Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

A novel dual-level multi-source information fusion approach for multicriteria decision making applications

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to propose a novel dual-level multisource information fusion approach for handling open multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) issues related to accurately determining the weights of criteria while considering the relative importance of expert opinions, handling heterogeneous information, and selecting an appropriate MCDM ranking method. The proposed approach includes two levels. The first integrates the “analytic hierarchy process (AHP)—full consistency method (FUCOM)”, which comprises two phases. In the first phase, criteria weights are assigned using AHP, and FUCOM is employed to correct inconsistencies. In the second phase, the weights are computed for decision-makers. Triangular fuzzy numbers are employed due to their ability to encapsulate all the utilized heterogeneous data types. At the second level of the approach, three well-known distance-based methods, including “technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution”, “visekriterijumska optimizacija i kompromisno resenje”, and “multiattributive border approximation area comparison”, are fused to process a homogeneous decision matrix and provide comprehensive and robust rankings for alternatives. To develop our novel approach, a renewable energy source for Pakistan's electricity generation is adopted as a case study. The decision matrix contains four alternatives (i.e., hydropower, biomass energy, solar energy, and wind energy) and six main evaluation criteria (i.e., economic, quality of energy, social, political, environmental, and technical), with several subevaluation criteria under each criterion. The findings of the proposed approach were as follows: A2 was in the first rank with a score of 1.7889, and A4 was in the last rank with a score of 0.1199. The rest of the alternatives were distributed between them. The paper’s implications include the advancement of decision-making methods, enhancement of decision-making outcomes, and addressing heterogeneous information to highlight the relative importance of experts.

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
$34.99 /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 excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

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

Data availability

The data that were used are provided in Table 2.

References

  1. Abdul D, Wenqi J, Tanveer A (2022) Prioritization of renewable energy source for electricity generation through AHP-VIKOR integrated methodology. Renew Energy 184:1018–1032

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aguarón J, Escobar MT, Moreno-Jiménez JM (2021) Reducing inconsistency measured by the geometric consistency index in the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 288(2):576–583

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Ahmad N, Qahmash A (2020) Implementing Fuzzy AHP and FUCOM to evaluate critical success factors for sustained academic quality assurance and ABET accreditation. PLoS ONE 15(9):e0239140

    Google Scholar 

  4. Al-Samarraay M, Al-Zuhairi O, Alamoodi AH, Albahri OS, Deveci M, Alobaidi OR, Albahri AS, Kou G (2024) An integrated fuzzy multi-measurement decision-making model for selecting optimization techniques of semiconductor materials. Expert Syst Appl 237:121439

    Google Scholar 

  5. Alamoodi AH, Albahri OS, Deveci M, Albahri AS, Yussof S, Dinçer H, Yüksel S, Sharaf IM (2024) Selection of electric bus models using 2-tuple linguistic T-spherical fuzzy-based decision-making model. Expert Syst Appl 249:123498

    Google Scholar 

  6. Albahri AS, Hamid RA, Abdulnabi AR, Albahri OS, Alamoodi AH, Deveci M, Pedrycz W, Alzubaidi L, Santamaría J, Gu Y (2024) Fuzzy decision-making framework for explainable golden multi-machine learning models for real-time adversarial attack detection in Vehicular Ad-hoc Networks. Information Fusion 105:102208

    Google Scholar 

  7. Albahri AS, Jassim MM, Alzubaidi L, Hamid RA, Ahmed MA, Al-Qaysi ZT, Albahri OS, Alamoodi AH, Alqaysi ME, Mohammed TJ (2024) A trustworthy and explainable framework for benchmarking hybrid deep learning models based on chest X-ray analysis in CAD systems. Int J Inf Tech Decis Making 23(1):1–54. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219622024500019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Albahri AS, Joudar SS, Hamid RA, Zahid IA, Alqaysi ME, Albahri OS, Alamoodi AH, Kou G, Sharaf IM (2024) Explainable artificial intelligence multimodal of autism triage levels using fuzzy approach-based multi-criteria decision-making and LIME. Int J Fuzzy Systems 26(1):274–303

