
Finding the best transportation project and logistic service provider is one for the most important aspects of the development of a country. This task becomes more complicated from time to time as different criteria are involved. Hence, this paper proposes an approach to the linguistic three-way decision-making (TWDs) problem for selecting sustainable transportation investments and logistic service providers with unknown criteria and expert weight information. To this end, we first propose a new tool, the Pythagorean double hierarchy linguistic term sets (PyDHLTSs), which is a combination of first hierarchy linguistic term sets and second hierarchy linguistic term sets which can describe uncertainty and fuzziness more flexibly in decision-making (DM) problems. In addition, we propose some aggregation operators and basic operational laws for PyDHLTSs. A new decision-making technique for PyDHLTSs based on decision-theoretic rough sets (DTRSs) is proposed in the three-way decisions. Next, the conditional probability is computed using grey relational analysis in a PyDHLTSs environment, which improves decision-making. The loss function is computed by using the proposed aggregation operator, and the decision's results are determined by the minimum-loss principle. Finally, a real-world case study of a transportation project and logistic service provider is considered to demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed methods.
Citation: Abbas Qadir, Shadi N. Alghaffari, Shougi S. Abosuliman, Saleem Abdullah. A three-way decision-making technique based on Pythagorean double hierarchy linguistic term sets for selecting logistic service provider and sustainable transportation investments[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(8): 18665-18695. doi: 10.3934/math.2023951
[1] | Mohamed Obeid, Mohamed A. Abd El Salam, Mohamed S. Mohamed . A novel generalized symmetric spectral Galerkin numerical approach for solving fractional differential equations with singular kernel. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(7): 16724-16747. doi: 10.3934/math.2023855 |
[2] | Imran Talib, Md. Nur Alam, Dumitru Baleanu, Danish Zaidi, Ammarah Marriyam . A new integral operational matrix with applications to multi-order fractional differential equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(8): 8742-8771. doi: 10.3934/math.2021508 |
[3] | Chang Phang, Abdulnasir Isah, Yoke Teng Toh . Poly-Genocchi polynomials and its applications. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(8): 8221-8238. doi: 10.3934/math.2021476 |
[4] | Zahra Pirouzeh, Mohammad Hadi Noori Skandari, Kamele Nassiri Pirbazari, Stanford Shateyi . A pseudo-spectral approach for optimal control problems of variable-order fractional integro-differential equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(9): 23692-23710. doi: 10.3934/math.20241151 |
[5] | P. Pirmohabbati, A. H. Refahi Sheikhani, H. Saberi Najafi, A. Abdolahzadeh Ziabari . Numerical solution of full fractional Duffing equations with Cubic-Quintic-Heptic nonlinearities. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(2): 1621-1641. doi: 10.3934/math.2020110 |
[6] | Ismail Gad Ameen, Dumitru Baleanu, Hussien Shafei Hussien . Efficient method for solving nonlinear weakly singular kernel fractional integro-differential equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(6): 15819-15836. doi: 10.3934/math.2024764 |
[7] | Shazia Sadiq, Mujeeb ur Rehman . Solution of fractional boundary value problems by ψ-shifted operational matrices. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(4): 6669-6693. doi: 10.3934/math.2022372 |
[8] | Fawaz K. Alalhareth, Seham M. Al-Mekhlafi, Ahmed Boudaoui, Noura Laksaci, Mohammed H. Alharbi . Numerical treatment for a novel crossover mathematical model of the COVID-19 epidemic. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(3): 5376-5393. doi: 10.3934/math.2024259 |
[9] | Najat Almutairi, Sayed Saber . Chaos control and numerical solution of time-varying fractional Newton-Leipnik system using fractional Atangana-Baleanu derivatives. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(11): 25863-25887. doi: 10.3934/math.20231319 |
[10] | Samia Bushnaq, Kamal Shah, Sana Tahir, Khursheed J. Ansari, Muhammad Sarwar, Thabet Abdeljawad . Computation of numerical solutions to variable order fractional differential equations by using non-orthogonal basis. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(6): 10917-10938. doi: 10.3934/math.2022610 |
Finding the best transportation project and logistic service provider is one for the most important aspects of the development of a country. This task becomes more complicated from time to time as different criteria are involved. Hence, this paper proposes an approach to the linguistic three-way decision-making (TWDs) problem for selecting sustainable transportation investments and logistic service providers with unknown criteria and expert weight information. To this end, we first propose a new tool, the Pythagorean double hierarchy linguistic term sets (PyDHLTSs), which is a combination of first hierarchy linguistic term sets and second hierarchy linguistic term sets which can describe uncertainty and fuzziness more flexibly in decision-making (DM) problems. In addition, we propose some aggregation operators and basic operational laws for PyDHLTSs. A new decision-making technique for PyDHLTSs based on decision-theoretic rough sets (DTRSs) is proposed in the three-way decisions. Next, the conditional probability is computed using grey relational analysis in a PyDHLTSs environment, which improves decision-making. The loss function is computed by using the proposed aggregation operator, and the decision's results are determined by the minimum-loss principle. Finally, a real-world case study of a transportation project and logistic service provider is considered to demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed methods.
Consider the general frame work of system of linear equations
Ax=b, | (1.1) |
where A∈Rn×n is the coefficients matrix, b∈Rn is a constant vector and x∈Rn is an unknown vector. Various problems arising in different fields such as computer science, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering and economics are modeled in this general frame work of system of linear equations (1.1).
Importance of the methods for systems of linear equations can not be denied due to the requirement of solutions of systems occurring in almost all fields. Babylonians first introduced the system of linear equations with two unknowns about 4000 years ago. Later on Cramer [1] gave the idea for solving the systems of linear equations by using determinants. In the nineteenth century, Gauss introduced a method to solve the linear system (1.1) by elimination of variables one by one and later on using backward substitutions. There also exist many other methods in the literature to solve (1.1). Usually, these methods are classified into two categories, called direct and iterative methods.
