An Overview of Multi Moor A Theory

Information Fusion 51 (2019) 145–177
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Information Fusion
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/inffus
An overview of MULTIMOORA for multi-criteria decision-making: Theory,

developments, applications, and challenges
Arian Hafezalkotob a, Ashkan Hafezalkotob b, Huchang Liao a,c,d, Francisco Herrera a,d,∗
a
Andalusian Research Institute in Data Science and Computational Intelligence (DaSCI), University of Granada, Granada 18071, Spain
b
College of Industrial Engineering, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran 1151863411, Iran
c
Business School, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610064, China
d
Faculty of Computing and Information Technology, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Keywords: MULTIMOORA is a useful multi-criteria decision-making technique. The output of the MULTIMOORA is a ranking
Multi-criteria decision-making obtained by aggregating the results of the ternary ranking methods: Ratio System, Reference Point Approach, and
MULTIMOORA Full Multiplicative Form. In the literature of MULTIMOORA, there is not a comprehensive review study. In this
Uncertainty theories
paper, we conduct an overview of MULTIMOORA by categorizing and analyzing main researches, theoretically
Fuzzy set theory
and practically. First, we go through an theoretical survey of MULTIMOORA in terms of the subordinate ranking
Linguistic term theory
Bibliometric analysis methods, ranking aggregation tools, weighting methods, group decision-making, combination with other mod-
els, and the robustness of the method. We scrutinize the developments of MULTIMOORA based on uncertainty
theories accompanied by analyzing the mathematical formulations of breakthrough models. Practical problems
of MULTIMOORA are categorized into application sectors concerning industries, economics, civil services and
environmental policy-making, healthcare management, and information and communications technologies. Bib-
liometric analyses are implemented into all studies. Also, we pose major theoretical and practical challenges.
From the theoretical viewpoint, extensions of Reference Point Approach, cooperative group decision-making
structure, and utilization of new uncertainty sets in MULTIMOORA model are the main challenges. From the
practical viewpoint, industrial and socio-economic fields are appealing to be studied intensively.
1. Introduction Arrangement and Synthesis of Relational Data) [8], and GLDS (Gained
and Lost Dominance Score) method [9].
Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) approaches tackle the prob- In 2006, Brauers and Zavadskas [10] introduced MOORA (Multi-
lem of finding the best solution from a set of candidate alternatives in Objective Optimization on the basis of a Ratio Analysis) combining Ratio
respect of multiple criteria. Often, there is no alternative which domi- System and Reference Point Approach. In 2010, Brauers and Zavadskas
nates the others on all criteria; thus, decision-makers usually look for [11] improved MOORA to MULTIMOORA (Multi-Objective Optimiza-
the satisfactory solution [1]. The MCDM approaches can be categorized tion on the basis of a Ratio Analysis plus the full MULTIplicative form)
into three groups: (1) Value Measurement Methods, like SAW (Simple by adding Full Multiplicative Form and employing Dominance Theory
Additive Weighting) [2] and WASPAS (Weighted Aggregated Sum Prod- to obtain a final integrative ranking based on the results of these triple
uct Assessment) [3]; (2) Goal or Reference Level Models, such as TOP- subordinate methods. Ratio System and Full Multiplicative Form belong
SIS (Technique for Order Performance by Similarity to Ideal Solution) to the first group of MCDM approaches (i.e., Value Measurement Meth-
[4] and VIKOR (VIse Kriterijumska Optimizacija kompromisno Resenje, ods) while Reference Point Approach falls in the second group of MCDM
in Serbian, Multiple Criteria Optimization Compromise Solution) [5]; approaches (i.e., Goal or Reference Level Models).
and (3) Outranking Techniques, like PROMETHEE (Preference Rank- As Ratio system employs arithmetic weighted aggregation operator,
ing Organization METHod for Enrichment of Evaluations) [6], ELEC- it is useful in applications like student selection in which “independent”
TRE (ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité, in French, ELimination criteria exist in the problem. Suppose, we compare two students based
and Choice Expressing the Reality) [7], ORESTE (Organísation, Range- on their exam marks. As the exams are independent on each other, arith-
ment Et SynThèse de donnéEs relarionnelles, in French, Organization, metic operator works fine for the case. That is, it is not important that
∗
Corresponding author at: Andalusian Research Institute in Data Science and Computational Intelligence (DaSCI), University of Granada, Granada 18071, Spain.
