This paper extends the literature on fuzzy PROMETHEE, a well-known multi-criteria group decision-making technique. The PROMETHEE technique ranks alternatives by specifying an allowable preference function that measures their deviations from other alternatives in the presence of conflicting criteria. Its ambiguous variation helps to make an appropriate decision or choose the best option in the presence of some ambiguity. Here, we focus on the more general uncertainty in human decision-making, as we allow N-grading in fuzzy parametric descriptions. In this setting, we propose a suitable fuzzy N-soft PROMETHEE technique. We recommend using an Analytic Hierarchy Process to test the feasibility of standard weights before application. Then the fuzzy N-soft PROMETHEE method is explained. It ranks the alternatives after some steps summarized in a detailed flowchart. Furthermore, its practicality and feasibility are demonstrated through an application that selects the best robot housekeepers. The comparison between the fuzzy PROMETHEE method and the technique proposed in this work demonstrates the confidence and accuracy of the latter method.
Citation: Muhammad Akram, Maheen Sultan, José Carlos R. Alcantud, Mohammed M. Ali Al-Shamiri. Extended fuzzy N-Soft PROMETHEE method and its application in robot butler selection[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(2): 1774-1800. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023081
[1] | F. Müge Sakar, Arzu Akgül . Based on a family of bi-univalent functions introduced through the Faber polynomial expansions and Noor integral operator. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(4): 5146-5155. doi: 10.3934/math.2022287 |
[2] | H. Thameem Basha, R. Sivaraj, A. Subramanyam Reddy, Ali J. Chamkha, H. M. Baskonus . A numerical study of the ferromagnetic flow of Carreau nanofluid over a wedge, plate and stagnation point with a magnetic dipole. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(5): 4197-4219. doi: 10.3934/math.2020268 |
[3] | Rabha W. Ibrahim, Dumitru Baleanu . Fractional operators on the bounded symmetric domains of the Bergman spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(2): 3810-3835. doi: 10.3934/math.2024188 |
[4] | Misbah Iram Bloach, Muhammad Aslam Noor . Perturbed mixed variational-like inequalities. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(3): 2153-2162. doi: 10.3934/math.2020143 |
[5] | Mohammad Faisal Khan . Certain new applications of Faber polynomial expansion for some new subclasses of υ-fold symmetric bi-univalent functions associated with q-calculus. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(5): 10283-10302. doi: 10.3934/math.2023521 |
[6] | Meraj Ali Khan, Ali H. Alkhaldi, Mohd. Aquib . Estimation of eigenvalues for the α-Laplace operator on pseudo-slant submanifolds of generalized Sasakian space forms. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(9): 16054-16066. doi: 10.3934/math.2022879 |
[7] | Muhammad Amer Latif, Humaira Kalsoom, Zareen A. Khan . Hermite-Hadamard-Fejér type fractional inequalities relating to a convex harmonic function and a positive symmetric increasing function. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(3): 4176-4198. doi: 10.3934/math.2022232 |
[8] | Sheza. M. El-Deeb, Gangadharan Murugusundaramoorthy, Kaliyappan Vijaya, Alhanouf Alburaikan . Certain class of bi-univalent functions defined by quantum calculus operator associated with Faber polynomial. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(2): 2989-3005. doi: 10.3934/math.2022165 |
[9] | Erhan Deniz, Hatice Tuǧba Yolcu . Faber polynomial coefficients for meromorphic bi-subordinate functions of complex order. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(1): 640-649. doi: 10.3934/math.2020043 |
[10] | Yuanheng Wang, Muhammad Zakria Javed, Muhammad Uzair Awan, Bandar Bin-Mohsin, Badreddine Meftah, Savin Treanta . Symmetric quantum calculus in interval valued frame work: operators and applications. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(10): 27664-27686. doi: 10.3934/math.20241343 |
This paper extends the literature on fuzzy PROMETHEE, a well-known multi-criteria group decision-making technique. The PROMETHEE technique ranks alternatives by specifying an allowable preference function that measures their deviations from other alternatives in the presence of conflicting criteria. Its ambiguous variation helps to make an appropriate decision or choose the best option in the presence of some ambiguity. Here, we focus on the more general uncertainty in human decision-making, as we allow N-grading in fuzzy parametric descriptions. In this setting, we propose a suitable fuzzy N-soft PROMETHEE technique. We recommend using an Analytic Hierarchy Process to test the feasibility of standard weights before application. Then the fuzzy N-soft PROMETHEE method is explained. It ranks the alternatives after some steps summarized in a detailed flowchart. Furthermore, its practicality and feasibility are demonstrated through an application that selects the best robot housekeepers. The comparison between the fuzzy PROMETHEE method and the technique proposed in this work demonstrates the confidence and accuracy of the latter method.
