;
harmonic average (2TLWH), 2TLH, 2TLWH, 2TLOWH and
two-tuple linguistic ordered weighted 2TLHH.
harmonic (2TLOWH) and two-
tuple linguistic hybrid harmonic
(2TLHH)
Merigo and Gil- 2013 Two-TILGOWA and OWA Presented two-tuple linguistic
Lafuente180 generalized ordered weighted
averaging (2-TILGOWA).
2nd Reading
Wan187 2013 Two-Tuple hybrid weighted arithmetic Focused on MAGDM problems in

average (THWA), two-tuple hybrid which the attribute values
linguistic weighted arithmetic average attribute weights, and expert
(T-HLWA), extended two-tuple weights are all in the form of
hybrid linguistic weighted arithmetic two-tuple linguistic information,
average (ET-HLWA) and extended which are solved by developing a
two-tuple weighted arithmetic average new decision method based on
(ET-WA) operators two-tuple linguistic hybrid
arithmetic aggregation operator.
Xu and Wu203 2013 Two-Tuple linguistic representation Developed two-tuple linguistic
model representation model based on
group consensus and aggregation
operators.
Ju and Wang42 2013 Two-Tuple linguistic and VIKOR Extension of VIKOR method for
multi-criteria group decision
making (MCGDM) problems.
Ju and 2013 Two-Tuple linguistic Developed a new approach for
Wang204 MCGDM problems with
incomplete weight information in
linguistic setting based on the
projection method.
205
Martínez 2012 Two-Tuple linguistic representation Discussed about the challenges that
model the two-tuple linguistic
representation.
Wei197 2011 Two-Tuple linguistic variables Developed a novel technique for
MAGDM problems with two-
tuple linguistic information based
on the traditional ideas of gray
relational analysis.
Chang and 2010 Two-Tuple and the OWA operator Proposed a new method, integrate
Wen206 two-tuple and the OWA operator
for ranking of failures in product
Design Failure Mode and E®ect
Analysis (DFMEA).
Liu et al.207 2014 Dependent interval two-tuple weighted Developed and proposed some new
averaging (DITWA) operator and a interval two-tuple linguistic
dependent interval two-tuple weighted operators such as DITWA and
geometric (DITWG) DITWG.
Wei208 2011 Two-Tuple linguistic ordered weighted Proposed some new aggregation
harmonic averaging (TOWHA), operators such as 2TWHA,
two-tuple linguistic weighted 2TOWHA and 2TCWHA.
harmonic averaging (TWHA) and
two-tuple linguistic combined
weighted harmonic averaging
(TCWHA)
Wei209 2009 Dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy weighted Proposed two new aggregation
geometric (DIFWG) operator and operators including DIFWG
uncertain dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy operator and UDIFWG.
weighted geometric (UDIFWG).
Sang and Liu210 2013 Two-Tuple linguistic MP-OWA Presented the new LMP-OWA
(LMP-OWA) operator to aggregate preference
information with crisp numbers.
2nd Reading
Dutta et al.189 2015 Weighted two-tuple linguistic EBM, two- Investigated the extended Bonferroni
tuple linguistic EBM and linguistic mean (EBM) operator to develop
weighted two-tuple linguistic EBM three new linguistic aggregation
operators including weighted
two-tuple linguistic EBM,
two-tuple linguistic EBM and
linguistic weighted two-tuple
linguistic EBM.
engineering. In recent years, several measures related to IVIFSs have been proposed
in various application areas.212–223 Usage of IVIFS in FMCDM literature is very
popular. Zhang and Yu219 developed an optimization model employing interval-
valued IFSs with Cross-entropy and TOPSIS. Chen et al.224 proposed a new ranking
method for IVIFSs. Recently, many authors have concentrated on aggregation
methods of IVIFSs. Aggregation operators have been developed to synthesize
interval-valued intuitionistic preference information. Chen et al.,225 Xu226 and Xu
and Jian212 presented aggregation operators, namely Interval-Valued Intuitionistic
Fuzzy Weighted Arithmetic Aggregation (IIFWA), the Interval-Valued Intuitio-
nistic Fuzzy Ordered Weighted Aggregation (IIFOWA), and the Interval-Valued
Intuitionistic Fuzzy Hybrid Aggregation (IIFHA) operators. Wei and Yi227 sug-
gested the Induced Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Ordered Weighted Geo-
metric (I-IIFOWG) operator. Wang et al.228 presented a method for MADM under
the IVIF environment, where all the information is characterized by IVIF numbers
and the information about the weights of the attributes are incomplete. Xiao and
Wei229 presented a method to deal with the supplier selection problem in supply
chain management with IVIF information. Liu and Xie230 presented the weighted
score function and the weighted accuracy function of IVIFSs for MCDM. Table 6
provides the ¯ndings of this section. According to this paper, 34 studies utilized the
application of interval valued IFSs in DM methods. In addition, this table shows the
results of DM methods and interval valued IFSs based on author (s) name, the year
of publication, technique and research contribution. Table 6 presents all the infor-
mation regarding the papers that were published in the ¯eld of DM methods and
interval valued IFSs.
3.1.6. Ordered weighted averaging operators

Aggregation has come to be recognized as a very general rather new process of
combining/fusing several numerical values in one representative value, and an ag-
gregation operator performs this operation. These operators occur wherever aggre-
gating data/values is necessary: pure mathematics (for example, functional
equations, integration theory, theory of means and averages), applied mathematics
(for example, probability theory, operations research, decision theory), computer
2nd Reading
Table 6. Distribution of papers based on interval valued IFSs.

8
Düğenci 2016 Interval valued IFSs Proposed the new generalized distance
measure by TOPSIS and interval
valued IFSs for solving problems
related to GDM.
Chen and 2016 Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy Proposed a novel MADM method
Tsai231 weighted geometric averaging based on IVIFWGA, interval-
(IVIFWGA) valued intuitionistic fuzzy ordered
weighted geometric averaging
(IVIFOWGA) and interval-valued
intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid
geometric averaging (IVIFHGA)
operators.
Elkano et al.232 2016 Interval-valued aggregation Proposed the composition of IVFRs by
operators using interval-valued aggregation
operators.
Dymova and 2016 Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy Proposed IVIFV based on Dempster–
Sevastja- values (IVIFV) Shafer theory (DST) due to some
nov233 limitations in previous studies.
Chen et al.234 2016 IVIFV Suggested the new interval-valued
intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation
(IVIFA) based on some operators
for solving MAGDM problems.
These operators are interval-valued
intuitionistic fuzzy weighted aver-
aging (IVIFWA), interval-valued
intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid
weighted averaging (IVIFHWA),
interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy
ordered weighted averaging
(IVIFOWA) and IVIFVs.
Wan et al.48 2015 Atanassov's interval-valued Developed a novel model for solving
intuitionistic fuzzy values MAGDM problems by using
(AIVIFVs) problems with incomplete
attribute weight information and
AIVIFVs.
Qi et al.235 2015 Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy Applied IVIFEs for solving problems
environments (IVIFEs) in MAGDM problems for supplier
selection.
Barrenechea 2014 IVFRs Proposed general algorithm to
et al.236 solve DM problems by using
IVFRs.
Jin et al.237 2014 Continuous OWA operator Proposed the IVIFCWE which gen-
(COWA) and interval-valued eralizes intuitionistic fuzzy entropy
intuitionistic fuzzy continuous measures de¯ned by Szmidt and
weighted entropy (IVIFCWE) Kacprzyk on the basis of the
COWA operator
Chen238 2014 Linear assignment method and Proposed a useful method for solving
interval-valued intuitionistic multiple criteria evaluation
problems in the interval-valued
intuitionistic fuzzy context.
2nd Reading
Zhou et al.239 2014 Continuous interval-valued intui- Proposed a new operator called the
tionistic fuzzy ordered weighted continuous interval-valued intui-
averaging (C-IVIFOWA), tionistic fuzzy ordered weighted
continuous ordered weighted averaging (C-IVIFOWA) operator
averaging (C-OWA), weighted for aggregating the interval valued
C-IVIFOWA (WC-IVIFOWA) intuitionistic fuzzy values.
and combined continuous in-
terval-valued intuitionistic
fuzzy ordered weighted averag-
ing (CC-IVIFOWA)
Xu and Shen240 2014 Atanassov's interval-valued Extended the ELECTRE I method to
intuitionistic fuzzy number take account of the DMs' AIVIFN
(AIVIFN) assessment information.
Chen241 2014 IVIFSs Presented a new IVIF prioritized
aggregation operator is to aggre-
gate the IVIF ratings of the
alternatives
Liu242 2013 Interval-valued intuitionistic Developed some new GDM analysis
uncertain linguistic weighted methods such as; IVIULWGA,
geometric average IVIULOWG and IVIULHG for
(IVIULWGA), interval-valued MAGDM problems.
intuitionistic uncertain linguis-
tic ordered weighted geometric
(IVIULOWG) and interval-
linguistic hybrid geometric
(IVIULHG)
Dymova 2013 Interval-valued intuitionistic Presented a new approach to compare
et al.243 real-valued and IVIFV.
Chen244 2013 Fuzzy LINMAP and interval- Presented a new linear programming
valued fuzzy soft (IVFS) technique with weight assessment,
an extended LINMAP method,
for addressing MCGDM in the
interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy
framework.
İntepe et al.245 2013 Interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy Proposed interval valued intuitionistic
and TOPSIS fuzzy for TOPSIS and solving pro-
blems in selection of technological
forecasting.
Chen et al.224 2012 Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy Presented an IVIFWAO and the
weighted average operator proposed fuzzy ranking method for
(IVIFWAO) intuitionistic fuzzy values (IFVs)
for solving MADM problems.
Chen et al.225 2011 Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy Developed a technique to tackle
number (IVIFN) MCGDM problems in the context
of IVIFS.
Wei246 2011 GRA method and IVIFN Investigated the MADM problems
with IFI, in which the information
about attribute weights is incom-
pletely known, and the attribute
values take the form of
intuitionistic fuzzy numbers.
2nd Reading
Wang et al.247 2011 IVIFNs and TOPSIS Proposed a method to handle MADM
problems under the IVIF
environment.
Chen248 2011 Interval-valued fuzzy sets Presented a new method to reduce
cognitive dissonance and to relate
optimism and pessimism in MCDM
analysis in an interval-valued fuzzy
decision environment.
Lakshmana 2011 Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Introduced novel technique for ranking
Gomathi Fuzzy (IVIF) operator IVIFSs.
et al.249
Park et al.250 2011 TOPSIS and interval-valued intui- Extended the TOPSIS method to
tionistic solve MAGDM problems in IVIF
environment.
Xu226 2010 Interval-valued intuitionistic Introduced some relations and
operations of IVIF numbers.
Ahn251 2010 C-OWA, complex multi-attribute Presented the CMALGDM problems
large-group decision-making in IVIF environment.
(CMALGDM) and IVIFN
Wang, Li and 2009 IVIFNs Proposed an approach to MADM
Wang228 with incomplete attribute weight
information.
Dubois and 2004 IVIFNs Discussed the role of the existing
Prade252 body of fuzzy set aggregation
operations in various kinds of
problems.
Xu and 2015 Atanassov's intuitionistic fuzzy Developed two new approaches
Wang253 weighted geometric mean including Atanassov's intuitionistic
(IFWGM) and Atanassov's fuzzy weighted geometric
intuitionistic fuzzy weighted mean (IFWGM) and Atanassov's
average (IFWA) intuitionistic fuzzy weighted
average (IFWA) for solving
problems regarding MDAM
methods.
Wang and 2012 Intuitionistic Fuzzy Einstein Proposed some new intuitionistic
Liu254 Ordered Weighted Averaging fuzzy aggregation operators
(IFEOWA) and Intuitionistic including intuitionistic fuzzy
Fuzzy Einstein Weighted Einstein OWA and intuitionistic
Average (IFEWA) fuzzy Einstein weighted averaging
operators for helping to Einstein
operations.
Miguel et al.255 2016 IVAIFSs Investigated Choquet integrals and
OWA operators in IVAIFSs.
Liu and 2017 Heronian aggregation (IFAHA) Proposed a MAGDM method based on
Chen256 and the intuitionistic fuzzy the new proposed Heronian aggre-
weight Archimedean Heronian gation (IFAHA) and the IFWAHA
aggregation (IFWAHA) operators.
Liu257 2014 IVAIFSs and Hamacher aggrega- Proposed some aggregation operators
tion operators based on IVIFNs and Hamacher
aggregation operators.
2nd Reading
Wang et al.258 2015 Atanassov's interval-valued intui- Proposed the new approach with
tionistic linguistic numbers Atanassov's interval-valued intui-
(AIVILNs) tionistic linguistic numbers
(AIVILNs) based on trapezium
clouds for solving MCGDM
problems.
and engineering sciences (for example, arti¯cial intelligence, information theory,

pattern recognition), economics and ¯nance (for example, game theory, voting
theory, DM) as well as many other applied ¯elds of physics and natural sciences.
In general, aggregation operators are used for summarizing the information gathered
from various sources, making decisions and so on. The OWA operator is suggested by
Yager81 to move the average attaining to the ordered weighted moving average. The
main advantage of OWA is to present the parameterized sets of all aggregation
operators from the minimum to the maximum in the subsection of opinions which
move towards a higher set of opinions. Another advantage of OWA operators is
related to DM analyses, where these operators suggest the possibility to involve the
certain level of trade-o® and risk in the processes of DM. In the literature, many
aggregation operators have been developed to aggregate numerical data such the
weighted arithmetic average (WAA) operator,259 the Weighted Geometric Mean
(WGM) operator,260–262 the Weighted Harmonic Mean (WHM) operator, 263,264 the
OWA operator,33,265–267 the OWG operator,268–270 and the Generalized Ordered
Weighted Averaging (GOWA) operator.271,272 However, in some situations,
the input values take the form of fuzzy numbers and intuitionistic fuzzy numbers
rather than real numbers due to the increasing complexity of the socio-economic
environment, time pressure, insu±cient level of knowledge of the problem domain
and the ambiguity of human thinking. Therefore, how to aggregate fuzzy numbers
and intuitionistic fuzzy numbers is an interesting and important research topic,
which has received quite some attention from researchers and practitioners in last
couple of years. To aggregate the fuzzy numbers and intuitionistic fuzzy numbers, a
number of aggregation operators have been developed such as the Fuzzy Ordered
Weighted Averaging (FOWA) operator,273 the Fuzzy Ordered Weighted Geometric
(FOWG) operator,274–276 the Fuzzy Weighted Harmonic Mean (FWHM) opera-
tor,264,277 the Fuzzy Ordered Weighted Harmonic Mean (FOWHM) operator,264 the
Fuzzy Hybrid Harmonic Mean (FHHM) operator,264 the Fuzzy Generalized OWA
(FGOWA) operator,278 the Fuzzy Induced Ordered Weighted Harmonic Mean
(FIOWHM) operator,277 the Intuitionistic Fuzzy Weighted Geometric (IFWG) op-
erator,279,280 the Intuitionistic Fuzzy Ordered Weighted Geometric (IFOWG)
operator,281,282 the Intuitionistic Fuzzy Hybrid Geometric (IFHG) operator,280,282
the Intuitionistic Fuzzy Weighted Averaging (IFWA) operator,37 the Intuitionistic
Fuzzy Ordered Weighted Averaging (IFOWA) operator,280,282,283 the Intuitionistic
2nd Reading
Fuzzy Hybrid Averaging (IFHA) operator,244,280,284–286 the Generalized Intuitio-

nistic Fuzzy Weighted Averaging (GIFWA) operator,287,288 the Generalized Intui-
tionistic Fuzzy Ordered Weighted Averaging (GIFOWA) operator,288 the
Generalized Intuitionistic Fuzzy Hybrid Averaging (GIFHA) Operator,288 the
Induced Intuitionistic Fuzzy Ordered Weighted Geometric (IIFOWG) operator,289
the DIFWG operator,209 the Intuitionistic Fuzzy Einstein Weighted Average
(IFEWA) operator,254 the Intuitionistic Fuzzy Einstein Ordered Weighted Aver-
aging (IFEOWA) operator.254 In 2008, Yager81 and Yager82 proposed a new ag-
gregation operator called Prioritized Weighted Average (PWA) operator and
studied its applications in MAGDM. The prominent characteristic of the PWA
operator is that it takes into account prioritization among attributes and decision
makers. Recently, using the idea of Yager's PWA operator, some aggregation
operators have also introduced in the literature by researchers with fuzzy/intuitio-
nistic fuzzy information.288,290 Table 7 provides the ¯ndings of this section. This
table shows that 81 studies utilized the application of OWA in DM methods. In
addition, this table shows results of DM methods and OWA based on author (s)
name, the year of publication, technique and research contribution. Table 7 presents
all the information regarding the papers that were published in the ¯eld of DM
methods and OWA.
3.1.7. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets

In the last couple of years, many researchers also proposed di®erent functions for
IFSs and applied them in di®erent real-life problems. IFS were introduced in 1983 by
Atanassov367 as generalization of fuzzy sets. IFSs have shown certain advantages for
handing uncertainty and vagueness when compared to the fuzzy set. The main
advantage of IFSs is related to their property which copes with hesitancy which
maybe because of information impression. Basically, the models based on IFSs may
be adequate in situations when we face human testimonies and opinions. Another
advantage of IFSs can be viewed as a generalization of fuzzy sets that may better
model imperfect information in any conscious DM.368 In addition, IFSs take into
account both the degrees of membership and of non-membership subject to the
condition that their sum does not exceed 1. In recent years, several previous studies
extended IFS based on various DM techniques. Wan et al.369 extended some
operators including triangular intuitionistic fuzzy ordered weighted averaging
(TIFOWA), triangular intuitionistic fuzzy ordered weighted geometric (TIFOWG),
hybrid weighted averaging (IFHWA), triangular intuitionistic fuzzy generalized
ordered weighted averaging (TIFGOWA) and triangular intuitionistic fuzzy
generalized hybrid weighted averaging (TIFGHWA) based on TOPSIS and multi-
objective programming. Jin et al.24 proposed two new approaches for GDM to derive
the normalized intuitionistic fuzzy priority weights from IFPRs based on multipli-
cative consistency and the order consistency. Wang et al.49 proposed the new method
by integration OWA–TOPSIS and intuitionistic fuzzy settings. Chen and Chang280
2nd Reading
Table 7. Distribution of papers based on OWA operators.
Yager and 2016 OWA Proposed the new OWA operator to