    Google Scholar 

  9. Albahri OS, Alamoodi AH, Deveci M, Albahri AS, Mahmoud MA, Al-Quraishi T, Moslem S, Sharaf IM (2023) Evaluation of organizational culture in companies for fostering a digital innovation using q-rung picture fuzzy based decision-making model. Adv Eng Inform 58:102191

    Google Scholar 

  10. Albahri OS, Alamoodi AH, Deveci M, Albahri AS, Mahmoud MA, Sharaf IM, Coffman D (2023) Multi-perspective evaluation of integrated active cooling systems using fuzzy decision making model. Energy Policy 182:113775

    Google Scholar 

  11. Albahri OS, Albahri AS, Zaidan AA, Zaidan BB, Alsalem MA, Mohsin AH, Mohammed KI, Alamoodi AH, Nidhal S, Enaizan O, Chyad MA, Abdulkareem KH, Almahdi EM, Al Shafeey GA, Baqer MJ, Jasim AN, Jalood NS, Shareef AH (2019) Fault-tolerant mHealth framework in the context of IoT-based real-time wearable health data sensors. IEEE Access 7:50052–50080. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2910411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Aljburi MT, Albahri AS, Albahri OS, Alamoodi AH, Mohammed SM, Deveci M, Tomášková H (2024) Exploring decision-making techniques for evaluation and benchmarking of energy system integration frameworks for achieving a sustainable energy future. Energ Strat Rev 51:101251

    Google Scholar 

  13. Alrababah SAA, Gan KH, Tan T-P (2017) Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for product aspect ranking: TOPSIS and VIKOR. In: 2017 8th International Conference on Information and Communication Systems (ICICS), pp 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1109/IACS.2017.7921949

  14. Alsalem MA, Alamoodi AH, Albahri OS, Albahri AS, Martínez L, Yera R, Duhaim AM, Sharaf IM (2024) Evaluation of trustworthy artificial intelligent healthcare applications using multi-criteria decision-making approach. Expert Syst Appl 246:123066

    Google Scholar 

  15. Alsalem MA, Mohammed R, Albahri OS, Zaidan AA, Alamoodi AH, Dawood K, Alnoor A, Albahri AS, Zaidan BB, Aickelin U (2022) Rise of multiattribute decision-making in combating COVID-19: A systematic review of the state-of-the-art literature. Int J Intell Syst 37(6):3514–3624

    Google Scholar 

  16. Alsalem MA, Zaidan AA, Zaidan BB, Albahri OS, Alamoodi AH, Albahri AS, Mohsin AH, Mohammed KI (2019) Multiclass benchmarking framework for automated acute leukaemia detection and classification based on BWM and Group-VIKOR. J Med Syst 43(7):1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-019-1338-x

  17. Aruldoss M, Lakshmi TM, Venkatesan VP (2013) A survey on multi criteria decision making methods and its applications. American J Inf Syst 1(1):31–43

    Google Scholar 

  18. Asadabadi MR, Chang E, Saberi M (2019) Are MCDM methods useful? A critical review of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and analytic network process (ANP). Cogent Eng 6(1):1623153

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ayan B, Abacıoğlu S, Basilio MP (2023) A Comprehensive Review of the Novel Weighting Methods for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making. Inf 14(5):285

    Google Scholar 

  20. Aziz NF, Sorooshian S, Mahmud F (2016) MCDM-AHP method in decision makings. ARPN J Eng Appl Sci 11(11):7217–7220

    Google Scholar 

  21. Basil N, Alqaysi ME, Deveci M, Albahri AS, Albahri OS, Alamoodi AH (2023) Evaluation of autonomous underwater vehicle motion trajectory optimization algorithms. Knowl-Based Syst 276:110722

    Google Scholar 

  22. Blanco-Mallo E, Morán-Fernández L, Remeseiro B, Bolón-Canedo V (2023) Do all roads lead to Rome? Studying distance measures in the context of machine learning. Pattern Recogn 141:109646

