A Cognitive Uncertainty Calculation Method Based on Probabilistic Linguistic Term Set and Applications in Geopolitical Risk Assessment | Cognitive Computation Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

A Cognitive Uncertainty Calculation Method Based on Probabilistic Linguistic Term Set and Applications in Geopolitical Risk Assessment

  • Published:
Cognitive Computation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Risk is essentially uncertain, including objective uncertainty of natural attributes and subjective uncertainty of human cognition. The latter is associated with human cognitive thinking and social consciousness, making it challenging to quantify and articulate. Therefore, appropriately managing cognitive uncertainty is essential to achieve successful risk management. In situations involving political environments, decision-makers may rely on judgment or other qualitative information, which can be less reliable or more subjective. Therefore, using cognitive computing methods can provide significant benefits in quantifying and managing cognitive uncertainty. We propose a novel approach that utilizes a probabilistic linguistic quantification method for qualitative evaluation information. This method accounts for both the cognitive uncertainty and statistical uncertainty of decision-makers. To quantify the practical cognitive risk context in the risk evaluation, we propose a new probabilistic linguistic distance measure that quantifies the influence of experts’ subjective preference context in the risk environment. Furthermore, to represent both the risk-averse attitudes and the cognitive uncertainty context of the decision-makers, we propose an improved version of the prospect theory, which considers. This enables a more accurate representation of the practical cognitive decision-making processes. Subsequently, we construct a cognitive uncertainty evaluation model based on the probabilistic linguistic measurement and apply it to comprehensive risk assessment for geopolitical environments. Analysis of the risk assessment outcomes and comparative experiments indicate that the proposed methods can quantitatively assess and calculate decision-makers’ cognitive risk preferences while providing more accurate risk assessment outcomes. This study offers a novel and convenient tool to research risk evaluations focused on cognitive uncertainties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Data Availability

No data was used for the research described in the article.

References

  1. Jiang J, Ao L. Risk evaluation and prevention of China’s investment in countries along the belt and road. J Intell Fuzzy Syst. 2023;44(2):1645–59.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hu W, Shan Y, Deng Y, Fu N, Duan J, Jiang H, Zhang J. Geopolitical risk evolution and obstacle factors of countries along the belt and road and its types classification. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(2):1618.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Yu PS, Chen ZZ, Hu YZ. The impact of belt and road initiative on regional financial integration - empirical evidence from bond and money markets in belt and road countries. Chinese Econ. 2021;54(4):286–308.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kotcharin S, Maneenop S. Geopolitical risk and shipping firms’ capital structure decisions in Belt and Road Initiative countries. Int J Logist Res Appl. 2020;23(6):544–60.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Noorali H, Ahmadi SA. Highlighting the geopolitical challenges facing the China One Belt One Road initiative. Geopolit Q. 2022;18(66):1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets. Inf Control. 1965;8(3):338–53.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Zadeh LA. The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning - I. Inf Sci. 1975;8(3):199–249.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Rodriguez RM, Martinez L, Herrera F. Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets for decision making. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst. 2012;20(1):109–19.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Xu ZS, Zhang S. An overview on the applications of the hesitant fuzzy sets in group decision-making: theory, support and methods. Front Eng Manag. 2019;6(2):163–82.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Duan Y, Xiong J, Cheng W, Wang N, Li Y, He Y, Liu J, He W, Yang G. Flood vulnerability assessment using the triangular fuzzy number-based analytic hierarchy process and support vector machine model for the Belt and Road region. Nat Hazards. 2021:1–26.

  11. Jabbari M, Gholamnia R, Esmaeili R, Kouhpaee H, Pourtaghi G. Risk assessment of fire, explosion and release of toxic gas of Siri-Assalouyeh sour gas pipeline using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process. Heliyon. 2021;7(8):8148.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jiang M, Liu Y, Lu J, Qu Z, Yang Z. Risk assessment of maritime supply chains within the context of the Maritime Silk Road. Ocean Coast Manag. 2023;231:106380.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Li CQ, Zhao H, Xu ZS. Kernel C-Means clustering algorithms for hesitant fuzzy information in decision making. Int J Fuzzy Syst. 2018;20(1):141–54.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Hao Z, Xu Z, Zhao H, Zhang R. Novel intuitionistic fuzzy decision making models in the framework of decision field theory. Inf Fusion. 2017;33:57–70.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Andric JM, Wang JY, Zhong RY. Identifying the critical risks in railway projects based on fuzzy and sensitivity analysis: a case study of belt and road projects. Sustainability. 2019;11(5):1636.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Song CY, Xu ZS, Zhang YX, Wang XX. Dynamic hesitant fuzzy Bayesian network and its application in the optimal investment port decision making problem of “twenty-first century maritime silk road.” Appl Intell. 2020;50(6):1846–58.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Xu XP, Li X, Gao FX. Prevention of labor employment risk using fuzzy inference systemin China-invested enterprises in Central and Eastern Europe under belt and road initiative. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems. 2021;40(4):8333–44.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Pang Q, Wang H, Xu ZS. Probabilistic linguistic term sets in multi-attribute group decision making. Inf Sci. 2016;369:128–43.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Wan SP, Zou WC, Dong JY, Martinez L. A probabilistic linguistic dominance score method considering individual semantics and psychological behavior of decision makers. Expert Syst Appl. 2021;184:115372.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lin MW, Xu ZS, Zhai YL, Yao Z. Multi-attribute group decision-making under probabilistic uncertain linguistic environment. J Oper Res Soc. 2018;69(2):157–70.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mi XM, Liao HC, Wu XL, Xu ZS. Probabilistic linguistic information fusion: a survey on aggregation operators in terms of principles, definitions, classifications, applications, and challenges. Int J Intell Syst. 2020;35(3):529–56.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lin MW, Chen Z, Liao HC, Xu ZS. ELECTRE II method to deal with probabilistic linguistic term sets and its application to edge computing. Nonlinear Dyn. 2019;96:2125–43.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Lin MW, Huang C, Xu ZS, Chen R. Evaluating iot platforms using integrated probabilistic linguistic MCDM method. IEEE Internet Things J. 2020;7(11):11195–208.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Yang Y, Guo Z. Research on the evaluation of public emergency management intelligence capability in probabilistic language environment. Ann Oper Res. 2021:1–21.

