Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modification of the BWM and MABAC method for MAGDM based on q-rung orthopair fuzzy rough numbers

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Considering the uncertainties of multi-attribute group decision-making (MAGDM) problems, we put forward the concept of q-rung orthopair fuzzy rough numbers, which is obtained by integrating q-rung orthopair fuzzy numbers and rough numbers. Further a weight calculation method based on q-rung orthopair fuzzy rough number is investigated and a new decision making approach is designed to solve MAGDM problems. The main contributions of this work are listed as follows: (1) The construction process of q-rung orthopair fuzzy rough number is given along with its ranking rules, arithmetic operations, aggregation operators and some corresponding attributes. (2) A novel attributes’ weight calculation approach q-rung orthopair fuzzy rough best-worst method (q-ROFRBWM) is proposed by modifying classical best-worst method (BWM). (3) We introduce the q-rung orthopair fuzzy rough numbers into the multi-attribute boundary approximation regional comparison (MABAC) method, and a modified q-ROFRBWM-MABAC method for solving the MAGDM problem is constructed by combining the q-ROFRBWM weight calculation method. (4) Applying q-ROFRBWM-MABAC method to solve the impact of major infrastructure projects on various social vulnerability factors. The effectiveness and merits of the q-ROFRBWM-MABAC method are also verified by comparing with existing methods.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data used to support the findings of this study are included within the article.

References

  1. Charest P (1995) Aboriginal alternatives to megaprojects and their environmental and social impacts Impact Assessment 13:371-386 https://doi.org/10.1080/07349165.1995.9726109

  2. Cutter SL, Finch C (2008) Temporal and spatial changes in social vulnerability to natural hazards. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:2301–2306. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0710375105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Shirley WL (2003) Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards. Soc Sci Q 84:242–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.8402002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Tate E (2012) Uncertainty analysis for a social vulnerability index Annals of the Association of American Geographers 103:526-543 https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2012.700616

  5. Rodriguez RM, Martinez L, Herrera F (2012) Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets for decision making. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 20:109–119. https://doi.org/10.1109/tfuzz.2011.2170076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy Sets Inf Control 8:338–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0019-9958(65)90241-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Atanassov KT (1986) Intuit Fuzzy Sets Fuzzy Sets Syst 20:87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(86)80034-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Yager RR, Abbasov AM (2013) Pythagorean membership grades, complex numbers, and decision making. Int J Intell Syst 28:436–452. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.21584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Yager RR (2017) Generalized Orthopair Fuzzy Sets Ieee Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 25:1222–1230. https://doi.org/10.1109/tfuzz.2016.2604005

  10. Yager RR, Alajlan N (2017) Approximate reasoning with generalized orthopair fuzzy sets. Inf Fusion 38:65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2017.02.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Yager RR, Alajlan N, Bazi Y (2018) Aspects of generalized orthopair fuzzy sets. Int J Intell Syst 33:2154–2174. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Du WS (2018) Minkowski-type distance measures for generalized orthopair fuzzy sets. Int J Intell Syst 33:802–817. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.21968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Liu PD, Liu JL (2018) Some q-rung orthopai fuzzy bonferroni mean operators and their application to multi-attribute group decision making. Int J Intell Syst 33:315–347. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.21933

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Darko AP, Liang DC (2020) Some q-rung orthopair fuzzy Hamacher aggregation operators and their application to multiple attribute group decision making with modified EDAS method Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 87 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2019.103259

  15. Wang J et al (2019) Some q-rung interval-valued orthopair fuzzy Maclaurin symmetric mean operators and their applications to multiple attribute group decision making. Int J Intell Syst 34:2769–2806. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wang J, Wei GW, Lu JP, Alsaadi FE, Hayat T, Wei C, Zhang Y (2019) Some q-rung orthopair fuzzy Hamy mean operators in multiple attribute decision-making and their application to enterprise resource planning systems selection. Int J Intell Syst 34:2429–2458. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gao H, Ran LG, Wei GW, Wei C, Wu J (2020) VIKOR Method for MAGDM Based on Q-Rung Interval-Valued Orthopair Fuzzy Information and Its Application to Supplier Selection of Medical Consumption Products. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17020525