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bozanic D, Tešić D, Kočić J (2019) Multi-criteria FUCOM–Fuzzy MABAC model for the selection of location for construction of single-span bailey bridge. Decis Making: Appl Manag Eng 2(1):132–146

    Google Scholar 

  24. Brauers WK, Zavadskas EK (2006) The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economy. Control Cybern 35(2):445–469

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Cavallini C, Giorgetti A, Citti P, Nicolaie F (2013) Integral aided method for material selection based on quality function deployment and comprehensive VIKOR algorithm. Mater Des 47:27–34

    Google Scholar 

  26. Chakraborty S (2022) TOPSIS and Modified TOPSIS: A comparative analysis. Decis Anal J 2:100021

    Google Scholar 

  27. Chakraborty S, Chakraborty S (2022) A scoping review on the applications of MCDM techniques for parametric optimization of machining processes. Arch Comput Methods Eng 29(6):4165–4186

    Google Scholar 

  28. de FSMRussoCamanho RR (2015) Criteria in AHP: A systematic review of literature. Procedia Comput Sci 55:1123–1132

    Google Scholar 

  29. Dohale V, Akarte M, Gupta S, Verma V (2020) Additive manufacturing process selection using MCDM. In: Advances in Mechanical Engineering: Select Proceedings of ICAME 2020. Springer, pp 601–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3639-7_72

  30. Esangbedo MO, Bai S, Mirjalili S, Wang Z (2021) Evaluation of human resource information systems using grey ordinal pairwise comparison MCDM methods. Expert Syst Appl 182:115151

    Google Scholar 

  31. Fazlollahtabar H, Smailbašić A, Stević Ž (2019) FUCOM method in group decision-making: Selection of forklift in a warehouse. Decis Making: Appl Manag Eng 2(1):49–65

    Google Scholar 

  32. Feizi F, Karbalaei-Ramezanali AA, Farhadi S (2021) FUCOM-MOORA and FUCOM-MOOSRA: new MCDM-based knowledge-driven procedures for mineral potential mapping in greenfields. SN Appl Sci 3:1–19

    Google Scholar 

  33. Field CB, Campbell JE, Lobell DB (2008) Biomass energy: the scale of the potential resource. Trends Ecol Evol 23(2):65–72

    Google Scholar 

  34. Gul M, Celik E, Aydin N, Gumus AT, Guneri AF (2016) A state of the art literature review of VIKOR and its fuzzy extensions on applications. Appl Soft Comput 46:60–89

    Google Scholar 

  35. Habibi A, Jahantigh FF, Sarafrazi A (2015) Fuzzy Delphi technique for forecasting and screening items. Asian J Res Bus Econ Manag 5(2):130–143

    Google Scholar 

  36. Hallerbach WG, Spronk J (2002) The relevance of MCDM for financial decisions. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 11(4–5):187–195

    Google Scholar 

  37. Hezer S, Gelmez E, Özceylan E (2021) Comparative analysis of TOPSIS, VIKOR and COPRAS methods for the COVID-19 Regional Safety Assessment. J Infect Public Health 14(6):775–786

    Google Scholar 

  38. Huang JJ, Tzeng GH, Liu HH (2009) A revised VIKOR model for multiple criteria decision making - the perspective of regret theory. In: Shi Y, Wang S, Peng Y, Li J, Zeng Y (eds) Cutting-Edge Research Topics on Multiple Criteria Decision Making. MCDM 2009. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 35. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02298-2_112

  39. Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer-Verlag, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9

  40. Jahan A, Mustapha F, Ismail MY, Sapuan SM, Bahraminasab M (2011) A comprehensive VIKOR method for material selection. Mater Des 32(3):1215–1221

    Google Scholar 

  41. Jana C, Mohamadghasemi A, Pal M, Martinez L (2023) An improvement to the interval type-2 fuzzy VIKOR method. Knowl-Based Syst 280:111055

    Google Scholar 

  42. Jovanovic J, Shah H, Vujovic A, Krivokapic Z (2014) Application Of Mcdm Methods In Evaluation Of Environmental Impacts. Int J Qual Res 8(4):517–523

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kazmerski L (2016) Renewable and sustainable energy reviews. Renew Sust Energ Rev 38:834–847