The objective of a direct method is to get an exact solution in minimal number of operations. While, an iterative method starts with an initial guess and produces an infinite sequence of approximations in the direction of exact solution. This sequence can be limited by using a suitable stopping criteria. Direct methods involve the Gauss elimination method, Gauss-Jordan elimination method, Cholasky method, LU decomposition method [2]. Large and sparsely populated systems often arise in solving partial differential equations numerically or dealing with optimization problems. For such cases the conjugate gradient method is implemented and also suggested for sparse systems [3]. Direct methods are ineffective for a system consisting on a large number of equations, mostly when the coefficient matrix is sparse.
Iterative methods consist on successive approximations that are used to gain approximate solution for system (1.1) at each step, starting with a given initial approximation. Moreover, iterative methods can be further categorized into stationary and non-stationary methods. Stationary methods are older and more straightforward methods involving an iteration matrix that remains constant throughout the whole iterations during calculation. Examples of stationary iterative methods are the Jacobi method, Gauss-Seidel method, Successive Over Relaxation method [2]. The computations in non-stationary methods involve information that changes at each iteration. These iterative methods are used to derive the inner products of residuals [2].
We observe that in any iterative method the system may be represented in the form of x=Px+c, and the iterative scheme x(k+1)=Px(k)+c is suggested by using an initial approximation x(0) to obtain the best approximate solution. The iterative method is convergent if and only if ρ(P)<1, where ρ(P) is spectral radius of P. In order to obtain the iterative scheme we partition A=(aij) as A=D−L−U, where D=diag(aii), L and U are strictly, lower and upper triangular matrices respectively.
Jacobi method and Gauss-Seidel method are the classical methods which are used for the diagonally dominant systems by spiting the coefficient matrix into three matrices. In Jacobi method, the iterative scheme [2] can be expressed as:
x(k)=D−1(L+U)x(k−1)+D−1b, | (1.2) |
and similarly, for Gauss-Seidel method [2], the iterative scheme is suggested as:
x(k)=(D−L)−1Ux(k−1)+(D−L)−1b. | (1.3) |
If the coefficient matrix A is strictly diagonally dominant, the Jacobi and Gauss-Seidel methods converge for any x0. However Gauss-Seidel method converges rapidly as compare to Jacobi method [2,4].
The Successive Over-Relaxation (SOR) techniques
x(k)=(D−wL)−1((1−w)D+wU)x(k−1)+w(D−wL)−1b, | (1.4) |
are nicely addressed in literature [2,5,6]. Requirement for the parameter w for SOR is that it lies between zero and two and for each particular matrix the optimal value of w is discussed very comprehensively [7].
In 1978, the accelerated over-relaxation (AOR) method was initially presented by Hadjidimos as a modification of the successive over-relaxation (SOR) method with two parameters [8]. In mostly cases, the AOR technique improves the Jacobi, Gauss-Seidel, and SOR methods [8,9,10,11]. Significance of AOR method can be seen in [9,12,13,14]. For the convergence of AOR method sufficient conditions are discussed [15,16,17,18,19]. Various aspects of applications of AOR method can also be studied in [21,22,23]. We also see in literature the preconditioned AOR technique to improve the convergence rate of AOR method [24,25,26,27,28,29]. While Krylov subspace techniques [3,30,31,32] are recognized as one of the most significant and effective iterative approaches to solve the sparse linear systems because they are inexpensive to be implemented and are able to fully exploit the sparsity of the coefficient matrix. Krylov subspace techniques are extremely slow or fail to converge when the coefficient matrix of the system is ill-conditioned and excessively indefinite which is the drawback of these schemes.
The purpose of this paper is to present a new iterative method for solving the systems of linear equations (1.1), which is the generalization of existing methods and fast convergent than the Jacobi, Gauss-Seidel, SOR, and AOR methods. In Section 2, generalized iterative scheme is developed for the best approximate solution. In Section 3, convergence of the proposed iterative scheme is discussed. Numerical and graphical results are discussed in Section 4.
In this section, we construct a generalized iterative scheme for solving the system of linear equations (1.1). Jacobi method, Gauss-Seidel method, SOR method, and AOR method are the special cases for this presented scheme.
System (1.1) can be written as:
wAx=wb, | (2.1) |
where 0<w<2 and
w(D−L−U)x=bw. | (2.2) |
We split matrix A as sum of three matrices D,L and U. Here, D is a diagonal matrix, L is the strictly lower triangular matrix, and U is the strictly upper triangular matrix.
Above Eq (2.2) can be re-written as:
(D−rL−tU)x=[(1−w)D+(w−r)L+(w−t)U]x+bw. | (2.3) |
Now (2.3) can be expressed as:
x=(D−rL−tU)−1[(1−w)D+(w−r)L+(w−t)U]x+(D−rL−tU)−1bw, | (2.4) |
where 0<t<w<r<2.
Relation (2.4) is a fixed point formulation which allows us to suggest the following iterative scheme.
Algorithm 2.1. For a given initial vector x(0), find the approximate solution x(k) from the following iterative scheme:
x(k)=(D−rL−tU)−1[(1−w)D+(w−r)L+(w−t)U]x(k−1)+(D−rL−tU)−1bw,k=1,2,3,... |
Algorithm 2.1 is the main iterative scheme that converges to the solution rapidly as compared with other methods. This is the generalized scheme for obtaining the solution of a system of linear equations. We present some special cases.
If t=0, Algorithm 2.1 reduces to the following iterative scheme.
Algorithm 2.2. For a given initial vector x(0), find the approximate solution x(k) from the following technique:
x(k)=(D−rL)−1[(1−w)D+(w−r)L+wU]x(k−1)+(D−rL)−1bw,k=1,2,3,... |
which is well-known AOR method [2,3].
If t=0 and w=r, the Algorithm 2.1 reduces to the following SOR method [2,3].
Algorithm 2.3. For a given initial vector x(0), find the approximate solution x(k) from the following technique:
x(k)=(D−wL)−1[(1−w)D+wU]x(k−1)+(D−wL)−1bw,k=1,2,3,... |
If t=0 and w=r=1, the Algorithm 2.1 reduces to the following scheme.
Algorithm 2.4. For a given initial vector x(0), find the approximate solution x(k) from the following technique:
x(k)=(D−L)−1Ux(k−1)+(D−L)−1b,k=1,2,3,... |
Algorithm 2.4 is Gauss-Seidel method [2,3].
