A General Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Based Approach for
Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making
Syibrah Naim and Hani Hagras
The Computational Intelligence Centre
School of Computer Science and Electronic Engineering
University of Essex, United Kingdom
mnnurs@essex.ac.uk
Abstract Decision making could be viewed to include Multi-
Criteria Group Decision Making (MCGDM). MCGDM is a
decision tool which it is able to find a unique agreement from
number of decision makers/users by evaluating the uncertain
judgment among them. Several fuzzy logic based approaches
have been employed in MCGDM to handle the linguistic
uncertainties and hesitancy. However, there is a need to handle
the high level of uncertainties that exist in decision making
problems involving numbers of decision makers/experts/users
with varying points of view. In this paper, we present a general
type-2 fuzzy logic based approach for MCGDM. The proposed
system aims to handle the high levels of uncertainties which
exist due to the varying Decision Makers (DMs) judgments
and the vagueness of the appraisal. The proposed method
utilizes general type-2 fuzzy sets. The aggregation operation in
the proposed method aggregates the various DMs opinions
which allow handling the disagreements of DMs opinions into
a unique approval. We will present results from the proposed
system deployment for the assessment of the postgraduate
study. The proposed system was able to model the variation in
the group decision making process exhibited by the various
decision makers opinions. In addition, the proposed system
showed agreement between the proposed method and the real
decision outputs from DMs (as quantified by the Pearson
Correlation) which outperformed the MCGDM systems based
on type-1 fuzzy sets, interval type-2 fuzzy sets and interval
type-2 fuzzy sets with hesitation index.
Keywords- general type-2 fuzzy sets, multi-criteria group
decision making
I. INTRODUCTION
Uncertainties, vagueness and hesitancy pose major
challenges to any decision making system. Uncertainties are
not just limited to the linguistic evaluation where
uncertainties can be referred to as a situation where the
current state of knowledge is such that the order or nature of
things is unknown or vague [1]. Furthermore, uncertainties
are present when the consequences, extent, or magnitude of
circumstances, conditions, or events is unpredictable [1]. The
evaluation and the consideration of uncertainties vary
according to the given application.
Decision making could be viewed to include Multi-
Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) and Group Decision
Making (GDM). MCDM aims to provide a selection
involving a number of conflicting alternatives and criteria.
On the other hand, in GDM, we have a group of Decision
Makers (DMs) and we try to aggregate all the individual
preferences into a collective preference. Hence, it is essential
to combine MCDM and GDM to form Multi-Criteria Group
Decision Making (MCGDM). MCGDM plays and important
role to evaluate the utmost decision among humans
preferences which involves high of uncertainties.
According to [2] and [3], there are many sources of
uncertainties facing MCGDM systems in real world-
applications. Such uncertainties include linguistic
uncertainties where a criterion like Age might be
interpreted in different ways according to different DMs. The
hesitancies and vagueness might exist internally and
externally. The internal conflicts such as self-esteem and
confidence level will affect the DM judgment during the
assessment. In addition, external circumstances such as the
political situation, the circumstances prevailing at that time
and the environmental conditions can definitely have an
effect on DMs opinions.
Researches have been investigating techniques to handle
the faced uncertainties in many decision making
applications. Fuzzy logic is regarded as an appropriate
methodology for decision making systems which is able to
simultaneously handle numerical data and linguistic
knowledge. Research in fuzzy decision making has grown
rapidly in the utilization of extended fuzzy set theories (i.e.,
Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets (IFSs) [4], Hesitant Fuzzy Sets [5],
Vague Sets [6], Interval-valued Fuzzy Sets [7]). The work in
[8] developed an interactive decision support system for
sustainable energy management and the application of fuzzy
methods to tackle uncertainties in the data. The work
presented in [9] studied the supplier selection which involved
several conflicting criteria where the decision makers
knowledge is usually vague and imprecise.
The application of Type-2 fuzzy sets in decision making
has been widely applied. In [10], a method was proposed to
complement the methods presented in [11] and [12] for fuzzy
multiple attribute group decision-making based on interval
type-2 fuzzy sets. In [13], a method was proposed which
could handle evaluating values represented by non-normal
interval type-2 fuzzy sets. The work presented in [14]
investigated group decision making problems in which all