    Google Scholar 

  44. Kim LC, Van HP (2021) An integrated picture fuzzy set with TOPSIS-AHP approach to group decision-making in policymaking under uncertainty. Int J Math Eng Manag Sci 6(6):1578

    Google Scholar 

  45. Koksalmis E, Kabak Ö (2019) Deriving decision makers’ weights in group decision making: An overview of objective methods. Inf Fusion 49:146–160

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kou G, Lu Y, Peng Y, Shi Y (2012) Evaluation of classification algorithms using MCDM and rank correlation. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 11(01):197–225

    Google Scholar 

  47. Lahby M, Attioui A, Sekkaki A (2017) An optimized vertical handover approach based on M-ANP and TOPSIS in heterogeneous wireless networks. Adv Ubiquitous Netw 2: Proc UNet’ 16 2:15–29

    Google Scholar 

  48. Llamosas C, Sovacool BK (2021) The future of hydropower? A systematic review of the drivers, benefits and governance dynamics of transboundary dams. Renew Sust Energ Rev 137:110495

    Google Scholar 

  49. Marhavilas PK, Filippidis M, Koulinas GK, Koulouriotis DE (2020) A HAZOP with MCDM based risk-assessment approach: Focusing on the deviations with economic/health/environmental impacts in a process industry. Sust 12(3):993

    Google Scholar 

  50. Marini CD, Fatchurrohman N, Azhari A, Suraya S (2016) Product development using QFD, MCDM and the combination of these two methods. IOP Conf Ser: Mater Sci Eng 114(1):12089

    Google Scholar 

  51. Monzer N, Fayek AR, Lourenzutti R, Siraj NB (2019) Aggregation-based framework for construction risk assessment with heterogeneous groups of experts. J Constr Eng Manag 145(3):4019003

    Google Scholar 

  52. Moriarty P, Honnery D (2016) Can renewable energy power the future? Energy Policy 93:3–7

    Google Scholar 

  53. Mu E, Pereyra-Rojas M, Mu E, Pereyra-Rojas M (2017) Understanding the analytic hierarchy process. practical decision making: an introduction to the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) using super decisions V2. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg

  54. Noureddine M, Ristic M (2019) Route planning for hazardous materials transportation: Multicriteria decision making approach. Decis Making: Appl Manag Eng 2(1):66–85

    Google Scholar 

  55. Olabi AG, Wilberforce T, Elsaid K, Salameh T, Sayed ET, Husain KS, Abdelkareem MA (2021) Selection guidelines for wind energy technologies. Energies 14(11):3244

    Google Scholar 

  56. Opricovic S (1998) Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade, p 302

  57. Opricovic S, Tzeng G-H (2004) Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Oper Res 156(2):445–455

    Google Scholar 

  58. Pacesila M, Burcea SG, Colesca SE (2016) Analysis of renewable energies in European Union. Renew Sustain Energ Rev 56:156–170

    Google Scholar 

  59. Pamučar D, Ćirović G (2015) The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison (MABAC). Expert Syst Appl 42(6):3016–3028

    Google Scholar 

  60. Pamučar D, Stević Ž, Sremac S (2018) A new model for determining weight coefficients of criteria in mcdm models: Full consistency method (fucom). Symmetry 10(9):393

    Google Scholar 

  61. Pant S, Kumar A, Ram M, Klochkov Y, Sharma HK (2022) Consistency indices in analytic hierarchy process: a review. Math 10(8):1206

    Google Scholar 

  62. Peng Y, Kou G, Wang G, Shi Y (2011) FAMCDM: A fusion approach of MCDM methods to rank multiclass classification algorithms. Omega 39(6):677–689

    Google Scholar 

  63. Pereira V, Costa HG (2015) Nonlinear programming applied to the reduction of inconsistency in the AHP method. Ann Oper Res 229:635–655

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  64. Pereira V, Costa HG (2018) AHP inconsistency reduction through two greedy algorithms application. CEP 24:240