E-mail addresses: e.hafez@go.ugr.es (A. Hafezalkotob), a_hafez@azad.ac.ir (A. Hafezalkotob), liaohuchang@163.com (H. Liao), herrera@decsai.ugr.es (F. Her-
rera).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2018.12.002
Received 26 November 2018; Accepted 6 December 2018
Available online 7 December 2018
1566-2535/© 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V.
A. Hafezalkotob, A. Hafezalkotob and H. Liao et al. Information Fusion 51 (2019) 145–177
in which exams the student has better performance. Thus, the overall Section 5. Concluding remarks including the advantages and summary
performance in all exams (which are independent) is significant. How- of the overview are given in Section 6.
ever, Ratio system has defects in the cases where “dependent” criteria
appear in a MCDM problem. Suppose, we compare two investment com- 2. MULTIMOORA theory and robustness
panies based on their portfolios in different years. The performance of
an investment company in each year is “dependent” on the other years, In the following sections, the theoretical features of MULTIMOORA
that is, investment in a particular year influences the status of the fol- besides its robustness and a brief bibliometric analysis are discussed.
lowing years. For example, if the portfolio return in one year were very Section 2.1 presents the bibliometric analysis of the studies on MUL-
poor, in reality, this issue should affect the overall performance dra- TIMOORA by discussing the distributions of journals and publication
matically. Geometric operator could consider the dependency of per- years. Section 2.2 introduces the triple subordinate ranking methods of
formances of each year while arithmetic operator neglects the issue. MULTIMOORA. Section 2.3 presents ranking aggregation tools for inte-
In the cases where “dependent” criteria exist in MCDM problems, Full gration of the results of the subordinate rankings. The ranking aggrega-
Multiplicative Form can be helpful as it applies geometric weighted ag- tion tools utilized in MULTIMOORA models include Dominance Theory,
gregation operator. Reference Point Approach which utilizes Min-Max Arithmetic/Geometric Mean, Borda Rule, Dominance-Directed Graph,
Metric is a “conservative” method useful for the cases where the optimal Improved Borda Rule, Optimization Model, ORESTE Method, Rank Posi-
choice for decision-makers is the alternative that does not have a very tion Method, and Technique of Precise Order Preference. Section 2.4 de-
bad performance on none of the criteria. scribes the weighting methods employed in MULTIMOORA models, in-
To integrate the outcomes of the three subordinate parts, a variety of cluding Entropy-Based Method, AHP (Analytic Hierarchical Process),
ranking aggregation techniques can be deployed. In this regard, the most SWARA (Stepwise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis), BWM (Best-Worst
common ranking aggregation tool in the literature of MULTIMOORA is Method), DEMATEL (DEcision MAking Trial and Evaluation Labora-
Dominance Theory which is also the concept adopted in the original tory), Statistical Variance, CRITIC (CRiteria Importance Through Inter-
MULTIMOORA suggested by Brauers and Zavadskas [11]. Other rank- criteria Correlation), Maximizing Deviation Method, Choquet Integral,
ing aggregation tools such as Dominance-Directed Graph, Rank Position Logarithmic Least Square Method, MACBETH (Measuring Attractive-
Method, Technique of Precise Order Preference, Borda Rule, Improved ness by a Categorical Based Evaluation TecHnique), Numeric Logic, Op-
Borda Rule, ORESTE Method, and Optimization Model have also been timization Model, and TOPSIS-Inspired Method. Section 2.5 explains
applied to generate the final ranking of the MULTIMOORA approach. the group decision-making structures. Section 2.6 focuses on the meth-
Only one survey study was previously conducted on MULTIMOORA, ods combined with MULTIMOORA, including Failure Mode and Effects
by Baležentis and Baležentis [1] in 2014. The work is limited to a few Analysis, Quality Function Deployment, Data Envelopment Analysis,
models regarding Group Decision-Making, Fuzzy Set Theory, and prac- Goal Programming, Cluster Analysis, Fine-Kinney Method, Finite Ele-
tical applications. In the current overview, we discuss MULTIMOORA ment Simulation, Geographic Information System, Prospect Theory, and
models not only based on Group Decision-Making, Fuzzy Set Theory and Regret Theory. Section 2.7 justifies the robustness of MULTIMOORA
applications, but also evaluate multiple theoretical features, various un- by describing the advantages of the approach and analyzing its perfor-
certainty theories, and applications in different fields besides provide mance comparing with other MCDM methods. Finally, Section 2.8 pro-
bibliometric analysis, and identify significant theoretical and practical vides a graphical summary of all theoretical features of MULTIMOORA.