If t=r=0 and w=1, the Algorithm 2.1 reduces to the following scheme.
Algorithm 2.5. For a given initial vector x(0), find the approximate solution x(k) from the following technique:
x(k)=D−1(L+U)x(k−1)+D−1b,k=1,2,3,... |
Algorithm 2.5 is well-known Jacobi method [2,3].
In this section, we consider the convergence analysis of the newly developed iterative scheme mentioned as Algorithm 2.1.
x(k)=(D−rL−tU)−1[(1−w)D+(w−r)L+(w−t)U]x(k−1)+(D−rL−tU)−1bw. |
Lemma 3.1. [2] If the spectral radius satisfies
ρ[(D−rL−tU)−1(1−w)D+(w−r)L+(w−t)U)]≤1, |
then
[I−(D−rL−tU)−1((1−w)D+(w−r)L+(w−t)U)]−1 |
exists and
[I−(D−rL−tU)−1((1−w)D+(w−r)L+(w−t)U)]−1=I+[(D−rL−tU)−1((1−w)D+(w−r)L+(w−t)U)]+[(D−rL−tU)−1((1−w)D+(w−r)L+(w−t)U)]2+⋯=∞∑j=0[(D−rL−tU)−1((1−w)D+(w−r)L+(w−t)U)]j. | (3.1) |
Theorem 3.2. For a given any x(0)∈Rn, the sequence {x(k)}∞k=0 defined by
x(k)=[(D−rL−tU)−1((1−w)D+(w−r)L+(w−t)U)]x(k−1)+(D−rL−tU)−1bw, |
for each k≥1, converges to the unique solution
x=[(D−rL−tU)−1((1−w)D+(w−r)L+(w−t)U)]x+(D−rL−tU)−1bw, |
if and only if
ρ[(D−rL−tU)−1((1−w)D+(w−r)L+(w−t)U)]<1. |
Proof. For the proof of the statement, it is enough to show that spectral radius of iteration matrix <1. For this, let us consider the iterative scheme suggested in Algorithm 2.1.
x(k)=[(D−rL−tU)−1((1−w)D+(w−r)L+(w−t)U)]x(k−1)+(D−rL−tU)−1bw, |
which can be rewritten as:
x(k)=[(D−rL−tU)−1((1−w)D+(w−r)L+(w−t)U)][((D−rL−tU)−1((1−w)D+(w−r)L+(w−t)U))x(k−2)+(D−rL−tU)−1bw]+(D−rL−tU)−1bw⋮=[(D−rL−tU)−1((1−w)D+(w−r)L+(w−t)U)]kx(0)+[[(D−rL−tU)−1((1−w)D+(w−r)L+(w−t)U)]x(k−1)+⋯+[(D−rL−tU)−1((1−w)D+(w−r)L+(w−t)U)]+I](D−rL−tU)−1bw. | (3.2) |
Since
ρ([(D−rL−tU)−1((1−w)D+(w−r)L+(w−t)U)])≤1, |
the matrix converges and
limk→∞[(D−rL−tU)−1((1−w)D+(w−r)L+(w−t)U)]kx(0)=0, |
and Lemma 3.1 implies that
limk→∞x(k)=0+limk→∞[k−1∑j=0[(D−rL−tU)−1((1−w)D+(w−r)L+(w−t)U)]j](D−rL−tU)−1bw=[I−[(D−rL−tU)−1((1−w)D+(w−r)L+(w−t)U)]]−1(D−rL−tU)−1bw. |
As a result, the sequence x(k) converges to the vector
x=[I−(D−rL−tU)−1((1−w)D+(w−r)L+(w−t)U)]−1(D−rL−tU)−1bw. |
We can also view the convergence criteria of the purposed method as an application of the Banach fixed point theorem [33]. System of linear equations can be described with the relations of parameters in the equation form as:
{x1=(1−wa11)x1−(w−2t)a12x2−…−(w−2t)a1nxn+wb1x2=−(w−2r)a21x1+(1−wa22)x2−…−(w−2t)a2nxn+wb2⋮xn=−(w−2r)an1x1−(w−2r)an2x2−…+(1−wann)xn+wbn. | (3.3) |
This system is equivalent to
x=cx+d | (3.4) |
with d=wb and cij={(1−waij)ifi=j−(w−2t)aijifi<j−(w−2r)aijifi>j.
The solution can be obtained by
x(k+1)=cx(k)+d. | (3.5) |
The iteration method is defined by
xj(k+1)=1cjj(γ−n∑k=1,k≠jcjkx(k)). | (3.6) |
Assuming that cjj≠0 for j=1,...n. This iteration is suggested for the jth equation of the system. It is not difficult to verify that (3.6) can be written in the form of
c=(D−rL−tU)−1[(1−w)D+(w−r)L+(w−t)U], | (3.7) |
and
d=(D−rL−tU)−1wb. | (3.8) |
Here D = diag(cjj) is the diagonal matrix whose non-zero elements are of those of the principle diagonal of A. Condition of diagonally dominant applied to c is sufficient for the convergence of Algorithm 2.1. We can express directly in terms of the elements of A. The result is the row sum criteria for the convergence will be
n∑k=1,k≠j|ajkajj|<1, | (3.9) |
or
n∑k=1,k≠j|ajk|<|ajj|. | (3.10) |
This shows that convergence is guaranteed, if the elements in principle diagonal of A are sufficiently large.
Note that all the components of a new approximation are introduced simultaneously at the end of an iteration cycle.