the information provided by decision makers (DMs) are
expressed as interval type-2 fuzzy values in decision
matrices.
 Recently several researchers began to explore the
application of general type-2 fuzzy sets and systems. In [15],
two methods were proposed for the automatic design of
general type-2 fuzzy sets using data gathered through a
survey on the linguistic variables. A series of results
presented in [16] related to the different levels of uncertainty
handled by the different types of Fuzzy Logic Systems
(FLSs) including general type-2 fuzzy logic systems. In [17],
an approach was presented for uncertain fuzzy clustering
using the general type-2 fuzzy C-means algorithm and it was
able to balance the performance of type-1 algorithms in
various uncertain pattern recognition tasks.
In our previous work ([18] and [19]), we developed type-
1, interval type-2 and interval type-2 fuzzy logic with
hesitant index based on IFSs (Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets) for
MCGDM. Fig. 1, a, b, c, d show respectively the secondary
membership functions for the type-1, interval type-2, interval
type-2 fuzzy sets with hesitant index based on IFSs and
general type-2 fuzzy sets. It was shown in [19] that the
system based on interval type-2 fuzzy sets with hesitant
index based on IFSs could handle the linguistic uncertainties
by the interval type-2 fuzzy set Footprint of Uncertainty
(FOU). In addition this combination simultaneously
computes the hesitancy from the membership and non-
membership degree (of IFSs). However, the interval values
with hesitation index cannot fully represent the uncertainty
distribution (in the third dimension) associated with the
decision makers.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 1. View of the secondary membership function in the third
dimension, x u plane (a) Type-1 Fuzzy Set. (b) Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Set.
(c) Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Set with Hesitation index (from IFSs). (d)
General Type-2 Fuzzy Set.
In this paper, we present a general type-2 fuzzy logic
based approach for MCGDM (GFL-MCGDM) which is
more suited for higher levels of uncertainties. The proposed
method utilizes general type-2 fuzzy sets to evaluate the
linguistic uncertainties within the DMs judgments about the
linguistic variables. The aggregation operation in the
proposed method aggregates the various DMs opinions
which allow handling the disagreements of DMs opinions
into a unique approval. We will present results from the
proposed system deployment for the assessment of the
postgraduate study. The proposed system was able to model
the variation in the group decision making process exhibited
by the various decision makers opinion. In addition, the
proposed system showed agreement between the proposed
method and the real decision outputs from DMs which
outperformed the MCGDM systems based on type-1 fuzzy
sets, interval type-2 fuzzy sets and interval type-2 with
hesitation index.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section II
will present a brief overview on general type-2 fuzzy sets,
type-2 fuzzy logic rule based systems and multi-criteria
decision making. Section III presents the proposed general
type-2 fuzzy logic based approach for MCGDM (GFL-
MCGDM). Section IV presents an example to clarify the
various stages of the proposed method. Section V reports on
the results. Finally, Section VI presents the conclusions and
future work.
II. PRELIMINARIES
A. General Type 2 Fuzzy Sets
A general type-2 fuzzy set (as shown in Fig. 2), denoted
~
A , is characterized by a general type-2 fuzzy membership
function A~ ( x, u ) , where x X and J x [0, 1] , i.e.,
~
A = {((x, u), A~ (x, u)) | x X , u J x [0, 1]} (1)
~
in which 0 A~ (x, u ) 1 . A can also be expressed as
follows:
~
A = xX uJ X
A~ (x, u ) (x, u ) J x [0, 1] (2)
where denotes union over all admissible x and u . J x is
~
called primary membership of x in A (as shown in Fig.2a),
where J x [0, 1] for x X [20]. The uncertainty in the
primary memberships of a general type-2 fuzzy set consists
of a bounded region that is called the Footprint of
Uncertainty (FOU) [20] which is the aggregation of all
primary memberships [17]. According to [9], a general type-
2 fuzzy set can be thought of as a large collection of
embedded type-1 sets each having a weight to associate with
it [21]. At each value of x , say x = x , the 2-D plane whose
axes are u and A~ (x , u ) is called a vertical slice of A~ ( x , u )
[20]. A secondary membership function is a vertical slice of
A~ ( x , u ) [20]. Hence, A~ (x , u ) for x X and
u J x [0, 1] could be written as [20]:
A~ (x = x, u ) A~ (x) = f x (u ) / u (3)
uJ x
in which 0 f x (u ) 1 . Because x X , the prime
notation on A~ (x ) is dropped and A~ (x ) is referred to as a
secondary membership function [22]; it is a type-1 fuzzy set
which is also referred to as a secondary set (see Fig. 2b) [23].
 indifference between xi and x j , x ij > 0 . 5 indicates that xi
is preferred to x j , and x ij < 0 . 5 indicates that x j is
preferred to xi .

