Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Omega 33 (2005) 249 – 254

www.elsevier.com/locate/dsw

Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations in

group decision making
Zeshui Xu
College of Economics and Management, Southeast University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210096, China

Received 9 January 2004; accepted 26 April 2004

Abstract
In this paper, we study the group decision making problem with linguistic preference relations. We .rst show that the
weighted combination of A1 ; A2 ; : : : ; Am is linguistic preference relation under the condition that all of A1 ; A2 ; : : : ; Am are
linguistic preference relations. Then we de.ne the concepts of deviation degree and similarity degree between two linguistic
values, and deviation degree and similarity degree between two linguistic preference relations. We also show that the deviation
degree between linguistic preference relation Ai of A1 ; A2 ; : : : ; Am and their group linguistic preference relation is no greater
than the largest deviation degree between the linguistic preference relation Ai and each of the linguistic preference relations
A1 ; A2 ; : : : ; Am . Thus, a theoretic basis has been established for the application of linguistic preference relations in group decision
making.
? 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Linguistic variable; Linguistic preference relation; Deviation degree; Similarity degree; Group decision making; Operational laws

1. Introduction
Group decision making with linguistic preference rela-
tions has been investigated by many documents [1–10]. In
the process of group decision making under linguistic envi-
ronment, each decision maker generally needs to compare a
set of decision alternatives with respect to a single criterion,
and usually constructs a linguistic preference relation by us-
ing some linguistic terms (e.g., when evaluating the speed
of a car, linguistic terms like “fast”, “very fast”, “slow”
may be used [4]; when evaluating the “comfort” or “design”
of a car, terms like “good”, “medium”, “bad” can be used
[11]). Usually, there arise situations of con;ict and agree-
ment among preferences of experts. Thus, .nding a group
consensus to represent a common opinion of the group is an
important issue. Moreover, there are many applications, es-
pecially situations involving policy speci.cation, which ne-
cessitate di>erential weights in deciding group preferences
[12], in such cases, there usually exists a leading decision
maker who plays a key role in decision making. In order to
E-mail address: xu zeshui@263.net (Z. Xu).
exert the e>ect of the leading decision maker, it is often re-
quired that the group opinion should be close to the one of
the leading decision maker [13]. In this paper, we shall fo-
cus our attention on deviation measures of linguistic prefer-
ence relations given by group members and try to establish
a theoretic basis for the application of linguistic preference
relations in group decision making. To do so, the rest of this
paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces some
basic notations and operational laws of linguistic variables.
Section 3 gives a representation of group decision making
problem with linguistic preference relations. Section 4 in-
vestigates deviation measures of linguistic preference rela-
tions. Section 5 gives an illustrative example, and .nally,
concluding remarks are made in Section 6.
2. Basic notations and operational laws
The linguistic approach is an approximate technique,
which represents qualitative aspects as linguistic values
by means of linguistic variables [14–29]. Suppose that
S = {s |  = −t; : : : ; −1; 0; 1; : : : ; t} is a .nite and totally

0305-0483/$ - see front matter ? 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.omega.2004.04.008
250 Z. Xu / Omega 33 (2005) 249 – 254

ordered discrete term set, where s represents a possible
value for a linguistic variable. For example, a set of nine
terms S could be given as follows:
S = {s−4 = extremely poor; s−3 = very poor;
Theorem 1. Let A1 ; A2 ; : : : ; Am be the linguistic preference
relations provided by m decision makers dk (k =1; 2; : : : ; m),
where Ak = (a(k) (k)
ij )n×n ; aij ∈ S (k = 1; 2; : : : ; m; i; j =
1; 2; : : : ; n), then their weighted combination

s−2 = poor; s−1 = slightly poor; Â = 1 A1 ⊕ 2 A2 ⊕ · · · ⊕ m Am (1)