Alajlan291 provide the parameterized class of
Blanco-Mesa 2016 Bonferroni OWA adequacy Developed the novel aggregation
et al.292 coe±cient (BON-OWAAC) operators by using OWA operators,
and Bonferroni ordered Bonferroni means, and some distance
weighted averaging index of measure named Bonferroni ordered
maximum and minimum weighted averaging adequacy coe±-
(BON-OWAIMAM) cient (BON-OWAAC) and Bonfer-
roni ordered weighted averaging
index of maximum and minimum
(BON-OWAIMAM).
Zhou et al.293 2016 Continuous Ordered Weighted Developed a novel compatibility mea-
Geometric Averaging sure which considers risk attitudes in
(COWGA) decision-making based on the
COWGA operator.
Gao et al.294 2015 Generalized Ordered Weighted Provided two new operators called
Utility Averaging (GOWUA) GOWUA operator and Generalized
and Generalized Ordered Ordered Weighted Utility
Weighted Utility Averaging- Averaging-Hyperbolic Absolute Risk
Hyperbolic Absolute Risk Aversion (GOWUA-HARA)
Aversion (GOWUA-HARA) operator.
Mata et al.295 2014 Type-1 OWA operator Presented a new Type-1 OWA based
consensus methodology that can
directly manage linguistic term sets
with di®erent cardinality and/or
semantic without the need to
perform any transformation to unify
the information.
Liu et al.296 2014 Interval preference matrices Presented a model for a group decision-
making problem with interval
preference matrices.
Liu and Yu297 2014 Two-dimension uncertain linguistic Proposed two-dimension uncertain
power generalized aggregation linguistic power generalized
operator (2DULPGA) and aggregation operator (2DULPGA)
two-dimension uncertain and two-dimension uncertain lin-
linguistic power generalized guistic power generalized weighted
weighted aggregation aggregation (2DULPGWA)
(2DULPGWA) operators operators MAGDM.
Perez-Fernandez 2014 Weighted OWA operator Developed a new method to aggregate
et al.298 (WOWA) and fuzzy preference the information given by several
relations experts or criteria.
Yue299 2014 TOPSIS and Intuitionistic fuzzy Extended TOPSIS technique for the
number weights of decision makers.
Ferretti and 2013 Analytic network process (ANP) Combined ANP and OWA for analysis
Pomarico300 and OWA of ecological land suitability
Zeng et al.301 2013 OWA and uncertain probabilistic Presented the uncertain probabilistic
OWA distance (UPOWAD) ordered weighted averaging distance
operators (UPOWAD) operator.
2nd Reading
Liu et al.302 2013 Induced ordered weighted averag- Proposed hybrid DM approach for
ing (OWA) VIKOR and tackling multi-criteria problems
induced ordered weighted such as; IOWA-VIKOR and
averaging standardized IOWASD.
distance (IOWASD)
Zeng et al.303 2013 Fuzzy OWA and intuitionistic Developed an approach to determine
fuzzy preference relation the experts' weights by using fuzzy
(IFPR) OWA and IFPR
Luukka and 2013 OWA Extended the similarity
Kurama304 classi¯er to cover also OWA
operators.
Meng and Pei305 2013 Linguistic ordered weighted aver- Generalized linguistic evaluation
aging operator (LOWA) and values and their weights in group
Linguistic Weighted Averaging decision-making (GDM) problems.
(LWA)
Zhou et al.306 2012 Generalized ordered weighted Presented and developed GOWLPA,
logarithmic proportional QOWLPA, GHLPA and GLCSM
averaging (GOWLPA), quasi operators to MAGDM.
ordered weighted logarithmic
proportional averaging
(QOWLPA), generalized
hybrid logarithmic proportional
averaging (GHLPA) and
generalized logarithm chi-
square method (GLCSM)
operators
Liu266 2012 OWA Proposed a general optimization model
for determining operators.
Liu and Jin307 2012 Intuitionistic uncertain Developed new GDM methods based
linguistic weighted geometric on IULWGA, IULOWG and IULHG
average (IULWGA), IULOWG operators.
and intuitionistic uncertain
linguistic hybrid geometric
(IULHG)
Zhou et al.308 2012 Generalized probabilistic OWA Generalized some operators such as;
(GPOWA), uncertain general- GPOWA, UGPA, UGPOWA and
ized power average (UGPA), GIFPOWA for GDM problems.
uncertain generalized probabi-
listic OWA (UGPOWA) and
intuitionistic fuzzy point
(GIFPOWA)
Chen et al.309 2012 IF-MCDM operator and Maximum Proposed two score functions for
Entropy OWA (MEOWA) evaluating the suitability of an
operator alternative across all criteria
in an intuitionistic fuzzy
environment.
Suo et al.310 2012 Ascending OWA (AOWA) Proposed an AOWA operator is for
tackling MCDM problems under
uncertainties.
2nd Reading
Merigo et al.311 2012 Uncertain weighted average Developed a new DM method for
(UWA), uncertain arithmetic allocating with uncertain informa-
induced ordered weighted tion and using the tourism
averaging (UA-UIOWA), management.
uncertain arithmetic UWA
(UAUWA), uncertain induced
weighted averaging
(UIOWAWA) and induced
(UIOWA)
Wei and Zhao312 2012 Induced intuitionistic fuzzy Examine the intuitionistic FMAGDM
correlated averaging (I-IFCA) problems with correlative weight
and induced intuitionistic information.
fuzzy correlated geometric
(I-IFCG)
Su et al.313 2012 Induced generalized intuitionistic Proposed new operator called
fuzzy ordered weighted averag- IG-IFOWA ýfor solving problems in
ing (IG-IFOWA) and induced MAGDM.
generalized ordered weighted
averaging (IGOWA)
Casanovas and 2012 FWA, FOWA, FHA, belief struc- Investigated the DM problem by view of
Merigo314 ture fuzzy ordered weighted DST of evidence.
averaging (BS-FOWA, belief
structure fuzzy hybrid averag-
ing (BS-FHA) and belief struc-
ture fuzzy weighted average
(BS-FWA)
Xu et al.315 2012 Power-average (PA) operator, lin- Developed new linguistic aggregation
guistic power average-uncertain operators based on the PA, LPA
linguistic power ordered operator and the LPOWA operator.
weighted averaging
(ULPOWA) and Linguistic
power ordered weighted aver-
aging (LPOWA) operators
Gorsevski 2012 OWA and AHP Integrated of AHP and OWA for land¯ll
et al.316 site selection.
Zhou et al.317 2012 Least exponential squares method Presented a new aggregation operator
(LESM) and Generalized called the GOWEPA operator.
ordered weighted exponential
proportional averaging
(GOWEPA) operator
Cao and Wu318 2011 Weighted geometric averaging Developed two extended COWG opera-
continuous ordered weighted tors, including the WG-COWG and
geometric (WG-COWG) and OWG-COWG operators.
ordered weighted geometric
averaging COWG (OWG-
COWG) operators
Liaw et al.319 2011 Maximal entropy ordered weighted Examined ME-OWA based DEMATEL
averaging (ME-OWA) operator technique for reliability allocation.
and DEMATEL
2nd Reading
o and Gil-
Merig 2011 Ordered weighted averaging index Used the OWA, OWAD, the OWAAC
Lafuente320 of maximum and minimum and the OWAIMAM operators in the
level (OWAIMAM),OWA, selection of human resources in sport
OWA distance (OWAD) and management.
OWA adequacy coe±cient
(OWAAC)
o44
Merig 2011 IOWA and induced ordered Proposed new approach that uses the
weighted averaging-weighted WA and the IOWA operator in the
average (IOWAWA) operators same formulation.
Yan et al.321 2011 OWA operator Proposed a prioritized weighted aggre-
gation operator based on OWA
operator and triangular norms
(t-norms).
Chen and Niou322 2011 Fuzzy induced ordered weighted Presented a novel technique for fuzzy
averaging (FIOWA) operators MAGDM based on the proposed
FIOWA operators
Dheena and 2011 TOPSIS and OWA operator Study the anti-ideal solution and ideal
Mohanraj323 solution and evaluate each alterna-
tive regarding of distance in addition
similarity.
Chen et al.324 2011 OWA-TOPSIS Proposed a new hybrid method by
combing OWA aggregation into
TOPSIS is to tackle MCDA
problems.
o and
Merig 2011 Euclidean ordered weighted Introduced a novel aggregation operator
Casanovas325 averaging distance (IEOWAD) called the IEOWAD operator in ¯-
operator nancial DM.
o and Gil-
Merig 2011 Fuzzy induced generalized ordered Presented a wide range of fuzzy induced
Lafuente326 weighted averaging (FIG- GAOs such as the FIGOWA and the
OWA) and Quasi-Fuzzy in- Quasi- FIOWA operator in multi-
duced ordered weighted person DM.
averaging (FIOWA) operators
Li327 2011 Generalized ordered weighted av- Developed GOWA for problems solving
eraging (GOWA) in MADM methods.
Ahn267 2011 OWA Explained ROC weights and extended
CW method based on OWA
operators.
o and
Merig 2011 Induced heavy OWA (IHOWA), Introduced three new heavy operators
Casanovas328 uncertain heavy OWA (IHOWA, UHOWA and UIHOWA)
(UHOWA) and uncertain in- by using heavy weighted average
duced heavy OWA (UIHOWA) (HWA), uncertain heavy weighted
average (UHWA) and also,
generated and introduced
generalized heavy weighted average
(GHWA), heavy OWA (HOWA),
induced generalized HOWA
(IGHOWA) and uncertain
IGHOWA (UIGHOWA) for DM
problems.
o and
Merig 2011 Ordered weighted averaging Proposed the IOWAD operator as a new
Casanovas329 distance (OWAD) DM approach for extending of OWA
operator.
2nd Reading
Nadi and 2011 OWA Employed OWA aggregation operators

Delavar330 for route planning.
Hun Hong331 2011 OWA Extended minimax disparity OWA
operator weights.
Victor et al.332 2011 OWA Examined the bilattice-based aggrega-
tion approaches and investigate how
they can be improved by using OWA
techniques.
Hong333 2011 OWA operator and regular in- Provided a counter example of the
creasing monotone (RIM) minimax disparity RIM quanti¯er
problem for the case in which gener-
ating functions are continuous.
Sadiq et al.334 2010 OWA operator Developed a new method which mixes
measures for performance evaluation
of small drinking water utilities.
Li335 2010 GOWA investigated MADM problems by gen-
eralized and extended GOWA
Zarghami and 2010 Compromise programming (CP) Demonstrated relationship between
Szidar- and OWA the CP method and the OWA
ovszky265 operator.
Beliakov336 2009 OWA Examined the construction of aggrega-
tion functions from data by mini-
mizing the least absolute deviation
criterion.
Chuu337 2009 Maximum entropy OWA Proposed a linguistic fuzzy quanti¯er
(MEOWA) operators chosen by the manager of the deci-
sion problem is used in MEOWA
operators.
Wang et al.338 2009 Fuzzy linguistic quanti¯er guided Selection of partners in supply chain
ordered weighted aggregation systems by applied FLQG-OWA.
(FLQG-OWA)
Wu et al.262 2009 Induced ordered weighted geomet- Developed induced ordered weighted
ric (IOWG) and Induced averaging (IOWA) by introduced
(ICOWG) IOWG and ICOWG for individual
DM problems solving.
Zarghami and 2009 OWA Revised OWA for solving problems in
Szidar- MCDM under uncertainty.
ovszky339
Cheng et al.340 2009 OWA operator Proposed a new classi¯er including three
parts as follow: (1) utilizes stepwise
regression to order and select attri-
butes, (2) apply OWA operator to
fusion multi-attribute data into the
aggregated values of single attribute
and (3) cluster the aggregated values
for classi¯cation tasks by K -means
method.
Valente and Vet- 2008 OWA Applied OWA for ranking of forest
torazzi341 conservation areas.
Canos and 2008 OWA Developed OWA to solve problem in
Liern342 personnel selection.
2nd Reading
Liu and Lou343 2008 OWA operator and RIM Proposed the minimax disparity RIM
quanti¯er problem and two minimax
ratio problems for OWA operator
and RIM quanti¯er.
Liu344 2008 Entropy and OWA Proposed a general optimization model
with separable strictly convex objec-
tive function to obtain the consistent
OWA operator family.
Wu and Chen345 2007 Fuzzy (FOWA) and linguistic Introduced an aggregating operator
weighted arithmetic averaging named LWAA operator.
(LWAA) operator
Sevastjanov and 2007 Level 2 and Type 2 fuzzy set Proposed new MCDM based on aggre-
Figat346 gation modes.
Chang et al.347 2007 LOWA Applies in direct to aggregate the com-
bination of linguistic information
and product strategy to ensure the
assessment results meeting the
enterprise requirements.
Sadiq and Tesfa- 2007 OWA Developed OWA operators for develop-
mariam348 ment of water quality index.
Le et al.349 2007 OWA operators and Dempster– Discussed a framework for weighted
Shafer combination of classi¯ers for word
sense disambiguation.
Ben-Arieh350 2005 OWA operator Presented the concept of linguistic
quanti¯ers and presents a collection
of quanti¯ers with their associated
weight functions.
Majlender351 2005 OWA operators and entropy Extended approach to DM with OWA
operators with maximal Renyi
entropy.
Xu352 2004 Uncertain linguistic ordered Proposed ULOWA and ULHA.
weighted averaging (ULOWA)
and uncertain linguistic hybrid
aggregation (ULHA)
Ribeiro and 2003 WA and OWA Compared WA and OWA to illustrate
Pereira353 the °exibility and potential of the
aggregation with generalized mixture
operators using weighting functions.
Smolíkova and 2002 OWA operators Described and compared aggregation
Wacho- techniques for Multi Expert-MCDM.
wiak354
Despic and 2000 OWA operators, Fuzzy algorithmic Applied four methods for in water
Simonovic355 approach and composition resources DM.
under pseudo measure
Filev and 1998 OWA Investigated OWA operator for achiev-
Yager356 ing the weights and presented expo-
nential OWA as a new operator.
Herrera et al.357 1998 Linguistic weighted disjunction Used LWD, LWA, LWC and LOWA for
(LWD), LWA, linguistic choice processes in the non-
weighted conjunction (LWC) homogeneous GDM.
and LOWA
2nd Reading
Herrera et al.358 1996 OWA operators and group Present the use of LOWA operator to
decision-making solve GDM problems.
Yager359 1995 Entropy, OWA operator, uniform Suggested new measures for the calcu-
distribution and t-conorms lation of the entropy of a probability
distribution.
Yager et al.360 1994 Entropy and OWA operators Suggested the usefulness of fuzzy market
(FUZMAR) approach for market
research surveys.
Xian et al.361 2015 Intuitionistic fuzzy linguistic Developed the new aggregation operator
induce OWA (IFLIOWA) called IFLIOWA for solving
MAGDM problems.
Lin and Zhang362 2012 Con¯dence intuitionistic fuzzy Proposed some new operators such as
ordered weighted averaging C-IFOWA operator and C-IFOWG
(CIFOWA) operator and con- for solving problems related to
¯dence intuitionistic fuzzy MADM techniques.
(c-IFOWG)
Xu and Yager363 2010 Power-ordered-weighted-geometric Extended the new operators including
(POWG) and power-ordered- POWG and POG based on power-
geometric (POG) ordered-weighted-average (POWA)
and PA operators.
Ahn and Park364 2008 OWA Proposed the e±cient approach for
pruning decision alternatives in the
case of using OWA operators for
DM.
Byeong Seok365 2006 OWA Proposed the analytic forms of OWA
operator weighting functions for
generating the OWA weights.
Jin and Qian366 2016 OWA Introduced the concept OWA genera-
tion function with some properties.
proposed a novel approach for FMADM based on three operators named IFWGA,
IFOWGA and IFHGA. In 2007, Vlachos and Sergiadis370 proposed the intuitionistic
fuzzy divergence measure for the ¯rst time and studied its application pattern rec-
ognition and medical diagnosis. Further, Wei and Ye371 proposed an improved
version of intuitionistic fuzzy divergence in Ref. 370 and developed a method for
pattern recognition with intuitionistic fuzzy information. Hung and Yang372 de¯ned
another divergence measure called \J-divergence" for measuring the di®erence be-
tween two IFSs and then applied it to clustering analysis and pattern recognition.
Burillo and Bustince373 introduced the concept of entropy in IFS theory, which
allows us to measure the degree of intuitionism associated with an IFS. Vlachos and
Sergiadis370 proposed another measure of intuitionistic fuzzy entropy and revealed
an intuitive and mathematical connection between the notions of entropy for fuzzy
set and IFS. Zhang and Jiang374 de¯ned a measure of intuitionistic fuzzy entropy for
IFSs by generalizing of the De et al.375 logarithmic fuzzy entropy. Table 8 provides
the ¯ndings of this section. This table shows that 23 of the previous papers utilized
2nd Reading
Table 8. Distribution of papers based on IFSs.

369
Wan et al. 2016 Triangular intuitionistic fuzzy Extended some operators including
numbers TIFOWA, TIFOWG, hybrid
weighted averaging (IFHWA),
TIFGOWA and TIFGHWA based
on TOPSIS and multi-objective
programming.
Wang et al.50 2016 Intuitionistic fuzzy environment Combined the unreliable evidence
sources in MCDM method in
intuitionistic fuzzy environment.
Jin et al.24 2016 IFPR Proposed two new approaches for GDM
to derive the normalized intuitionis-
tic fuzzy priority weights from IFPRs
based on multiplicative consistency
and the order consistency.
Wang et al.49 2016 Intuitionistic fuzzy settings Proposed the new method by integration
OWA-TOPSIS and intuitionistic
fuzzy settings.
Chen and Chang280 2016 IFWGA, intuitionistic fuzzy Proposed novel approach for fuzzy
ordered weighted geometric MADM based on three operators
averaging (IFOWGA) and named IFWGA, IFOWGA and
intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid IFHGA.
geometric averaging (IFHGA)
Gupta et al.10 2016 Trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy Proposed a novel approach for solving
numbers MAGDM problems with new trape-
zoidal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers.
Yu and Xu41 2016 Multiplicative intuitionistic fuzzy Proposed MIFNs for solving problems in
information (MIFNs) DM methods.
Chen et al.376 2016 IFVs Suggested a novel MCDM model based
on TOPSIS and similarity measures
between IFVs.
Xu et al.377 2016 IFPRs Developed the new approach for
enhancing of the consistency of
individual IFPRs and the consensus
among experts.
Wu et al.378 2014 Intuitionistic fuzzy Choquet (IFC) Employed GIFOGA and IFC for
and generalized intuitionistic selection of wind farm project.
fuzzy ordered geometric
averaging (GIFOGA)
He et al.285 2014 Intuitionistic fuzzy geometric Proposed some new geometric opera-
interaction averaging (IFGIA) tions on IFSs based on probability
operators non-membership (PN), probability
membership (PM) and probability
heterogeneous (PH) operator.
Yue379 2014 Aggregating crisp values and Presented a MAGDM model based on
MAGDM aggregating crisp values into
intuitionistic fuzzy numbers.
Vahdani et al.47 2013 Fuzzy ELECTRE and IFSs Extended of the ELECTRE, for
MCGDM problems based on IFSs.
Wan et al.380 2013 Triangular intuitionistic fuzzy Extended VIKOR for solving the
weighted average (TIF-WA) MAGDM with TIFNs and developed
operator and VIKOR TIF-WA.
2nd Reading
Wu and Cao381 2013 Intuitionistic trapezoidal fuzzy Presented some aggregation operators
weighted geometric (ITFWG), with intuitionistic trapezoidal fuzzy
ordered weighted geometric numbers such as; ITFWG,
(ITFOWG), the induced ITFOWG, I-ITFOWG, ITFHG
ordered weighted geometric operators for MAGDM problems.
(I-ITFOWG) operator and
hybrid geometric (ITFHG)
operators and MAGDM
Wu and Chen382 2011 AN intuitionistic fuzzy set (A-IFS) Developed a novel approach, the intui-
tionistic fuzzy ELECTRE technique
for solving MCDM problems.
Su et al.45 2011 Intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS, Improves an interactive model for
dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy solving of the DIF-MAGDM pro-
weighted averaging (DIFWA) blems.
and hybrid weighted averaging
(HWA)
Ye383 2011 Intuitionistic trapezoidal fuzzy Introduced the expected values for
numbers (ITFNs) ITFNs and presented a handling
method for intuitionistic trapezoidal
FMCDM problems
Chen384 2011 Unipolar bivariate model Presented a useful method of relating
optimism and pessimism to multiple
criteria decision analysis.
Liu and Wang385 2007 Intuitionistic fuzzy point operators Introduced intuitionistic fuzzy point
operators for solving problems in
MCDM methods.
Wang et al.386 2012 Intuitionistic normal fuzzy Presented the new aggregation operators
numbers based on intuitionistic normal fuzzy
numbers.
Zhao et al.387 2014 Intuitionistic fuzzy density-based Extended some intuitionistic fuzzy
aggregation density-based aggregation operator.
Peng et al.388 2014 Intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid Developed some geometric distance
weighted geometric distance measures with intuitionistic fuzzy
(IFHWGD), intuitionistic fuzzy Information such as IFHWGD,
weighted geometric distance IFWGD, IFOWGHD, IFOWGD and
(IFWGD), the intuitionistic IFOWGED measures.
fuzzy ordered weighted
geometric Hamming distance
(IFOWGHD), intuitionistic
fuzzy ordered weighted
geometric distance (IFOWGD)
and the intuitionistic fuzzy
Euclidean distance
(IFOWGED).
the application of IFSs in DM methods. In addition, this table shows results of DM

methods and IFSs based on author(s) name, the year of publication, technique and
research contribution. Table 8 presents all the information regarding the papers that
were published in the ¯eld of DM methods and IFSs.
2nd Reading
3.1.8. Pythagorean fuzzy set

Pythagorean fuzzy set (PFS) proposed by Yager389 for generalization of the notion of
Atanassov's IFS and in recent years has received more and more attention. PFSs as a
new generalization of fuzzy sets (FSs) can handle uncertain information more °exibly
in the process of DM. The main advantage of PFS is that is it considered based on
four parameters including non-membership degree, membership degree, strength of
membership commitment and direction of commitment. PFS has more ability in
relation to the IFSs to model information uncertainty. According to Yager,390 PFSs
are characterized both by a membership degree and by a non-membership degree. On
one hand, PFSs as a new generalization of IFSs, inherit the duality property of
IFSs,368,391 PFSs have more powerful ability than IFSs to model the uncertainty in
the practical decision-making problems. It satis¯es the condition that the square sum
of its membership degree and non-membership degree is equal to or less than 1. In the
real DM process, the decision makers may encounter that they partly know the
concept to the membership degree and the non-membership degree of PFSs. Since
PFSs are proposed, it has attracted many scholars' attentions. Dick et al.392 studied
the lattice-theoretic properties of PFSs, and then extended them to the unit disc of
the complex plane. Zeng et al.393 developed the novel approach for Pythagorean
fuzzy MCDM problems with aggregation operators and distance measures which
called Pythagorean fuzzy ordered weighted averaging weighted average distance
(PFOWAWAD) operator. Under the Pythagorean fuzzy environment, Garg394
discussed a new generalized Pythagorean fuzzy information aggregation using
Einstein operations. With respect to the division and subtraction operations of PFSs,
Garg394 proposed some new aggregation operators based on PFSs such as Pythag-
orean fuzzy Einstein ordered weighted averaging (PFEOWA), generalized Pythag-
orean fuzzy Einstein ordered weighted averaging (GPFEOWA), Pythagorean fuzzy
Einstein weighted averaging (PFEWA) and generalized Pythagorean fuzzy Einstein
weighted averaging (GPFEWA). Peng and Yuan395 introduced the new Pythago-
rean fuzzy weighted averaging (PFWA) operator and develop some Pythagorean
fuzzy point operators and proposed Generalized Pythagorean fuzzy point weighted
averaging (GPFPWA) operator and introduced some generalized Pythagorean fuzzy
weighed averaging (GPFWA) operator. Peng and Yang396 discussed their properties
in detail. In addition, Peng and Yang397 proposed two new PFSs including
Pythagorean fuzzy Choquet integral geometric (PFCIG) and Pythagorean fuzzy
Choquet integral average (PFCIA) based on Choquet integral operator for Py-
thagorean fuzzy aggregation operators. By adopting the TODIM approach, Ren
et al.398 proposed a new approach for the MCDM problems with PFSs. Zhang and
Xu399 further improved the method in MCDM with PFSs. Zhang400 developed a new
decision-making method based on similarity measure to address MCGDM problems
with Pythagorean fuzzy numbers (PFNs). Garg401 proposed some new PFNs
operators such as Pythagorean fuzzy Einstein weighted geometric (PFEWG), gen-
eralized Pythagorean fuzzy Einstein weighted geometric (GPFEWG), Pythagorean
2nd Reading
Table 9. Distribution of papers based on PFS.