In this section, we provide few numerical applications to clarify the efficiency of new developed three parameter iterative scheme Algorithm 2.1, on some system of linear equations for 0<t<w<r<2, whose coefficient matrices satisfy
max1≤i≤n−1ui=α and max1≤i≤n−1li=β,α+β≤1, |
where
li=maxi−1∑j=1∣βij∣, for i=2,3,…,n, |
and
ui=maxn∑j=i+1∣αij∣, for i=1,2,…,n−1. |
In this part, we will compare our developed scheme with previous techniques as namely AOR method, SOR method, Jacobi method and Gauss-Seidel method. All computations are calculated by using computer programming by MATLAB. We use ε=10−15 and the following stopping criteria is used for computer programs as:
||x(k)−x(k−1)||||x(k)||≤ε. |
This stopping criteria is deduced from relative error and the infinite sequence generated by the computer code will be chopped at the stage when this criteria is satisfied. We assume the following examples to compare the new developed method Algorithm 2.1 (Alg 2.1) with various iterative methods AOR (Alg 2.2), SOR (Alg 2.3), Gauss-Seidel (Alg 2.4) and Jacobi (Alg 2.5), to analyze the new iterative scheme's feasibility and effectiveness.
For the numerical and graphical comparison of methods, we select some examples from the literature.
Example 4.1. [3] We consider a problem where the loop-current approach is combined with Ohm's law and Kirchhoff's voltage law. Each loop in the network is supposed to be circulated by a loop current. Thus, the loop current I1 cycles the closed-loops a,b,c, and d in the network shown in Figure 1. As a result, the current I1−I2 passes via the link joining b and c.
From the above network as shown in Figure 1, we get a four-variable linear equations system by letting R1=R4=1Ω,R2=2Ω,R3=4Ω and V=5volts. We get the following system of the form
4I1−2I2=5,−2I1+6I2−2I3=0,−2I2+6I3−2I4=0,−2I3+8I4=0. |
Table 1 displays the numerical results for Example 4.1, which indicate that Alg 2.1 is more efficient than the other methods.
Methods | Parameters | Iterations | Relative error |
Alg 2.1 | w=1.02,r=1.05,t=0.88 | 14 | 8.9966e−18 |
Alg 2.2 | w=1.02,r=1.05 | 28 | 2.8789e−16 |
Alg 2.3 | w=1.02 | 30 | 2.8789e−16 |
Alg 2.4 | ... | 32 | 4.3184e−16 |
Alg 2.5 | ... | 61 | 7.1973e−16 |
In Figure 2 the residual fall of different methods shows that new method is faster convergent than the other methods. Figure 3 is the comparison of iterations of different algorithms that shows our new iterative method which described in Alg 2.1 is more efficient than other methods described in Alg 2.2–2.5.
Example 4.2. [34] Consider the following system of the form
x1+0.250x2=0.75,0.250x1+x2+0.250x3=1.50,0.250x2+x3+0.250x4=1.50,0.250x3+x4+0.250x5=1.50,0.250x4+x5=1.25. |
Table 2 displays the numerical results which indicate that Alg 2.1 is more efficient than the other techniques.
Methods | Parameters | Iterations | Relative error |
Alg 2.1 | w=1.01,r=1.06,t=0.86 | 13 | 5.8249e−16 |
Alg 2.2 | w=1.01,r=1.06 | 19 | 4.8541e−16 |
Alg 2.3 | w=1.01 | 23 | 2.4271e−16 |
Alg 2.4 | ... | 24 | 2.4271e−16 |
Alg 2.5 | ... | 44 | 7.7666e−16 |
The residual fall of different technique can be seen in Figure 4 which illustrate that the new method is rapidly convergent than the other methods. Figure 5 is the comparison of iterations of different algorithms that shows our new iterative method which described in Alg 2.1 is more efficient than other methods described in Alg 2.2–2.5.
Example 4.3. [2] Consider the following system of linear equations of the form
4x1−x2−x3=1,−x1+4x2−x4=1,−x1+4x3−x4=1,−x2−x3+4x4=1. |
Table 3 displays the numerical results for Example 4.5, which indicate that Alg 2.1 is more efficient than the other methods.
Methods | Parameters | Iterations | Relative error |
Alg 2.1 | w=1.05;r=1.07;t=0.9 | 15 | 5.5511e−16 |
Alg 2.2 | w=1.05;r=1.07 | 19 | 9.9920e−16 |
Alg 2.3 | w=1.05 | 22 | 5.5511e−16 |
Alg 2.4 | .... | 28 | 4.4409e−16 |
Alg 2.5 | .... | 51 | 8.8818e−16 |
In Figure 6 the residual fall of different methods shows that New method is faster convergent than the other methods. Figure 7 is the comparison of iterations of different algorithms that shows our new iterative method which described in Alg 2.1 is more efficient than other methods described in Alg 2.2–2.5.
Example 4.4. [35] Let the matrix A be given by
ai,j={8,ifj=i;−1,if{j=i+1,fori=1,2,…,n−1;j=i−1,fori=2,3,…,n;0,otherwise. |
Let b=(6,5,5,…,5,6)T, we take n=100.
Table 4 displays the numerical results for Example 4.4, which indicate that Alg 2.1 is more efficient than the other techniques.
Methods | Parameters | Iterations | Relative error |
Alg 2.1 | w=1.02;r=0.97;t=0.50 | 15 | 3.8978e−16 |
Alg 2.2 | w=1.02;r=0.97 | 19 | 7.7956e−16 |
Alg 2.3 | w=1.02 | 19 | 3.8978e−16 |
Alg 2.4 | .... | 20 | 5.1970e−16 |
Alg 2.5 | .... | 27 | 6.4963e−16 |
The residual fall of different methods can be seen in Figure 8 which illustrate that the new method is rapidly convergent than the other methods. Figure 9 is the comparison of iterations of different algorithms that shows our new iterative method which described in Alg 2.1 is more efficient than other methods described in Alg 2.2–2.5.
Example 4.5. [2,36] Consider the system (1.1), having co-efficient matrix A is given by
aij={2i,ifi=jandi=1,2,…,1000;−1,if{j=i+1,fori=1,2,…,999;j=i−1,fori=2,3,…,1000;0,otherwise. |
and bi=1.5i−6 for each i=1,2,…,1000.
Table 5 shows the numerical results for Example 4.3, which indicate that Alg 2.1 is much more efficient than the other techniques.