s0 = fair; s1 = slightly good; is the group linguistic preference relation Â=(âij )n×n , which
satis5es
s2 = good; s3 = very good;
s−t 6 âij 6 st ; âij ⊕ âji = s0 ;
s4 = extremely good}:
âii = s0 ; i; j = 1; 2; : : : ; n:
Usually, in these cases, it is required that there exist the
following: The proof of Theorem 1 is provided in Appendix A.
(1) The set is ordered: s ¿ s if and only if  ¿ ;
(2) There is the negation operator: neg(s ) = s− .
4. Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations
To preserve all the given information, we extend the
discrete term set S to a continuous term set SH = {s |  ∈ De"nition 1. Let s ; s ∈ S be two linguistic variables, then
[−q; q]}, where q (q ¿ t) is a suIciently large positive in- we de.ne the deviation degree between s and s as follows:
teger. If s ∈ S, then we call s the original term, otherwise,
| − |
we call s the virtual term. d(s ; s ) = ; (2)
2t
Note. In general, the decision maker uses the original lin- where 2t is the number of linguistic terms in the set S.
guistic terms to evaluate alternatives, and the virtual linguis-
tic terms can only appear in operation. Obviously, the smaller the value of d(s ; s ), the smaller
the deviation degree of the linguistic variables s and s .
Consider any two linguistic terms s ; s ∈ S, H and Especially, if d(s ; s ) = 0, then s = s .
; 1 ; 2 ∈ [0; 1], we introduce some operational laws as
follows [10]: Theorem 2. Let s ; s ∈ S, then

(1) s ⊕ s = s+ ; 0 6 d(s ; s ) 6 1:

(2) s  ⊕ s = s  ⊕ s ;
(3) s = s  ; The proof of Theorem 2 is provided in Appendix A.
(4) ( 1 + 2 )s = 1 s ⊕ 2 s ;
(5) (s ⊕ s ) = s ⊕ s . De"nition 2. Let s ; s ∈ S, then we de.ne the similarity
degree between s and s as follows:

3. Representation of group decision making problem (s ; s ) = 1 − d(s ; s ):

with linguistic preference relations
Theorem 3. Let s ; s ∈ S, then
Consider a group decision making problem with linguistic
preference information. Let X = {x1 ; x2 ; : : : ; x n } be the set of 0 6 (s ; s ) 6 1:
alternatives, and D = {d1 ; d2 ; : : : ; dm } be the set of decision
makers. Let  = (1 ; 2 ; : : : ; m )T be the weight
vector of The proof of Theorem 3 is provided in Appendix A.
decision makers, where k ¿ 0, k =1; 2; : : : ; m, mk=1 k =1.
The decision maker dk ∈ D compares these alternatives with De"nition 3. Let A = (aij )n×n and B = (bij )n×n be two
respect to a single criterion by the linguistic terms in the linguistic preference relations, then we de.ne the
set S = {s |  = −t; : : : ; −1; 0; 1; : : : ; t}, and constructs the deviation degree between A and B as follows:
linguistic preference relation Ak = (a(k) ij )n×n , whose element
1 
n n
aij ∈ S estimates the preference degree of alternative xi over d(A; B) = d(aij ; bij ): (3)
xj , and satis.es n i=1 j=1
2

s−t 6 a(k)
ij 6 st ; a(k) (k)
ij ⊕ aji = s0 ;
If we let the lower indices of linguistic values correspond-
a(k)
ii = s0 ; i = 1; 2; : : : ; m: ing to aij and bij be I (aij ) and I (bij ) respectively, then (3)
 Z. Xu / Omega 33 (2005) 249 – 254 251

can be rewritten as Corollary 2. Let A1 ; A2 ; : : : ; Am , and B be m + 1 linguistic

preference relations, and let
1 
n 
n
|I (aij ) − I (bij )|
d(A; B) = : (4)
n2 2t  = 1 A1 ⊕ 2 A2 ⊕ · · · ⊕ m Am
i=1 j=1