challenges. In this regard, the contributions of this paper can be pre-
sented as the following itemized list:
2.1. Bibliometric analysis of studies on MULTIMOORA
(1) We highlight the theoretical features of MULTIMOORA by dis-
cussing the ternary subordinate utilities and several tools for To have a glance about the publication distribution related to MUL-
ranking aggregation to produce the final rankings and clarifying TIMOORA research, in this section, we go through the bibliometric anal-
the robustness of the MCDM method. Besides, we analyze weight- ysis of the main researches conducted on the method. First, journals are
ing methods, group decision-making structures, and the models listed with their frequencies to analyze publication sources. Second, dis-
used for combination. tribution of the year of publications is presented graphically.
(2) We present the developments of MULTIMOORA based on uncer- Table 1 gives a list of journals sorted based on the number of pub-
tainty theories including Interval Number, Fuzzy Set, Linguistic lished works on MULTIMOORA. The first and second position are held
Term, Neutrosophic Set, Rough Set, Z-number, and Cloud Model by journals in the field of Economics while the majority of journals
Theories as well as their combinations. The formulations of the with publication frequencies equal to 2 and 3, fall within the scope of
significant uncertain extensions are also provided and all devel- Decision-Making, Soft Computing, and Applied Mathematics.
opments are evaluated statistically. An exploration into the publication years is provided in Fig. 1. Based
(3) We present the applications of MULTIMOORA in the sectors of on the figure, about a half of works on MULTIMOORA are published
industries, economics, civil services and environmental policy- from 2016 onward. In 2011, 2012, 2015, and 2016, an identical per-
making, healthcare management, and information and commu- centage of publication (i.e., 9%) exist. The lowest positions related to
nications technologies. Also, all applications are evaluated statis- publication years are occupied by 2010 and 2014.
tically.
(4) We discuss the challenges on several theoretical aspects including 2.2. Subordinate ranking methods of MULTIMOORA
subordinate ranking methods, ranking aggregation tools, weight-
ing methods, group decision-making, combination models, and MULTIMOORA exploits the vector normalization technique for gen-
uncertain developments as well as practical applications. erating comparable ratings and three subordinate ranking methods en-
titled Ratio System, Reference Point Approach, and Full Multiplicative
This overview is organized as six sections. Section 2 focuses on the Form. Each of the three ranking methods has some privileges but suffers
bibliometric analysis, the theory, and the robustness of MULTIMOORA. from shortcomings; thus, MULTIMOORA uses more than one approach.
Section 3 introduces the uncertain developments. In this section, we In this section, we make a description about these three subordinate
categorize and analyze the mathematical features of uncertain MULTI- ranking method to facilitate the understanding of the MULTIMOORA
MOORA models. Then, the formulations of several important uncertain method.
developments are discussed. Section 4 goes through the real-world ap- The first step in an MCDM problem is constructing a decision matrix
plications. We present challenges for future studies on MULTIMOORA in and weight vector. Thus, for MULTIMOORA, decision matrix composed
146
Table 1
Distribution of journals (items with frequency ≥ 2).