Methods | Parameters | Iterations | Relative error |
Alg 2.1 | w=1.021;r=1.079;t=0.98 | 13 | 3.6092e−17 |
Alg 2.2 | w=1.021;r=1.079 | 18 | 4.3310e−16 |
Alg 2.3 | w=1.0219 | 20 | 2.8873e−16 |
Alg 2.4 | .... | 22 | 5.7747e−16 |
Alg 2.5 | .... | 41 | 5.7747e−16 |
The residual fall of different techniques can be seen in Figure 10 which illustrate that the new method is rapidly convergent than the other methods. Figure 11 is the comparison of iterations of different algorithms that shows our new iterative method which described in Alg 2.1 is more efficient than other methods described in Alg 2.2–2.5.
In Table 6, IT stands for the number of iterations in above tabular comparison which shows that our new iterative method work much effectively.
Parameters | Example 4.1 | Example 4.2 | Example 4.3 | Example 4.4 | Example 4.5 | ||
w | r | t | IT | IT | IT | IT | IT |
0.2 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 186 | 160 | 181 | 160 | 169 |
0.4 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 102 | 82 | 96 | 77 | 86 |
0.6 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 63 | 50 | 58 | 46 | 52 |
0.3 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 138 | 111 | 132 | 108 | 120 |
0.2 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 229 | 186 | 217 | 174 | 195 |
0.3 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 96 | 97 | 97 | 97 | 95 |
0.3 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 155 | 124 | 145 | 114 | 129 |
0.5 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 85 | 67 | 79 | 61 | 70 |
0.5 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 77 | 61 | 73 | 59 | 66 |
0.8 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 57 | 40 | 50 | 33 | 42 |
0.8 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 46 | 34 | 41 | 30 | 36 |
0.9 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 36 | 27 | 32 | 23 | 28 |
0.9 | 1.04 | 0.5 | 24 | 21 | 22 | 21 | 21 |
1.02 | 1.08 | 0.8 | 15 | 14 | 14 | 12 | 14 |
1.03 | 1.09 | 0.9 | 14 | 13 | 14 | 12 | 13 |
In this article, a new generalized iterative scheme is suggested for solving systems of linear equations. We have studied the convergence criteria of this iterative scheme. This scheme is not only the generalized one but also give good results as compared to the existing schemes. This iterative scheme is also suitable for sparse matrices. Numerical results show that this scheme is more effective than the conventional schemes. We would also like to purpose that the given scheme can be extended for the absolute value problems of the type Ax+B|x|=b.
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
The authors would like to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions, which improved the quality of this paper.
[1] |
L. A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Inform. Control, 8 (1965), 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X doi: 10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X
![]() |
[2] | K. T. Atanassov, Intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 35 (1999), 1–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-1870-3_1 |
[3] |
G. F. Yu, D. F. Li, D. C. Liang, G. X. Li, An intuitionistic fuzzy multi-objective goal programming approach to portfolio selection, Int. J. Inform. Technol. Decis. Mak., 20 (2021), 1477–1497. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622021500395 doi: 10.1142/S0219622021500395
![]() |
[4] |
G. F. Yu, D. F. Li, A novel intuitionistic fuzzy goal programming method for heterogeneous MADM with application to regional green manufacturing level evaluation under multi-source information, Comput. Ind. Eng., 174 (2022), 108796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2022.108796 doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2022.108796
![]() |
[5] |
G. F. Yu, W. Fei, D. F. Li, A compromise-typed variable weight decision method for hybrid multiattribute decision making, IEEE T. Fuzzy Syst., 27 (2018), 861–872. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2018.2880705 doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2018.2880705
![]() |
[6] | R. R. Yager, Pythagorean fuzzy subsets, In: Joint IFSA World Congress and NAFIPS Annual Meeting, Edmonton, Canada, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1109/IFSA-NAFIPS.2013.6608375 |
[7] |
R. R. Yager, Pythagorean membership grades in multicriteria decision making, IEEE T. Fuzzy Syst., 22 (2013), 958–965. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2013.2278989 doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2013.2278989
![]() |
[8] |
L. A. Zadeh, What is computing with words (CWW), Stud. Fuzz. Soft Comput., 277 (2013), 3–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27473-2_1 doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-27473-2_1
![]() |
[9] |
Z. Xu, H. Wang, On the syntax and semantics of virtual linguistic terms for information fusion in decision making, Inform. Fusion., 34 (2017), 43–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2016.06.002 doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2016.06.002
![]() |
[10] |
F. Herrera, L. Martinez, A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words, IEEE T. Fuzzy Syst., 8 (2000), 746–752. https://doi.org/10.1109/91.890332 doi: 10.1109/91.890332
![]() |
[11] |
Z. Xu, A method based on linguistic aggregation operators for group decision making with linguistic preference relations, Inform. Sci., 166 (2004), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2003.10.006 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2003.10.006
![]() |
[12] |
H. Zhang, Linguistic intuitionistic fuzzy sets and application in MAGDM, J. Appl. Math., 2014, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/432092 doi: 10.1155/2014/432092
![]() |
[13] |
F. Herrera, L. Martínez, A model based on linguistic 2-tuples for dealing with multigranular hierarchical linguistic contexts in multi-expert decision-making, IEEE T. Syst. Man Cy.-B, 31 (2001), 227–234. https://doi.org/10.1109/3477.915345 doi: 10.1109/3477.915345
![]() |
[14] |
H. Garg, Linguistic Pythagorean fuzzy sets and its applications in multiattribute decision-making process, Int. J. Intell. Syst., 33 (2018), 1234–1263. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.21979 doi: 10.1002/int.21979