404
Liu et al. 2017 Pythagorean uncertain linguis- Introduced the new extension of PULSs
tic sets (PULSs) based on PFSs and uncertain linguistic
term sets.
Garg405 2017 Interval-valued Pythagorean Proposed the improved accuracy function
fuzzy sets (IVPFSs) to rank of IVPFSs for application of
DM process.
Yager390 2014 Pythagorean fuzzy subsets Presented the various aggregation opera-
tors for Pythagorean fuzzy subsets.
Garg394 2016 PFEOWA, GPFEOWA, Proposed some new aggregation operators
PFEWA and GPFEWA based on PFSs such as PFEOWA,
GPFEOWA, PFEWA and GPFEWA.
Yager and 2013 Pythagorean membership Explained the new ideas of Pythagorean
Abbasov406 grades membership grades and Pythagorean
fuzzy subsets.
Garg407 2016 PFSs Introduced the new weighted correlation
coe±cient formulation and correlation
coe±cient for measuring the
relationship between two PFSs.
Peng and 2016 Pythagorean fuzzy Choquet in- Proposed two new PFSs including PFCIG
Yang397 tegral geometric (PFCIG) and PFCIA based on Choquet integral
and PFCIA operator for Pythagorean fuzzy
Peng and 2015 Pythagorean fuzzy aggregation Proposed two new Pythagorean fuzzy
Yang396 aggregation operators based on PFSs
including division and subtraction and
extended inferiority ranking method
and Pythagorean fuzzy superiority for
solving uncertainty of MAGDM
problems.
Zeng et al.393 2016 PFOWAWAD Developed a novel approach for Pythago-
rean fuzzy MCDM problems with
aggregation operators and distance
measures which called PFOWAWAD
operator.
Garg408 2016 IVPFSs Presented two new aggregation operators
based on IVPFS including weighted
geometric operators for di®erent
IVPFS and interval-valued
Pythagorean fuzzy weighted average.
Zhang402 2016 IVPFSs Proposed some new aggregation operators
based on PFNs including closeness
index-based ranking method of PFNs,
IVPFS, interval-valued Pythagorean
fuzzy distance measure and new
hierarchical Pythagorean fuzzy
QUALIFLEX method.
Garg401 2017 PFEWG, GPFEWG, Proposed some new PFNs operators such
PFEOWG and GPFEOWG as PFEWG, GPFEWG, PFEOWG
and GPFEOWG.
2nd Reading
Ren et al.398 2016 PFSs Developed the Pythagorean fuzzy TODIM

method for solving problems of MCDM
and portray the uncertainty and risk
simultaneously.
Zhang400 2016 PFNs Developed the novel decision approach
based on similarity measure to address
MCGDM problems within Pythagore-
an fuzzy environment based on PFNs.
Peng and 2016 Pythagorean fuzzy weighted Developed two new IVPF including in-
Yang409 geometric (IVPFWG) and terval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy
interval-valued Pythagore- weighted geometric (IVPFWG) and
an fuzzy weighted average interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy
(IVPFWA) weighted average (IVPFWA).
Liang et al.403 2015 Interval-valued Pythagorean Introduced the new IVPF-WAA operator
fuzzy weighted arithmetic for handling MCGDM problems.
averaging (IVPF-WAA)
Gou et al.410 2016 PFNs Described the change values of PFNs and
develop several Pythagorean fuzzy
functions.
Garg411 2017 PFNs Examined the novel averaging and
geometric operators called ordered
weighted operators and con¯dence
Pythagorean fuzzy weighted.
Zhang et al.412 2016 Pythagorean fuzzy multi- Developed the novel multigranulation
granulation rough set rough set approach, namely Pythago-
rean fuzzy multigranulation rough set
over two universes.
Ma and Xu413 2016 PFNs Modi¯ed the current score function and
accuracy function for PFN to make it
conform to PFSs.
Peng et al.414 2017 PFNs Investigated the relationship between the
similarity measure, the distance mea-
sure, the entropy for PFSs and intro-
duced systematic transformation of
information measures.
Peng and 2016 GPFPWA, PFWA generalized Introduced the new PFWA operator and
Yuan395 Pythagorean fuzzy weighed develop some Pythagorean fuzzy point
averaging (GPFWA) operators and proposed GPFWA op-
erator and introduced some GPFPWA
operators.
Peng and 2017 Pythagorean fuzzy distance Introduced a novel axiomatic de¯nition of
Dai415 Pythagorean fuzzy distance measure
by PFNs to reduce the information loss
and remain more original information.
Dick et al.392 2016 Pythagorean fuzzy sets (PFSs) Investigated some problems of developed
PFSs based on generalization of IFSs.
Rahman 2017 PFEWG Presented PFEWG operator based on
et al.416 some basic properties including
boundedness, idempotency and mono-
tonicity to address MAGDM problems
under Pythagorean fuzzy information.
2nd Reading
Liang et al.417 2017 Weighted Pythagorean fuzzy Presented GBM into PF situations under
geometric Bonferroni mean the Pythagorean fuzzy environment
(WPFGBM) for developing Pythagorean fuzzy
geometric Bonferroni mean and
WPFGBM operators.
Zeng418 2017 Pythagorean fuzzy probabilistic Introduced the PFPOWA for Pythagore-
ordered weighted averaging an fuzzy MAGDM approach based on
(PFPOWA) probabilistic information and the
OWA approach.
Du et al.419 2017 Interval-valued Pythagorean Introduced and de¯ned some aggregation
fuzzy linguistic weighted operators such as the IVPFLWA,
averaging (IVPFLWA), weighted Minkowski distance with
interval-valued Pythagore- interval-valued PFSs, IVPFLOWA,
an fuzzy linguistic ordered GIVPFOWA and interval-valued
weighted averaging Pythagorean fuzzy linguistic hybrid
(IVPFLOWA), generalized averaging.
interval-valued Pythagore-
an fuzzy linguistic ordered
weighted averaging
(GIVPFOWA)
Liang and 2017 Hesitant Pythagorean fuzzy Integrated PFSs with HFSs to propose a
Xu420 sets (HPFSs) new concept of HPFSs for solving
TOPSIS.
fuzzy Einstein ordered weighted geometric (PFEOWG) and generalized Pythago-

rean fuzzy Einstein ordered weighted geometric (GPFEOWG). Considering hierar-
chical multi-criteria Pythagorean fuzzy decision-making problems, Zhang402
designed a new closeness index-based Pythagorean fuzzy QUALIFLEX method.
Liang et al.403 introduced the new interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy weighted
arithmetic averaging (IVPF-WAA) operator for handling MCGDM problems.
3.1.9. Other aggregation operators

In this section, we considered other types of aggregation operators such as
conjunctive and disjunctive aggregation, fuzzy preference relations, linguistic ag-
gregation, additive aggregation and consensus aggregation operator. For example,
Wei et al.421 developed two aggregation techniques such as Uncertain linguistic
Bonferroni mean (ULBM) operator, uncertain linguistic geometric Bonferroni mean
(ULGBM) operator for aggregating the uncertain linguistic information and
MADM problems. Zhang et al.422 proposed a two-stage dynamic GDM method for
aggregating ordinal preferences. Cabrerizo et al.423 proposed the concept of the in-
formation granularity being regarded as an important and useful asset supporting
the goal to reach consensus in GDM. Zhou and Chen268 proposed the relative
consensus degree induced linguistic continuous ordered weighted geometric (RCD-
ILCOWG) model and developed ILCOWG based on induced linguistic ordered
2nd Reading
weighted geometric (ILOWG) and linguistic continuous ordered weighted geometric

(LCOWG) for GDM problems. Vieira et al.424 proposed the fuzzy criteria for feature
selection by using a fuzzy DM framework. Dubey et al.425 studied the symmetric
model for linear programming problems setup in the intuitionistic fuzzy scenario.
Wang and Parkan426 examined aggregation of multiple fuzzy preference relations
into a collective fuzzy preference relation for evaluates important weights. Xu427
de¯ned the concepts of intuitionistic preference relation, consistent intuitionistic
preference relation, incomplete intuitionistic preference relation and acceptable
intuitionistic preference relation. Silva et al.428 introduced the application of fuzzy
weighted aggregation to formulate the logistic system optimization problem.
Tiryaki429 presented interactive compensatory fuzzy programming for decentralized
multi-level linear programming (DMLLP) problems. Tsiporkova and Boeva430 in-
troduced a recursive aggregation algorithm in the multi-criteria and multi-expert
DM environment. Marques Pereira and Ribeiro431 proposed and discussed two types
of weighting functions that penalize poorly satis¯ed attributes and reward well-
satis¯ed attributes. Czyżak and Skowiiński432 proposed a multi-criteria ranking
method that allows the uncertain evaluation of actions in terms of fuzzy numbers.
Salo433 developed a method for the interactive analysis of fuzzy pairwise comparisons
in hierarchical weighting models. Dubois et al.434 proposed various techniques for
re¯ning the min-based ordering of solutions that cope with this defect. Table 10
represented the results of this part of study. This table shows that 54 of previous
Table 10. Distribution of papers based on other aggregation operators.
Jiang et al.435 2015 Incomplete intuitionistic multipli- Investigated the incomplete IMPR
cative preference relation for introduced of GDM
(incomplete IMPR) problems.
Zhang et al.422 2014 Aggregating ordinal preferences Proposed a two-stage dynamic
GDM method for aggregating
ordinal preferences.
Franceschini 2014 Preference ordering Presented an enhanced version of
et al.436 the Yager's algorithm.
Mesiarova- 2014 Bipolar-valued fuzzy sets and Extended multi-polarity and
Zem ankova multi-polar-valued fuzzy sets discuss its relation to classi¯-
and cation problems.
Ahmad437
Cabrerizo 2014 Granular fuzzy preference relation Proposed the concept of the infor-
et al.423 mation granularity being
regarded as an important and
useful asset supporting the goal
to reach consensus in GDM.
o et al.438
Merig 2014 Uncertain generalized probabilistic Presented UGPWA for solving
weighted averaging (UGPWA) problems in GDM.
Yu et al.439 2013 Weighted prioritized aggregation Proposed weighted prioritized ag-
operators gregation operators for solving
problems in prioritized MCDM.
2nd Reading
Wei et al.421 2013 ULBM operator, ULGBM, uncer- Developed two aggregation techni-
tain linguistic weighted Bon- ques such as ULBM operator
ferroni mean (ULWBM) ULGBM operator for aggre-
operator and the uncertain lin- gating the uncertain linguistic
guistic weighted geometric information and MADM pro-
Bonferroni mean (ULWGBM) blems.
Liu et al.440 2013 LWAA and TOPSIS Proposed a method for group DM
problems with LWAA and
TOPSIS.
Khalili-Dam- 2013 Fuzzy preference relation, GP and Proposed a Goal Programming
ghani et al.441 TOPSIS (GP) approach for project
portfolio selection.
Xu442 2013 TOPSIS and simple additive Applied TOPSIS, nonlinear
weighted averaging operator programming and SAWAO for
(SAWAO) solving problems in GDM.
Wei et al.443 2013 Belief structure generalized Introduced belief structure gener-
linguistic hybrid averaging alized linguistic hybrid averag-
(BS- GLHA) ing for using DM process.
Zhou and 2013 RCD-ILCOWG and induced lin- Proposed RCD-ILCOWG and
Chen268 guistic continuous ordered Developed ILCOWG based on
weighted geometric (ILCOWG) ILOWG and LCOWG for
GDM problems.
Huang et al.444 2013 MAUT and simple additive Improved MAUT and SAW for
weighted (SAW) solving problems in individual
decision makers'.
Jimenez et al.445 2013 Fuzzy MAUT Presented fuzzy MAUT for solving
MCDM problems based on
measuring of dominance
intensity.
Vieira et al.424 2012 Colony optimization algorithm Proposed fuzzy criteria for feature
selection by using a fuzzy DM
framework.
Dubey et al.425 2012 Interval valued fuzzy sets (IVFSs) Studied the symmetric model for
and IFS linear programming problems
setup in the intuitionistic fuzzy
scenario.
Hong446 2012 Maximum entropy and minimax Provided a correct relationship
ratio RIM quanti¯er between the maximum entropy
and minimax ratio RIM
quanti¯er problems.
Yang et al.447 2012 ELECTRE and Duplex linguistic Presented an outranking method
set for duplex linguistic multi-
criteria decisions
Peng et al.448 2012 Uncertain pure linguistic hybrid Proposed an UPLHHA operator
harmonic averaging and a GIA operator for GDM
(UPLHHA) problems.
Roghanian 2010 Fuzzy group TOPSIS Comprised last and ¯rst aggrega-
et al.449 tion of fuzzy group TOPSIS.
Matthe et al.450 2009 Conjunctive and disjunctive Presented weighted aggregation of
aggregation extended possible truth values.
2nd Reading
Wang and 2008 Aggregating multiple fuzzy Examined aggregation of multiple

Parkan426 preference relations fuzzy preference relations into a
collective fuzzy preference
relation for evaluation of
important weights.
Xu451 2008 Lnguistic preference relations Investigated GDM problems with
multiple types of linguistic
preference relations.
Xu427 2007 Intuitionistic preference relation De¯ned the concepts of intuitio-
nistic preference relation,
consistent intuitionistic
preference relation, incomplete
intuitionistic preference
relation and acceptable intui-
tionistic preference relation
Luo and 2007 Compromise operators Used compromise operators for
Jennings452 solving MADM problems.
453
Ye 2007 Vague set Applied vague sets for improve
FMCDM based problems.
Silva et al.428 2007 Genetic algorithms (GA) Introduced the application of fuzzy
weighted aggregation to
formulate the logistic system
optimization problem.
Tiryaki429 2006 DMLLP and AHP Presented interactive compensato-
ry fuzzy programming for
DMLLP problems.
Tsiporkova and 2006 Recursive aggregation Introduced a recursive aggregation
Boeva430 algorithm in the multi-criteria
and multi-expert DM
environment.
Chen and Fu454 2005 Fuzzy dynamic programming Developed a fuzzy dynamic
programming approach for
MODM multistage problems.
Dubois and 2004 Aggregation operations Discussed the role of the existing
Prade252 body of fuzzy set aggregation
operations in various kinds of
problems.
Marques Pereira 2003 Weighted aggregation operators Proposed and discussed two types
and of weighting functions that
Ribeiro431 penalize poorly satis¯ed attri-
butes and reward well-satis¯ed
attributes.
Herrera and 2000 Linguistic aggregation Presented three steps for solving
Herrera- MCDM problems under
Viedma455 linguistic information
Sakawa et al.456 1999 Interactive fuzzy satis¯cing Proposed an interactive fuzzy
method satis¯cing method for the
solution of a multi-objective
optimal control problem.
Chiclana et al.21 1998 Fuzzy quanti¯er, a conjunction Presented selection processes for
selection process and sequential multiple preference relations.
selection process
2nd Reading
Chen and 1997 SAW and IFWA Combined SAW method for im-
Klein457 proved fuzzy weighted average
(IFWA).
Meier458 1997 Additive aggregation, ELECTRE The results of this found the best
and Preference Ranking Orga- alternatives di®ering only in-
nisation Method for Enrich- signi¯cantly among themselves.
ment Evaluations
(PROMETHEE)
Kuncheva and 1996 Consensus aggregation operator Proposed operator for two-level
Krishna- classi¯cation paradigm where a
puram459 pool of classi¯ers is used to infer
the decision.
Czyżak and 1996 ELECTRE III and Proposed a multicriteria ranking
Skowiiński432 Multicriteria aid method that allows the uncer-
tain evaluation of actions in
terms of fuzzy numbers.
Salo433 1996 Fuzzy ratio and DM Developed a method for the inter-
active analysis of fuzzy pairwise
comparisons in hierarchical
weighting models.
Dubois et al.434 1996 Maximax ranking and Proposed various techniques for
decision-making re¯ning the min-based ordering
of solutions that cope with this
defect.
Grabisch460 1996 Fuzzy integrals and MCDM Presented a synthesis on the ap-
plication of fuzzy integrals as an
innovative tool for criteria ag-
gregation in decision problems.
Hsu and Chen461 1996 Aggregating individual fuzzy Presented a procedure for aggre-
and GDM gating the expert opinions.
Yager462 1994 Monotonic identity commutative Showed that the t-norm and
aggregation (MICA) operators t-conorm are special cases of
MICA operators.
Stanley Lee 1993 Fuzzy Multiple Objective Pro- Proposed FMODM approach
and Li463 gramming (FMOP) and Pareto based on the desirable
optimum and CP features of CP and the fuzzy set
theory
Perny and Roy464 1992 Preference modeling, fuzzy binary For Con°icting systems of logic,
relation and decision-making uncertain knowledge and am-
biguous positions presented
multiple criteria methodology.
Di Nola et al.465 1991 Fuzzy relation equation and deci- Overview on the applications of
sion-making process fuzzy relation equations theory
to decision-making processes.
Sakawa and 1988 Multi objective linear fractional Presented a new interactive fuzzy
Yano466 programming DM method for solving multi
objective linear fractional
programming problems.
Słowiński467 1986 Multicriteria fuzzy linear pro- Solved using an interactive
gramming technique involving a linear
programming procedure in the
calculation phase.
2nd Reading
He et al.468 2016 Scaled prioritized geometric score Developed the some scaled priori-
(SPGS), the scaled prioritized tized geometric aggregation
geometric averaging (SPGA) operators such as SPGS,
operator, uncertain scaled pri- SPGA, USPGS and USPGA
oritized geometric scoring operators.
(USPGS) operator and the un-
certain scaled prioritized geo-
metric averaging (USPGA)
operator
Merigo et al.194 2010 Linguistic ordered weighted aver- Extended the novel method for
aging (BS-LOWA) and the BS DM by de¯ne the di®erent
linguistic hybrid averaging (BS- types of linguistic aggregation
LHA) operators such as BS-LOWA
and BS-LHA.
Peng and Ye469 2013 Uncertain pure linguistic weighted Developed some aggregation
geometric mean (UPLWGM) operators including UPLWGM,
operator, the induced uncertain IUPLOWGM and IUPLHGM
pure linguistic ordered weight- operators.
ed geometric mean
(IUPLOWGM) operator, and
the induced uncertain pure lin-
guistic hybrid geometric mean
(IUPLHGM) operator
Xu470 2009 Dynamic weighted geometric ag- Examined the dynamic hybrid
gregation (DWGA) operator, MAGDM problems by
unit-interval monotonic (BUM) de¯ning concepts of argument
function and hybrid geometric variable and DWGA operator,
aggregation (HGA) operator BUM function and HGA
operator.
He et al.471 2015 Weighted intuitionistic fuzzy Integrated the GBM with the PGA
power geometric Bonferroni operator under intuitionistic
mean (WIFPGBM) and intui- fuzzy environment to propose
tionistic fuzzy geometric power the IFPGBM and WIFPGBM.
Bonferroni mean (IFPGBM)
studies examined the application of some other aggregation operators in DM

methods. In addition, this table shows results of DM methods and other aggregation
operators based on author(s) name, the year of publication, technique and research
contribution.
4. Distribution of Articles by Journal