if d(Al ; B) = 0 (l = 1; 2; : : : ; m), then

For example, if a12 = s3 , then I (a12 ) = 3.
d(Â; B) = 0:
Theorem 4. Let A; B, and C are any three linguistic pref-
erence relations, then 5. Illustrative example
(1) 0 6 d(A; B) 6 1. Especially, d(A; B) = 0 ⇔ A = B; In this section, a group decision making problem with
(2) d(A; B) = d(B; A); linguistic preference relations involves the investment of an
(3) d(A; C) 6 d(A; B) + d(B; C). investment company. Let us suppose an investment com-
pany, which wants to invest a sum of money in the best op-
The proof of Theorem 4 is provided in Appendix A. tion (adapted from [25]). There is a panel with .ve possible
alternatives in which to invest the money
De"nition 4. Let A = (aij )n×n and B = (bij )n×n be two lin-
guistic preference relations, then we de.ne the similarity (1) x1 is a car industry;
degree between A and B as follows: (2) x2 is a food industry;
(3) x3 is a computer industry;
(A; B) = 1 − d(A; B): (4) x4 is an arms industry;
(5) x5 is a TV company.
Theorem 5. Let A; B, and C are any three linguistic pref-
erence relations, then One main criterion used is growth analysis. There are .ve
decision makers dk (k = 1; 2; 3; 4; 5). The decision makers
(1) 0 6 (A; B) 6 1. Especially, (A; B) = 1 ⇔ A = B; compare these .ve companies with respect to the criterion
(2) (A; B) = (B; A). growth analysis by using the linguistic scale

The proof of Theorem 5 is provided in Appendix A. S = {s−4 = extremely poor; s−3 = very poor;

s−2 = poor; s−1 = slightly poor;

Theorem 6. Let A1 ; A2 ; : : : ; Am be m linguistic preference
relations, and s0 = fair; s1 = slightly good;

 = 1 A1 ⊕ 2 A2 ⊕ · · · ⊕ m Am s2 = good; s3 = very good;

be their group linguistic preference relation, then s4 = extremely good}

d(Â; Ak ) 6 max d(Al ; Ak ) for all k: and construct, respectively, the linguistic preference rela-
l
tions. Suppose that the linguistic preference relation B is
given by a leading decision maker, and the linguistic prefer-
The proof of Theorem 6 is provided in Appendix A.
ence relations A1 ; A2 ; A3 and A4 are given by the other four
decision makers respectively. They are listed as follows:
De"nition 5. Let A and B be two linguistic preference re-  
lations, then A and B are of acceptable deviation degree, if s0 s0 s2 s−1 s4
d(A; B) 6  (in general,  = 0:15).  
 s0 s0 s−1 s0 s3 
 
 
B =  s−2 s1 s0 s2 s1  ;
By Theorem 6, we can easily obtain the following  
 s s0 s−2 s0 s2 
corollaries.  1 
s−4 s−3 s−1 s−2 s0
Corollary 1. Let A1 ; A2 ; : : : ; Am , and B be m + 1 linguistic  
preference relations, and let s0 s−1 s3 s−1 s3
 
 s1 s0 s1 s0 s2 
 = 1 A1 ⊕ 2 A2 ⊕ · · · ⊕ m Am  
 
A1 =  s−3 s−1 s0 s−1 s2  ;
 
if d(Al ; B) 6  (l = 1; 2; : : : ; m), then  s s0 s1 s0 s0 
 1 
d(Â; B) 6 : s−3 s−2 s−2 s0 s0
252 Z. Xu / Omega 33 (2005) 249 – 254

 
s0 s1 s2 s0 s4 linguistic preference relation Ai and each of the linguistic
  preference relations A1 ; A2 ; : : : ; Am . Especially, a linguistic
 s−1 s0 s−1 s0 s0 
  preference relation B and the collective reference relation of
 
A2 = 
 s−2 s1 s0 s−1 s3 
;
linguistic preference relations A1 ; A2 ; : : : ; As are of accept-
  able deviation degree under the condition that the linguistic
 s0 s0 s1 s0 s1 
  preference relation B and each of the linguistic preference
s−4 s0 s−3 s−1 s0 relations A1 ; A2 ; : : : ; Am are of acceptable deviation degree.
  The illustrative example has also veri.ed the developed re-
s0 s0 s3 s1 s3 sults. Thus, a theoretic basis has been established for the ap-
  plication of linguistic preference relations in group decision
 s0 s0 s−2 s2 s2 
  making.
 