![]() |
[15] |
X. Gou, H. Liao, Z. Xu, F. Herrera, Double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set and MULTIMOORA method: A case of study to evaluate the implementation status of haze controlling measures, Inform. Fusion, 38 (2017), 22–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2017.02.008 doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2017.02.008
![]() |
[16] |
X. Gou, H. Liao, Z. Xu, F. Herrera, Multiple criteria decision making based on distance and similarity measures under double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic environment, Comput. Ind. Eng., 126 (2018), 516–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.10.020 doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2018.10.020
![]() |
[17] |
X. Li, Z. Xu, H. Wang, Three-way decisions based on some Hamacher aggregation operators under double hierarchy linguistic environment, Int. J. Intell. Syst., 36 (2021), 7731–7753. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22605 doi: 10.1002/int.22605
![]() |
[18] |
A. A. Rassa, M. Vaziri, Sustainable transport indicators: Definition and integration, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2 (2005), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03325861 doi: 10.1007/BF03325861
![]() |
[19] |
A. Awasthi, S. S. Chauhan, H. Omrani, Application of fuzzy TOPSIS in evaluating sustainable transportation systems, Expert Syst. Appl., 38 (2011), 12270–12280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.005 doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.005
![]() |
[20] |
T. A. Shiau, Evaluating transport infrastructure decisions under uncertainty, Transport. Plan. Techn., 37 (2014), 525–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060.2014.921405 doi: 10.1080/03081060.2014.921405
![]() |
[21] |
M. Gul, A. F. Guneri, S. M. Nasirli, A fuzzy-based model for risk assessment of routes in oil transportation, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Te., 16 (2019), 4671–4686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-018-2078-z doi: 10.1007/s13762-018-2078-z
![]() |
[22] |
I. Essaadi, B. Grabot, P. Féniès, Location of global logistic hubs within Africa based on a fuzzy multi-criteria approach, Comput. Ind. Eng., 132 (2019), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.03.046 doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2019.03.046
![]() |
[23] |
D. Pamučar, G. Ćirović, The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using multi-attributive border approximation area comparison (MABAC), Expert Syst. Appl., 42 (2015), 3016–3028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.057 doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.057
![]() |
[24] |
K. Liu, J. Zhang, X. Yan, Y. Liu, D. Zhang, W. Hu, Safety assessment for inland waterway transportation with an extended fuzzy TOPSIS, Proc. I. Mech. Eng. P.-O J. Risk Reliab., 230 (2016), 323–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748006X16631869 doi: 10.1177/1748006X16631869
![]() |
[25] |
S. Samanta, D. K. Jana, A multi-item transportation problem with mode of transportation preference by MCDM method in interval type-2 fuzzy environment, Neural Comput. Appl., 31 (2019), 605–617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-017-3093-6 doi: 10.1007/s00521-017-3093-6
![]() |
[26] |
V. Mohagheghi, S. M. Mousavi, B. Vahdani, Enhancing decision-making flexibility by introducing a new last aggregation evaluating approach based on multi-criteria group decision making and Pythagorean fuzzy sets, Appl. Soft Comput., 61 (2017), 527–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.08.003 doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2017.08.003
![]() |
[27] |
V. Mohagheghi, S. M. Mousavi, M. Aghamohagheghi, B. Vahdani, A new approach of multi-criteria analysis for the evaluation and selection of sustainable transport investment projects under uncertainty: A case study, Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst., 10 (2017), 605–626. https://doi.org/10.2991/ijcis.2017.10.1.41 doi: 10.2991/ijcis.2017.10.1.41
![]() |
[28] |
M. Aghamohagheghi, S. M. Hashemi, R. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, A new decision approach to the sustainable transport investment selection based on the generalized entropy and knowledge measure under an interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy environment, Sci. Iran., 28 (2021), 892–911. https://doi.org/10.24200/SCI.2019.50131.1529 doi: 10.24200/SCI.2019.50131.1529
![]() |
[29] |
Z. Zhang, H. Zhang, L. Zhou, Zero-carbon measure prioritization for sustainable freight transport using interval 2 tuple linguistic decision approaches, Appl. Soft Comput., 132 (2023), 109864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2022.109864 doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2022.109864
![]() |
[30] |
Z. Zhang, H. Zhang, L. Zhou, Y. Qin, L. Jia, Incomplete pythagorean fuzzy preference relation for subway station safety management during COVID-19 pandemic, Expert Syst. Appl., 216 (2023), 119445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.119445 doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.119445
![]() |
[31] | Y. Y. Yao, S. K. M. Wong, P. Lingras, A decision-theoretic rough set model, In: Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, North-Holland, 1990, 17–24. |
[32] |
Y. Y Yao, Three-way decision: An interpretation of rules in rough set theory, Rough Set. Knowl. Technol., 5589 (2009), 642–649. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02962-2_81 doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-02962-2_81
![]() |
[33] |
Y. Y. Yao, Three-way decisions with probabilistic rough sets, Inform. Sci., 180 (2010), 341–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2009.09.021 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2009.09.021
![]() |
[34] |
Z. Pawlak, Rough sets, Int. J. Comput. Inform. Sci., 11 (1982), 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01001956 doi: 10.1007/BF01001956
![]() |
[35] |
Y. Chien, Pattern classification and scene analysis, IEEE T. Automat. Contr., 19 (1974), 462–463. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1974.1100577 doi: 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100577