    Google Scholar 

  65. Petrov I (2021) Hybrid MCDM for Cloud Services: AHP (blocks) & Entropy, TOPSIS & MOORA (methodology Review and Advances). In: International Conference on Distributed Computer and Communication Networks, pp 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97110-6_6

  66. Pöyhönen M, Hämäläinen RP (2001) On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods. Eur J Oper Res 129(3):569–585

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  67. Puška A, Lukić M, Božanić D, Nedeljković M, Hezam IM (2023) Selection of an Insurance Company in Agriculture through Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision-Making. Entropy 25(6):959

    Google Scholar 

  68. Qu S, Xu Y, Wu Z, Xu Z, Ji Y, Qu D, Han Y (2021) An interval-valued best–worst method with normal distribution for multi-criteria decision-making. Arab J Sci Eng 46:1771–1785

    Google Scholar 

  69. Rezaei J (2015) Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53:49–57

    Google Scholar 

  70. Saaty TL (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process, New York: McGrew Hill. International, Translated to Russian, Portuguesses and Chinese, Revised Edition, Paperback (1996, 2000), Pittsburgh: RWS Publications

  71. Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48(1):9–26

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  72. Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1(1):83–98

    Google Scholar 

  73. Saaty TL, Ozdemir MS (2003) Why the magic number seven plus or minus two. Math Comput Model 38(3–4):233–244

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  74. Sahoo SK, Goswami SS (2023) A comprehensive review of multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) Methods: Advancements, applications, and future directions. Decis Making Adv 1(1):25–48

    Google Scholar 

  75. Sangiorgio V, Uva G, Fatiguso F (2018) Optimized AHP to overcome limits in weight calculation: Building performance application. J Constr Eng Manag 144(2):4017101

    Google Scholar 

  76. Sato Y, Tan KH (2023) Inconsistency indices in pairwise comparisons: An improvement of the consistency index. Ann Oper Res 326(2):809–830

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  77. Sharaf IM, Alamoodi AH, Albahri OS, Deveci M, Talal M, Albahri AS, Delen D, Pedrycz W (2024) Architecture selection for 5G-radio access network using type-2 neutrosophic numbers based decision making model. Expert Syst Appl 237:121420

    Google Scholar 

  78. Sherekar V, Tatikonda M, Student M (2016) Impact of factor affecting on labour productivity in construction projects by AHP method. Int J Eng Sci Comput 6(6):6771–6775

    Google Scholar 

  79. Shojaei P, Haeri SAS, Mohammadi S (2018) Airports evaluation and ranking model using Taguchi loss function, best-worst method and VIKOR technique. J Air Transp Manag 68:4–13

    Google Scholar 

  80. Singh A, Malik SK (2014) Major MCDM Techniques and their application-A Review. IOSR J Eng 4(5):15–25

    Google Scholar 

  81. Singh M, Pant M (2021) A review of selected weighing methods in MCDM with a case study. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 12:126–144

    Google Scholar 

  82. Socorro García-Cascales M, Teresa Lamata M (2012) On rank reversal and TOPSIS method. Math Comput Model 56(5–6):123–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2011.12.022

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  83. Stojčić M, Zavadskas EK, Pamučar D, Stević Ž, Mardani A (2019) Application of MCDM methods in sustainability engineering: A literature review 2008–2018. Symmetry 11(3):350

    Google Scholar 

  84. Torkayesh AE, Tirkolaee EB, Bahrini A, Pamucar D, Khakbaz A (2023) A systematic literature review of MABAC method and applications: an outlook for sustainability and circularity. Informatica 34(2):415–448. https://doi.org/10.15388/23-infor511

  85. Tuan N, Hue T, Lien L, Thao T, Quyet N, Van L, Anh L (2020) A new integrated MCDM approach for lecturers’ research productivity evaluation. Decis Sci Lett 9(3):355–364

    Google Scholar 

  86. Wadjdi AF, Sianturi EMT, Ruslinawaty N (2018) Design of data collection form to ensure consistency in AHP. In: 2018 10th International Conference on Information Technology and Electrical Engineering (ICITEE), pp 529–533. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICITEED.2018.8534751