  18. Banerjee D, Dutta B, Guha D, Martínez L (2020) SMAA-QUALIFLEX methodology to handle multicriteria decision-making problems based on q-rung fuzzy set with hierarchical structure of criteria using bipolar Choquet integral. Int J Intell Syst 35(3):401–431. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Yang Y, Chen ZS, RM Rodríguez, Pedrycz W, Chin KS (2021) Novel fusion strategies for continuous interval-valued q-rung orthopair fuzzy information: a case study in quality assessment of SmartWatch appearance design. Int J Mach Learn Cybern https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-020-01269-2

  20. Herawan T, Deris MM, Abawajy JH (2010) A rough set approach for selecting clustering attribute. Knowl-Based Syst 23:220–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2009.12.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Herbert JP, Yao J (2009) Criteria for choosing a rough set model. Comput Math Appl 57:908–918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2008.10.043

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Shen Q, Jensen R (2007) Rough sets, their extensions and applications. Int J Autom Comput 4:217–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11633-007-0217-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mabruka AA, Yasser FH, Ashraf E (2018) Transfer learning using rough sets for medical data classification. ICIC Express Lett 12:645–653. https://doi.org/10.24507/icicel.12.07.645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhai L-Y, Khoo L-P, Zhong Z-W (2007) A rough set enhanced fuzzy approach to quality function deployment. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 37:613–624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-007-0989-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhu GN, Hu J, Qi J, Gu CC, Peng YH (2015) An integrated AHP and VIKOR for design concept evaluation based on rough number. Adv Eng Inform 29:408–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2015.01.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lee C, Lee H, Seol H, Park Y (2012) Evaluation of new service concepts using rough set theory and group analytic hierarchy process. Expert Syst Appl 39:3404–3412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.09.028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Pamučar D, Mihajlović M, Obradović R, Atanasković P (2017) Novel approach to group multi-criteria decision making based on interval rough numbers: Hybrid DEMATEL-ANP-MAIRCA model. Expert Syst Appl 88:58–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.06.037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Pamučar D, Petrović I, Ćirović G (2018) Modification of the Best-Worst and MABAC methods: a novel approach based on interval-valued fuzzy-rough numbers. Expert Syst Appl 91:89–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.08.042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zheng P, Xu X, Xie SQ (2016) A weighted interval rough number based method to determine relative importance ratings of customer requirements in QFD product planning. J Intell Manuf 30:3–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-016-1224-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Jia F, Liu YY, Wang XY (2019) An extended MABAC method for multi-criteria group decision making based on intuitionistic fuzzy rough numbers. Expert Syst Appl 127:241–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2019.03.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Rezaei J (2015) Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53:49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rezaei J (2016) Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: some properties and a linear model Omega. Int J Manag Sci 64:126–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rezaei J, Wang J, Tavasszy L (2015) Linking supplier development to supplier segmentation using Best Worst Method. Expert Syst Appl 42:9152–9164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.07.073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ren J, Liang H, Chan FTS (2017) Urban sewage sludge, sustainability, and transition for Eco-City: Multi-criteria sustainability assessment of technologies based on best-worst method. Technol Forecast Soc Change 116:29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.10.070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Serrai W, Abdelli A, Mokdad L, Hammal Y (2016) An efficient approach for Web service selection. IEEE Symp Comput Commun (ISCC). https://doi.org/10.1109/iscc.2016.7543734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ghaffari S, Arab A, Nafari J, Manteghi M (2017) Investigation and evaluation of key success factors in technological innovation development based on BWM. Decis Sci Lett 295-306 https://doi.org/10.5267/j.dsl.2016.12.001