![]() |
[36] |
X. Li, H. Wang, Z. Xu, Work resumption after epidemic using three-way decisions, Int. J. Fuzzy Syst., 23 (2021), 630–641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-020-01006-5 doi: 10.1007/s40815-020-01006-5
![]() |
[37] |
X. Li, X. Huang, A novel three-way investment decisions based on decision-theoretic rough sets with hesitant fuzzy information, Int. J. Fuzzy Syst., 22 (2020), 2708–2719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-020-00836-7 doi: 10.1007/s40815-020-00836-7
![]() |
[38] |
P. Wang, P. Zhang, Z. W. Li, A three-way decision method based on Gaussian kernel in a hybrid information system with images: An application in medical diagnosis, Appl. Soft Comput., 77 (2019), 734–749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2019.01.031 doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2019.01.031
![]() |
[39] |
J., Zhu, X. Ma, J. Zhan, Y. Yao, A three-way multi-attribute decision making method based on regret theory and its application to medical data in fuzzy environments, Appl. Soft Comput., 123 (2022), 108975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2022.108975 doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2022.108975
![]() |
[40] |
J. He, H. Zhang, Z. Zhang, J. Zhang, Probabilistic linguistic three-way multi-attibute decision making for hidden property evaluation of judgment debtor, J. Math., 2021, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9941200 doi: 10.1155/2021/9941200
![]() |
[41] |
W. Wang, J. Zhan, C. Zhang, E. Herrera-Viedma, G. Kou, A regret-theory-based three-way decision method with a priori probability tolerance dominance relation in fuzzy incomplete information systems, Inform. Fusion, 89 (2023), 382–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2022.08.027 doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2022.08.027
![]() |
[42] |
J. Ye, J. Zhan, Z. Xu, A novel decision-making approach based on three-way decisions in fuzzy information systems, Inform. Sci., 541 (2020), 362–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2020.06.050 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2020.06.050
![]() |
[43] |
D. Liang, D. Liu, Deriving three-way decisions from intuitionistic fuzzy decision-theoretic rough sets, Inform. Sci., 300 (2015), 28–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2014.12.036 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2014.12.036
![]() |
[44] |
J. P. Herbert, J. T. Yao, Game-theoretic rough sets, Fund. Inform., 108 (2011), 267–286. https://doi.org/10.3233/FI-2011-423 doi: 10.3233/FI-2011-423
![]() |
[45] |
X. Jia, Z. Tang, W. Liao, L. Shang, On an optimization representation of decision-theoretic rough set model, Int. J. Approx. Reason., 55 (2014), 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2013.02.010 doi: 10.1016/j.ijar.2013.02.010
![]() |
[46] |
F. Jia, P. Liu, A novel three-way decision model under multiple-criteria environment, Inform. Sci., 471 (2019), 29–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2018.08.051 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2018.08.051
![]() |
[47] |
D. Liang, Z. Xu, D. Liu, Y. Wu, Method for three-way decisions using ideal TOPSIS solutions at Pythagorean fuzzy information, Inform. Sci., 435 (2018), 282–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2018.01.015 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2018.01.015
![]() |
[48] | Y. M. Wang, Using the method of maximizing deviation to make decision for multiindices, Syst. Eng. Electron., 8 (1997), 21–26. |
[49] |
T. Wang, H. Li, X. Zhou, D. Liu, B. Huang, Three-way decision based on third-generation prospect theory with Z-numbers, Inform. Sci., 569 (2021), 13–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2021.04.001 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2021.04.001
![]() |
[50] |
P. Liu, H. Yang, Three-way decisions with single-valued neutrosophic decision theory rough sets based on grey relational analysis, Math. Prob. Eng., 2019 (2019), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/3258018 doi: 10.1155/2019/3258018
![]() |
[51] | A. Rényi, On measures of entropy and information, In: Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, 1961,547–562. |
[52] |
D. Liang, D. Liu, A novel risk decision making based on decision-theoretic rough sets under hesitant fuzzy information, IEEE T. Fuzzy Syst., 23 (2014), 237–247. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2014.2310495 doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2014.2310495
![]() |
[53] |
L. Wang, H. Wang, Z. Xu, Z. Ren, A bi-projection model based on linguistic terms with weakened hedges and its application in risk allocation, Appl. Soft Comput. J., 87 (2020), 105996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105996 doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105996
![]() |
[54] |
Y. Geng, P. Liu, F. Teng, Z. Liu, Pythagorean fuzzy uncertain linguistic TODIM method and their application to multiple criteria group decision making, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., 33 (2017), 3383–3395. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-162175 doi: 10.3233/JIFS-162175
![]() |
[55] | X. D. Liu, J. Zhu, S. Liu, Bidirectional projection method with hesitant fuzzy information, Syst. Eng. Theory Pract., 34 (2014), 2637–2644. |
[56] |
D. Liu, T. Li, D. Liang, Three-way government decision analysis with decision-theoretic rough sets, Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzz., 20 (2012), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218488512400090 doi: 10.1142/S0218488512400090
![]() |
[57] | D. Liu, Y. Yao, T. Li, Three-way investment decisions with decision-theoretic rough sets, Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst., 4 (2011), 66–74. |
[58] |
K. B. Salling, M. R. Pryn, Sustainable transport project evaluation and decision support: Indicators and planning criteria for sustainable development, Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World, 22 (2015), 346–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2015.1051497 doi: 10.1080/13504509.2015.1051497
![]() |
[59] |