  87. Wu Y, Gao Y, Zhang B, Pedrycz W (2023) Minimum information-loss transformations to support heterogeneous group decision making in a distributed linguistic context. Inf Fusion 89:437–451

    Google Scholar 

  88. Yang B, Zhao J, Zhao H (2022) A robust method for avoiding rank reversal in the TOPSIS. Comput Ind Eng 174:108776

    Google Scholar 

  89. Yazdani M, Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Zavadskas EK (2016) New integration of MCDM methods and QFD in the selection of green suppliers. J Bus Econ Manag 17(6):1097–1113

    Google Scholar 

  90. Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Kildienė S (2014) State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technol Econ Dev Econ 20(1):165–179

    Google Scholar 

  91. Zha Q, Wang S, Zhang W, Zhang H (2023) Failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) approach based on avoidance of aggregation discrepancy. IEEE Transact Eng Manag 71:7325–7340

    Google Scholar 

  92. Zhang H, Zhu W, Chen X, Wu Y, Liang H, Li C-C, Dong Y (2022) Managing flexible linguistic expression and ordinal classification-based consensus in large-scale multi-attribute group decision making. Ann Oper Res 311(2):1–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-022-04687-3

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  93. Zughoul O, Zaidan AA, Zaidan BB, Albahri OS, Alazab M, Amomeni U, Albahri AS, Salih MM, Mohammed RT, Mohammed KI (2021) Novel triplex procedure for ranking the ability of software engineering students based on two levels of AHP and group TOPSIS techniques. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 20(01):67–135

    Google Scholar 

  94. Zhang H, Dong Y, Xiao J, Chiclana F, Herrera-Viedma E (2020) Personalized individual semantics-based approach for linguistic failure modesand effects analysis with incomplete preference information. IISETrans 52(11):1275–1296. https://doi.org/10.1080/24725854.2020.1731774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Zhang P, Zhang Z-J, Gong D-Q (2024) An improved failure mode and effect analysis method for group decision-making in utility tunnels construction project risk evaluation. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 244:109943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2024.109943

  96. Zardari NH, Ahmed K, Shirazi SM, Yusop ZB (2015) Literature review. In: Weighting methods and their effects on multi-criteria decision making model outcomes in water resources management. Springer Briefs in Water Science and Technology. Springer, Cham

  97. Zavadskas EK, Govindan K, Antucheviciene J, Turskis Z (2016) Hybrid multiple criteria decision-making methods: a review of applications for sustainability issues. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 29(1):857–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2016.1237302

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Basic Sciences, Higher Technological Institute, Tenth of Ramadan City, Egypt

    Iman Mohamad Sharaf

  2. Computer Techniques Engineering Department, Mazaya University College, Nasiriyah, Iraq

    O. S. Albahri

  3. Australian Technical and Management College, Melbourne, Australia

    O. S. Albahri

  4. Department of Management Information System, College of Administration and Economics, University of Mosul, Mosul, Iraq

    M. A. Alsalem

  5. Applied Science Research Center, Applied Science Private University, Amman, Jordan

    A. H. Alamoodi

  6. MEU Research Unit, Middle East University, Amman, Jordan

    A. H. Alamoodi

  7. Technical College, Imam Ja’afar Al-Sadiq University, Baghdad, Iraq

    A. S. Albahri

  8. University of Information Technology and Communications (UOITC), Baghdad, Iraq

    A. S. Albahri

Authors
  1. Iman Mohamad Sharaf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. O. S. Albahri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. A. Alsalem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. H. Alamoodi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. S. Albahri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All the authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Iman Mohamad Sharaf and O.S. Albahri. The first draft of the manuscript was written by M. A. Alsalem, A.H. Alamoodi, and A.S. Albahri. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All the authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. S. Albahri.

Ethics declarations

Ethical and informed consent

This study does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Competing interests

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

Sharaf, I.M., Albahri, O.S., Alsalem, M.A. et al. A novel dual-level multi-source information fusion approach for multicriteria decision making applications. Appl Intell 54, 11577–11602 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-024-05624-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-024-05624-6

Keywords