A3 = 
 s−3 s2 s0 s1 s1 
;
 
 s−1 s−2 s−1 s0 s−1 
  Acknowledgements
s−3 s−2 s−1 s1 s0
  I am very grateful to the editor and the anonymous
s0 s2 s0 s−1 s2 referees for their valuable comments and suggestions.
  This project was supported by China Postdoctoral Science
 s−2 s0 s−1 s1 s0 
  Foundation (2003034366).
 
A4 = 
 s0 s1 s0 s−1 s2 
;
 
 s1 s0 s1 s0 s1 
  Appendix A.
s−2 s0 s−2 s−1 s0
Proof of Theorem 1. Since A1 ; A2 ; : : : ; Am are the linguistic
d(A1 ; B) = 0:12 ¡ 0:15; preference relations, it follows that
d(A2 ; B) = 0:11 ¡ 0:15; s−t 6 a(k)
ij 6 st ; a(k) (k)
ij ⊕ aji = s0 ;

d(A3 ; B) = 0:12 ¡ 0:15; a(k)

ii = s0 ; k = 1; 2; : : : ; m
d(A4 ; B) = 0:14 ¡ 0:15: then by (1), we have
Without loss of generality, we take 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 14 , âij = 1 a(1) (2) (m)
ij ⊕ 2 aij ⊕ · · · ⊕ m aij
then the collective linguistic preference relation of A1 ; A2 ; A3
and A4 is ¿ 1 s−t ⊕ 2 s−t ⊕ · · · ⊕ m s−t
 
s0 s0:5 s2 s−1:75 s3 = (1 + 2 + · · · + m )s−t
 
 s−0:5 s0 s−1:25 s0:5 s1  = s−t ; i; j = 1; 2; : : : ; n;
 
 
 = 
 s −2 s 0:75 s 0 s −1:5 s 2


  âij = 1 a(1) (2) (m)
ij ⊕ 2 aij ⊕ · · · ⊕ m aij
 s0:25 s s s s 
 −1:5 1:5 0 0:25 
6 1 st ⊕ 2 st ⊕ · · · ⊕ m st
s−3 s−1 s−2 s−0:25 s0
= (1 + 2 + · · · + m )st
and thus
= st ; i; j = 1; 2; : : : ; n;
d(Â; B) = 0:10 ¡ 0:15:
âii = 1 a(1) (2) (m)
ii ⊕ 2 aii ⊕ · · · ⊕ m aii

6. Concluding remarks = 1 s0 ⊕ 2 s0 ⊕ · · · ⊕ m s0

In this paper, we have shown that the weighted com- = (1 + 2 + · · · + m )s0
bination of A1 ; A2 ; : : : ; Am is linguistic preference relation
= s0 ; i; j = 1; 2; : : : ; n;
under the condition that all of A1 ; A2 ; : : : ; Am are linguistic
preference relations. We have also shown that the devia-
tion degree between the linguistic preference relation Ai of âij ⊕ âji = 1 a(1) (2) (m) (1)
ij ⊕ 2 aij ⊕ · · · ⊕ m aij ⊕ 1 aji
A1 ; A2 ; : : : ; Am and their group linguistic preference relation
is no greater than the largest deviation degrees between the ⊕ 2 a(2) (m)
ji ⊕ · · · ⊕ m aji
 Z. Xu / Omega 33 (2005) 249 – 254 253

= 1 (a(1) (1) (2) (2)

ij ⊕ aji ) ⊕ 2 (aij ⊕ aji ) ⊕ · · · ⊕ m (3) Since

×(a(m) (m)
ij ⊕ aji )
|I (aij ) − I (cij )|
d(aij ; cij ) =
2t
= 1 s0 ⊕ 2 s0 ⊕ · · · ⊕ m s0
|(I (aij ) − I (bij )) + (I (bij ) − I (cij ))|
=
= (1 + 2 + · · · + m )s0 2t