Z. Yue, An avoiding information loss approach to group decision making, Appl. Math. Model., 37 (2013), 112–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2012.02.008 doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2012.02.008
![]() |
[60] |
P. Tatham, Y. Wu, G. Kovács, T. Butcher, Supply chain management skills to sense and seize opportunities, Int. J. Logist. Manag., 28 (2017), 266–289. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-04-2014-0066 doi: 10.1108/IJLM-04-2014-0066
![]() |
[61] |
L. Tu, Y. Lv, Y. Zhang, X. Cao, Logistics service provider selection decision making for healthcare industry based on a novel weighted density-based hierarchical clustering, Adv. Eng. Inform., 48 (2021), 101301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2021.101301 doi: 10.1016/j.aei.2021.101301
![]() |
1. | Osama Moaaz, Ahmed E. Abouelregal, Multi-fractional-differential operators for a thermo-elastic magnetic response in an unbounded solid with a spherical hole via the DPL model, 2022, 8, 2473-6988, 5588, 10.3934/math.2023282 | |
2. | Mohamed Karim Bouafoura, Naceur Benhadj Braiek, Suboptimal control synthesis for state and input delayed quadratic systems, 2022, 236, 0959-6518, 944, 10.1177/09596518211067476 |
Methods | Parameters | Iterations | Relative error |
Alg 2.1 | w=1.02,r=1.05,t=0.88 | 14 | 8.9966e−18 |
Alg 2.2 | w=1.02,r=1.05 | 28 | 2.8789e−16 |
Alg 2.3 | w=1.02 | 30 | 2.8789e−16 |
Alg 2.4 | ... | 32 | 4.3184e−16 |
Alg 2.5 | ... | 61 | 7.1973e−16 |
Methods | Parameters | Iterations | Relative error |
Alg 2.1 | w=1.01,r=1.06,t=0.86 | 13 | 5.8249e−16 |
Alg 2.2 | w=1.01,r=1.06 | 19 | 4.8541e−16 |
Alg 2.3 | w=1.01 | 23 | 2.4271e−16 |
Alg 2.4 | ... | 24 | 2.4271e−16 |
Alg 2.5 | ... | 44 | 7.7666e−16 |
Methods | Parameters | Iterations | Relative error |
Alg 2.1 | w=1.05;r=1.07;t=0.9 | 15 | 5.5511e−16 |
Alg 2.2 | w=1.05;r=1.07 | 19 | 9.9920e−16 |
Alg 2.3 | w=1.05 | 22 | 5.5511e−16 |
Alg 2.4 | .... | 28 | 4.4409e−16 |
Alg 2.5 | .... | 51 | 8.8818e−16 |
Methods | Parameters | Iterations | Relative error |
Alg 2.1 | w=1.02;r=0.97;t=0.50 | 15 | 3.8978e−16 |
Alg 2.2 | w=1.02;r=0.97 | 19 | 7.7956e−16 |
Alg 2.3 | w=1.02 | 19 | 3.8978e−16 |
Alg 2.4 | .... | 20 | 5.1970e−16 |
Alg 2.5 | .... | 27 | 6.4963e−16 |
Methods | Parameters | Iterations | Relative error |
Alg 2.1 | w=1.021;r=1.079;t=0.98 | 13 | 3.6092e−17 |
Alg 2.2 | w=1.021;r=1.079 | 18 | 4.3310e−16 |
Alg 2.3 | w=1.0219 | 20 | 2.8873e−16 |
Alg 2.4 | .... | 22 | 5.7747e−16 |
Alg 2.5 | .... | 41 | 5.7747e−16 |
Parameters | Example 4.1 | Example 4.2 | Example 4.3 | Example 4.4 | Example 4.5 | ||
w | r | t | IT | IT | IT | IT | IT |
0.2 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 186 | 160 | 181 | 160 | 169 |
0.4 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 102 | 82 | 96 | 77 | 86 |
0.6 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 63 | 50 | 58 | 46 | 52 |
0.3 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 138 | 111 | 132 | 108 | 120 |
0.2 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 229 | 186 | 217 | 174 | 195 |
0.3 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 96 | 97 | 97 | 97 | 95 |
0.3 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 155 | 124 | 145 | 114 | 129 |
0.5 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 85 | 67 | 79 | 61 | 70 |
0.5 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 77 | 61 | 73 | 59 | 66 |
0.8 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 57 | 40 | 50 | 33 | 42 |
0.8 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 46 | 34 | 41 | 30 | 36 |
0.9 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 36 | 27 | 32 | 23 | 28 |
0.9 | 1.04 | 0.5 | 24 | 21 | 22 | 21 | 21 |
1.02 | 1.08 | 0.8 | 15 | 14 | 14 | 12 | 14 |
1.03 | 1.09 | 0.9 | 14 | 13 | 14 | 12 | 13 |
Methods | Parameters | Iterations | Relative error |
Alg 2.1 | w=1.02,r=1.05,t=0.88 | 14 | 8.9966e−18 |
Alg 2.2 | w=1.02,r=1.05 | 28 | 2.8789e−16 |
Alg 2.3 | w=1.02 | 30 | 2.8789e−16 |
Alg 2.4 | ... | 32 | 4.3184e−16 |
Alg 2.5 | ... | 61 | 7.1973e−16 |
Methods | Parameters | Iterations | Relative error |
Alg 2.1 | w=1.01,r=1.06,t=0.86 | 13 | 5.8249e−16 |
Alg 2.2 | w=1.01,r=1.06 | 19 | 4.8541e−16 |
Alg 2.3 | w=1.01 | 23 | 2.4271e−16 |
Alg 2.4 | ... | 24 | 2.4271e−16 |
Alg 2.5 | ... | 44 | 7.7666e−16 |
Methods | Parameters | Iterations | Relative error |
Alg 2.1 | w=1.05;r=1.07;t=0.9 | 15 | 5.5511e−16 |
Alg 2.2 | w=1.05;r=1.07 | 19 | 9.9920e−16 |
Alg 2.3 | w=1.05 | 22 | 5.5511e−16 |
Alg 2.4 | .... | 28 | 4.4409e−16 |
Alg 2.5 | .... | 51 | 8.8818e−16 |
Methods | Parameters | Iterations | Relative error |
Alg 2.1 | w=1.02;r=0.97;t=0.50 | 15 | 3.8978e−16 |
Alg 2.2 | w=1.02;r=0.97 | 19 | 7.7956e−16 |
Alg 2.3 | w=1.02 | 19 | 3.8978e−16 |
Alg 2.4 | .... | 20 | 5.1970e−16 |
Alg 2.5 | .... | 27 | 6.4963e−16 |
Methods | Parameters | Iterations | Relative error |
Alg 2.1 | w=1.021;r=1.079;t=0.98 | 13 | 3.6092e−17 |
Alg 2.2 | w=1.021;r=1.079 | 18 | 4.3310e−16 |
Alg 2.3 | w=1.0219 | 20 | 2.8873e−16 |
Alg 2.4 | .... | 22 | 5.7747e−16 |
Alg 2.5 | .... | 41 | 5.7747e−16 |
Parameters | Example 4.1 | Example 4.2 | Example 4.3 | Example 4.4 | Example 4.5 | ||
w | r | t | IT | IT | IT | IT | IT |
0.2 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 186 | 160 | 181 | 160 | 169 |
0.4 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 102 | 82 | 96 | 77 | 86 |
0.6 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 63 | 50 | 58 | 46 | 52 |
0.3 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 138 | 111 | 132 | 108 | 120 |
0.2 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 229 | 186 | 217 | 174 | 195 |
0.3 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 96 | 97 | 97 | 97 | 95 |
0.3 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 155 | 124 | 145 | 114 | 129 |
0.5 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 85 | 67 | 79 | 61 | 70 |
0.5 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 77 | 61 | 73 | 59 | 66 |
0.8 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 57 | 40 | 50 | 33 | 42 |
0.8 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 46 | 34 | 41 | 30 | 36 |
0.9 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 36 | 27 | 32 | 23 | 28 |
0.9 | 1.04 | 0.5 | 24 | 21 | 22 | 21 | 21 |
1.02 | 1.08 | 0.8 | 15 | 14 | 14 | 12 | 14 |
1.03 | 1.09 | 0.9 | 14 | 13 | 14 | 12 | 13 |