Table 11 presents the distribution of selected previous studies by journals. The
papers related to the DM and aggregation operators have been selected through 33
di®erent international journals from the Web of Science database. As can be seen in
Table 11, from 33 journals, Journal Information Science was ranked as the ¯rst
journal with 51 papers. These results indicated that Journal Information Science has
2nd Reading
Table 11. Distribution of papers based on the name of journals.
Name of journal Number Percentage (%)
Information Sciences 51 16.35

Fuzzy Sets and Systems 50 16.03
Knowledge-Based Systems 40 12.82
Expert Systems with Applications 29 9.29
Applied Mathematical Modelling 21 6.73
Computers & Industrial Engineering 17 5.45
International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge- 17 5.45
Based Systems
European Journal of Operational Research 17 5.45
International Journal of Intelligent Systems 17 5.45
IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 16 5.13
Applied Soft Computing 7 2.24
International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 3 0.96
Omega 3 0.96
Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 3 0.96
Ecological Indicators 2 0.64
Tourism Management 2 0.64
Applied Energy 1 0.32
Journal of Computer and System Sciences 1 0.32
IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics 1 0.32
Applied Mathematics and Computation 1 0.32
Engineering Applications of Arti¯cial Intelligence 1 0.32
Waste Management 1 0.32
Mathematical and Computer Modelling 1 0.32
International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and 1 0.32
Geoinformation
Forest Ecology and Management 1 0.32
Data & Knowledge Engineering 1 0.32
Energy Conversion and Management 1 0.32
International Journal of Information Technology & DM 1 0.32
Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society 1 0.32
Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory 1 0.32
Fundamenta Informaticae 1 0.32
Arti¯cial Intelligence 1 0.32
Total 312 100
the most contribution in application of DM and aggregation operators. Fuzzy Sets

and Systems journal had the second rank with 50 articles. Furthermore, Journal of
Knowledge-Based Systems had the third rank with 40 articles. In other journal
rankings, Expert Systems with Applications, Applied Mathematical Modeling with
29 and 21 articles had fourth and ¯fth rank, respectively. Moreover, the results show
that Journals of Computers & Industrial Engineering, International Journal of
Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, European Journal of Oper-
ational Research, International Journal of Intelligent Systems had the sixth, seventh,
eighth and ninth rank with 17 publications, and IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy
Systems with 16 publications had 10th rank.
2nd Reading
Table 12. Distribution of papers based on the authors' nationality.
Name of country Number Percentage (%) Name of country Number Percentage (%)
China 142 45.51 Belgium 3 0.96

Taiwan 31 9.94 Australia 2 0.64
Spain 26 8.33 Brazil 2 0.64
United States 23 7.37 Switzerland 1 0.32
France 13 4.17 Netherlands 1 0.32
India 9 2.88 Greece 1 0.32
South Korea 8 2.56 Colombia 1 0.32
Italy 8 2.56 Czech Republic 1 0.32
Iran 7 2.24 Germany 1 0.32
Poland 6 1.92 Bulgaria 1 0.32
Turkey 5 1.60 Ireland 1 0.32
United Kingdom 3 0.96 Slovakia 1 0.32
Finland 3 0.96 Azerbaijan 1 0.32
Canada 3 0.96 Hungary 1 0.32
Portugal 3 0.96 Malaysia 1 0.32
Japan 3 0.96
5. Distribution of the Papers Based on Nationality of Authors

Table 12 represented the distribution of the authors from 31 nationalities
and countries which contributed in DM and aggregation operators. Chinese
scholars were published 142 articles in the ¯eld of DM and aggregation operators
in various application areas. Furthermore, the results of this section demon-
strated that Taiwan, Spain, United States, France and India have participated
in publishing articles in various application areas of DM and aggregations
operators.
6. Distribution of Articles By Year of Publication

Applications of DM and aggregation operators in various areas have been in-
creased in recent years dramatically. Historical growth rate of DM and aggre-
gation operators have been available for many years. Figure 2 provides important
evidence based on the frequency of distribution by the year of publication. The
results indicate that from July 1986 and June 2017, information about the ag-
gregation operators in DM methods has grown. According to the ¯ndings of this
section, the use of these methods in 1986 were found in one article, and this
number increased to seven papers in 1996; the number of publications increased
to 10 and 12 papers in 2009 and 2010. In addition, the numbers of published paper
have increased from 25 to 44 papers from 2012 to 2013. Accordingly, it can be
indicated that, nowadays researchers used DM and aggregation operators in
di®erent ¯elds of and it can be predicted that in coming years, these numbers will
increase.
2nd Reading
350
300
No. of publication
250
200
150
100
50
0
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Year of publication
Fig. 2. Distribution of articles by year of publication.
7. Discussion
There are some challenges regarding various application areas of DM and aggrega-
tion operators that can be interesting for discussion and future studies. For example,
there are some challenges regarding various application areas of DM and aggregation
operators that can be interesting for discussion and future studies. For example,
some previous studies developed dynamic intuitionistic normal fuzzy aggregation
operators for solving MADM problems with time sequence preference, in this regard;
future studies can extend this method for interval type intuitionistic normal fuzzy
numbers and dynamic MADM problems. Some studies integrated Heronian mean
operator and power average operator and proposed IVIFPHA operator and
IVIFPWHA operator, regarding this ¯eld; future studies can extend power Heronian
aggregation operator with Hesitant fuzzy number, neutrosophic numbers, normal
fuzzy numbers and interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Some previous papers proposed new
methods such as autocratic DM using group recommendations (ADMUGRs) with
integrating of IT2FSs, OWA and enhanced Karnik–Mendel (EKM) algorithms, thus;
in future other studies we can use granular computing techniques to develop new
methods. In ¯eld of Pythagorean fuzzy sets and DM, further investigation can
integrate Pythagorean fuzzy sets and DM with decision support systems (DSSs) for
helping the decision makers in systematic real-world DM under uncertainty, in ad-
dition; some studies integrated PFSs with HFSs to propose a new concept called
HPFSs; thus, future studies on integrated PFSs with interval-valued propose the
new concept called interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy environment. In the area of
interval-valued intuitionistic, further investigation can integrate Atanassov's
interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy number (AIVIFN) and clustering algorithm for
clustering the expert preferences for decrease the number of expert preference points.
Regarding to averaging aggregation operators, some papers proposed new aggrega-
tion operators such as intuitionistic fuzzy Einstein interactive weighted averaging
2nd Reading
(IFEIWA) and intuitionistic fuzzy Einstein interactive ordered weighted averaging

(IFEIOWA); therefore, in the future other studies can apply these proposed opera-
tors for solving practical applications such as uncertain programming, fuzzy cluster
analysis, fuzzy cluster analysis and game theory. Furthermore, some of the previous
papers integrated interval type-2 fuzzy numbers with some DM techniques such as
ELECTRE, in this regard, future studies can consider other DM techniques such as
PROMETHEE I, II, EDAS, TOPSIS, VIKOR and other types of ELECTRE
such as ELECTRE II, ELECTRE III, ELECTRE IV, ELECTRE IS and ELECTRE
TRI. In ¯eld of linguistic hesitant fuzzy information, some previous papers addressed
to solving MCDM problems by extended the VIKOR technique and LHFSs; there-
fore, further investigation can use this extension for solving MCGDM problems
with other MCDM techniques classical like ELECTRE, TOPSIS, TODIM. In ad-
dition, some of the previous studies extend the TODIM technique to solve MCGDM
problems within the context of IT2FSs, regarding this future studies integrating the
TODIM with other MCDM techniques, such as DEMATEL, PROMETHEE and
AHP. Additionally, some of the previous papers developed interval type-2 fuzzy for
solving MADM problems techniques such as TOPSIS and DEMATEL; regarding
this issue, further works can develop the developed model in various uncertainty
modeling and algorithm improvement such as HFSs or IFSs, IT2F-VIKOR, IT2F-
PROMETHEE and IT2F-ELECTRE. In ¯eld of two-tuple linguistic, some works
integrated two-tuple linguistic with some DM techniques such as ANP and proposed
two-tuple linguistic analytic network process (TL-ANP); thus, future works can use
other MCDM techniques in other decision environments, such as LHFSs and hesitant
fuzzy set.
8. Conclusion
In this review study, we presented a comprehensive review on several aggregation
operators such as hesitant fuzzy set, two-tuple linguistic, IFS, IVIFSs, type-2 fuzzy
set (T2FSs), OWA, fuzzy Choquet integral operator, Pythagorean fuzzy set and
other OWA operators in MCDM problems. In the last four decades, several aggre-
gation operators have been proposed and developed for solving MCDM problems in
various application areas. The aggregation operators can handle MCDM problems in
various application areas with higher degree of ambiguity and uncertainty. In this
review paper, we have contributed knowledge in literature with several perspectives:
for the ¯rst time we classi¯ed articles into nine di®erent applications areas including:
hesitant fuzzy set, two-tuple linguistic, IFS, IVIFSs, type-2 fuzzy set (T2FSs), OWA,
fuzzy Choquet integral operator, Pythagorean fuzzy set and other OWA operators.
For our research methodology, this review paper proposed the PRISMA statement.
PRISMA statement has two main parts including systematic reviews and meta-
analyses. In our review study, for conducting PRISMA method, we accomplished
three main steps including, search in literature, choosing the eligible published
papers, extraction of data and summarizing. We have nominated Web of Science
2nd Reading
database to present a comprehensive published study in the area of aggregation

operators and DM. The attempts have been made using papers published from July
1986 and June 2017. For the purpose of eligibility, we reviewed the full text of each
manuscript independently. Book chapters, unpublished working papers, editorial
notes, master dissertations and doctoral theses, textbooks, non-English papers were
excluded. The results showed that Chinese scholars proposed and developed 119
articles in the ¯eld of DM and aggregation operators in various application areas.
The results of analyzing extracted papers also demonstrated that Journal of Infor-
mation Science was ranked as the ¯rst journal with 61 papers followed by Knowl-
edge-Based Systems with 52 papers and Fuzzy Sets and Systems with 50 papers in
our review. We believe that the reviewing, summarizing and classifying of articles can
help us to achieve various critical and important hints. In addition, we observed that
in future the number of approaches of aggregation operators will increase for solving
MCDM problems.
There are some challenges regarding various application areas of DM and
aggregation operators that can be interesting for discussion and future studies.
For example, some previous studies developed dynamic intuitionistic normal fuzzy
aggregation operators for solving MADM problems with time sequence preference,
in this regard, future studies can extend this method for interval type intuitionistic
normal fuzzy numbers and dynamic MADM problems. Some studies integrated
Heronian mean operator and power average operator, proposed IVIFPHA operator
and IVIFPWHA operator. However, future studies can extend power Heronian ag-
gregation operator with hesitant fuzzy number, neutrosophic numbers, normal fuzzy
numbers and interval type-2 fuzzy sets for solving DM problems. Some previous
papers proposed new methods such as autocratic decision making using group
recommendations (ADMUGRs) with integrating the IT2FSs, OWA and EKM
algorithms; therefore, the future studies can use granular computing techniques for
developing new methods.
In the ¯eld of Pythagorean fuzzy sets and DM, further investigation can integrate
Pythagorean fuzzy sets and DM with DSSs for helping the decision makers in sys-
tematic real-world DM under uncertainty. In addition, some studies integrated PFSs
with HFSs to propose a new concept called HPFSs; thus, future studies can integrate
PFSs with interval-valued for proposing the new concept called interval-valued
Pythagorean fuzzy sets. In the area of interval-valued intuitionistic, further inves-
tigation can integrate Atanassov's interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy number
(AIVIFN) and clustering algorithm for clustering the expert preferences to decrease
the number of expert preference points. Regarding the averaging aggregation
operators, some papers proposed new aggregation operators such as Intuitionistic
Fuzzy Einstein Interactive Weighted Averaging (IFEIWA) and Intuitionistic
Fuzzy Einstein Interactive Ordered Weighted Averaging (IFEIOWA); therefore, the
future studies can apply these proposed operators for solving practical applications
such as uncertain programming, fuzzy cluster analysis, fuzzy cluster analysis and
game theory.
2nd Reading
Furthermore, some of the previous papers integrated interval type-2 fuzzy

numbers with some DM techniques such as ELECTRE. In this regard, future studies
can consider other DM techniques such as PROMETHEE I and II, EDAS, TOPSIS,
VIKOR and other types of ELECTRE such as ELECTRE II, ELECTRE III,
ELECTRE IV, ELECTRE IS and ELECTRE TRI. In the ¯eld of linguistic hesitant
fuzzy information, some previous papers addressed to solving MCDM problems by
extending the VIKOR technique and LHFSs; therefore, further investigation can use
this extension for solving MCGDM problems with other classical MCDM techniques
such as ELECTRE, TOPSIS and TODIM.
Moreover, some of the previous studies extended the TODIM technique to solve
MCGDM problems within the context of IT2FSs. Regarding this, future studies
can integrate the TODIM with other MCDM techniques such as DEMATEL,
PROMETHEE and AHP. Additionally, some of the previous papers developed the
interval type-2 fuzzy for solving MADM problems techniques such as TOPSIS and
DEMATEL. Regarding this issue, further works can extend the developed model in
various uncertainty modeling and algorithm improvements such as hesitant fuzzy
sets or IFSs, IT2F-VIKOR, IT2F-PROMETHEE and IT2F-ELECTRE. In the ¯eld
of two-tuple linguistic, some works integrated two-tuple linguistic with some DM
techniques such as ANP and proposed two-tuple linguistic analytic network process
(TL-ANP); thus, future works can use other MCDM techniques in other decision
environments such as LHFSs and hesitant fuzzy set.
References
1. J. A. Morente-Molinera, I. J. Perez, M. R. Ureña and E. Herrera-Viedma, On multi-
granular fuzzy linguistic modeling in group decision making problems: A systematic
review and future trends, Knowledge-Based Systems 74 (2015) 49–60.
2. J. Lu, G. Zhang, D. Ruan and F. Wu, Multi-Objective Group Decision Making: Methods,
Software and Applications with Fuzzy Set Techniques (Imperial College Press, 2007).
3. D. Ben-Arieh and Z. Chen, Linguistic-labels aggregation and consensus measure
for autocratic decision making using group recommendations, IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans 36 (2006) 558–568.
4. F. Herrera and E. Herrera-Viedma, Aggregation operators for linguistic weighted
information, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems
and Humans 27 (1997) 646–656.
5. F. Bobillo and U. Straccia, Aggregation operators for fuzzy ontologies, Applied Soft
Computing 13 (2013) 3816–3830.
6. G. Kou, D. Ergu, C. Lin and Y. Chen, Pairwise comparison matrix in multiple
criteria decision making, Technological and Economic Development of Economy
22 (2016) 738–765.
7. J. Qin, X. Liu and W. Pedrycz, Frank aggregation operators and their application to
hesitant fuzzy multiple attribute decision making, Applied Soft Computing 41 (2016)
428–452.
8. M. Düğenci, A new distance measure for interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets and its
application to group decision making problems with incomplete weights information,
Applied Soft Computing 41 (2016) 120–134.
2nd Reading
9. G. Kou, D. Ergu and J. Shang, Enhancing data consistency in decision matrix: Adapting
Hadamard model to mitigate judgment contradiction, European Journal of Operational
Research 236 (2014) 261–271.
10. P. Gupta, M. K. Mehlawat and N. Grover, Intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute group
decision-making with an application to plant location selection based on a new extended
VIKOR method, Information Sciences 370–371 (2016) 184–203.
11. G. Li, G. Kou, C. Lin, L. Xu and Y. Liao, Multi-attribute decision making with
generalized fuzzy numbers, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 66 (2015)
1793–1803.
12. J. Ashayeri, G. Tuzkaya and U. R. Tuzkaya, Supply chain partners and con¯guration
selection: An intuitionistic fuzzy Choquet integral operator based approach, Expert
Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 3642–3649.
13. D. Yu, W. Zhang and Y. Xu, Group decision making under hesitant fuzzy
environment with application to personnel evaluation, Knowledge-Based Systems
52 (2013) 1–10.
14. W. Wu and G. Kou, A group consensus model for evaluating real estate investment
alternatives, Financial Innovation, 2 (2016) 8.
15. Y. X. Ma, J. Wang, J. Q. Wang and X. H. Chen, Two-tuple linguistic aggregation
operators based on subjective sensation and objective numerical scales for multi-criteria
group decision-making problems, Scientia Iranica 23 (2016) 1399–1417.
16. J.-Q. Wang, J.-J. Peng, H.-Y. Zhang, T. Liu and X.-H. Chen, An uncertain linguistic
multi-criteria group decision-making method based on a cloud model, Group Decision
and Negotiation 24 (2015) 171–192.
17. J.-Q. Wang, Z.-Q. Han and H.-Y. Zhang, Multi-criteria group decision-making
method based on intuitionistic interval fuzzy information, Group Decision and Nego-
tiation 23 (2014) 715–733.
18. H. Zhou, J. Wang, X.-E. Li and J.-Q. Wang, Intuitionistic hesitant linguistic sets
and their application in multi-criteria decision-making problems, Operational Research,
16 (2016) 131–160.
19. C.-H. Wang and J.-Q. Wang, A multi-criteria decision-making method based on
triangular intuitionistic fuzzy preference information, Intelligent Automation & Soft
Computing, 22 (2016) 473–482.
20. J. C. Fodor and M. Roubens, Valued preference structures, European Journal of
Operational Research, 79 (1994) 277–286.
21. F. Chiclana, F. Herrera and E. Herrera-Viedma, Integrating three representation models
in fuzzy multipurpose decision making based on fuzzy preference relations, Fuzzy Sets
and Systems 97 (1998) 33–48.
22. W. Wang and X. Liu, Some hesitant fuzzy geometric operators and their application to
multiple attribute group decision making, Technological and Economic Development of
Economy, 20 (2014) 371–390.
23. H. Zhu, J. Zhao and Y. Xu, 2-dimension linguistic computational model with 2-tuples
for multi-attribute group decision making, Knowledge-Based Systems 103 (2016)
132–142.
24. F. Jin, Z. Ni, H. Chen and Y. Li, Approaches to group decision making with intuitio-
nistic fuzzy preference relations based on multiplicative consistency, Knowledge-Based
Systems 97 (2016) 48–59.
25. S. Zeng, J. M. Merigo, D. Palacios-Marques, H. Jin and F. Gu, Intuitionistic fuzzy
induced ordered weighted averaging distance operator and its application to decision
making, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 32 (2017) 11–22.
2nd Reading
26. Z. Shouzhen and X. Yao, TOPSIS method for intuitionistic fuzzy multiple-criteria
decision making and its application to investment selection, Kybernetes 45 (2016)
282–296.
27. Z. Shouzhen, An extension of OWAD operator and its application to uncertain multiple-
attribute group decision-making, Cybernetics and Systems, 47 (2016) 363–375.
28. J. Qin, X. Liu and W. Pedrycz, An extended VIKOR method based on prospect theory
for multiple attribute decision making under interval type-2 fuzzy environment,
Knowledge-Based Systems 86 (2015) 116–130.
29. S. Zeng, W. Su and C. Zhang, Intuitionistic fuzzy generalized probabilistic ordered
weighted averaging operator and its application to group decision making, Technolog-
ical and Economic Development of Economy 22 (2016) 177–193.
30. L. Dymova, P. Sevastjanov and A. Tikhonenko, An interval type-2 fuzzy extension of
the TOPSIS method using alpha cuts, Knowledge-Based Systems 83 (2015) 116–127.
31. C. Zhu, L. Zhu and X. Zhang, Linguistic hesitant fuzzy power aggregation operators and
their applications in multiple attribute decision-making, Information Sciences, 367–368
(2016) 809–826.
32. J.-J. Peng, J.-Q. Wang, J. Wang, L.-J. Yang and X.-H. Chen, An extension of
ELECTRE to multi-criteria decision-making problems with multi-hesitant fuzzy sets,
Information Sciences 307 (2015) 113–126.
33. R. R. Yager, On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria
decisionmaking, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 18 (1988)
183–190.
34. L. A. Zadeh, A computational approach to fuzzy quanti¯ers in natural languages,
Computers & Mathematics with Applications 9 (1983) 149–184.
35. R. R. Yager, Quanti¯er guided aggregation using OWA operators, International Journal
of Intelligent Systems, 11 (1996): 49–73.
36. T. Murofushi and M. Sugeno, An interpretation of fuzzy measures and the Choquet
integral as an integral with respect to a fuzzy measure, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 29 (1989)
201–227.
37. T. Murofushi and M. Sugeno, `Fuzzy t-conorm integral with respect to fuzzy measures:
generalization of Sugeno integral and Choquet integral, Fuzzy Sets and Systems,
42 (1991): 57–71.
38. E. P. Klement, R. Mesiar and E. Pap, À universal integral as common frame
for Choquet and Sugeno integral', IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 18 (2010):
178–187.
39. M. Grabisch and C. Labreuche, À decade of application of the Choquet and Sugeno
integrals in multi-criteria decision aid', Annals of Operations Research, 175 (2010):
247–286.
40. C. Tan and X. Chen, Ìntuitionistic fuzzy Choquet integral operator for multi-criteria
decision making', Expert Systems with Applications, 37 (2010): 149–157.
41. S. Yu and Z. Xu, `De¯nite integrals of multiplicative intuitionistic fuzzy information in
decision making, Knowledge-Based Systems 100 (2016) 59–73.
42. Y. Ju and A. Wang, Extension of VIKOR method for multi-criteria group decision
making problem with linguistic information, Applied Mathematical Modelling, 37 (2013)
3112–3125.
43. J. Lin, Q. Zhang and F. Meng, An approach for facility location selection based on
optimal aggregation operator, Knowledge-Based Systems 85 (2015) 143–158.
44. J. M. Merigo, A uni¯ed model between the weighted average and the induced OWA
operator, Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 11560–11572.
2nd Reading
45. Z.-X. Su, M.-Y. Chen, G.-P. Xia and L. Wang, An interactive method for dynamic
intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute group decision making, Expert Systems with Appli-
cations 38 (2011) 15286–15295.
46. I. Truck, Comparison and links between two 2-tuple linguistic models for decision
making, Knowledge-Based Systems 87 (2015) 61–68.
47. B. Vahdani, S. M. Mousavi, R. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam and H. Hashemi, A new design
of the elimination and choice translating reality method for multi-criteria group deci-
sion-making in an intuitionistic fuzzy environment, Applied Mathematical Modelling
37 (2013) 1781–1799.
48. S.-P. Wan, G.-l. Xu, F. Wang and J.-Y. Dong, A new method for Atanassov's interval-
valued intuitionistic fuzzy MAGDM with incomplete attribute weight information,
Information Sciences, 316 (2015) 329–347.
49. T. Wang, J. Liu, J. Li and C. Niu, An integrating OWA–TOPSIS framework in intui-
tionistic fuzzy settings for multiple attribute decision making, Computers & Industrial
Engineering 98 (2016) 185–194.
50. X. Wang, J. Zhu, Y. Song and L. Lei, Combination of unreliable evidence sources
in intuitionistic fuzzy MCDM framework, Knowledge-Based Systems 97 (2016) 24–39.
51. D. Dubois and H. Prade, A review of fuzzy set aggregation connectives, Information
Sciences 36 (1985) 85–121.
52. A. Mardani, A. Jusoh, K. MD Nor, Z. Khalifah, N. Zakwan and A. Valipour, Multiple
criteria decision-making techniques and their applications–a review of the literature
from 2000 to 2014, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istra z ivanja 28(1) (2015) 516–571.
53. A. Mardani, A. Jusoh, E. K. Zavadskas, F. Cavallaro and Z. Khalifah, Sustainable and
renewable energy: An overview of the application of multiple criteria decision making
techniques and approaches, Sustainability 7(10) (2015) 13947.
54. A. Mardani, A. Jusoh and E. K. Zavadskas, Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making
techniques and applications–Two decades review from 1994 to 2014, Expert Systems
with Applications 42(8) (2015) 4126–4148.
55. A. Mardani, A. Jusoh, E. K. Zavadskas, M. Kazemilari, U. N. U. Ahmad and Z.
Khalifah, Application of multiple criteria decision making techniques in tourism
and hospitality industry: A systematic review, Transformations in Business & Eco-
nomics 15(1) (2016) 192–213.
56. A. Mardani, A. Jusoh, E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Khalifah and K. M. Nor, Application of
multiple-criteria decision-making techniques and approaches to evaluating of service
quality: A systematic review of the literature, Journal of Business Economics and
Management 16(5) (2015) 1034–1068.
57. A. Mardani, M. Nilashi, N. Zakuan, N. Loganathan, S. Soheilirad, M. Z. M. Saman and
O. Ibrahim, A systematic review and meta-analysis of SWARA and WASPAS methods:
Theory and applications with recent fuzzy developments, Applied Soft Computing
57 (2017) 265–292.
58. A. Mardani, E. K. Zavadskas, K. Govindan, A. Amat Senin and A. Jusoh, VIKOR
technique: A systematic review of the state of the art literature on methodologies and
applications, Sustainability 8(1) (2016) 37.
59. A. Mardani, E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Khalifah, A. Jusoh and K. M. Nor, Multiple criteria
decision-making techniques in transportation systems: A systematic review of the state
of the art literature, Transport 31 (2016) 359–385.
60. A. Mardani, E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Khalifah, N. Zakuan, A. Jusoh, K. M. Nor and M.
Khoshnoudi, A review of multi-criteria decision-making applications to solve energy
management problems: Two decades from 1995 to 2015, Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 71 (2017) 216–256.
2nd Reading
61. A. Mardani, E. K. Zavadskas, D. Streimikiene, A. Jusoh and M. Khoshnoudi, A