III. THE PROPOSED GENERAL TYPE 2 FUZZY LOGIC BASED

MULTI-CRITERIA GROUP DECISION MAKING
(GFL-MCGDM)
The proposed GFL-MCGDM combines general type-2
(a) (b) fuzzy logic systems with MCGDM. In the overview on the
Figure 2. General Type-2 Fuzzy set (a) The primary membership, J x . proposed GFL-MCGDM shown in Fig. 3, the rules and
(b) The secondary membership is a fuzzy set.
fuzzifier are used while the inference engine, the type-
reduction and defuzzification of type-2 FLSs will be replaced
B. Type-2 Fuzzy Logic - Rule Based Systems with the MCGDM method where we rank the output values
from the priority weights.
According to [23], in general type-2 FLSs, the rules will
remain the same as in type-1 FLSs but the antecedents and
the consequents will be represented by general type-2 fuzzy
sets. Consider a type-2 FLS having inputs
,..., and outputs ,..., . The th
rule in this multiple-inputmultiple-output type-2 FLS can be
written as follows: : IF is And . . . And is ,
THEN is . . . is where is the number of rules
in the rule-based.
C. Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making
The MCGDM is explained as follows: Let A be a set of
alternatives, let X be as set of criteria and let D be a set of
experts/DMs, where A = {l1 , l2 ,..., le } , X = {x1 , x2 ,..., xn }
D = {z1 , z2 ,..., z m } , respectively. A MCGDM problem can be
concisely expressed in a matrix format as follows:
x1 x2 xn
x1 x 11 x 12 x1 n
D k = lr = x 2 x 21 x 22 x2n (4)
Figure 3. An overview on the proposed GFL-MCGDM.

xn x n1 xn2 x nn In MCGDM, the criteria represent the FLS inputs while

In what follows, we will state the basic approach to fuzzy
MCDM without considering risk attitude and confidence. A
general decision making problem with e alternatives
l r (r = 1,..., e ) , n criteria xt (t = 1,..., n ) and m experts
z k (k = 1,..., m ) can be concisely expressed as: D = l r . Here
D refers to a DM (where the entry xij represents the rating
of the rule formed by criteria xi and criteria x j ) where
i = 1,..., n and j = 1,..., n .
Definition 1. A preference relation P on the set X is
characterized by a function P : X X U , where U is the
domain representation of preference degrees. A fuzzy
preference relation P on the set X is represented by a
complementary/reciprocal matrix :
( )
X = xij nn
X X with x ij 0 , x ij + x ji = 1, x ii = 0 . 5 for all
i, j = 1, 2,...,n where x ij denotes the preferred degree of the
criteria xi over xj . In particular, xij = 0.5 indicates
the alternatives represent the FLS outputs. We modified the
reciprocal decision matrices by inserting the fuzzy logic rule-
base. As shown in Fig. 3, the proposed architecture starts by
receiving crisp inputs from the criteria which are then
fuzzified and then fire the fuzzy rule-base to provide the
membership values in decision matrices. The membership
value at a given x for a general type-2 fuzzy set is a type-1
fuzzy set in the third dimension. The aggregation operation
in the proposed method aggregates the various DMs opinions
which allow handling the disagreements of DMs opinions
into a collective approval. The ranking components in the
proposed GFL-MCGDM utilize fuzzy arithmetic averaging
operators to compute the membership values in decision
matrices. The normalizations and the priority weights will be
calculated to determine the final output. The various
components of the proposed GFL-MCGDM will be
discussed in the following subsections.
A. Generation of the General Type-2 Fuzzy sets for the
Lingusitic Labels for each Criterion
All fuzzy sets representing the linguistic labels for each
criterion were modelled in the x-u domain with trapezoidal
type-2 fuzzy membership functions (as shown in Fig. 4a).
Essentially, the linguistic labels type-2 fuzzy sets are created
by the combination of DMs opinions (modelled by
symmetrical triangular type-1 fuzzy sets as shown in Fig.
4a). The minimum, maximum and the average values defined
by the intersection of DMs opinion are demarcated to create
the support for each trapezoidal type-2 fuzzy set.
(a) (b)
Figure 4. Generation of General Type-2 Fuzzy Set from DMs opinion (a)
Primary membership function (plotted in thick lines) as generated from the
DMs type-1 Fuzzy Sets (plotted in thin dashed lines) and the used type-1
Fuzzy Sets for comparison in thick dashed line. (b) A secondary
membership functions in the third dimension.
Each DM opinion about a given linguistic label is defined
by a symmetrical type-1 triangular fuzzy set (as shown in
Fig. 4a) which is defined by three points (a, b, c). We
B. The GFL-MCGDM Steps
This section presents eight steps to determine the ranking
of the outputs. This phase included the fuzzifier process and
decision-making process. The steps below provide an
overview of the steps of the proposed GFL-MCGDM:
Step 1: Consider a multi-criteria group decision making
problem, let A = {l1 , l2 ,..., le } be a discrete set of alternatives
(output parameters), X = {x1 , x 2 ,..., x n } be a set of criteria
(input parameters), and D = {z1 , z 2 ,..., z m } be a set of DMs.
The DM z k D provides his/her judgment based on the
rules given, and constructs the rule-based reciprocal decision
matrix.
Step 2: With the assumption that we have the input
values for each criteria, we utilize general type-2
membership function (explained in the previous subsection
and shown in Fig. 4) to define the membership degree for
each rule defined in the reciprocal decision matrices and we
then identify the rule that is fired.
Each x ij (r , k ) calculated in the decision matrix should
satisfy the following rule according to DMs opinions:
~ ~
IF xi is Fi and x j is F j THEN l r (10)
(
X (r , k ) = x ij (r , k ) ) (11)
nn