The Faber-Krahn inequality, named also the Rayleigh-Faber-Krahn inequality, states that the ball minimizes the fundamental eigenvalue of the Dirichlet Laplacian among bounded domains with fixed volume. It was conjectured by Lord Rayleigh [1] and then proved independently by Faber [2] and Krahn [3]. One of the extensions of this inequality is the result established by B. Schwarz [4] for nonhomogeneous membranes, which is stated as follows: Let λ1(p) be principal frequency of a nonhomogeneous membrane D with positive density function p, then
λ1(p⋆)≤λ1(p), | (1.1) |
where p⋆ is the Schwartz symmetrization of p and λ1(p⋆) is the first eigenvalue of the symmetrized problem in the disk D⋆. Our aim in this paper is to give a version of the B. Schwarz inequality for the case of bounded domains completely contained in a wedge of angle πα,α≥1. Such bounded domains are called wedge-like membranes. The method for proving our result requires a weighted version of decreasing rearrangement tailored to the case of wedge-like membranes. This technique was first introduced by Payne and Weinberger [5], and then studied and used to improve many classical inequalities by several authors, see for example [6,7,8,9,10]. An interesting feature of this method is that it leads to an improvement of classical inequalities for certain domains, as shown by Payne and Weiberger [5] and Hasnaoui and Hermi [11]. Also, the results of this method have the interpretation of being the usual results in dimension d=2α+2 for domains with axial or bi-axial symmetry, see [9,11,12]. We are also interested in a new version of the Banks-Krein inequality [13] where the numerical value of the lower bound of the first eigenvalue is given by the first positive root of an equation involving the Bessel function Jα.
Before stating our results, we need to introduce some notations and preliminary tools. Letting α≥1, we will denote by W the wedge defined in polar coordinates (r,θ) in R2 by
W={(r,θ)|0<r,0<θ<πα}. | (2.1) |
For τ≥0, we define the sector of radius τ by
Sτ={(r,θ)|0<r<τ,0<θ<πα}. | (2.2) |
We also define
h(r,θ)=rαsinαθ, | (2.3) |
which is a positive harmonic function in W vanishing on the boundary ∂W. From that, we introduce the weighted measure μ defined by
μ(D)=∫Ddμ=∫Dh2dx, | (2.4) |
for all bounded domains D⊂W.
Throughout this paper, we denote by λ1(w) the first eigenvalue of the problem
P1:{Δu+λwu=0 in Du=0 on ∂D, |
where D is a bounded domain completely contained in W and w is a positive continuous function on D. It has been shown that this problem has a countably infinite discrete set of positive eigenvalues, and the first eigenvalue λ1(w) is simple and has an eigenfunction u of constant sign, see for example [14]. We will assume that u>0 in D. Hence, the first eigenfunction can be represented as
u=vh, | (2.5) |
where v is a positive smooth function vanishing on ∂D∩W.