comprehensive review of data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach in energy e±-
ciency, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 70 (2017) 1298–1322.
62. Z. Xu, D. Yu, Y. Kao and C. T. Lin, The structure and citation landscape of IEEE
Transactions on Fuzzy Systems (1994–2015), IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems
In Press (2017) 1–16.
63. D. J. Yu and H. C. Liao, Visualization and quantitative research on intuitionistic
fuzzy studies, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 30 (2016) 3653–3663.
64. D. J. Yu and S. S. Shi, Researching the development of Atanassov intuitionistic
fuzzy set: Using a citation network analysis, Applied Soft Computing 32 (2015) 189–198.
65. D. J. Yu, D. F. Li, J. M. Merigo and L. C. Fang, Mapping development of
linguistic decision making studies, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 30 (2016)
2727–2736.
66. X. He, Y. Wu, D. Yu and J. M. Merig o, Exploring the ordered weighted averaging
operator knowledge domain: A bibliometric analysis, International Journal of Intelligent
Systems 32 (2017) 1–16.
67. D. Yu, A scientometrics review on aggregation operator research, Scientometrics
105 (2015) 115–133.
68. D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzla® and D. G. Altman, Preferred reporting items for
systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement, Annals of Internal
Medicine 151 (2009) 264–269.
69. D. Budgen and P. Brereton, Performing systematic literature reviews in software
engineering, in Proc. 28th Int. Conf. Software Engineering (2006), pp. 1051–1052.
70. M. Zare, C. Pahl, H. Rahnama, M. Nilashi, A. Mardani, O. Ibrahim and H. Ahmadi,
Multi-criteria decision making approach in E-learning: A systematic review and classi-
¯cation, Applied Soft Computing 45 (2016) 108–128.
71. P. J. Phillips and E. M. Newton, Meta-analysis of face recognition algorithms, in Proc.
Fifth IEEE International Conf Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition, 2002. (2002),
pp. 235–241.
72. A. Liberati, D. G. Altman, J. Tetzla®, C. Mulrow, P. C. Gøtzsche, J. P. Ioannidis, M.
Clarke, P. J. Devereaux, J. Kleijnen and D. Moher, The PRISMA statement for
reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care
interventions: Explanation and elaboration, Annals of Internal Medicine 151 (2009)
W-65–W-94.
73. A. Hughes-Morley, B. Young, W. Waheed, N. Small and P. Bower, Factors a®ecting
recruitment into depression trials: Systematic review, meta-synthesis and conceptual
framework, Journal of A®ective Disorders 172 (2015) 274–290.
74. N. S. Consedine, N. L. Tuck, C. R. Ragin and B. A. Spencer, Beyond the black box:
A systematic review of breast, prostate, colorectal, and cervical screening among native
and immigrant African-Descent Caribbean populations, Journal of Immigrant and
Minority Health 17 (2015) 905–924.
75. V. Torra, Hesitant fuzzy sets, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 25 (2010)
529–539.
76. M. Xia and Z. Xu, Hesitant fuzzy information aggregation in decision making, Inter-
national Journal of Approximate Reasoning 52 (2011) 395–407.
77. Z. Xu and M. Xia, Distance and similarity measures for hesitant fuzzy sets, Information
Sciences 181 (2011) 2128–2138.
78. Z. Xu and M. Xia, On distance and correlation measures of hesitant fuzzy information,
International Journal of Intelligent Systems 26 (2011) 410–425.
2nd Reading
79. M. Xia, Z. Xu and N. Chen, Some hesitant fuzzy aggregation operators with
their application in group decision making, Group Decision and Negotiation 22 (2013)
259–279.
80. G. Wei, X. Zhao, H. Wang and R. Lin, Hesitant fuzzy Choquet integral aggregation
operators and their applications to multiple attribute decision making, International
Information Institute (Tokyo). Information 15 (2012) 441.
81. R. R. Yager, Prioritized aggregation operators, International Journal of Approximate
Reasoning 48 (2008) 263–274.
82. R. R. Yager, Prioritized OWA aggregation, Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making
8 (2009) 245–262.
83. G. Wei, Hesitant fuzzy prioritized operators and their application to multiple attribute
84. B. Zhu, Z. Xu and M. Xia, Hesitant fuzzy geometric Bonferroni means, Information
Sciences 205 (2012) 72–85.
85. X. Gu, Y. Wang and B. Yang, A method for hesitant fuzzy multiple attribute decision
making and its application to risk investment, Journal of Convergence Information
Technology 6 (2011) 282–287.
86. X. Wang, Z. Gao, X. Zhao and G. Wei, Model for evaluating the government
archives website's construction based on the ghfhwd measure with hesitant fuzzy in-
formation, International Journal of Digital Content Technology & its Applications
5 (2011) 341–346.
87. L. Wang, Q. Shen and L. Zhu, Dual hesitant fuzzy power aggregation operators based on
Archimedean t-conorm and t-norm and their application to multiple attribute group
decision making, Applied Soft Computing 38 (2016) 23–50.
88. J. Wang, J.-Q. Wang, H.-Y. Zhang and X.-H. Chen, Multi-criteria decision-making
based on hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets: An outranking approach, Knowledge-Based
Systems 86 (2015) 224–236.
89. W. Zhou and Z. Xu, Optimal discrete ¯tting aggregation approach with hesitant fuzzy
information, Knowledge-Based Systems 78 (2015) 22–33.
90. Z.-S. Chen, K.-S. Chin, Y.-L. Li and Y. Yang, Proportional hesitant fuzzy linguistic
term set for multiple criteria group decision making, Information Sciences 357 (2016)
61–87.
91. L.-W. Lee and S.-M. Chen, Fuzzy decision making based on likelihood-based comparison
relations of hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and hesitant fuzzy linguistic operators,
92. F. Meng, X. Chen and Q. Zhang, Multi-attribute decision analysis under a linguistic
hesitant fuzzy environment, Information Sciences 267 (2014) 287–305.
93. D.-H. Peng, C.-Y. Gao and Z.-F. Gao, Generalized hesitant fuzzy synergetic weighted
distance measures and their application to multiple criteria decision-making, Applied
Mathematical Modelling 37 (2013) 5837–5850.
94. N. Chen, Z. Xu and M. Xia, Interval-valued hesitant preference relations and
their applications to group decision making, Knowledge-Based Systems 37 (2013)
528–540.
95. Y. He, Z. He, L. Shi and S. Meng, Multiple attribute group decision making based
on IVHFPBMs and a new ranking method for interval-valued hesitant fuzzy informa-
tion, Computers & Industrial Engineering 99 (2016) 63–77.
96. B. Farhadinia, Multiple criteria decision-making methods with completely unknown
weights in hesitant fuzzy linguistic term setting, Knowledge-Based Systems 93 (2016)
135–144.
2nd Reading
97. H. Wang and Z. Xu, Total orders of extended hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets: De¯-
nitions, generations and applications, Knowledge-Based Systems 107 (2016) 142–154.
98. H. Liao, Z. Xu and X.-J. Zeng, Novel correlation coe±cients between hesitant fuzzy
sets and their application in decision making, Knowledge-Based Systems, 82 (2015)
115–127.
99. H. Liao, Z. Xu, X.-J. Zeng and J. M. Merig o, Qualitative decision making with
correlation coe±cients of hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets, Knowledge-Based Systems
76 (2015) 127–138.
100. N. Chen and Z. Xu, Hesitant fuzzy ELECTRE II approach: A new way to handle
multi–criteria decision making problems, Information Sciences 292 (2015) 175–197.
101. H. Wang and Z. Xu, Some consistency measures of extended hesitant fuzzy linguistic
preference relations, Information Sciences 297 (2015) 316–331.
102. F. Meng, X. Chen and Q. Zhang, Induced generalized hesitant fuzzy Shapley hybrid
operators and their application in multi-attribute decision making, Applied Soft Com-
puting 28 (2015) 599–607.
103. H. Liao, Z. Xu and X.-J. Zeng, Distance and similarity measures for hesitant fuzzy
linguistic term sets and their application in multi-criteria decision making, Information
Sciences 271 (2014) 125–142.
104. J.-Q. Wang, J. Wang, Q.-H. Chen, H.-Y. Zhang and X.-H. Chen, An outranking
approach for multi-criteria decision-making with hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets,
105. J.-Q. Wang, J.-T. Wu, J. Wang, H.-Y. Zhang and X.-H. Chen, Interval-valued hesitant
fuzzy linguistic sets and their applications in multi-criteria decision-making problems,
106. X. Zhang and Z. Xu, Interval programming method for hesitant fuzzy multi-attribute
group decision making with incomplete preference over alternatives, Computers & In-
dustrial Engineering 75 (2014) 217–229.
107. Z. Zhang and C. Wu, On the use of multiplicative consistency in hesitant fuzzy linguistic
preference relations, Knowledge-Based Systems 72 (2014) 13–27.
108. R. M. Rodríguez, L. Martínez and F. Herrera, A group decision making model dealing
with comparative linguistic expressions based on hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets,
109. Z. Zhang, Hesitant fuzzy power aggregation operators and their application to multiple
attribute group decision making, Information Sciences 234 (2013) 150–181.
110. Z. Xu and X. Zhang, Hesitant fuzzy multi-attribute decision making based on TOPSIS
with incomplete weight information, Knowledge-Based Systems 52 (2013) 53–64.
111. G. Qian, H. Wang and X. Feng, Generalized hesitant fuzzy sets and their application in
decision support system, Knowledge-Based Systems 37 (2013) 357–365.
112. N. Zhang and G. Wei, Extension of VIKOR method for decision making problem based
on hesitant fuzzy set, Applied Mathematical Modelling, 37 (2013) 4938–4947.
113. D. Yu, Archimedean aggregation operators based on dual hesitant fuzzy set and their
application to GDM, International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-
Based Systems 23 (2015) 761–780.
114. Y. He, Z. He, G. Wang and H. Chen, Hesitant fuzzy power bonferroni means and their
application to multiple attribute decision making, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems
23 (2015) 1655–1668.
115. C. Wei, N. Zhao and X. Tang, Operators and comparisons of hesitant fuzzy linguistic
term sets, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 22 (2014) 575–585.
116. G. Choquet, Theory of capacities, Annales de l'institut Fourier (Grenoble) 5 (1954) 131–
295. http://dx.doi.org/10.5802/aif.53
2nd Reading
117. F. Meng, H. Cheng and Q. Zhang, Induced Atanassov's interval-valued intuitionistic

fuzzy hybrid Choquet integral operators and their application in decision making,
International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems 7 (2014) 524–542.
118. Y. Xu, H. Wang and J. M. Merigo, Intuitionistic fuzzy Einstein Choquet integral
operators for multiple attribute decision making, Technological and Economic Devel-
opment of Economy 20 (2014) 227–253.
119. J.-Q. Wang, D.-D. Wang, H.-Y. Zhang and X.-H. Chen, Multi-criteria group decision
making method based on interval 2-tuple linguistic information and Choquet integral
aggregation operators, Soft Computing 19 (2015) 389–405.
120. F. Meng, X. Chen and Q. Zhang, Some interval-valued intuitionistic uncertain linguistic
Choquet operators and their application to multi-attribute group decision making,
Applied Mathematical Modelling 38 (2014) 2543–2557.
121. S. Bortot and R. A. Marques Pereira, Inconsistency and non-additive capacities:
The analytic hierarchy process in the framework of Choquet integration, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 213 (2013) 6–26.
122. C. Tan, A multi-criteria interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making
with Choquet integral-based TOPSIS, Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011)
3023–3033.
123. L. Galand, P. Perny and O. Spanjaard, Choquet-based optimisation in multiobjective
shortest path and spanning tree problems, European Journal of Operational Research
204 (2010) 303–315.
124. Z. Xu, Choquet integrals of weighted intuitionistic fuzzy information, Information
Sciences 180 (2010) 726–736.
125. D. Liginlal and T. T. Ow, Modeling attitude to risk in human decision processes:
An application of fuzzy measures, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 157 (2006) 3040–3054.
126. R. Gheorghe, A. Bufardi and P. Xirouchakis, Construction of global fuzzy preference
structures from two-parameter single-criterion fuzzy outranking relations, Fuzzy Sets
and Systems 153 (2005) 303–330.
127. M. Grabisch, C. Labreuche and J.-C. Vansnick, On the extension of pseudo-Boolean
functions for the aggregation of interacting criteria, European Journal of Operational
Research 148 (2003) 28–47.
128. D. T. Anderson, P. Elmore, F. Petry and T. C. Havens, Fuzzy Choquet integration of
homogeneous possibility and probability distributions, Information Sciences 363 (2016)
24–39.
129. M. Pinar, C. Cruciani, S. Giove and M. Sostero, Constructing the FEEM sus-
tainability index: A Choquet integral application, Ecological Indicators 39 (2014)
189–202.
130. Y. Wu, S. Geng, H. Zhang and M. Gao, Decision framework of solar thermal power
plant site selection based on linguistic Choquet operator, Applied Energy 136 (2014)
303–311.
131. J. Wu, F. Chen, C. Nie and Q. Zhang, Intuitionistic fuzzy-valued Choquet integral
and its application in multicriteria decision making, Information Sciences 222 (2013)
509–527.
132. G. Li, R. Law, H. Q. Vu and J. Rong, Discovering the hotel selection preferences of
Hong Kong inbound travelers using the Choquet Integral, Tourism Management 36
(2013) 321–330.
133. S. Angilella, S. Greco and B. Matarazzo, Non-additive robust ordinal regression:
A multiple criteria decision model based on the Choquet integral, European Journal of
Operational Research 201 (2010) 277–288.
2nd Reading
134. M. Grabisch, I. Kojadinovic and P. Meyer, A review of methods for capacity