= s0 ; i; j = 1; 2; : : : ; n: |I (aij ) − I (bij )| + |I (bij ) − I (cij )|

6
2t
Thus, Ã is a group linguistic preference relation, which com-
pletes the proof of Theorem 1. |I (aij ) − I (bij )| |I (bij ) − I (cij )|
= +
2t 2t
Proof of Theorem 2. Since −t 6 ,  6 t, we have = d(aij ; bij ) + d(bij ; cij )
0 6 | − | 6 2t
then
then
1 
n n
| − |
06 6 1; d(A; C) = d(aij ; cij )
2t n2 i=1 j=1
i.e.,
1 
n n
0 6 d(s ; s ) 6 1 6 (d(aij ; bij ) + d(bij ; cij ))
n2 i=1 j=1
which completes the proof of Theorem 2.
1 
n n

Proof of Theorem 3. Since 0 6 d(s ; s ) 6 1, then we = d(aij ; bij )

n2 i=1 j=1
have
1 
n n
0 6 1 − d(s ; s ) 6 1;
+ d(bij ; cij )
i.e., n2 i=1 j=1

0 6 (s ; s ) 6 1 = d(A; B) + d(B; C)

which completes the proof of Theorem 3.
which completes the proof of Theorem 4.
Proof of Theorem 4. (1) Since
Proof of Theorem 5. Similar to Theorem 4.
0 6 d(aij ; bij ) 6 1 for all i; j
then Proof of Theorem 6.
0 1 
n 
n
n2
0= 6 2 d(aij ; bij ) 6 = 1; d(Â; Ak ) = d(1 A1 ⊕ 2 A2 ⊕ · · · ⊕ m Am ; Ak )
n2 n n2
i=1 j=1 m

1   (l) (k)
n n
i.e., = 2 d l aij ; aij
n i=1 j=1
l=1
0 6 d(A; B) 6 1:
m

1   (l) 
n n m
Especially, (k)
= 2 d l aij ; l aij
d(A; B) = 0 ⇔ d(aij ; bij ) = 0 for all i; j n i=1 j=1
l=1 l=1


m 
⇔ aij = bij for all i; j ⇔ A = B:  m (l) (k) 
1 
n  n 
l=1  l I (a ij ) − l=1  l I (a )
ij 
(2) By (4), we have = 2
n i=1 j=1 2t
1   |I (aij ) − I (bij )|
n n
d(A; B) = 2 

n i=1 j=1 2t  m (l) (k) 
1    l=1 l (I (aij ) − I (aij ))
n n
= 2
n i=1 j=1 2t
1   |I (bij ) − I (aij )|
n n
=
n i=1 j=1
2 2t
1    |I (aij ) − I (aij )|
n n m (l) (k)
6  l
n2 i=1 j=1 2t
= d(B; A): l=1
254 Z. Xu / Omega 33 (2005) 249 – 254
 [13] Xu ZS. On compatibility of interval fuzzy preference matrices.
1   |I (aij ) − I (aij )|
m n n (l) (k)
= l
n2 i=1 j=1 2t
l=1

m
= l d(A1 ; Ak )
l=1

m
6 l max d(A1 ; Ak )
l=1
l in natural languages. Computer Mathematical Application