Now, we introduce the weighted rearrangement with respect to the measure μ, which is one of the principal tools in our work. Let f be a measurable function defined in D⊂W, and let Sr0 be the sector of radius r0 such that
μ(Sr0)=μ(D). |
Furthermore, we denote the sector with the same measure as a measurable subset A of D by A⋆. The distribution function of f with respect to the measure μ is defined by
mf(t)=μ({(r,θ)∈D;|f(r,θ)|>t}),∀t∈[0,ess sup|f|]. | (2.6) |
The decreasing rearrangement of f with respect to μ is given by
f∗(0)=ess sup|f|, |
f∗(s)=inf{t≥0;mf(t)<s},∀s∈(0,μ(D)]. |
The weighted rearrangement of f is the function f⋆ defined on the sector Sr0 by
f⋆(r,θ)=f∗(μ(Sr)). | (2.7) |
An explicit computation gives that μ(Sr)=π4α(α+1)r2α+2. Substituting this in (2.7), we obtain
f⋆(r,θ)=f∗(π4α(α+1)r2α+2). | (2.8) |
Since f⋆ is a radial and nonincreasing, it follows that its level sets are sectors centered at the origin and have weighted measure equal to mf(t). We will, by abuse of notation, write f⋆(r) instead of f⋆(r,θ). Recall that w is the density of the membrane D. Let w⋆ denotes the weighted rearrangement of w, and λ1(w⋆) denotes the lowest eigenvalue of the following symmetrized problem
P2:{Δz+λw⋆z=0 in Sr0z=0 on ∂Sr0. |
The following result compares the first eigenvalue of the problem P1 with that of the symmetrized problem P2.
Theorem 2.1. If w is a positive continuous function defined on D⊂W, then
λ1(w)≥λ1(w⋆). | (2.9) |
See the following section for a proof of the theorem. Note that Theorem 2.1 includes the Payne-Weinberger inequality [5] as the special case w=1. The result above is also a new version of the B. Schwarz inequality [4] for wedge-like membranes.
To state the second result in this paper, we need to assume that there is a real number P such that 0≤w⋆≤P. From that, we introduce the function ˉw defined in Sr0 by
ˉw(r,θ)={P, for r∈[0,ρ],0, for r∈(ρ,r0], |
where ρ is chosen such that ∫Sr0w⋆dμ=∫Sr0ˉwdμ.
Theorem 2.2. Assume that 0≤w⋆≤P. The first eigenvalue of the problem P2 satisfies the inequality
λ1(w⋆)≥λ1(ˉw), | (2.10) |
where λ1(ˉw) is the first eigenvalue of the problem
P3:{Δψ+λˉwψ=0 inSr0ψ=0on∂Sr0. |
The proof of Theorem 2.2 is detailed in the third section. In fact, this result together with the corollary below extend the Banks-Krein theorem [13] to the case of wedge like membranes. The classical version of our result was first proved for vibrating strings by Krein [15] and then extended to planar domains by Banks [13].
Corollary 2.3. Let 0≤w≤P. Then,
λ1(w)≥λ1(ˉw), | (2.11) |
where λ1(ˉw) is the first positive solution of the equation
Jα(√λ1(ˉw)Pρ)+√λ1(ˉw)PραJ′α(√λ1(ˉw)Pρ)1−(ρr0)2α1+(ρr0)2α=0. | (2.12) |
See the third section for a proof of the corollary.
At the end of this section, we give an appropriate variational characterization to the eigenvalue λ1(w) for the case of wedge-like domains. To begin, consider the functional space W(D,dμ) which is the set of measurable functions ϕ satisfying the following conditions:
(ⅰ) ∫D|∇ϕ|2dμ+∫D|ϕ|2dμ<+∞.
(ⅱ) There exists a sequence of functions ϕn∈C1(¯D) such that ϕn=0 on ∂D∩W and
limn→+∞∫D|∇(ϕ−ϕn)|2dμ+∫D|ϕ−ϕn|2dμ=0. |
For more details about this space, see [9].
Lemma 2.4. The first eigenvalue of the problem P1 can be defined via the weighted variational characterization
λ1(w)=minϕ∈W(D,dμ)∫D|∇ϕ|2dμ∫Dwϕ2dμ. | (2.13) |
The proof of Lemma 2.4 is detailed in the following section.
In this part, we will prove Theorem 2.1 by showing that the weighted symmetrization decreases the numerator and increases the denominator of the Rayleigh quotient. For the numerator, we have the following weighted version of the Pólya-Szegő inequality.
Proposition 3.1. Let f be a nonnegative function in W(D,dμ). Then, f⋆∈W(Sr0,dμ), and
∫D|∇f|2dμ≥∫Sr0|∇f⋆|2dμ. | (3.1) |
The complete and detailed proof of Proposition 3.1 is given in [9] for more general cases dμ=hkdx,k>1. For the denominator, we need the following lemma.