identi¯cation in Choquet integral based multi-attribute utility theory: Applications
of the Kappalab R package, European Journal of Operational Research 186 (2008)
766–785.
135. I. Kojadinovic, A weight-based approach to the measurement of the interaction among
criteria in the framework of aggregation by the bipolar Choquet integral, European
Journal of Operational Research 179 (2007) 498–517.
136. C. Labreuche and M. Grabisch, Generalized Choquet-like aggregation functions
for handling bipolar scales, European Journal of Operational Research 172 (2006)
931–955.
137. R. R. Yager, Monitored heavy fuzzy measures and their role in decision making under
uncertainty, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 139 (2003) 491–513.
138. C. Jung-Hsien, Choquet fuzzy integral-based hierarchical networks for decision analysis,
IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 7 (1999) 63–71.
139. L. Chen, Z. Xu and X. Yu, Prioritized measure-guided aggregation operators, IEEE
Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 22 (2014) 1127–1138.
140. H. Bustince, M. Galar, B. Bedregal, A. Koles arov
a and R. Mesiar, A new approach to
interval-valued Choquet integrals and the problem of ordering in interval-valued fuzzy
set applications, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 21 (2013) 1150–1162.
141. L. A. Zadeh, The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate
reasoning I, Information Sciences 8 (1975) 199–249.
reasoning II, Information Sciences 8 (1975) 301–357.
reasoning-III, Information Sciences 9 (1975) 43–80.
144. H. Bustince, E. Barrenechea, M. Pagola, J. Fernandez, Z. Xu, B. Bedregal, J. Montero,
H. Hagras, F. Herrera and B. D. Baets, A historical account of types of fuzzy sets and
their relationships, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 24 (2016) 179–194.
145. F. J. Cabrerizo, S. Alonso and E. Herrera-Viedma, A consensus model for group decision
making problems with unbalanced fuzzy linguistic information, International Journal of
Information Technology & Decision Making 8 (2009) 109–131.
146. L. A. Zadeh, From computing with numbers to computing with words. From manipu-
lation of measurements to manipulation of perceptions, IEEE Transactions on Circuits
and Systems I: Fundamental Theory and Applications 46 (1999) 105–119.
147. F. Herrera and L. Martínez, A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for com-
puting with words, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 8 (2000) 746–752.
148. S.-M. Zhou, F. Chiclana, R. I. John and J. M. Garibaldi, Type-1 OWA operators
for aggregating uncertain information with uncertain weights induced by type-2 lin-
guistic quanti¯ers, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 159 (2008) 3281–3296.
149. S.-M. Zhou, F. Chiclana, R. I. John and J. M. Garibaldi, Alpha-level aggregation:
A practical approach to type-1 OWA operation for aggregating uncertain information
with applications to breast cancer treatments, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and
Data Engineering 23 (2011) 1455–1468.
150. S. M. Zhou, R. I. John, F. Chiclana and J. M. Garibaldi, On aggregating uncertain
information by type-2 OWA operators for soft decision making, International Journal of
Intelligent Systems 25 (2010) 540–558.
151. N. N. Karnik and J. M. Mendel, Centroid of a type-2 fuzzy set, Information Sciences 132
(2001) 195–220.
152. J. M. Mendel and H. Wu, New results about the centroid of an interval type-2 fuzzy set,
including the centroid of a fuzzy granule, Information Sciences 177 (2007) 360–377.
2nd Reading
153. S. Green¯eld, F. Chiclana, S. Coupland and R. John, The collapsing method of

defuzzi¯cation for discretised interval type-2 fuzzy sets, Information Sciences 179
(2009) 2055–2069.
154. F. Chiclana and S. M. Zhou, Type-reduction of general type-2 fuzzy sets: The type-1
OWA approach, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 28 (2013) 505–522.
155. A. D. Torshizi, M. H. F. Zarandi and H. Zakeri, On type-reduction of type-2 fuzzy sets:
A review, Applied Soft Computing 27 (2015) 614–627.
156. S.-M. Chen and L.-W. Lee, Fuzzy multiple criteria hierarchical group decision-making
based on interval type-2 fuzzy sets, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cyber-
netics-Part A: Systems and Humans 40 (2010) 1120–1128.
157. S.-M. Chen and L.-W. Lee, Fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on
the interval type-2 TOPSIS method, Expert Systems with Applications 37 (2010) 2790–
2798.
158. L.-W. Lee and S.-M. Chen, Fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on
the extension of TOPSIS method and interval type-2 fuzzy sets, 2008 International
Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics (2008), pp. 3260–3265.
159. W. Wang, X. Liu and Y. Qin, Multi-attribute group decision making models under
interval type-2 fuzzy environment, Knowledge-Based Systems 30 (2012) 121–128.
160. J. M. Mendel, R. I. John and F. Liu, Interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems made simple,
161. S.-M. Chen and L.-W. Lee, Fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on
the ranking values and the arithmetic operations of interval type-2 fuzzy sets, Expert
162. H. B. Mitchell, Pattern recognition using type-II fuzzy sets, Information Sciences
170 (2005) 409–418.
163. W. Zeng and H. Li, Relationship between similarity measure and entropy of interval
valued fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 157 (2006) 1477–1484.
164. D. Wu and J. M. Mendel, A vector similarity measure for linguistic approximation:
Interval type-2 and type-1 fuzzy sets, Information Sciences 178 (2008) 381–402.
165. O. Linda and M. Manic, Interval type-2 fuzzy voter design for fault tolerant systems,
166. H. Shu, Q. Liang and J. Gao, Wireless sensor network lifetime analysis using interval
type-2 fuzzy logic systems, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 16 (2008) 416–427.
167. D. Wu and J. M. Mendel, Aggregation using the linguistic weighted average and interval
type-2 fuzzy sets, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 15 (2007) 1145–1161.
168. S. Han and J. M. Mendel, Evaluating location choices using perceptual computer
approach, 2010 IEEE Int. Conf. Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ) (2010), pp. 1–8.
169. K.-P. Chiao, The multi-criteria group decision making methodology using type 2 fuzzy
linguistic judgments, Applied Soft Computing 49 (2016) 189–211.
170. S.-H. Cheng, S.-M. Chen and Z.-C. Huang, Autocratic decision making using group
recommendations based on ranking interval type-2 fuzzy sets, Information Sciences
361–362 (2016) 135–161.
171. T.-Y. Chen, Likelihoods of interval type-2 trapezoidal fuzzy preference relations and
their application to multiple criteria decision analysis, Information Sciences 295 (2015)
303–322.
172. T.-Y. Chen, An interval type-2 fuzzy LINMAP method with approximate ideal solutions
for multiple criteria decision analysis, Information Sciences 297 (2015) 50–79.
173. T.-Y. Chen, An ELECTRE-based outranking method for multiple criteria group
decision making using interval type-2 fuzzy sets, Information Sciences 263 (2014) 1–21.
2nd Reading
174. J. Qin and X. Liu, Multi-attribute group decision making using combined ranking value
under interval type-2 fuzzy environment, Information Sciences 297 (2015) 293–315.
175. J. Hu, Y. Zhang, X. Chen and Y. Liu, Multi-criteria decision making method based on
possibility degree of interval type-2 fuzzy number, Knowledge-Based Systems 43 (2013)
21–29.
176. J.-Q. Wang, S.-M. Yu, J. Wang, Q.-H. Chen, H.-Y. Zhang and X.-H. Chen, An interval
type-2 fuzzy number based approach for multi-criteria group decision-making problems,
International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 23
(2015) 565–588.
177. Y. Xu and L. Huang, An approach to group decision making problems based on 2-tuple
linguistic aggregation operators, 2008 ISECS International Colloquium on Computing,
Communication, Control, and Management (2008), pp. 73–77.
178. J. H. Park, J. M. Park and Y. C. Kwun, 2-Tuple linguistic harmonic operators and their
applications in group decision making, Knowledge-Based Systems 44 (2013) 10–19.
179. Y. Xu and H. Wang, Approaches based on 2-tuple linguistic power aggregation opera-
tors for multiple attribute group decision making under linguistic environment, Applied
Soft Computing 11 (2011) 3988–3997.
180. J. M. Merigo and A. M. Gil-Lafuente, Induced 2-tuple linguistic generalized aggregation
operators and their application in decision-making, Information Sciences 236 (2013)
1–16.
181. Y. Zhang and Z.-P. Fan, The uncertain two-tuple ordered weighted averaging operator,
International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security 6 (2006) 78–83.
182. W. Jianqiang and C. Xiaohong, Multi-criteria linguistic interval group decision-making
approach, Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics 19 (2008) 934–938.
183. H. Zhang, Some interval-valued 2-tuple linguistic aggregation operators and application
in multiattribute group decision making, Applied Mathematical Modelling 37 (2013)
4269–4282.
184. H.-C. Liu, L. Liu and J. Wu, Material selection using an interval 2-tuple linguistic
VIKOR method considering subjective and objective weights, Materials & Design 52
(2013) 158–167.
185. M. De Glas, Knowledge representation in a fuzzy setting, Rapport Interne 89 (1989) 48.
186. Y.-P. Jiang and Z.-P. Fan, Property analysis of the aggregation operators for two-tuple
linguistic information, Control and Decision 18 (2003) 754–757.
187. S.-P. Wan, 2-Tuple linguistic hybrid arithmetic aggregation operators and
application to multi-attribute group decision making, Knowledge-Based Systems
45 (2013) 31–40.
188. H. Zhang, The multiattribute group decision making method based on aggregation
operators with interval-valued 2-tuple linguistic information, Mathematical and Com-
puter Modelling 56 (2012) 27–35.
189. B. Dutta, D. Guha and R. Mesiar, A model based on linguistic 2-tuples for dealing
with heterogeneous relationship among attributes in multi-expert decision making,
190. F. Herrera and E. Herrera-Viedma, Choice functions and mechanisms for linguistic
preference relations, European Journal of Operational Research 120 (2000) 144–161.
191. F. Herrera, E. Herrera-Viedma and L. Martínez, A fuzzy linguistic methodology to deal
with unbalanced linguistic term sets, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 16 (2008)
354–370.
192. G.-W. Wei, A method for multiple attribute group decision making based on the
ET-WG and ET-OWG operators with 2-tuple linguistic information, Expert Systems
with Applications 37 (2010) 7895–7900.
2nd Reading
193. G. Wei, GRA-based linear-programming methodology for multiple attribute group

decision making with 2-tuple linguistic assessment information, Information-An Inter-
national Interdisciplinary Journal 14 (2011) 1105–1110.
194. J. M. Merigo, M. Casanovas and L. Martínez, Linguistic aggregation operators
for linguistic decision making based on the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence, Inter-
national Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 18 (2010)
287–304.
195. L. Pei-de, A novel method for hybrid multiple attribute decision making, Knowledge-
Based Systems 22 (2009) 388–391.
196. G.-W. Wei, Extension of TOPSIS method for 2-tuple linguistic multiple attribute group
decision making with incomplete weight information, Knowledge and Information Sys-
tems 25 (2010) 623–634.
197. G.-W. Wei, Grey relational analysis method for 2-tuple linguistic multiple attribute
group decision making with incomplete weight information, Expert Systems with
Applications 38 (2011) 4824–4828.
198. C. Li, S. Zeng, T. Pan and L. Zheng, A method based on induced aggregation operators
and distance measures to multiple attribute decision making under 2-tuple linguistic
environment, Journal of Computer and System Sciences 80 (2014) 1339–1349.
199. H. Doukas, A. Tsiousi, V. Marinakis and J. Psarras, Linguistic multi-criteria decision
making for energy and environmental corporate policy, Information Sciences 258 (2014)
328–338.
200. F. Estrella, M. Espinilla, F. Herrera and L. Martínez, FLINTSTONES: A fuzzy lin-
guistic decision tools enhancement suite based on the 2-tuple linguistic model and
extensions, Information Sciences 280 (2014) 152–170.
201. Y. Xu, F. Ma, F. Tao and H. Wang, Some methods to deal with unacceptable incomplete
2-tuple fuzzy linguistic preference relations in group decision making, Knowledge-Based
Systems 56 (2014) 179–190.
202. H.-C. Liu, J.-X. You and X.-Y. You, Evaluating the risk of healthcare failure modes
using interval 2-tuple hybrid weighted distance measure, Computers & Industrial En-
gineering 78 (2014) 249–258.
203. J. Xu and Z. Wu, A maximizing consensus approach for alternative selection based on
uncertain linguistic preference relations, Computers & Industrial Engineering 64 (2013)
999–1008.
204. Y. Ju and A. Wang, Projection method for multiple criteria group decision making
with incomplete weight information in linguistic setting, Applied Mathematical Model-
ling 37 (2013) 9031–9040.
205. H. L. Martínez, F, An overview on the 2-tuple linguistic model for computing with
words in decision making: Extensions, applications and challenges, Information Sciences
207 (2012) 1–18.
206. K.-H. Chang and T.-C. Wen, A novel e±cient approach for DFMEA combining 2-tuple
and the OWA operator, Expert Systems with Applications 37 (2010) 2362–2370.
207. H.-C. Liu, Q.-L. Lin and J. Wu, Dependent interval 2-tuple linguistic aggregation
operators and their application to multiple attribute group decision making, Interna-
tional Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 22 (2014)
717–735.
208. G. Wei, Some harmonic aggregation operators with 2-tuple linguistic assessment
information and their application to multiple attribute group decision making, Inter-
977–998.
2nd Reading
209. G. Wei, Some geometric aggregation functions and their application to dynamic
multiple attribute decision making in the intuitionistic fuzzy setting, International
Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 17 (2009) 179–196.
210. X. Sang and X. Liu, Parameterized 2-tuple linguistic most preferred owa operators and
their application in decision making, International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness
and Knowledge-Based Systems 21 (2013) 799–819.
211. K. Atanassov and G. Gargov, Interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 31 (1989) 343–349.
212. Z.-S. Xu and C. Jian, Approach to group decision making based on interval-valued
intuitionistic judgment matrices, Systems Engineering-Theory & Practice 27 (2007)
126–133.
213. J. Y. Ahn, K. S. Han, S. Y. Oh and C. D. Lee, An application of interval-valued
intuitionistic fuzzy sets for medical diagnosis of headache, International Journal of
Innovative Computing, Information and Control 7 (2011) 2755–2762.
214. J. Ye, Multicriteria fuzzy decision-making method using entropy weights-based corre-
lation coe±cients of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Applied Mathematical
Modelling 34 (2010) 3864–3870.
215. Y. Zhang, P. Ma, X. Su and C. Zhang, Entropy on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy
sets and its application in multi-attribute decision making, in 2011 Proc. 14th Int. Conf.
Information Fusion (FUSION) (2011), pp. 1–7.
216. X. Chen, L. Yang, P. Wang and W. Yue, A fuzzy multicriteria group decision-making
method with new entropy of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Journal of Applied
Mathematics 2013 (2013) 827268.
217. C. Wei and Y. Zhang, Entropy measures for interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets and
their application in group decision-making, Mathematical Problems in Engineering
2015 (2015) 563745.
218. J. Ye, Fuzzy decision-making method based on the weighted correlation coe±cient
under intuitionistic fuzzy environment, European Journal of Operational Research 205
(2010) 202–204.
219. H. Zhang and L. Yu, MADM method based on cross-entropy and extended TOPSIS
with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Knowledge-Based Systems 30 (2012) 115–
120.
220. A. Stachowiak, P. Żywica, K. Dyczkowski and A. W ojtowicz, An interval-valued
fuzzy classi¯er based on an uncertainty-aware similarity measure, Intelligent Systems'
2014 (2015), pp. 741–751.
221. D. Zhai and J. M. Mendel, Uncertainty measures for general type-2 fuzzy sets,
222. H. Nguyen, A new knowledge-based measure for intuitionistic fuzzy sets and its appli-
cation in multiple attribute group decision making, Expert Systems with Applications
42 (2015) 8766–8774.
223. H. Nguyen, A new interval-valued knowledge measure for interval-valued intuitionistic
fuzzy sets and application in decision making, Expert Systems with Applications
56 (2016) 143–155.
224. S.-M. Chen, L.-W. Lee, H.-C. Liu and S.-W. Yang, Multiattribute decision making based
on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy values, Expert Systems with Applications
39 (2012) 10343–10351.
225. T.-Y. Chen, H.-P. Wang and Y.-Y. Lu, A multicriteria group decision-making approach
based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets: A comparative perspective, Expert
2nd Reading
226. Z. Xu, A method based on distance measure for interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy
group decision making, Information Sciences 180 (2010) 181–190.
227. G. Wei and W. Yi, Induced interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy OWG operator, Fifth Int.
Conf. Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery, 2008. FSKD'08 (2008), pp. 605–609.
228. Z. Wang, K. W. Li and W. Wang, An approach to multiattribute decision making with
interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy assessments and incomplete weights, Information
Sciences 179 (2009) 3026–3040.
229. Z. Xiao and G. Wei, Application interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy set to select
supplier, Fifth Int. Conf. Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery 2008. FSKD'08
(2008), pp. 351–355.
230. Y. Liu and N. Xie, Amelioration operators of fuzzy number intuitionistic fuzzy geometric
and their application to multi-criteria decision-making, 2009 Chinese Control and
Decision Conference (2009), pp. 6172–6176.
231. S.-M. Chen and W.-H. Tsai, Multiple attribute decision making based on novel interval-
valued intuitionistic fuzzy geometric averaging operators, Information Sciences 367–
368 (2016) 1045–1065.
232. M. Elkano, J. A. Sanz, M. Galar, B. P»ekala, U. Bentkowska and H. Bustince, Compo-
sition of interval-valued fuzzy relations using aggregation functions, Information Sci-
ences 369 (2016) 690–703.
233. L. Dymova and P. Sevastjanov, The operations on interval-valued intuitionistic
fuzzy values in the framework of Dempster–Shafer theory, Information Sciences 360
(2016) 256–272.
234. S.-M. Chen, S.-H. Cheng and W.-H. Tsai, Multiple attribute group decision making
based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators and transformation
techniques of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy values, Information Sciences 367–368
(2016) 418–442.
235. X. Qi, C. Liang and J. Zhang, Generalized cross-entropy based group decision making
with unknown expert and attribute weights under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy
environment, Computers & Industrial Engineering 79 (2015) 52–64.
236. E. Barrenechea, J. Fernandez, M. Pagola, F. Chiclana and H. Bustince, Construction
of interval-valued fuzzy preference relations from ignorance functions and fuzzy
preference relations. Application to decision making, Knowledge-Based Systems
58 (2014) 33–44.
237. F. Jin, L. Pei, H. Chen and L. Zhou, Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy continuous
weighted entropy and its application to multi-criteria fuzzy group decision making,
238. T.-Y. Chen, The extended linear assignment method for multiple criteria decision
analysis based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Applied Mathematical
Modelling 38 (2014) 2101–2117.
239. L. Zhou, Z. Tao, H. Chen and J. Liu, Continuous interval-valued intuitionistic
fuzzy aggregation operators and their applications to group decision making, Applied
240. J. Xu and F. Shen, A new outranking choice method for group decision making under
Atanassov's interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment, Knowledge-Based Systems
70 (2014) 177–188.
241. T.-Y. Chen, A prioritized aggregation operator-based approach to multiple criteria
decision making using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets: A comparative perspec-
tive, Information Sciences 281 (2014) 97–112.
2nd Reading
242. P. Liu, Some geometric aggregation operators based on interval intuitionistic

