Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
On this page
IntuitionHow it worksWhen to use itStrengths & limitationsCommon pitfalls🔒 Read the full methodSourcesRelated methods
Cite this pageSpotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →
Home›Decision-making›Hesitant Fuzzy Generalized Peer-Evaluation (strategy-blended cross-efficiency with BFM, Zhou-Chen-Xu-Meng 2018)
MCDMDEAHesitant fuzzy

Hesitant Fuzzy Generalized Peer-Evaluation (strategy-blended cross-efficiency with BFM, Zhou-Chen-Xu-Meng 2018)

HFGPE (Hesitant Fuzzy Generalized Peer-Evaluation (strategy-blended cross-efficiency with BFM, Zhou-Chen-Xu-Meng 2018)) is a dea multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method introduced by Zhou, W. Chen, J. Xu, Z. S. Meng, S. in 2018. It turns a decision matrix of alternatives scored on multiple criteria into a structured, reproducible result.

ScholarGate
  1. MCDM
  2. v1
  3. 1 Sources
  4. PUBLISHED
Cite this page →
Tools & resources
Download slides
Learn & explore

Read the full method

Members only

Sign in with a free account to read this section.

Sign in

Method map

The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.

HFGPE
HFPEHFEAHFPEA

When to use it

HFGPE generalises HFPE by allowing a continuous spectrum between benevolent (d=1) and aggressive (d=0) strategies. The strategy parameter d can be calibrated from historical outcomes via BFM, making the ranking data-adaptive. If no historical data is available, d=0.5 (neutral) is a reasonable default. A higher Ē_l(d*) means the alternative performs well under a realistic blend of perspectives.

Strengths & limitations

Strengths
  • Follows a transparent, reproducible computational procedure that can be audited step by step.
  • Handles multiple criteria of differing scales and units within a single decision matrix.
Limitations
  • May exhibit rank reversal when alternatives are added to or removed from the set.
  • Assumes full compensation — a strong score on one criterion can offset a weak score on another.

Sources

  1. Zhou, W., Chen, J., Xu, Z. S., Meng, S. (2018). Hesitant fuzzy preference envelopment analysis and alternative improvement. Information Sciences DOI: 10.1016/j.ins.2018.07.002 ↗

How to cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 2). Hesitant Fuzzy Generalized Peer-Evaluation (strategy-blended cross-efficiency with BFM, Zhou-Chen-Xu-Meng 2018). ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/decision-making/hfgpe

Related methods

HFPE

Which method?

Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.

  • HFPEDecision-making↔ compare
Compare side by side →

Referenced by

HFEAHFPEHFPEA

Similar methods

HFPEHFPEAHFEAHF-TOPSISHF-VIKORHF-MOORAHF-TODIMDHF-EDAS

Related reference concepts

Decision Support SystemsDecision MakingCriteria for Decision-Making under Risk and UncertaintyWeighted ScoresHolistic EvaluationEconomic Evaluation Methods

Spotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →

ScholarGate — HFGPE (Hesitant Fuzzy Generalized Peer-Evaluation (strategy-blended cross-efficiency with BFM, Zhou-Chen-Xu-Meng 2018)). Retrieved 2026-07-21 from https://scholargate.app/en/decision-making/hfgpe · Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026
Quick facts
Originator
Zhou, W. Chen, J. Xu, Z. S. Meng, S.
Subfamily
DEA
Year
2018
Type
Generalization of HFPE: cross-efficiency E {el}(d) = d·E^max {el} + (1-d)·E^min {el} blends benevolent (d=1) and aggressive (d=0) strategies via parameter d ∈ [0,1]. When d is unknown, the Backward Fitting Method (BFM) estimates the optimal d from historical/preference ranking constraints by solving a quadratic programme. Final ranking by column-mean of the blended cross-efficiency matrix.
Value Space
Hesitant fuzzy
Uncertainty
epistemic
Compensation
full
Rank Reversal
Yes
Related methods
HFPE
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account