aggregate a = {a 1 , ... , a m } , b = {b1 , ... , b m } and Hence, for each x ij ( r , k ) , we will have ij(r , k ) , (r , k ) , for all
ij
c = {c 1 , ... , c m } to find the lowest, vertex and upper points i , j = 1, 2,..., n .
of the generated type-2 fuzzy set according to the number of
decision makers (k = 1,..., m ) . To draw the x-u domain of the ~(r , k ) as follows:
Step 3: In this step, we define ij

generated general type-2 fuzzy sets for each linguistic

variable, the following points have to be defined as follows: ij(r , k ) + ij(r , k )
~ij(r , k ) = (12)
2
a = min {a 1 , ... , a m } (5)
Hence, for each entry, we will have
b = min {b1 , ... , b m }
b ' ' = max {b1 , ... , b m }
(6)
(7)
(r , k )
(
(r , k ) ~ ( r , k ) ( r , k )
xij = ij , ij , ij )
, for all i , j = 1,2,..., n .

c = max {c1 , ... , c m }
b + b
d' =
2 decision matrices.
Thus, the above equations result in generating the
general type-2 fuzzy set for each label from the individual
DM opinions (represented as type-1 fuzzy sets). The
secondary membership function at each x is a symmetrical
triangle (as shown in Fig. 4b).
(8) In all the operations below please note that all operations
on x will be carried on , ~ and independently in
(9)
Step 4: Then, we use the min operator to compute the
firing strength for each rule. This will lead to construct the
fuzzy decision matrices. Based on the DMs/experts z k D ,
we can construct reciprocal decision matrices.
Step 5: The general type-2 fuzzy values of each x ij
(r , k )