Lemma 3.2. Let D be a bounded domain completely contained in Wand f be a μ-integrable function defined in D. Let Ω be a measurable subset of D. Then,
∫Ωfdμ≤∫Sr1f⋆dμ, | (3.2) |
where Sr1 is the sector satisfying μ(Sr1)=μ(Ω).
Proof. If g denotes the restriction of f to Ω, we have
mg(t)=μ({(r,θ)∈D;|f(r,θ)|>t}∩Ω). |
Thus, if s∈[mf(t),μ(Ω)], then mg(t)<s. Hence,
{t≥0;mf(t)<s}⊂{t≥0;mg(t)<s} | (3.3) |
and so
inf{t≥0;mg(t)<s}≤inf{t≥0;mf(t)<s}, | (3.4) |
which is exactly the inequality g∗(s)≤f∗(s).
Thus,
∫Ωfdμ=∫Ωgdμ=∫μ(Ω)0g∗(s)ds≤∫μ(Ω)0f∗(s)ds. | (3.5) |
Now, by the change of variable s=π4α(α+1)r2α+2, we have
∫Sr1f⋆dμ=∫r10∫πα0f∗(π4α(α+1)r2α+2)r2α+1sin2αθdrdθ | (3.6) |
=π2α∫r10f∗(π4α(α+1)r2α+2)r2α+1dr | (3.7) |
=∫μ(Sr1)0f∗(s)ds | (3.8) |
=∫μ(Ω)0f∗(s)ds, | (3.9) |
which proves the lemma.
Now, we are finally in a position to complete the proof of Theorem 2.1. Recall the function v defined by (2.5). Let 0≤c0≤w≤c1≤∞ and χΩ denotes the characteristic function of a subset Ω of the domain D. Then,
∫Dwv2dμ=∫Dv2h2∫c10χ{w>t}dtdx | (3.10) |
=∫c10∫Dv2χ{w>t}h2dxdt | (3.11) |
=∫c00∫Dv2χ{w>t}h2dxdt+∫c1c0∫Dv2χ{w>t}h2dxdt | (3.12) |
=c0∫Dv2h2dx+∫c1c0∫{w>t}v2h2dxdt. | (3.13) |
By Lemma 3.2 and the fact that ∫Dv2h2dx=∫Sr0(v⋆)2h2dx, we obtain
∫Dwv2dμ≤c0∫Sr0(v⋆)2h2dx+∫c1c0∫{w>t}⋆(v2)⋆h2dxdt. | (3.14) |
Now, using the equalities (v⋆)2=(v2)⋆ and {w>t}⋆={w⋆>t} in the second term on the right-hand side of the last inequality, we deduce that
∫Dwv2dμ≤c0∫Sr0(v⋆)2h2dx+∫c1c0∫{w⋆>t}(v⋆)2h2dxdt | (3.15) |
=∫Sr0w⋆(v⋆)2dμ. | (3.16) |
The last equality was obtained by applying the same computation in (3.10) to v⋆ and w⋆. Finally, using Proposition 3.1 and inequality (3.15), we obtain that v⋆∈W(Sr0,dμ) and
λ1(w)=∫D|∇v|2dμ∫Dwv2dμ≥∫Sr0|∇v⋆|2dμ∫Sr0w⋆(v⋆)2dμ≥minϕ∈W(Sr0,dμ)∫Sr0|∇ϕ|2dμ∫Sr0w⋆ϕ2dμ=λ1(w⋆). |
The proof of Theorem 2.1 is now complete.
The following lemmas are essential for the proof of our theorem.
Lemma 3.3. Let f1, f2, and Φ be μ-integrable functions over D, let Ω1={(r,θ)∈D|f1(r,θ)≤f2(r,θ)} and Ω2={(r,θ)∈D|f1(r,θ)>f2(r,θ)}, and suppose
∫Df1dμ≥∫Df2dμ. | (3.17) |
If 0≤Φ(r1,θ1)≤Φ(r2,θ2) for all (r1,θ1)∈Ω1, (r2,θ2)∈Ω2, then
∫Df1Φdμ≥∫Df2Φdμ. | (3.18) |
The proof of this lemma is similar to the proof of Lemma 2.7 in [16].
Lemma 3.4. The eigenfunction z1 corresponding to the first eigenvalue λ1(w⋆) of the problem P2 can be written as z1=ξh, where ξ is a radial function, which is radially decreasing.
Proof. By Proposition 3.1 and inequality (3.15), it follows that
λ1(w⋆)=∫Sr0|∇ξ|2dμ∫Sr0w⋆ξ2dμ≥∫Sr0|∇ξ⋆|2dμ∫Sr0w⋆(ξ⋆)2dμ. | (3.19) |
Since ξ∈W(Sr0,dμ), then ξ⋆∈W(Sr0,dμ) and is an admissible function for the weighted variational formula (2.13). Using this and inequality (3.19), we see
λ1(w⋆)=∫Sr0|∇ξ⋆|2dμ∫Sr0w⋆(ξ⋆)2dμ, | (3.20) |
which means that ξ⋆h is an eigenfunction as well. Finally, the simplicity of the first eigenvalue λ1(w⋆) implies that z1=ξh=ξ⋆h, and so ξ=ξ⋆. Thus, ξ is radial and radially decreasing. This completes the proof of the lemma.
Now, setting Ω1={(r,θ)∈Sr0|ρ<r<r0,0<θ<πα} and Ω2={(r,θ)∈Sr0|0<r<ρ,0<θ<πα}, it is not difficult to check that the functions ˉw and w⋆ satisfy the same relationship as f1 and f2 of Lemma 3.3. Also, using Lemma 3.4, we obtain that ξ satisfies the same assumption as Φ, and then
∫Sr0w⋆ξ2dμ≤∫Sr0ˉwξ2dμ. | (3.21) |
Using the above inequality, we obtain
λ1(w⋆)=∫Sr0|∇ξ|2dμ∫Sr0w⋆ξ2dμ≥∫Sr0|∇ξ|2dμ∫Sr0ˉwξ2dμ≥minϕ∈W(Sr0,dμ)∫Sr0|∇ϕ|2dμ∫Sr0ˉwϕ2dμ=λ1(ˉw). |
This completes the proof of the theorem.
Inequality (2.11) follows immediately from Theorems 2.1 and 2.2. To prove the equality (2.12), we first proceed as in [8] to obtain that the eigenfunction corresponding to λ1(ˉw) is explicitly given by ψ1(r,θ)=R(r)sinαθ, where the function R is defined on [0,r0] by
R(r)={cJα(√λ1(ˉw)Pr), for r∈[0,ρ],˜c(r−α−r−2α0rα), for r∈(ρ,r0]. |
Here, the constants c and ˜c satisfy the continuity of the function R and of its derivative. Now, since R is continuous at r=ρ, we see that
cJα(√λ1(ˉw)Pρ)=˜c(ρ−α−r−2α0ρα). | (3.22) |
The continuity of the derivative of R at r=ρ gives
c√λ1(ˉw)PJ′α(√λ1(ˉw)Pρ)=−˜cαρ(ρ−α+r−2α0ρα). | (3.23) |
Thus,
˜c=−ρα√λ1(ˉw)PJ′α(√λ1(ˉw)Pρ)1ρ−α+r−2α0ρα. | (3.24) |
Finally, plugging Eq (3.24) into (3.22), we obtain the desired result. The proof of Corollary 2.3 is now complete.
The first eigenvalue of problem P1 can be characterized by the Rayleigh principle
λ1(w)=minφ∈H10(D)∫D|∇φ|2dx∫Dwφ2dx. | (3.25) |
Let ϕ∈W(D,dμ). Using the fact that Δh=0 and the divergence theorem, we obtain
∫D|∇(ϕh)|2dx=∫D|∇ϕ|2h2+|∇h|2ϕ2+2ϕh∇h⋅∇ϕdx=∫D|∇ϕ|2h2dx. | (3.26) |
Since the function ϕh belongs to the Sobolev space H10(D), then we can use it as a test function in the Rayleigh quotient (3.25). Applying (3.26), we get
λ1(w)≤∫D|∇(ϕh)|2dx∫Dwϕ2h2dx=∫D|∇ϕ|2dμ∫Dwϕ2dμ. | (3.27) |
Now, if we write the first eigenfunction as in (2.5) and substitute it into (3.25), we obtain
λ1(w)=∫D|∇u|2dx∫Dwu2dx=∫D|∇(vh)|2dx∫Dwv2h2dx=∫D|∇v|2h2dx∫Dwv2h2dx=∫D|∇v|2dμ∫Dwv2dμ, |
which proves the lemma.
The Dirichlet eigenvalues are known only for a limited number of regions, such as disks, sectors and rectangles. This lack of information has prompted many researchers to explore methods and techniques for estimating eigenvalues. In this paper, we have proved a new lower bound for the first Dirichlet eigenvalue of an arbitrarily shaped region with continuous mass density function and completely contained in a wedge. This lower bound has been given as the lowest positive root of the Eq (2.12). In our next projects, we aim to use the method of wedge like-membranes to improve the Z. Nehari inequality [17]. Additionally, We will adapt the increasing rearrangement techniques to offer a complementary results to those of this paper. Furthermore, the generalization of all these results to higher dimensions will be considered in future works.
The authors contributed equally and they both read and approved the final manuscript for publication.
The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.
The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at Northern Border University, Arar, KSA for funding this research work through the project number "NBU-FPEJ-2025-2941-01".
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
[1] | L. A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Inf. Control, 8 (1965), 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X |
[2] |
F. Fatimah, D. Rosadi, R. Hakim, J. Alcantud, N-soft sets and their decision making algorithms, Soft Comput., 22 (2018), 3829–3842. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-017-2838-6 doi: 10.1007/s00500-017-2838-6
![]() |
[3] |
D. Molodtsov, Soft set theory - First results, Comput. Math. Appl., 37 (1999), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-1221(99)00056-5 doi: 10.1016/S0898-1221(99)00056-5
![]() |
[4] |
J. Alcantud, The semantics of N-soft sets, their applications, and a coda about three-way decision, Symmetry, 606 (2022), 837–852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2022.05.084 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2022.05.084
![]() |
[5] |
J. Alcantud, G. Santos-García, M. Akram, OWA aggregation operators and multi-agent decisions with N-soft sets, Expert Syst. Appl., 203 (2022), 117430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.117430 doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.117430
![]() |
[6] | P. Maji, A. Roy, R. Biswas, Fuzzy soft sets, J. Fuzzy Math., 9 (2001), 589–602. |
[7] |
P. Maji, A. Roy, R. Biswas, An application of soft sets in a decision making problem, Comput. Math. Appl., 44 (2002), 1077–1083. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-1221(02)00216-X doi: 10.1016/S0898-1221(02)00216-X
![]() |
[8] |
J. Alcantud, S. Rambaud, M. J. M. Torrecillas, Valuation fuzzy soft sets: a flexible fuzzy soft set based decision making procedure for the valuation of assets, Symmetry, 9 (2017), 253. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym9110253 doi: 10.3390/sym9110253
![]() |
[9] |
M. El Sayed, A. Al Qubati, M. El-Bably, Soft pre-rough sets and its applications in decision making, Math. Biosci. Eng., 17 (2020), 6045–6063. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2020321 doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020321
![]() |
[10] |
M. Akram, A. Adeel, J. Alcantud, Fuzzy N-soft sets: a novel model with applications, J. Int. Fuzzy Syst., 35 (2018), 4757–4771. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-18244 doi: 10.3233/JIFS-18244
![]() |
[11] |
M. Akram, A. Adeel, J. Alcantud, Hesitant fuzzy N-soft sets: a new model with applications in decision-making, J. Int. Fuzzy Syst., 36 (2019), 6113–6127. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-181972 doi: 10.3233/JIFS-181972
![]() |
[12] |
D. Zhang, P. Li, S. An, N-soft rough sets and its applications, J. Int. Fuzzy Syst., 40 (2021), 565–573. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-200338 doi: 10.3233/JIFS-200338
![]() |
[13] |
J. Alcantud, F. Feng, R. Yager, An N-soft set approach to rough sets, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., 28 (2020), 2996–3007. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2019.2946526 doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2019.2946526
![]() |
[14] |
F. Fatimah, J. Alcantud, The multi-fuzzy N-soft set and its applications to decision-making, Neural Comput. Appl., 33 (2021), 11437–11446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-020-05647-3 doi: 10.1007/s00521-020-05647-3
![]() |
[15] |
T. Mahmood, U. ur Rehman, Z. Ali, A novel complex fuzzy N-soft sets and their decision-making algorithm, Complex Intell. Syst., 7 (2021), 2255–2280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40747-021-00373-2 doi: 10.1007/s40747-021-00373-2
![]() |
[16] |
U. Rehman, T. Mahmood, Picture fuzzy N-soft sets and their applications in decision-making problems, Fuzzy Inf. Eng., 13 (2021), 335–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/16168658.2021.1943187 doi: 10.1080/16168658.2021.1943187
![]() |
[17] | C. L. Hwang, K. Yoon, Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications- A State-of-the-Art Survey, Springer, Berlin, 1981. |
[18] | R. Benayoun, B. Roy, B. Sussman, ELECTRE: Une méthode pour guider le choix en présence de points de vue multiples, Note de travail, 49, SEMA-METRA International, Direction Scientifique, 1966. |
[19] |
J. Brans, P. Vincke, A preference ranking organisation method : The PROMETHEE method for multiple criteria decision making, Manage. Sci., 31 (1985), 647–656. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.31.6.647 doi: 10.1287/mnsc.31.6.647
![]() |
[20] |
T. Saaty, Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process, Manage. Sci., 32 (1986), 841–855. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.7.841 doi: 10.1287/mnsc.32.7.841
![]() |
[21] |
R. Bellman, L. Zadeh, Decision-making in a fuzzy environment, Manage. Sci., 17 (1970), 141–164. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.17.4.B141 doi: 10.1287/mnsc.17.4.B141
![]() |
[22] |
M. Akram, Shumaiza, J. Alcantud, An m-polar fuzzy PROMETHEE approach for AHP-assisted group decision-making, Math. Comput. Appl., 25 (2020), 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/mca25020026 doi: 10.3390/mca25020026
![]() |
[23] |
F. Feng, Z. Xu, H. Fujita, M. Liang, Enhancing PROMETHEE method with intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets, Int. J. Int. Syst., 35 (2020), 1071–1104. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22235 doi: 10.1002/int.22235
![]() |
[24] |
M. Sevkli, An application of the fuzzy ELECTRE method for supplier selection, Int. J. Prod. Res., 48 (2010), 3393–3405. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540902814355 doi: 10.1080/00207540902814355
![]() |
[25] |
M. Akram, C. Kahraman and K. Zahid, Extension of TOPSIS model to the decision-making under complex spherical fuzzy information, Soft Comput., 25 (2021), 10771–10795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-021-05945-5 doi: 10.1007/s00500-021-05945-5
![]() |
[26] |
M. Goumas, V. Lygerou, An extension of the PROMETHEE method for decision making in fuzzy environment: Ranking of alternative energy exploitation projects, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 123 (2000), 606–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00093-4 doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00093-4
![]() |
[27] |
F. Lolli, A. Ishizaka, R. Gamberini, B. Rimini, A. Ferrari, S. Marinelli, et al., Waste treatment: an environmental, economic and social analysis with a new group fuzzy PROMETHEE approach, Clean Technol. Environ. Policy, 18 (2016), 1317–1332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-015-1087-6 doi: 10.1007/s10098-015-1087-6
![]() |
[28] |
Y. Chen, T. Wang, C.Y. Wu, Strategic decisions using the fuzzy PROMETHEE for IS outsourcing, Expert Syst. Appl., 38 (2011), 13216–13222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.137 doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.137
![]() |
[29] |
R. Krishankumar, K. Ravichandran, A. Saeid, A new extension to PROMETHEE under intuitionistic fuzzy environment for solving supplier selection problem with linguistic preferences, Appl. Soft Comput., 60 (2017), 564–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.07.028 doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2017.07.028
![]() |
[30] |
H. Wu, J. Wang, S. Liu, T. Yang, Research on decision-making of emergency plan for waterlogging disaster in subway station project based on linguistic intuitionistic fuzzy set and TOPSIS, Math. Biosci. Eng., 17 (2020), 4825–4851. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2020263 doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020263