uncertain linguistic variables and their application to group decision making, Applied
243. L. Dymova, P. Sevastjanov and A. Tikhonenko, Two-criteria method for comparing
real-valued and interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy values, Knowledge-Based Systems
45 (2013) 166–173.
244. T.-Y. Chen, An interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy LINMAP method with inclusion
comparison possibilities and hybrid averaging operations for multiple criteria group
245. G. İntepe, E. Bozdag and T. Koc, The selection of technology forecasting method using a
multi-criteria interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making approach,
Computers & Industrial Engineering 65 (2013) 277–285.
246. G.-W. Wei, Gray relational analysis method for intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute
decision making, Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 11671–11677.
247. Z. Wang, K. W. Li and J. Xu, A mathematical programming approach to multi-attri-
bute decision making with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy assessment information,
Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 12462–12469.
248. T.-Y. Chen, Optimistic and pessimistic decision making with dissonance reduction using
interval-valued fuzzy sets, Information Sciences 181 (2011) 479–502.
249. V. Lakshmana Gomathi Nayagam, S. Muralikrishnan and G. Sivaraman, Multi-criteria
decision-making method based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Expert
250. J. H. Park, I. Y. Park, Y. C. Kwun and X. Tan, Extension of the TOPSIS method
for decision making problems under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment,
Applied Mathematical Modelling 35 (2011) 2544–2556.
251. B. S. Ahn, Parameterized OWA operator weights: An extreme point approach, Inter-
national Journal of Approximate Reasoning 51 (2010) 820–831.
252. D. Dubois and H. Prade, On the use of aggregation operations in information fusion
processes, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 142 (2004) 143–161.
253. Y. Xu and H. Wang, IFWA and IFWGM methods for MADM under Atanassov's
intuitionistic fuzzy environment, International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and
254. W. Wang and X. Liu, Intuitionistic fuzzy information aggregation using Einstein
operations, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 20 (2012) 923–938.
255. L. D. Miguel, H. Bustince, B. Pekala, U. Bentkowska, I. D. Silva, B. Bedregal, R. Mesiar
and G. Ochoa, Interval-valued atanassov intuitionistic OWA aggregations using
admissible linear orders and their application to decision making, IEEE Transactions on
Fuzzy Systems 24 (2016) 1586–1597.
256. P. Liu and S. M. Chen, Group decision making based on heronian aggregation
operators of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers, IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics 47 (2017)
2514–2530.
257. P. Liu, Some Hamacher aggregation operators based on the interval-valued intuitionistic
fuzzy numbers and their application to group decision making, IEEE Transactions on
Fuzzy Systems 22 (2014) 83–97.
258. J. Q. Wang, P. Wang, J. Wang, H. Y. Zhang and X. H. Chen, Atanassov's
interval-valued intuitionistic linguistic multicriteria group decision-making method
based on the trapezium cloud model, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 23 (2015)
542–554.
259. R. Verma and B. D. Sharma, A measure of inaccuracy between two fuzzy sets,
Cybernetics and Information Technologies 11 (2011) 13–23.
2nd Reading
260. Y.-M. Wang, K.-S. Chin, G. K. K. Poon and J.-B. Yang, Risk evaluation in failure mode
and e®ects analysis using fuzzy weighted geometric mean, Expert Systems with Appli-
cations 36 (2009) 1195–1207.
261. F. Chiclana, E. Herrera Viedma, F. Herrera and S. Alonso, Induced ordered weighted
geometric operators and their use in the aggregation of multiplicative preference rela-
tions, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 19 (2004) 233–255.
262. J. Wu, J.-C. Li, H. Li and W.-Q. Duan, The induced continuous ordered weighted
geometric operators and their application in group decision making, Computers &
Industrial Engineering 56 (2009) 1545–1552.
263. J. H. Park, M. G. Gwak and Y. C. Kwun, Uncertain linguistic harmonic mean operators
and their applications to multiple attribute group decision making, Computing
93 (2011) 47–64.
264. Z. Xu, Fuzzy harmonic mean operators, International Journal of Intelligent Systems
24 (2009) 152–172.
265. M. Zarghami and F. Szidarovszky, On the relation between compromise programming
and ordered weighted averaging operator, Information Sciences 180 (2010) 2239–2248.
266. X. Liu, Models to determine parameterized ordered weighted averaging operators using
optimization criteria, Information Sciences 190 (2012) 27–55.
267. B. S. Ahn, Compatible weighting method with rank order centroid: Maximum entropy
ordered weighted averaging approach, European Journal of Operational Research
212 (2011) 552–559.
268. L. Zhou and H. Chen, The induced linguistic continuous ordered weighted geometric
operator and its application to group decision making, Computers & Industrial Engi-
neering 66 (2013) 222–232.
269. Y.-J. Xu, Note on \The induced continuous ordered weighted geometric operators
and their application in group decision making", Computers & Industrial Engineering
59 (2010) 365–366.
270. F. Liu, W.-G. Zhang and L.-H. Zhang, A group decision making model based on a
generalized ordered weighted geometric average operator with interval preference ma-
trices, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 246 (2014) 1–18.
271. H. Chen and L. Zhou, An approach to group decision making with interval fuzzy
preference relations based on induced generalized continuous ordered weighted aver-
aging operator, Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 13432–13440.
272. R. R. Yager, Generalized OWA aggregation operators, Fuzzy Optimization and Decision
Making 3 (2004) 93–107.
273. X. Wang and Z. Fan, Fuzzy ordered weighted averaging (FOWA) operator and its
application, Fuzzy Systems and Mathematics 17 (2003) 67–72.
274. W. Wang and X. Liu, The multi-attribute decision making method based on interval-
valued intuitionistic fuzzy Einstein hybrid weighted geometric operator, Computers &
Mathematics with Applications 66 (2013) 1845–1856.
275. Z. Xu, A fuzzy ordered weighted geometric operator and its application to in fuzzy AHP,
Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics 31 (2002) 855–858.
276. F. Chiclana, F. Herrera and E. Herrera-Viedma, The ordered weighted geometric op-
erator: Properties and application in MCDM problems, Technologies for Constructing
277. G.-W. Wei, FIOWHM operator and its application to multiple attribute group decision
making, Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 2984–2989.
278. J. M. Merigo and M. Casanovas, The fuzzy generalized OWA operator and its appli-
cation in strategic decision making, Cybernetics and Systems: An International Journal
41 (2010) 359–370.
2nd Reading
279. D. Yu, Intuitionistic fuzzy geometric Heronian mean aggregation operators, Applied Soft
Computing 13 (2013) 1235–1246.
280. S.-M. Chen and C.-H. Chang, Fuzzy multiattribute decision making based on trans-
formation techniques of intuitionistic fuzzy values and intuitionistic fuzzy geometric
averaging operators, Information Sciences 352–353 (2016) 133–149.
281. Z. Xu and R. R. Yager, Some geometric aggregation operators based on intuitionistic
fuzzy sets, International journal of General Systems 35 (2006) 417–433.
282. S. Zeng and W. Su, Intuitionistic fuzzy ordered weighted distance operator, Knowledge-
Based Systems 24 (2011) 1224–1232.
283. G. Wei, Induced intuitionistic fuzzy ordered weighted averaging operator and its
application to multiple attribute group decision making, International Conference on
Rough Sets and Knowledge Technology (2008), pp. 124–131.
284. F. Meng, C. Tan and Q. Zhang, The induced generalized interval-valued intuitionistic
fuzzy hybrid Shapley averaging operator and its application in decision making,
285. Y. He, H. Chen, L. Zhou, J. Liu and Z. Tao, Intuitionistic fuzzy geometric interaction
averaging operators and their application to multi-criteria decision making, Information
Sciences 259 (2014) 142–159.
286. Y. He, H. Chen, Z. He and L. Zhou, Multi-attribute decision making based on neutral
averaging operators for intuitionistic fuzzy information, Applied Soft Computing
27 (2015) 64–76.
287. Z. Xu and M. Xia, Induced generalized intuitionistic fuzzy operators, Knowledge-Based
Systems 24 (2011) 197–209.
288. H. Zhao, Z. Xu, M. Ni and S. Liu, Generalized aggregation operators for intuitionistic
fuzzy sets, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 25 (2010) 1–30.
289. G. Wei, Some induced geometric aggregation operators with intuitionistic fuzzy infor-
mation and their application to group decision making, Applied Soft Computing
10 (2010) 423–431.
290. D. Yu, Intuitionistic fuzzy prioritized operators and their application in multi-criteria group
decision making, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 19 (2013) 1–21.
291. R. R. Yager and N. Alajlan, Some issues on the OWA aggregation with importance
weighted arguments, Knowledge-Based Systems 100 (2016) 89–96.
292. F. Blanco-Mesa, J. M. Merigo and J. Kacprzyk, Bonferroni means with distance mea-
sures and the adequacy coe±cient in entrepreneurial group theory, Knowledge-Based
Systems 111 (2016) 217–227.
293. L. Zhou, J. M. Merigo, H. Chen and J. Liu, The optimal group continuous logarithm
compatibility measure for interval multiplicative preference relations based on the
COWGA operator, Information Sciences 328 (2016) 250–269.
294. J. Gao, M. Li and H. Liu, Generalized ordered weighted utility proportional averaging-
hyperbolic absolute risk aversion operators and their applications to group decision-
making, Applied Mathematics and Computation 252 (2015) 114–132.
295. F. Mata, L. G. Perez, S.-M. Zhou and F. Chiclana, Type-1 OWA methodology to
consensus reaching processes in multi-granular linguistic contexts, Knowledge-Based
Systems 58 (2014) 11–22.
296. F. Liu, W.-G. Zhang and L.-H. Zhang, A group decision making model based on a
generalized ordered weighted geometric average operator with interval preference ma-
trices, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 246 (2014) 1–18.
297. P. Liu and X. Yu, 2-Dimension uncertain linguistic power generalized weighted aggre-
gation operator and its application in multiple attribute group decision making,
2nd Reading
298. R. Perez-Fernandez, P. Alonso, I. Díaz and S. Montes, Multi-factorial risk assessment:

An approach based on fuzzy preference relations, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 278 (2015)
67–80.
299. Z. Yue, TOPSIS-based group decision-making methodology in intuitionistic fuzzy
setting, Information Sciences 277 (2014) 141–153.
300. V. Ferretti and S. Pomarico, Ecological land suitability analysis through spatial indi-
cators: An application of the analytic network process technique and ordered weighted
average approach, Ecological Indicators 34 (2013) 507–519.
301. S. Zeng, J. M. Merigo and W. Su, The uncertain probabilistic OWA distance operator
and its application in group decision making, Applied Mathematical Modelling 37 (2013)
6266–6275.
302. H.-C. Liu, L.-X. Mao, Z.-Y. Zhang and P. Li, Induced aggregation operators in the
VIKOR method and its application in material selection, Applied Mathematical
Modelling 37 (2013) 6325–6338.
303. S. Zeng, W. Su and L. Sun, A method based on similarity measures for interactive group
decision-making with intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations, Applied Mathematical
Modelling 37 (2013) 6909–6917.
304. P. Luukka and O. Kurama, Similarity classi¯er with ordered weighted averaging
operators, Expert Systems with Applications 40 (2013) 995–1002.
305. D. Meng and Z. Pei, On weighted unbalanced linguistic aggregation operators in group
decision making, Information Sciences 223 (2013) 31–41.
306. L. Zhou, H. Chen and J. Liu, Generalized logarithmic proportional averaging operators
and their applications to group decision making, Knowledge-Based Systems 36 (2012)
268–279.
307. P. Liu and F. Jin, Methods for aggregating intuitionistic uncertain linguistic variables
and their application to group decision making, Information Sciences 205 (2012) 58–71.
308. L. Zhou, H. Chen and J. Liu, Generalized power aggregation operators and their
applications in group decision making, Computers & Industrial Engineering 62 (2012)
989–999.
309. L.-H. Chen, C.-C. Hung and C.-C. Tu, Considering the decision maker's attitudinal
character to solve multi-criteria decision-making problems in an intuitionistic fuzzy
environment, Knowledge-Based Systems 36 (2012) 129–138.
310. M. Q. Suo, Y. P. Li and G. H. Huang, Multicriteria decision making under uncertainty:
An advanced ordered weighted averaging operator for planning electric power systems,
Engineering Applications of Arti¯cial Intelligence 25 (2012) 72–81.
311. J. M. Merigo, A. M. Gil-Lafuente and O. Martorell, Uncertain induced aggregation
operators and its application in tourism management, Expert Systems with Applications
39 (2012) 869–880.
312. G. Wei and X. Zhao, Some induced correlated aggregating operators with intuitionistic
fuzzy information and their application to multiple attribute group decision making,
313. Z.-X. Su, G.-P. Xia, M.-Y. Chen and L. Wang, Induced generalized intuitionistic fuzzy
OWA operator for multi-attribute group decision making, Expert Systems with Appli-
cations 39 (2012) 1902–1910.
314. M. Casanovas and J. M. Merigo, Fuzzy aggregation operators in decision making with
Dempster–Shafer belief structure, Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 7138–
7149.
315. Y. Xu, J. M. Merigo and H. Wang, Linguistic power aggregation operators and their
application to multiple attribute group decision making, Applied Mathematical Model-
ling 36 (2012) 5427–5444.
2nd Reading
316. P. V. Gorsevski, K. R. Donevska, C. D. Mitrovski and J. P. Frizado, Integrating

multi-criteria evaluation techniques with geographic information systems for land¯ll site
selection: A case study using ordered weighted average, Waste Management 32 (2012)
287–296.
317. L. Zhou, H. Chen and J. Liu, Generalized weighted exponential proportional aggrega-
tion operators and their applications to group decision making, Applied Mathematical
Modelling 36 (2012) 4365–4384.
318. Q.-W. Cao and J. Wu, The extended COWG operators and their application to multiple
attributive group decision making problems with interval numbers, Applied Mathe-
matical Modelling 35 (2011) 2075–2086.
319. C.-S. Liaw, Y.-C. Chang, K.-H. Chang and T.-Y. Chang, ME-OWA based DEMATEL
reliability apportionment method, Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011)
9713–9723.
320. J. M. Merigo and A. M. Gil-Lafuente, Decision-making in sport management based on
the OWA operator, Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 10408–10413.
321. H.-B. Yan, V.-N. Huynh, Y. Nakamori and T. Murai, On prioritized weighted
aggregation in multi-criteria decision making, Expert Systems with Applications
38 (2011) 812–823.
322. S.-M. Chen and S.-J. Niou, Fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on
fuzzy induced OWA operators, Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 4097–4108.
323. P. Dheena and G. Mohanraj, Multicriteria decision-making combining fuzzy set theory,
ideal and anti-ideal points for location site selection, Expert Systems with Applications
38 (2011) 13260–13265.
324. Y. Chen, K. W. Li and S.-F. Liu, An OWA-TOPSIS method for multiple criteria de-
cision analysis, Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 5205–5211.
325. J. M. Merigo and M. Casanovas, Induced aggregation operators in the Euclidean dis-
tance and its application in ¯nancial decision making, Expert Systems with Applications
38 (2011) 7603–7608.
326. J. M. Merigo and A. M. Gil-Lafuente, Fuzzy induced generalized aggregation operators
and its application in multi-person decision making, Expert Systems with Applications
38 (2011) 9761–9772.
327. D.-F. Li, The GOWA operator based approach to multiattribute decision making
using intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Mathematical and Computer Modelling 53 (2011)
1182–1196.
328. J. M. Merigo and M. Casanovas, Induced and uncertain heavy OWA operators,
Computers & Industrial Engineering 60 (2011) 106–116.
329. J. M. Merigo and M. Casanovas, Decision-making with distance measures and induced
aggregation operators, Computers & Industrial Engineering 60 (2011) 66–76.
330. S. Nadi and M. R. Delavar, Multi-criteria, personalized route planning using quanti¯er-
guided ordered weighted averaging operators, International Journal of Applied Earth
Observation and Geoinformation 13 (2011) 322–335.
331. D. Hun Hong, On proving the extended minimax disparity OWA problem, Fuzzy Sets
and Systems 168 (2011) 35–46.
332. P. Victor, C. Cornelis, M. De Cock and E. Herrera-Viedma, Practical aggregation
operators for gradual trust and distrust, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 184 (2011) 126–147.
333. D. H. Hong, The relationship between the minimum-variance and minimax disparity
RIM quanti¯er problems, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 181 (2011) 50–57.
334. R. Sadiq, M. J. Rodríguez and S. Tesfamariam, Integrating indicators for performance
assessment of small water utilities using ordered weighted averaging (OWA) operators,
2nd Reading
335. D.-F. Li, Multiattribute decision making method based on generalized OWA
operators with intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Expert Systems with Applications, 37 (2010):
8673–8678.
336. G. Beliakov, Construction of aggregation functions from data using linear programming,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 160 (2009) 65–75.
337. S.-J. Chuu, Group decision-making model using fuzzy multiple attributes analysis
for the evaluation of advanced manufacturing technology, Fuzzy Sets and Systems
160 (2009) 586–602.
338. S.-Y. Wang, S.-L. Chang and R.-C. Wang, Assessment of supplier performance based on
product-development strategy by applying multi-granularity linguistic term sets, Omega
37 (2009) 215–226.
339. M. Zarghami and F. Szidarovszky, Revising the OWA operator for multi criteria deci-
sion making problems under uncertainty, European Journal of Operational Research
198 (2009) 259–265.
340. C.-H. Cheng, J.-W. Wang and M.-C. Wu, OWA-weighted based clustering method for
classi¯cation problem, Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 4988–4995.
341. R. d. O. A. Valente and C. A. Vettorazzi, De¯nition of priority areas for forest con-
servation through the ordered weighted averaging method, Forest Ecology and Man-
agement, 256 (2008) 1408–1417.
342. L. Canos and V. Liern, Soft computing-based aggregation methods for human resource
management, European Journal of Operational Research, 189 (2008) 669–681.
343. X. Liu and H. Lou, On the equivalence of some approaches to the OWA operator and
RIM quanti¯er determination, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 159 (2008) 1673–1688.
344. X. Liu, A general model of parameterized OWA aggregation with given orness level,
International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 48 (2008) 598–627.
345. Z. Wu and Y. Chen, The maximizing deviation method for group multiple attribute
decision making under linguistic environment, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 158 (2007) 1608–
1617.
346. P. Sevastjanov and P. Figat, Aggregation of aggregating modes in MCDM: Synthesis of
Type 2 and Level 2 fuzzy sets, Omega 35 (2007) 505–523.
347. S.-L. Chang, R.-C. Wang and S.-Y. Wang, Applying a direct multi-granularity linguistic
and strategy-oriented aggregation approach on the assessment of supply performance,
European Journal of Operational Research 177 (2007) 1013–1025.
348. R. Sadiq and S. Tesfamariam, Probability density functions based weights for ordered
weighted averaging (OWA) operators: An example of water quality indices, European
Journal of Operational Research 182 (2007) 1350–1368.
349. C. A. Le, V.-N. Huynh, A. Shimazu and Y. Nakamori, Combining classi¯ers for word
sense disambiguation based on Dempster–Shafer theory and OWA operators, Data &
Knowledge Engineering 63 (2007) 381–396.
350. D. Ben-Arieh, Sensitivity of multi-criteria decision making to linguistic quanti¯ers and
aggregation means, Computers & Industrial Engineering 48 (2005) 289–309.
351. P. Majlender, OWA operators with maximal Renyi entropy, Fuzzy Sets and Systems
155 (2005) 340–360.
352. Z. Xu, Uncertain linguistic aggregation operators based approach to multiple attribute
group decision making under uncertain linguistic environment, Information Sciences
168 (2004) 171–184.
353. R. A. Ribeiro and R. A. M. Pereira, Generalized mixture operators using weighting
functions: A comparative study with WA and OWA, European Journal of Operational
Research 145 (2003) 329–342.
2nd Reading
354. R. Smolíkova and M. P. Wachowiak, Aggregation operators for selection problems,