Thus, the generated general type-2 fuzzy set (in Fig.4a) are then aggregated. The aggregated set can be determined
upper membership function will be formed by points a, b, by x ij(r ) = (v ijr , w ijr , y ijr ) for (k = 1,..., m ) where,
b and c. While the lower membership function will be
formed by points b, d and b. The type-1 fuzzy sets v ijr = min
k
{ ij
(r , k )
} (13)
(which will be used when comparing the performance of a
type-1 fuzzy based system with the proposed system) will 1 m ~ (r , k )
w ijr = ij (14)
consist of the points e (average of a and b), f(average of m k =1
b and d), g (average of b and d) and h (average of b
and c) as shown in Fig. 4a. y ijr = max
k
{ ( )} ij
r ,k
(15)
 Step 6: Use the fuzzy arithmetic averaging operator to
aggregate all x ij( r ) = (v ijr , w ijr , y ijr ) corresponding to the n
criteria.
1 n (r )
xt(r ) = xij (16)
n t =1
Step 7: Find the average of each xt( r ) (where t = 1,..., n ),
(r )
this average is called xtavg . Next, normalize the matrix so
that each element in the matrix can be written as follows:
(r )
(r )
xtavg
xtnorm = (r ) (17)
tn=1 xtavg
Step 8: Find the priority weights, l r of each alternative
as:
n outputs. All of the steps are simultaneously involved in the
lr = 1 x( ) r
tnorm
(18)
n t =1
r in Fig.5.
where l r > 0 , r = 1, , e , er =1 l = 1 .
IV. AN EXAMPLE TO CLARIFY THE PROPOSED
GFL-MCGDM
In order to evaluate the proposed GFL-MCGDM system,
we have conducted a survey among postgraduate students in
the Department of Computer Science, University of Essex.
Ten participants were chosen randomly and they were
classified as decision makers (DMs) for the group decision-
making system. In this analysis, DMs are chosen based on
their knowledge and experience in choosing a university for
their postgraduate study. The group of DMs consists of local
students, foreign students and internship students. The
system will determine three types of decisions which are
foreign postgraduate study, local postgraduate study and
internship postgraduate study. Based on the DMs judgment
and assessment, we generate the system.
Three output fuzzy variables were used in this system:
study Foreign, study Local and study Internship. The
developed decision system provides a decision output
(foreign, local or internship) based on the input criteria from
the students. The fuzzy system for postgraduate decisions
was based on four main input variables (criteria); Financial
support (cost of living per month that they need to consider);
Age; preferred living Distance from hometown to the
university (flight hours); Dependents (how many dependents
they need to support during their postgraduate study).
The linguistic labels for Financial are Very Cheap,
Cheap, Medium, Expensive, Very Expensive. The linguistic
labels for Age are Very Young, Young, Medium, Old, Very
Old. The linguistic labels for Distance according to flight
hours are Very Near, Near, Medium, Far, Very Far. The
linguistic labels for the Number of Dependents are Very
Little, Little, Medium, Many, So Many.
TABLE I. EXAMPLE OF A RULE FOR ALTERNATIVE FOREIGN FROM
A DECISION MAKER
Criteria Alternative (Foreign)
Financial (F) Very Expensive (VE)
Age (A) Young (Y)
Distance according to flight hours (D) Medium Distance (MD)
Number of Dependent (N) Many (A)
Table I shows a rule for the Foreign alternative which
is according to DM 1: IF the Financial is Very Expensive,
Age is Young, Distance is Medium and Number of
Dependent is Many THEN further Foreign Study.
A. Analysis according to the Proposed Steps
This section presents the eight steps involved in the
proposed GFL-MCGDM to determine the ranking of the
decision making process in order to determine the fuzzy
ranking. The generated general type-2 fuzzy sets are shown
Step 1: According to the first step, we construct the
reciprocal decision matrices based on the fuzzy rules set
collected from all decision makers. According to the ten
DMs evaluated, their opinions were based on the three output
variables/alternatives (Foreign, Local and Internship).
Consequently, we constructed 30 matrices because each of
the rules represents the experts/DMs opinion. 30 matrices
will be accumulated in this analysis to compute one decision.
Hence, the multi-criteria group decision making problem
can be formulated as having A = {l1 , l2 , l3} to be a discrete
set of alternatives (output parameters), X = {x1, x2 ,. x3, x4} be
a set of criteria (input parameters), and D = {z1 , z2 ,...,z10} be
a set of DMs. The DM zk D provides a judgment based on
the rules given and constructs the decision matrix.
Using the associated abbreviations in Table I, for
alternative Foreign ( r = 1 ) and for DM1( k = 1 ), we
construct a rule-based reciprocal decision matrix as follows:
criteria F A D N
F VE and Y VE and MD VE and A
A VE and Y Y and MD Y and A
Foreign =
D VE and MD Y and MD MD and A
N VE and A Y and A MD and A
For example, for DM1, we can construct the rule set as
follows: Let us say that criterion xi =1 is Financial (F),
criterion xj=3 is Distance (D) and alternative is study
1,1
Foreign. In this case, the rule set for x13 (shown in bold in
the table above) is denoted as IF your Financial (F) is Very
Expensive (VE) and Distance (D) is Medium (MD), THEN
the you should further Foreign study.
 Step 2, Step 3 and Step 4: In case the input values are: Fired Rule x 13(r = 1 ) = (v 13r = 1 , w 13r = 1 , y 13r = 1 )
financial support is 1000, age is 26 years old, preferred
Financial (VE) vs. Distance (MD) [0, 0.1919, 1.0]
distance according to flight hours is 4 hours and number of
dependents is 0. From Fig. 5 (showing only the generated
type-2 fuzzy sets for Financial and Distance) and the above Whereas for elements such as x121 , x131 , x32
1
, x141 , x142 , x143 ,
1,1
matrix, general type-2 fuzzy value for x13 could be written as the reciprocal or complementary value are utilized. For
~
follows (Equation (12) is used to define ): example, the complimentary vertex elements for x131 is x311 .
1
Membership ~ Thus, the complimentary vertex value for w31 is 1 0.1919
General type-2 fuzzy values ( , and )
Values = 0.8081. This is because we are using the fuzzy
Financial (VE) (0, 0.2, 0.4) complementary matrix (refer to Definition 1). Whereas for
Distance (MD) (0.6667, 0.8333, 1.0 )
r
the value xii will be 0.5 as according to Definition 1.
r =1
The calculations for the remaining elements xij will
follow the same calculations above. Hence,
x ij(r = 1 ) = (v ijr = 1 , w ijr = 1 , y ijr = 1 ) for the remaining elements by
all ten DMs to represent alternative Foreign (r = 1) could be
found as follows:
vij1
x12 0 x 21 1.0

x13 0 x31 1.0

x14 0 x32 1.0

x 23 0 x 41 1.0

x 24 0 x 42 1.0
Figure 5. Example of general type-2 fuzzy membership function for
criteria financial (very expensive, for x=1000 ) and distance (medium, for x34 0 x 43 1.0
x=4 hours).

Symmetrw wij calValues

1
By using the min operator, the firing strength for the rule
If Financial (VE) and Distance (MD) Then Foreign in 0.2493 0.7507
x12 x 21
the reciprocal decision matrix (from the above matrix) is:
x13 0.1919 x31 0.8081
Fired Rule ~
Firing Strength ( , and )
x14 0 x32 0.8104
Financial (VE) and (0, 0.2, 0.4)
Distance (MD) x 23 0.1896 x 41 1.0

x 24 0 x 42 1.0
Step 5: The general type-2 fuzzy values for x131,k over the 10
x34 0 x 43 1.0
DMs ( k = 1,..., 10 ) for alternative Foreign are as follows:
Decision Firing Strength for Financial (VE) versus Distance
Maker
(MD),
1, k
x13 ~
( , and )
y ij1

x12 1.0 x 21 0
1 (0, 0.2, 0.4)
2 (0.5714, 0.7857, 1.0) 1.0 0
3 (0, 0.2, 0.4) x13 x31
4 (0, 0.1667, 0.333) 0 0
5 (0, 0, 0) x14 x32
6 (0, 0, 0) 1.0 1.0
7 (0, 0.2, 0.4) x 23 x 41
8 (0, 0.2, 0.4) 0 1.0
9 (0, 0.1667, 0.333)
x 24 x 42
10 (0, 0, 0) x34 0 x 43 1.0

Thus, according to Equations (13), (14) and (15), The matrices for alternatives Local ( r = 2 ) and
= (v 13r = 1 , w 13r = 1 , y 13r = 1 ) will be generated for x13 for
(r = 1 ) 1
x 13 Internship ( r = 3 ) could be easily found by following the
alternative Foreign by ten DMs, as follows: calculations employed for the alternative Foreign.
 Step 6: Next, we average the above cumulative matrices Step 8: In the last step, we compute the priority weights. For
for x ij(r ) = (v ijr , w ijr , y ijr ) . The following example will show example for Foreign alternative using Equation (18):

only for the lower membership values, vij1 . Hence, for 0 .3751 + 0 .3244 + 0 .3139 + 0 .3333
l1 = = 0 . 3367
4
criterion Financial (t = 1) alternative Foreign (r = 1) , for
vij1 , using Equation (16), we have: Thus: l 1 = 0.3367 , l 2 = 0.3315 and l 3 = 0.3318
1
v 11 1
+ v 12 1
+ v 13 1
+ v 14 0 .5 + 0 + 0 + 0 The weighted values allow us to rank the alternatives and
v 11 = = = 0 . 125 the highest ranking can be determined as an output/decision.
4 4
Thus, alternative l 1 has the highest value. The GFL-
Thus, the average cumulative matrices for x t(=r (=11,..., 2 4, 3)) for each
MCGDM suggests that IF the input values of financial
v , w , y , respectively is written as follows: support is 1000, age is 26 years old, preferred distance
v w y according to flight hours is 4 hours, and number of
dependent is 0 THEN then you should further your study in
t = 1 0.1250 , 0 . 2352 , 0 . 6250
Foreign Foreign.
t = 2 0 . 3750 , 0 . 3601 , 0 . 3750
t = 3 0 . 6250 , 0 . 5296 , 0 . 1250 V. EXPERIMENTS AND RESULTS

t = 4 0 . 8750 , 0 . 8750 , 0 . 8750 The efficiency of the proposed system can be evaluated
v w y through the correlation values between the DMs decision
t = 1 0 . 1250 , 0 . 1584 , 0 . 5312 and the output ranking. In this work, Pearson Correlation
Local
t = 2 0 . 3750 , 0 . 4132 , 0 . 3750
was used to find the correlation between the DMs decision
t = 3 0 . 6250 , 0 . 5533 , 0 . 2187 and the various MCGDMs decision is as follows:

t = 4 0 . 8750 , 0 . 8750 , 0 . 8750 COV ( X , Y ) E [( X X )(Y Y )] (19)
X ,Y = =
v w y X Y X Y
t = 1 0 . 1250 , 0 . 1704 , 0 . 5313
Internship
t = 2 0 . 3750 , 0 . 3989 , 0 . 3750
The aforementioned values show that the higher the
t = 3 0 . 6250 , 0 . 5557 , 0 . 1250 value, the closer the proposed system to the DMs decision.

t = 4 0 . 8750 , 0 . 8750 , 0 . 8750 We tested 30 data sets to find the correlation values between
the linguistic decision from the DMs and the output from the
Step 7: Then, we find the average value of each xt( r ) , hence proposed GFL-MCGDM system. Examples of three data sets
for example for x11 , the average could be found as with the input values for each criterion (Financial (F), Age
(A), Distance (D) and Dependent (N)) and the real output
follows: x11(avg ) = 0 .125 + 0 .2352 + 0 .625 = 0 .3284 decision from the DMs and the proposed systems are shown
3
in Table II. The ranking from both sides will determine the
Following the same approach, we can find the other values, agreement among one another.
hence:
t = 1 0.3284 t = 1 0.2716 t = 1 0.2756 TABLE II. EXAMPLE OF INPUT FOR EACH CRITERION, OUTPUT FROM
Foreign t = 2 0.3700 Local t = 2 0.3877 Internship t = 2 0.3830 DECISION MAKERS AND OUTPUT FROM GFL- MCGDM SYSTEM
t = 3 0.4265 t = 3 0.4657 t = 3 0.4665 F A D N Output Output
() Age (hours) Dependent Decision GFL-
t = 4 0.8750 t = 4 0.8750 t = 4 0.8750
Makers MCGDM
1000 26 4 0 Foreign Foreign
We then find the normalized values following Equation (17). 1100 22 0.5 0 Internship Foreign
For example for the alternative Financial:
800 22 0.75 0 Local Local
1 0 .3284
x1( norm ) = = 0 .3751
0 .3284 + 0 .2716 + 0 .2756 According to Table III, it can be observed that type-1
The normalization gives the following matrices: fuzzy based MCGDM gives 0.1299 correlations to the
linguistic appraisal of the DMs (i.e. the DMs decision)
r = 1 0.3751 r = 1 0 . 3244 whereas interval type-2 fuzzy based MCGDM gives a
Financial r = 2 0 . 3101 Age r = 2 0 . 3399 correlation value of 0.3928. In addition, the interval type-2

r = 3 0 . 3147 r = 3 0 . 3357 fuzzy logic with hesitation index based MCGDM gives a
correlation value 0.4787. Markedly, the proposed GFL-
r = 1 0 . 3139 r = 1 0 . 3333 MCGDM gives the highest correlation value of 0.5148.
Distance r = 2 0 . 3427 Dependent r = 2 0 . 3333 Hence, the proposed system was able to model the variation

r = 3 0 . 3433 r = 3 0 . 3333 in the group decision making process exhibited by the
various decision makers opinion. In addition, the proposed
system showed agreement between the proposed method and
the real decision outputs from DMs (as quantified by the
Pearson Correlation) which outperformed the MCGDM
systems based on type-1 fuzzy sets, interval type-2 fuzzy sets
and interval type-2 with hesitation index.
TABLE III. PEARSON CORRELATION VALUES FOR DIFFERENT TYPE
OF FUZZY SETS
Methods Pearson Correlation
Type 1 fuzzy Sets 0.1299
Interval Type 2 Fuzzy Sets 0.3928
Type 2 Fuzzy Sets with Hesitation Index 0.4787
General Type 2 Fuzzy Sets 0.5148
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
In this paper, we presented a general type-2 fuzzy logic
based approach for MCGDM. The proposed system aims to
handle the high levels of uncertainties which exist due to the
varying Decision Makers (DMs) judgments and the
vagueness of the appraisal. The proposed method utilizes
general type-2 fuzzy sets. GFL-MCGDM provides simple
steps which aggregate a group of DMs disagreements
comprehensively into a unique approval.
We have presented results from the proposed system
deployment for the assessment of the postgraduate study
where the evaluation involved 10 candidates. The proposed
system was able to model the variation in the group decision
making process exhibited by the various decision makers
opinions. In addition, the proposed system showed
agreement between the proposed method and the real
decision outputs from DMs (as quantified by the Pearson
Correlation) which outperformed the MCGDM systems
based on type-1 fuzzy sets, interval type-2 fuzzy sets and
interval type-2 with hesitation index.
The increased correlation value shows that the proposed
method is considered to be effective in handling the high
level of uncertainties among the DMs. Hence, this shows that
the proposed method can play an important role in the
production of better MCGDM which is able to better settle
conflicts among the different individual preferences with
different alternatives and criteria followed by synthesizing
the different individual preferences into a unanimous
approval.
For future work, we intend to evaluate the proposed
method in different real world applications in order to
investigate the efficiency of the proposed method.
VII. REFERENCES
[1] BusinessDictionary.com (2013, January 14) [online]. Available:
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/uncertainty.html.
[2] S. Naim, and H. Hagras, Type-2 Fuzzy Logic in Multi-criteria
Group Decision Making with Intuitionistic Evaluation,
Proceeding of the 11th Annual Workshop on Computational
Intelligence, at the University of Manchester, on 7th 9th
September 2011, pp. 1-6.
[3] F. Herrera, and E. Herrera-Viedma, Linguistic decision analysis:
steps for solving decision problems under linguistic information,
Original Research Article Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 115, no.
1, pp. 67-82, 2000.
[4] K. Atanassov, Intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems,
vol. 110, pp. 87 96, 1986.
[5] R. M. Rodrguez, L. Martnez, and F. Herrera, Hesitant Fuzzy
Linguistic Term Sets for Decision Making, IEEE Transactions
On Fuzzy Systems, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 109-119, 2012.
[6] R. R. Yager, Fuzzy decision making including unequal
objectives, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol.1, pp.87-95, 1978.
[7] L. A. Zadeh. Fuzzy sets, Information and Control, vol. 8, pp.
338353, 1965.
[8] S. D. Pohekar, Application of multi-criteria decision making to
sustainable energy planningA review, Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 365381, 2004.
[9] F. E.Borana, S. Gena, M. Kurtb, and M. Kurtb, A multi-criteria
intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection
with TOPSIS method, Expert Systems with Applications, vol.36,
no. 8, pp. 1136311368, 2009.
[10] S. M. Chen, M. W. Yang, L. W. Lee, and S. W. Yang, Fuzzy
multiple attributes group decision-making based on ranking
interval type-2 fuzzy sets, Expert Systems with Applications,
vol. 39, pp. 52955308, 2012.
[11] S. M. Chen, and L. W. Lee, Fuzzy multiple attributes group
decision-making based on ranking values and the arithmetic
operations of interval type-2 fuzzy sets, Expert Systems with
Applications, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 824833, 2010.
[12] S. M. Chen, and L. W. Lee, Fuzzy multiple attributes group
decision-making based on interval type-2 TOPSIS method,
Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 27902798,
2010
[13] 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 CyberneticsPart A:
Systems And Humans, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 1120-1128, 2010.
[14] W. Wang, X. Liu, and Y. Qin, Multi-attribute group decision
making models under interval type-2 fuzzy environment,
Knowledge Based Systems, vol. 30, pp. 121-128, 2012.
[15] C. Wagner, and H. Hagras, Novel Methods for the Design of
General Type-2 fuzzy Sets based on Device Characteristics and
Linguistic Labels Surveys, IFSA-EUSFLAT , ISBN: 978-989-
95079-6-8 pp 537-543, pp. 537-543, 2009.
[16] C. Wagner, and H. Hagras, Toward General Type-2 Fuzzy
Logic Systems Based on zSlices, IEEE Transactions On Fuzzy
Systems, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 637-660, 2010.
[17] O. Linda, and M. Manic, General Type-2 Fuzzy C-Means
Algorithm for Uncertain Fuzzy Clustering, IEEE Transactions
On Fuzzy Systems, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 883-897, 2012.
[18] S. Naim, and H. Hagras, A Fuzzy Logic Based Multi-Criteria
Group Decision Making System for the Assessment of Umbilical
Cord Acid-Base Balance, WCCI 2012 IEEE World Congress on
Computational Intelligence, Brisbane, Australia, June, 10-15,
2012, pp. 2122 2129.
[19] S. Naim and H. Hagras, A Hybrid Approach for Multi-Criteria
Group Decision Making Based on Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Logic
and Intuitionistic Fuzzy Evaluation, WCCI 2012 IEEE World
Congress on Computational Intelligence, Brisbane, Australia,
June, 10-15, 2012, pp. 1066 1073.
[20] J. M. Mendel, and R. I. B. John, Type-2 fuzzy sets made
simple, IEEE Transactions On Fuzzy System, 10, 2, 117-127,
2002.
[21] Q. Liang, N. N. Karnik, and J. M. Mendel, Connection
admission control in ATM networks using survey-based type-2
fuzzy logic systems, Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C:
Applications and Reviews, IEEE Transactions, 30, 3, 329-339,
2000.
[22] H. Hagras, A hierarchical Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Control
Architecture for Autonomous Mobile Robots, IEEE
Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 12, 4, 524-539, 2004.
[23] J. M. Mendel, Uncertain Rule-Based Fuzzy Logic Systems:
Introduction and New Directions, Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 2001.