m
= max d(A1 ; Ak ) l
l
l=1
= max d(A1 ; Ak )
l complexity. In: Kanal LH, Lemmer JF, editors. Uncertainty
which completes the proof of Theorem 6.
References
[1] Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Verdegay JL. A model
of consensus in group decision making under linguistic
assessments. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 1996;78:73–87.
[2] Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Verdegay JL. Direct approach
processes in group decision making using linguistic OWA
operators. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 1996;79:175–90.
[3] Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Verdegay JL. A rational
consensus model in group decision making using linguistic
assessments. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 1997;88:31–49.
[4] Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E. Linguistic decision analysis:
steps for solving decision problems under linguistic
information. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 2000;115:67–82.
[5] Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E. Choice functions and
mechanisms for linguistic preference relations. European
Journal of Operational Research 2000;120:144–61.
[6] Xu ZS. Study on methods for multiple attribute decision
making under some situations. PhD thesis, Southeast
University, Nanjing, China; 2002.
[7] Xu ZS. A priority method based on induced ordered weighted
averaging (IOWA) operator for fuzzy linguistic preference
matrices. Systems Engineering and Electrics 2003;25(4):
440–2.
[8] Xu ZS. Uncertain multiple attribute decision making: methods
and applications. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press; 2004.
[9] Xu ZS. A method based on linguistic aggregation operators
for group decision making with linguistic preference relations.
Information Sciences, to appear.
[10] Xu ZS. EOWA and EOWG operators for aggregating
linguistic labels based on linguistic preference relations.
International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and
Knowledge-Based Systems, to appear.
[11] Levrat L, Voisin A, Bombardier S, Bremont J. Subjective
evaluation of car seat comfort with fuzzy set techniques.
International Journal of Intelligent Systems 1997;12:891–913.
[12] Ramanathan E, Ganesh LS. Group preference aggregation
methods employed in AHP: an evaluation and an intrinsic
process for deriving members’ weightages. European Journal
of Operational Research 1994;79:249–65.
Fuzzy Optimization and Decision making 2004;3(3).
[14] Zadeh LA. The concept of a linguistic variable and its
application to approximate reasoning. Information Sciences
(Parts 1–3) 1975;8:199–249, 301–57;
Zadeh LA. The concept of a linguistic variable and its
application to approximate reasoning. Information Sciences
(Parts 1–3) 1976;9:43–80.
[15] Zadeh LA. A computational approach to fuzzy quanti.ers
1983;9:149–84.
[16] Kacprzyk J. Group decision making with a fuzzy linguistic
majority. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 1986;18:105–18.
[17] Bonissone PP, Decker KS. Selecting uncertainty calculi
and granularity: an experiment in trading-o> precision and
in arti.cial intelligence. North-Holland: Amsterdam; 1986.
p. 217–47.
[18] Degani R, Bortolan G. The problem of linguistic
approximation in clinical decision making. International
Journal of Approximate Reasoning 1988;2:143–62.
[19] Delgado M, Verdegay JL, Vila MA. On aggregation
operations of linguistic labels. International Journal of
Intelligent Systems 1993;8:351–70.
[20] Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma F, Verdegay JL. A sequential
selection process in group decision making with a linguistic
assessment approach. Information Sciences 1995;85:223–39.
[21] Bordogna G, Fedrizzi M, Passi G. A linguistic modeling of
consensus in group decision making based on OWA operator.
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics
1997;27:126–32.
[22] Zadeh LA, Kacprzyk J. Computing with words in
information/intelligent systems-part 1: foundations: part 2:
applications, vol. I. Heidelberg, Germany: Physica-Verlag;
1999.
[23] Herrera F, MartVWnez L. A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic
representation model for computing with words. IEEE
Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 2000;8:746–52.
[24] Herrera E, MartVWnez L. An approach for combining linguistic
and numerical information based on 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic
representation model in decision-making. International
Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness, Knowledge-based Systems
2000;8:539–62.
[25] Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, MartVWnez L. A fusion approach
for managing multi-granularity linguistic term sets in decision
making. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 2000;114:43–58.
[26] Carlsson C, Fuller R. Benchmarking and linguistic importance
weighted aggregations. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 2000;114:
35–42.
[27] Torra V. Aggregation of linguistic labels when semantics
is based on antonyms. International Journal of Intelligent
Systems 2001;16:513–24.
[28] Herrera F, MartVWnez L. A model based on linguistic 2-tuples for
dealing with multigranular hierarchical linguistic contexts in
multi-expert decision-making. IEEE Transactions on Systems,
Man, and Cybernetics-Part B 2001;31:227–34.
[29] Xu ZS, Da QL. An overview of operators for aggregating
information. International Journal of Intelligent Systems
2003;18:953–69.