  37. You XS, Chen T, Yang Q (2016) Approach to Multi-Criteria Group Decision-Making Problems Based on the Best-Worst-Method and ELECTRE Method. Symmetry-Basel 8 https://doi.org/10.3390/sym8090095

  38. Salimi N, Rezaei J (2016) Measuring efficiency of university-industry Ph.D. projects using best worst method. Scientometrics 109:1911–1938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2121-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Saaty TL, Vargas LG (2001) Models, methods, concepts and applications of the analytic hierarchy process international series in operations research and management. Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1665-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 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 42:3016–3028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Wei GW, Wei C, Wu J, Wang HJ (2019) Supplier selection of medical consumption products with a probabilistic linguistic MABAC method. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16245082

  42. Wang J, Wei GW, Wei C, Wei Y (2020) MABAC method for multiple attribute group decision making under q-rung orthopair fuzzy environment. Defence Technol 16:208–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dt.2019.06.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Liu PD, Wang P (2018) Some q-rung orthopair fuzzy aggregation operators and their applications to multiple-attribute decision making. Int J Intell Syst 33:259–280. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.21927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Nguyen H (2016) An application of intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process in ship system risk estimation. J KONES 23:365–372. https://doi.org/10.5604/12314005.1216593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Li J, Wang JQ, Hu JH (2019) Multi-criteria decision-making method based on dominance degree and BWM with probabilistic hesitant fuzzy information. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 10:1671–1685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-018-0845-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Wei G (2010) Some induced geometric aggregation operators with intuitionistic fuzzy information and their application to group decision making. Appl Soft Comput 10:423–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2009.08.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Chen SM, Niou SJ (2011) Fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on fuzzy preference relations. Expert Syst Appl 38:3865–3872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.09.047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Boran FE, Genc S, Kurt M, Akay D (2009) A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method. Expert Syst Appl 36:11363–11368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.03.039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Xu Z (2009) A deviation-based approach to intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute group decision making. Group Decis Negot 19:57–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-009-9164-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Chen SM, Cheng SH, Chiou CH (2016) Fuzzy multiattribute group decision making based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets and evidential reasoning methodology. Inf Fusion 27:215–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2015.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Zhao MW, Wei GW, Wei C, Wu J (2020) Improved TODIM method for intuitionistic fuzzy MAGDM based on cumulative prospect theory and its application on stock investment selection. Int J Mach Learni Cybern. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-020-01208-1

  52. Liu PD, Chen SM, Wang P (2019) Multiple-Attribute Group Decision-Making Based on q-Rung Orthopair Fuzzy Power Maclaurin Symmetric Mean Operators IEEE Transactions on Systems. Man Cybern Syst 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1109/tsmc.2018.2852948

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by Sichuan Province Youth Science and Technology Innovation Team (Grant no.2019JDTD0015); The Application Basic Research Plan Project of Sichuan Province (No.2021JY0108); Scientific Research Project of Education Department of Sichuan Province (Grant no.18ZA0273, Grant no.15TD0027); Scientific Research Project of Neijiang Normal University (Grant no.18TD08).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Data Recovery Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Neijiang Normal University, Neijiang, Sichuan, 641000, People’s Republic of China

    Fang Liu & Yi Liu

  2. School of Mathematics and Information Sciences, Neijiang Normal University, Neijiang, Sichuan, 641000, People’s Republic of China

    Fang Liu

  3. Numerical Simulation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Neijiang Normal University, Neijiang, Sichua, 641000, People’s Republic of China

    Ju Wu & Yi Liu

  4. School of Information Science and Technology, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, 611756, People’s Republic of China

    Tianrui Li

Authors
  1. Fang Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tianrui Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ju Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yi Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yi Liu.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

There is no any conflicts of interest among all authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, F., Li, T., Wu, J. et al. Modification of the BWM and MABAC method for MAGDM based on q-rung orthopair fuzzy rough numbers . Int. J. Mach. Learn. & Cyber. 12, 2693–2715 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-021-01357-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-021-01357-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation