4.7 Article

An integrated ELECTRE method for selection of rehabilitation center with m-polar fuzzy N-soft information

期刊

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN MEDICINE
卷 135, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.artmed.2022.102449

关键词

m-polar fuzzy set; Fuzzy N-soft set; ELECTRE I; PROMETHEE

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The primary goal of this research article is to apply the fundamental multi-criteria group decision-making technique ELECTRE I in an m-polar fuzzy N-soft environment. This new methodology helps to identify the best alternative(s) among multi-polar options with N-graded qualities by evaluating score degrees. The authenticity and applicability of this method are demonstrated through a case study and a comparison with other methodologies.
The primary goal of this research article is to apply ELECTRE I, a fundamental multi-criteria group decision -making technique, in an m-polar fuzzy N-soft environment. This new methodology helps us to pinpoint the best alternative(s) in the presence of multi-polar options with N-graded qualities. Its basic operational idea entails the comparison between any two alternatives by the assessment of score degrees. Concordance and discordance indices are then calculated to evaluate the alternatives' superiority and inferiority. We may disqualify the incompetent alternatives using concordance and discordance levels. An m-polar fuzzy N-soft dominance matrix can represent the combined effect of concordance and discordance dominance matrices. The steps of this new multi-criteria group decision making technique are summarized in a flowchart. In order to demonstrate its authenticity and applicability, we employ a case study involving the establishment of a rehabilitation facility for drug abusers. A comparison with the m-polar fuzzy PROMETHEE and m-polar fuzzy ELECTRE I methodologies establishes its validity. Finally, we conclude our study of the methodology proposed in this paper with a critical analysis of its benefits and drawbacks.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据