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 Peer-Evaluation (benevolent / aggressive cross-efficiency, Zhou-Chen-Xu-Meng 2018)
MCDMDEAhesitant

Hesitant Fuzzy Peer-Evaluation (benevolent / aggressive cross-efficiency, Zhou-Chen-Xu-Meng 2018)

HFPE (Hesitant Fuzzy Peer-Evaluation (benevolent / aggressive cross-efficiency, 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.

HFPE
HFEAHFGPEHFPEA

When to use it

HFPE produces full discrimination where HFEA ties at m_e=1. The cross-efficiency column mean ĒL is a peer-reviewed score: a high ĒL means the alternative performs well not just under its own most favourable weights, but also under the weights preferred by its competitors. Benevolent strategy is more generous; aggressive is more discriminating. Choose based on decision context.

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 Peer-Evaluation (benevolent / aggressive cross-efficiency, Zhou-Chen-Xu-Meng 2018). ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/decision-making/hfpe

Related methods

HFEAHFGPE

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.

  • HFEADecision-making↔ compare
  • HFGPEDecision-making↔ compare
Compare side by side →

Referenced by

HFEAHFGPEHFPEA

Similar methods

HFGPEHFPEAHFEAHF-TOPSISHF-VIKORPHF-VIKORHF-MOORAPHF-COPRAS

Related reference concepts

Decision Support SystemsDecision MakingCriteria for Decision-Making under Risk and UncertaintyEconomic Evaluation MethodsPeer EvaluationCost-Effectiveness Analysis

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

ScholarGate — HFPE (Hesitant Fuzzy Peer-Evaluation (benevolent / aggressive cross-efficiency, Zhou-Chen-Xu-Meng 2018)). Retrieved 2026-07-20 from https://scholargate.app/en/decision-making/hfpe · 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
Cross-efficiency DEA extended to HFS — each alternative is evaluated by both its own optimal HFEA weights (self-evaluation, score E {ee}) and by the optimal weights of every other alternative (peer evaluation, cross-efficiency E {el}). Benevolent strategy maximises peer scores; aggressive strategy minimises them. Final ranking by column-mean of cross-efficiency matrix.
Value Space
hesitant
Uncertainty
epistemic
Compensation
full
Rank Reversal
Yes
Related methods
HFEAHFGPE
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