  25. Lin MW, Chen Z, Xu ZS, Gou XJ, Herrera F. Score function based on concentration degree for probabilistic linguistic term sets: an application to TOPSIS and VIKOR. Inf Sci. 2021;551:270–90.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Fang R, Liao HC, Mardani A. How to aggregate uncertain and incomplete cognitive evaluation information in lung cancer treatment plan selection? A method based on Dempster-Shafer theory, Inf Sci. 2022;603:222–43.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wang H, Liao HC, Xu ZS. Order relations and operations on the set of probabilistic linguistic term sets. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst. 2022;30(5):1475–85.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Xu ZS, Wang H. On the syntax and semantics of virtual linguistic terms for information fusion in decision making. Inf Fusion. 2017;34:43–8.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Blavatskyy P. A simple non-parametric method for eliciting prospect theory’s value function and measuring loss aversion under risk and ambiguity. Theory Decis. 2021;91:275–95.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Lu Z, Gao Y, Xu C. Sustainability evaluation of public-private partnership microgrid considering uncertainty and risk preference. Sustain Energy Grids Netw. 2021;26:100426.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory - analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47(2):263–91.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Hao ZN, Xu ZS, Zhao H, Zhang R. The context-based distance measure for intuitionistic fuzzy set with application in marine energy transportation route decision making. Appl Soft Comput. 2021;101:107044.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E. Choice functions and mechanisms for linguistic preference relations. Eur J Oper Res. 2000;120(1):144–61.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Liao HC, Jiang L, Lev B, Fujita H. Novel operations of PLTSs based on the disparity degrees of linguistic terms and their use in designing the probabilistic linguistic ELECTRE III method. Appl Soft Comput. 2019;80:450–64.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Yi Z. Decision-making based on probabilistic linguistic term sets without loss of information. Complex Intell Syst. 2022;8(3):2435–49.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  36. Bai C, Zhang R, Qian L, Wu Y. Comparisons of probabilistic linguistic term sets for multi-criteria decision making. Knowl Based Syst. 2017;119:284–91.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Wang D, Pedrycz W, Li Z. Granular data aggregation: an adaptive principle of the justifiable granularity approach. IEEE Trans Cybern. 2019;49(2):417–26.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Gu J, Zheng Y, Tian XL, Xu ZS. A decision-making framework based on prospect theory with probabilistic linguistic term sets. J Oper Res Soc. 2021;72(4):879–88.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Du Y, Liu D. An integrated method for multi-granular probabilistic linguistic multiple attribute decision-making with prospect theory. Comput Ind Eng. 2021;159:107500.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Nie RX, Wang JQ. Prospect theory-based consistency recovery strategies with multiplicative probabilistic linguistic preference relations in managing group decision making. Arab J Sci Eng. 2020;45(3):2113–30.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Liu NN, Xu ZS, He Y, Zeng XJ. An inverse prospect theory-based algorithm in extended incomplete additive probabilistic linguistic preference relation environment and its application in financial products selection. Fuzzy Optim Decis Mak. 2021;20(3):397–428.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  42. Zhao M, Shen XY, Liao HC, Cai MY. Selecting products through text reviews: An MCDM method incorporating personalized heuristic judgments in the prospect theory. Fuzzy Optim Decis Mak. 2021;20:301–23.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Zeng J. An experimental test on cumulative prospect theory. Journal of Jinan University (Natural Science). 2007;28(1):44.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain. 1992;5(4):297–323.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Economist Intelligence Unit. Risk ratings review. https://store.eiu.com/product/risk-ratings-review-crs. Accessed 3 Apr 2023.

  46. T.P. Group. The International Country Risk Guide (ICRG). 2021. https://www.prsgroup.com/explore-our-products/international-country-risk-guide.

  47. Institutional Profiles Database. Institutional Profiles Database. http://www.cepii.fr/institutions/EN/ipd.asp. Accessed 3 Apr 2023.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants 41976188 and 71971121.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management Science and Engineering, Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology, Nanjing, 210044, China

    Yaojia Zhang & Zaiwu Gong

  2. Institute of Meteorology and Oceanography, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, 410073, China

    Zhinan Hao & Jing Xu

  3. Unit 31451 of PLA, Shenyang, 110001, China

    Zhinan Hao

Authors
  1. Yaojia Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zaiwu Gong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhinan Hao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jing Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zaiwu Gong.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, Y., Gong, Z., Hao, Z. et al. A Cognitive Uncertainty Calculation Method Based on Probabilistic Linguistic Term Set and Applications in Geopolitical Risk Assessment. Cogn Comput 15, 1988–2003 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-023-10166-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-023-10166-z

Keywords