355. O. Despic and S. P. Simonovic, Aggregation operators for soft decision making in water
resources, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 115 (2000) 11–33.
356. D. Filev and R. R. Yager, On the issue of obtaining OWA operator weights, Fuzzy Sets
and Systems 94 (1998) 157–169.
357. F. Herrera, E. Herrera-Viedma and J. Verdegay, Choice processes for non-homogeneous
group decision making in linguistic setting, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 94 (1998) 287–308.
358. F. Herrera, E. Herrera-Viedma and J. Verdegay, Direct approach processes in
group decision making using linguistic OWA operators, Fuzzy Sets and Systems
79 (1996) 175–190.
359. R. R. Yager, Measures of entropy and fuzziness related to aggregation operators,
360. R. R. Yager, L. S. Goldstein and E. Mendels, FUZMAR: An approach to aggre-
gating market research data based on fuzzy reasoning, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 68 (1994)
1–11.
361. S. Xian, W. Xue, J. Zhang, Y. Yin and Q. Xie, Intuitionistic fuzzy linguistic induced
ordered weighted averaging operator for group decision making, International Journal of
Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 23 (2015) 627–648.
362. J. Lin and Q. Zhang, Some continuous aggregation operators with interval-valued
intuitionistic fuzzy information and their application to decision making, International
363. Z. Xu and R. R. Yager, Power-geometric operators and their use in group decision
making, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 18 (2010) 94–105.
364. B. S. Ahn and H. Park, An e±cient pruning method for decision alternatives of OWA
operators, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 16 (2008) 1542–1549.
365. A. Byeong Seok, On the properties of OWA operator weights functions with constant
level of orness, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 14 (2006) 511–515.
366. L. Jin and G. Qian, OWA generation function and some adjustment methods
for OWA operators with application, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 24 (2016)
168–178.
367. K. Atanassov, Intuitionistic fuzzy sets, 1983, VII ITKR's Session, So¯a (deposed in
Central Sci.-Technical Library of Bulg. Acad. of Sci., 1697/84) (in Bulgarian).
368. K. T. Atanassov, Intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 20 (1986) 87–96.
369. S.-P. Wan, F. Wang, L.-L. Lin and J.-Y. Dong, Some new generalized aggregation
operators for triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and application to multi-attribute
group decision making, Computers & Industrial Engineering 93 (2016) 286–301.
370. I. K. Vlachos and G. D. Sergiadis, Intuitionistic fuzzy information–applications
to pattern recognition, Pattern Recognition Letters 28 (2007) 197–206.
371. P. Wei and J. Ye, Improved intuitionistic fuzzy cross-entropy and its application
to pattern recognitions, 2010 Int. Conf. Intelligent Systems and Knowledge Engineering
(ISKE) (2010), pp. 114–116.
372. W.-L. Hung and M.-S. Yang, On the J-divergence of intuitionistic fuzzy sets with its
application to pattern recognition, Information Sciences 178 (2008) 1641–1650.
373. P. Burillo and H. Bustince, Entropy on intuitionistic fuzzy sets and on interval-valued
fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 78 (1996) 305–316.
374. Q.-S. Zhang and S.-Y. Jiang, A note on information entropy measures for vague sets and
its applications, Information Sciences 178 (2008) 4184–4191.
375. S. K. De, R. Biswas and A. R. Roy, An application of intuitionistic fuzzy sets in medical
diagnosis, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 117 (2001) 209–213.
2nd Reading
376. S.-M. Chen, S.-H. Cheng and T.-C. Lan, Multicriteria decision making based on
the TOPSIS method and similarity measures between intuitionistic fuzzy values, In-
formation Sciences 367–368 (2016) 279–295.
377. G.-l. Xu, S.-P. Wan, F. Wang, J.-Y. Dong and Y.-F. Zeng, Mathematical programming
methods for consistency and consensus in group decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy
preference relations, Knowledge-Based Systems 98 (2016) 30–43.
378. Y. Wu, S. Geng, H. Xu and H. Zhang, Study of decision framework of wind farm project
plan selection under intuitionistic fuzzy set and fuzzy measure environment, Energy
Conversion and Management 87 (2014) 274–284.
379. Z. Yue, Aggregating crisp values into intuitionistic fuzzy number for group decision
making, Applied Mathematical Modelling 38 (2014) 2969–2982.
380. S.-P. Wan, Q.-Y. Wang and J.-Y. Dong, The extended VIKOR method for multi-
attribute group decision making with triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers,
381. J. Wu and Q.-W. Cao, Same families of geometric aggregation operators with
intuitionistic trapezoidal fuzzy numbers, Applied Mathematical Modelling 37 (2013)
318–327.
382. M.-C. Wu and T.-Y. Chen, The ELECTRE multicriteria analysis approach based
on Atanassov's intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011)
12318–12327.
383. J. Ye, Expected value method for intuitionistic trapezoidal fuzzy multicriteria decision-
making problems, Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 11730–11734.
384. T.-Y. Chen, Bivariate models of optimism and pessimism in multi-criteria
decision-making based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Information Sciences 181 (2011)
2139–2165.
385. H.-W. Liu and G.-J. Wang, Multi-criteria decision-making methods based on intuitio-
nistic fuzzy sets, European Journal of Operational Research 179 (2007) 220–233.
386. J.-Q. Wang, K.-J. Li and H.-Y. Zhang, Multi-criteria decision-making method based on
induced intuitionistic normal fuzzy related aggregation operators, International Journal
of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 20 (2012) 559–578.
387. H. Zhao, Z. Xu and Z. Yao, Intuitionistic fuzzy density-based aggregation operators
and their applications to group decision making with intuitionistic preference relations,
International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems
22 (2014) 145–169.
388. B. Peng, C. Ye and S. Zeng, Some Intuitionist fuzzy weighted geometric distance
measures and their application to group decision making, International Journal of
389. R. R. Yager, Pythagorean fuzzy subsets, IFSA World Congress and NAFIPS Annual
Meeting (IFSA/NAFIPS), 2013 Joint (2013), pp. 57–61.
390. R. R. Yager, Pythagorean membership grades in multicriteria decision making,
391. Z. Xu, Some similarity measures of intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their applications
to multiple attribute decision making, Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making
6 (2007) 109.
392. S. Dick, R. R. Yager and O. Yazdanbakhsh, On Pythagorean and complex fuzzy set
operations, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 24 (2016) 1009–1021.
393. S. Zeng, J. Chen and X. Li, A hybrid method for pythagorean fuzzy multiple-criteria
decision making, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making
15 (2016) 403–422.
2nd Reading
394. H. Garg, A new generalized pythagorean fuzzy information aggregation using einstein
operations and its application to decision making, International Journal of Intelligent
Systems 31 (2016) 886–920.
395. X. Peng and H. Yuan, Fundamental properties of Pythagorean fuzzy aggregation
operators, Fundamenta Informaticae 147 (2016) 415–446.
396. X. Peng and Y. Yang, Some results for Pythagorean fuzzy sets, International Journal of
397. X. Peng and Y. Yang, Pythagorean fuzzy choquet integral based MABAC method for
multiple attribute group decision making, International Journal of Intelligent Systems
31 (2016) 989–1020.
398. P. Ren, Z. Xu and X. Gou, Pythagorean fuzzy TODIM approach to multi-criteria
decision making, Applied Soft Computing 42 (2016) 246–259.
399. X. Zhang and Z. Xu, Extension of TOPSIS to multiple criteria decision making
with Pythagorean fuzzy sets, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 29 (2014)
1061–1078.
400. X. Zhang, A novel approach based on similarity measure for Pythagorean fuzzy multiple
criteria group decision making, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 31 (2016)
593–611.
401. H. Garg, Generalized Pythagorean fuzzy geometric aggregation operators using Einstein
t-norm and t-conorm for multicriteria decision-making process, International Journal of
402. X. Zhang, Multicriteria Pythagorean fuzzy decision analysis: A hierarchical
QUALIFLEX approach with the closeness index-based ranking methods, Information
Sciences 330 (2016) 104–124.
403. W. Liang, X. Zhang and M. Liu, The maximizing deviation method based on interval-
valued Pythagorean fuzzy weighted aggregating operator for multiple criteria
group decision analysis, Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society 2015 (2015) 1–15.
404. Z. Liu, P. Liu, W. Liu and J. Pang, Pythagorean uncertain linguistic partitioned Bon-
ferroni mean operators and their application in multi-attribute decision making, Journal
of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 32 (2017) 2779–2790.
405. H. Garg, A novel improved accuracy function for interval valued Pythagorean fuzzy sets
and its applications in the decision-making process, International Journal of Intelligent
Systems 32 (2017) 1247–1260.
406. R. R. Yager and A. M. Abbasov, Pythagorean membership grades, complex
numbers, and decision making, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 28 (2013)
436–452.
407. H. Garg, A novel correlation coe±cients between Pythagorean fuzzy sets and its
applications to decision-making processes, International Journal of Intelligent Systems
31 (2016) 1234–1252.
408. H. Garg, A novel accuracy function under interval-valued pythagorean fuzzy environ-
ment for solving multicriteria decision making problem, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy
Systems 31 (2016) 529–540.
409. X. Peng and Y. Yang, Fundamental properties of interval-valued Pythagorean
fuzzy aggregation operators, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 31 (2016)
444–487.
410. X. Gou, Z. Xu and P. Ren, The properties of continuous Pythagorean fuzzy information,
International Journal of Intelligent Systems 31 (2016) 401–424.
411. H. Garg, Con¯dence levels based Pythagorean fuzzy aggregation operators and its ap-
plication to decision-making process, Computational and Mathematical Organization
Theory 23 (2017) 546–571.
2nd Reading
412. C. Zhang, D. Li and R. Ren, Pythagorean fuzzy multigranulation rough set over two
universes and its applications in merger and acquisition, International Journal of
413. Z. Ma and Z. Xu, Symmetric Pythagorean fuzzy weighted geometric/averaging opera-
tors and their application in multicriteria decision-making problems, International
Journal of Intelligent Systems 31 (2016) 1198–1219.
414. X. Peng, H. Yuan and Y. Yang, Pythagorean fuzzy information measures and their
applications, International Journal of Intelligent Systems (2017): n/a-n/a.
415. X. Peng and J. Dai, 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 (2017) 1187–1214.
416. K. Rahman, S. Abdullah, R. Ahmed and M. Ullah, Pythagorean fuzzy Einstein weighted
geometric aggregation operator and their application to multiple attribute group deci-
sion making, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 33 (2017) 635–647.
417. X. Peng, H. Yuan and Y. Yang, Pythagorean fuzzy information measures and their
applications, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 32 (2017) 991–1029.
418. S. Zeng, Pythagorean fuzzy multiattribute group decision making with probabilistic
information and OWA approach, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 32 (2017)
1136–1150.
419. Y. Du, F. Hou, W. Zafar, Q. Yu and Y. Zhai, A novel method for multiattribute decision
making with interval-valued pythagorean fuzzy linguistic information, International
Journal of Intelligent Systems 32 (2017) 1085–1112.
420. D. Liang and Z. Xu, The new extension of TOPSIS method for multiple criteria
decision making with hesitant Pythagorean fuzzy sets, Applied Soft Computing 60
(2017) 167–179.
421. G. Wei, X. Zhao, R. Lin and H. Wang, Uncertain linguistic Bonferroni mean operators
and their application to multiple attribute decision making, Applied Mathematical
Modelling 37 (2013) 5277–5285.
422. F. Zhang, J. Ignatius, C. P. Lim and M. Goh, A two-stage dynamic group decision
making method for processing ordinal information, Knowledge-Based Systems 70 (2014)
189–202.
423. F. J. Cabrerizo, R. Ureña, W. Pedrycz and E. Herrera-Viedma, Building consensus in
group decision making with an allocation of information granularity, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 255 (2014) 115–127.
424. S. M. Vieira, J. M. C. Sousa and U. Kaymak, Fuzzy criteria for feature selection, Fuzzy
Sets and Systems 189 (2012) 1–18.
425. D. Dubey, S. Chandra and A. Mehra, Fuzzy linear programming under interval un-
certainty based on IFS representation, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 188 (2012) 68–87.
426. Y.-M. Wang and C. Parkan, Optimal aggregation of fuzzy preference relations with an
application to broadband internet service selection, European Journal of Operational
Research 187 (2008) 1476–1486.
427. Z. Xu, Intuitionistic preference relations and their application in group decision making,
428. C. A. Silva, J. Sousa and T. A. Runkler, Optimization of logistic systems using fuzzy
weighted aggregation, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 158 (2007) 1947–1960.
429. F. Tiryaki, Interactive compensatory fuzzy programming for decentralized multi-
level linear programming (DMLLP) problems, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 157 (2006)
3072–3090.
2nd Reading
430. E. Tsiporkova and V. Boeva, Multi-step ranking of alternatives in a multi-criteria

and multi-expert decision making environment, Information Sciences 176 (2006)
2673–2697.
431. R. A. Marques Pereira and R. A. Ribeiro, Aggregation with generalized mixture
operators using weighting functions, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 137 (2003) 43–58.
432. P. Czyżak and R. Skowiiński, Possibilistic construction of fuzzy outranking relation
for multiple-criteria ranking, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 81 (1996) 123–131.
433. A. A. Salo, On fuzzy ratio comparisons in hierarchical decision models, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 84 (1996) 21–32.
434. D. Dubois, H. Fargier and H. Prade, Re¯nements of the maximin approach to decision-
making in a fuzzy environment, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 81 (1996) 103–122.
435. Y. Jiang, Z. Xu and X. Yu, Group decision making based on incomplete intuitionistic
multiplicative preference relations, Information Sciences 295 (2015) 33–52.
436. F. Franceschini, D. Maisano and L. Mastrogiacomo, A novel algorithm for fusing
preference orderings by rank-ordered agents, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 266 (2014) 84–100.
437. A. Mesiarova-Zemankova and K. Ahmad, Extended multi-polarity and multi-polar-
valued fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 234 (2014) 61–78.
438. J. M. Merigo, M. Casanovas and J.-B. Yang, Group decision making with expertons and
uncertain generalized probabilistic weighted aggregation operators, European Journal of
Operational Research 235 (2014) 215–224.
439. X. Yu, Z. Xu and S. Liu, Prioritized multi-criteria decision making based on preference
relations, Computers & Industrial Engineering 66 (2013) 104–115.
440. S. Liu, F. T. Chan and W. Ran, Multi-attribute group decision-making with
multi-granularity linguistic assessment information: An improved approach based on
deviation and TOPSIS, Applied Mathematical Modelling 37 (2013) 10129–10140.
441. K. Khalili-Damghani, S. Sadi-Nezhad and M. Tavana, Solving multi-period
project selection problems with fuzzy goal programming based on TOPSIS and a fuzzy
preference relation, Information Sciences 252 (2013) 42–61.
442. Z. Xu, Group decision making model and approach based on interval preference
orderings, Computers & Industrial Engineering 64 (2013) 797–803.
443. G.-W. Wei, X. Zhao and R. Lin, Some hybrid aggregating operators in linguistic decision
making with Dempster–Shafer belief structure, Computers & Industrial Engineering
65 (2013) 646–651.
444. Y.-S. Huang, W.-C. Chang, W.-H. Li and Z.-L. Lin, Aggregation of utility-based
individual preferences for group decision-making, European Journal of Operational
Research 229 (2013) 462–469.
445. A. Jimenez, A. Mateos and P. Sabio, Dominance intensity measure within fuzzy weight
oriented MAUT: An application, Omega 41 (2013) 397–405.
446. D. H. Hong, The relationship between the maximum entropy and minimax ratio
RIM quanti¯er problems, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 202 (2012) 110–117.
447. W.-E. Yang, J.-Q. Wang and X.-F. Wang, An outranking method for multi-
criteria decision making with duplex linguistic information, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 198
(2012) 20–33.
448. B. Peng, C. Ye and S. Zeng, Uncertain pure linguistic hybrid harmonic averaging
operator and generalized interval aggregation operator based approach to group decision
making, Knowledge-Based Systems 36 (2012) 175–181.
449. E. Roghanian, J. Rahimi and A. Ansari, Comparison of ¯rst aggregation and last
aggregation in fuzzy group TOPSIS, Applied Mathematical Modelling 34 (2010)
3754–3766.
2nd Reading
450. T. Matthe, G. De Tre and A. Hallez, Impact of weights on conjunctive and disjunctive
aggregation of extended possibilistic truth values, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 160 (2009)
2141–2158.
451. Z. Xu, Group decision making based on multiple types of linguistic preference relations,
452. X. Luo and N. R. Jennings, A spectrum of compromise aggregation operators for
multi-attribute decision making, Arti¯cial Intelligence 171 (2007) 161–184.
453. J. Ye, Improved method of multicriteria fuzzy decision-making based on vague sets,
Computer-Aided Design 39 (2007) 164–169.
454. S.-Y. Chen and G.-T. Fu, Combining fuzzy iteration model with dynamic programming
to solve multiobjective multistage decision making problems, Fuzzy Sets and Systems
152 (2005) 499–512.
455. F. Herrera and E. Herrera-Viedma, Linguistic decision analysis: steps for solving
decision problems under linguistic information, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 115 (2000)
67–82.
456. M. Sakawa, M. Inuiguchi, K. Kato and T. Ikeda, An interactive fuzzy satis¯cing method
for multiobjective optimal control problems in linear distributed-parameter systems,
457. C.-B. Chen and C. M. Klein, An e±cient approach to solving fuzzy MADM problems,
458. K. Meier, Methods for decision making with cardinal numbers and additive aggregation,
459. L. I. Kuncheva and R. Krishnapuram, A fuzzy consensus aggregation operator, Fuzzy
Sets and Systems 79 (1996) 347–356.
460. M. Grabisch, The application of fuzzy integrals in multicriteria decision making,
European Journal of Operational Research 89 (1996) 445–456.
461. H.-M. Hsu and C.-T. Chen, Aggregation of fuzzy opinions under group decision making,
462. R. R. Yager, Aggregation operators and fuzzy systems modeling, Fuzzy Sets and Systems
67 (1994) 129–145.
463. E. Stanley Lee and R. J. Li, Fuzzy multiple objective programming and
compromise programming with Pareto optimum, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 53 (1993)
275–288.
464. P. Perny and B. Roy, The use of fuzzy outranking relations in preference modelling,
465. A. Di Nola, W. Pedrycz, S. Sessa and E. Sanchez, Fuzzy relation equations theory as a
basis of fuzzy modelling: An overview, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 40 (1991) 415–429.
466. M. Sakawa and H. Yano, An interactive fuzzy satis¯cing method for multi-
objective linear fractional programming problems, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 28 (1988)
129–144.
467. R. Słowiński, A multicriteria fuzzy linear programming method for water supply system
development planning, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 19 (1986) 217–237.
468. Y. He, Z. He, P. Zhou and Y. Deng, Scaled prioritized geometric aggregation operators
and their applications to decision making, International Journal of Uncertainty,
Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 24 (2016) 13–45.
469. B. Peng and C. Ye, Some induced uncertain geometric aggregation operators
with pure linguistic information and their application to group decision making, Inter-
723–742.
2nd Reading
470. Z. Xu, A method based on the dynamic weighted geometric aggregation operator
for dynamic hybrid multi-attribute group decision making, International Journal of
471. Y. He, Z. He, C. Jin and H. Chen, Intuitionistic fuzzy power geometric Bonferroni
means and their application to multiple attribute group decision making, International

Decision Making Methods Based On Fuzzy Aggregation Operators

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Decision Making Methods Based On Fuzzy Aggregation Operators

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2nd Reading

March 7, 2018 2:50:24pm WSPC/173-IJITDM 1830001 ISSN: 0219-6220

International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making

Decision Making Methods Based on Fuzzy

Abbas Mardani*,||, Mehrbakhsh Nilashi†,‡,**,

||,§§ Corresponding authors.

Decision Making Methods Based on Fuzzy Aggregation Operators 3

2.1. Literature search

Decision Making Methods Based on Fuzzy Aggregation Operators 5

Search in database for aggregation operators and DM (1986-2017)

Removed records due to duplicates

Removed irrelevant papers

Screened records based of abstract review

Assessed full-text articles for eligibility

Studies included in qualitative Excluded full-text articles,

Identified papers in references

Suggested papers by reviewers

Included articles for meta-analysis

2.2. Articles eligibility

doctoral theses, textbooks, non-English papers were excluded. Several of the

2.3. Data extraction and summarizing

Decision Making Methods Based on Fuzzy Aggregation Operators 7

Table 1. Classi¯cation of paper based on DM and aggregation

Classi¯cation Frequently Percentage

Hesitant Fuzzy Set 35 11.22%

3.1.1. Hesitant fuzzy set

Hesitant Fuzzy Geometric Bonferroni Mean (WHFGBM), Weighted Hesitant Fuzzy

3.1.2. Fuzzy Choquet integral operator

Decision Making Methods Based on Fuzzy Aggregation Operators 9

Table 2. Distribution of papers based on hesitant fuzzy set.

Authors Year Techniques and approaches Study contribution

Authors Year Techniques and approaches Study contribution

Decision Making Methods Based on Fuzzy Aggregation Operators 11

Authors Year Techniques and approaches Study contribution

including interval-valued intuitionistic uncertain linguistic Choquet averaging

3.1.3. Type-2 fuzzy sets (T2FSs)

Decision Making Methods Based on Fuzzy Aggregation Operators 13

Table 3. Distribution of papers based on fuzzy Choquet integral operator.

Authors Year Techniques and approaches Study contribution

Authors Year Techniques and approaches Study contribution

Decision Making Methods Based on Fuzzy Aggregation Operators 15

linguistic information in CWW, Herrera and Martínez147 proposed a two-tuple

Table 4. Distribution of papers based on type-2 fuzzy set.

Authors Year Techniques and approaches Study contribution

technique and research contribution. Findings shown in this table indicate

Decision Making Methods Based on Fuzzy Aggregation Operators 17

3.1.4. Two-tuple linguistic

two-tuple linguistic extended Bonferroni mean aggregation operator Dutta et al.189

3.1.5. Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets

Decision Making Methods Based on Fuzzy Aggregation Operators 19

Table 5. Distribution of papers based on two-tuple linguistic.

Authors Year Techniques and approaches Study contribution

Authors Year Techniques and approaches Study contribution

Wan187 2013 Two-Tuple hybrid weighted arithmetic Focused on MAGDM problems in

Decision Making Methods Based on Fuzzy Aggregation Operators 21

Authors Year Techniques and approaches Study contribution

3.1.6. Ordered weighted averaging operators

Table 6. Distribution of papers based on interval valued IFSs.

Authors Year Techniques and approaches Study contribution

Decision Making Methods Based on Fuzzy Aggregation Operators 23

Authors Year Techniques and approaches Study contribution

Authors Year Techniques and approaches Study contribution

Decision Making Methods Based on Fuzzy Aggregation Operators 25