![]() |
[31] |
B. Sun, M. Wei, W. Wu, B. Jing, A novel group decision making method for airport operational risk management, Math. Biosci. Eng., 17 (2020), 2402–2417. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2020130 doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020130
![]() |
[32] |
P. Ziemba, NEAT F-PROMETHEE-A new fuzzy multiple criteria decision making method based on the adjustment of mapping trapezoidal fuzzy numbers, Expert Syst. Appl., 110 (2018), 363–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.06.008 doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2018.06.008
![]() |
[33] |
J. Alcantud, A. Biondo, A. Giarlotta, Fuzzy politics I: The genesis of parties, Fuzzy Sets Syst., 349 (2018), 71–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2018.01.015 doi: 10.1016/j.fss.2018.01.015
![]() |
[34] |
L. Abdullah, W. Chan and A. Afshari, Application of PROMETHEE method for green supplier selection: A comparative result based on preference functions, J. Ind. Eng. Int., 15 (2019), 271–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40092-018-0289-z doi: 10.1007/s40092-018-0289-z
![]() |
[35] |
J. Brans, P. Vincke, B. Mareschal, How to select and how to rank projects: The PROMETHEE method, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 24 (1986), 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(86)90044-5 doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(86)90044-5
![]() |
[36] |
H. Zhao, Y. Peng, W. Li, Revised PROMETHEE II for improving efficiency in emergency response, Procedia Comput. Sci., 17 (2013), 181–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.05.025 doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2013.05.025
![]() |
[37] |
D. Ozsahin, B. Uzun, M. Musa, N. Sentürk, F. Nurçin, I. Ozsahin, Evaluating nuclear medicine imaging devices using fuzzy PROMETHEE method, Procedia Comput. Sci., 120 (2017), 699–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.298 doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.298
![]() |
[38] |
M. Behzadian, R. Kazemzadeh, A. Albadvi, M. Aghdasi, PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 200 (2010), 198–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.021 doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.021
![]() |
[39] |
K. Govindan, M. Kadzinski, R. Sivakumar, Application of a novel PROMETHEE-based method for construction of a group compromise ranking to prioritization of green suppliers in food supply chain, Omega, 71 (2017), 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2016.10.004 doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2016.10.004
![]() |
[40] | I. Ozsahin, T. Sharif, D. U. Ozsahin and B. Uzun, Evaluation of solid-state detectors in medical imaging with fuzzy PROMETHEE, J. Instrum., 14 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/14/01/C01019 |
[41] | M. Maisaini, B. Uzun, I. Ozsahin, D. Uzun, Evaluating lung cancer treatment techniques using fuzzy PROMETHEE approach, In International Conference on Theory and Applications of Fuzzy Systems and Soft Computing, (2018), 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04164-9_29 |
[42] |
M. Gul, E. Celik, A. Gumus, A. F. Guneri, A fuzzy logic based PROMETHEE method for material selection problems, Beni-Suef Univ. J. Basic Appl. Sci., 7 (2018), 68–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjbas.2017.07.002 doi: 10.1016/j.bjbas.2017.07.002
![]() |
[43] |
T. Amaral, A. P. Costa, Improving decision-making and management of hospital resources: An application of the PROMETHEE II method in an Emergency Department, Oper. Res. Health Care, 3 (2014), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orhc.2013.10.002 doi: 10.1016/j.orhc.2013.10.002
![]() |
[44] |
M. Molla, B. Giri, P. Biswas, Extended PROMETHEE method with Pythagorean fuzzy sets for medical diagnosis problems, Soft Comput., 25 (2021), 4503–4512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-020-05458-7 doi: 10.1007/s00500-020-05458-7
![]() |
[45] |
F. Samanlioglu, Z. Ayag, A fuzzy AHP-PROMETHEE II approach for evaluation of solar power plant location alternatives in Turkey, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., 33 (2017), 859–871. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-162122 doi: 10.3233/JIFS-162122
![]() |