Journal Frequency Percentage frequency References
Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research 7 6.6 [12–18]
Technological and Economic Development of Economy 6 5.7 [11,19–23]
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 4 3.8 [24–27]
E a M: Ekonomie a Management 3 2.8 [28–30]
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 3 2.8 [31–33]
Informatica 3 2.8 [34–36]
Journal of Industrial Engineering International 3 2.8 [37–39]
Soft Computing 3 2.8 [40–42]
Transformations in Business and Economics 3 2.8 [43–45]
Applied Mathematical Modelling 2 1.9 [46,47]
Computers and Industrial Engineering 2 1.9 [48,49]
Engineering Economics 2 1.9 [50,51]
Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review 2 1.9 [52,53]
Expert Systems with Applications 2 1.9 [54,55]
IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 2 1.9 [56,57]
Information Fusion 2 1.9 [58,59]
International Journal of Strategic Property Management 2 1.9 [60,61]
International Transactions in Operational Research 2 1.9 [62,63]
Journal of Business Economics and Management 2 1.9 [64,65]
Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 2 1.9 [66,67]
Journal of Cleaner Production 2 1.9 [68,69]
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2 1.9 [70,71]
Neural Computing and Applications 2 1.9 [72,73]
Sustainability 2 1.9 [74,75]
Fig. 1. Distribution of publication years.
of the ratings xij of m candidate alternatives of the problem with respect of “dependent” criteria, Full Multiplicative Form, as an incompletely-
to n criteria is first constructed, as follows [38]: compensatory model, is a beneficial tool. Reference Point Approach,
as a non-compensatory model, is a “conservative” method comparing
𝑐1 ⋯ 𝑐𝑗 ⋯ 𝑐𝑛 Ratio System and Full Multiplicative Form. Ratio System and Full Mul-
⎡ 𝑥11 ⋯ 𝑥1𝑗 ⋯ 𝑥1𝑛 ⎤ 𝐴1 tiplicative Form both provide the opportunity to compensate the poor
⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⎥ ⋮ performance of an alternative on one criterion by the performances on
⎢ ⎥
𝐗 = ⎢ 𝑥𝑖1 ⋯ 𝑥𝑖𝑗 ⋯ 𝑥𝑖𝑛 ⎥ 𝐴𝑖 (1) other criteria (the degree of compensation related to the two techniques
⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⎥ ⋮ is not equal); however, Reference Point Approach does not allow such
⎢ ⎥
⎣𝑥𝑚1 ⋯ 𝑥𝑚𝑗 ⋯ 𝑥𝑚𝑛 ⎦ 𝐴𝑚 an opportunity. As “dependent” and “independent” criteria may exist
[ ] simultaneously in the problem and for the sake of having a “conserva-
𝐖 = 𝑤1 ⋯ 𝑤𝑗 ⋯ 𝑤𝑛
tive” result, MULTIMOORA integrates the triple methods to exploit the
Because the ratings of alternatives on the multiple criteria of the advantages of each of them and reach a final outcome that is more ro-
problem may have different dimensions, the ratings should be nor- bust than the individual results [35]. We discuss the derivation of the
malized before utilization in a MCDM model. Different normalization triple subordinate ranking methods besides the connection of the meth-
schemes have been employed in MCDM methods [10,116]. Liao et al. ods with other MCDM approaches, as follows:
[117] made a comparison over different normalization schemes. Brauers
• Ratio System
et al. [118] claimed that Van Delft and Nijkamp (i.e., Vector) Normaliza-
tion is the most robust choice for application in MULTIMOORA. Vector
Ratio System which uses the arithmetic weighted aggregation opera-
Normalization is represented as follows [10]:
√ tor is a fully compensatory model. It means that small normalized values
√𝑚
√∑ ( )2 of an alternative could be completely compensated by the same degree
𝑥𝑖𝑗 = 𝑥𝑖𝑗 ∕√
∗
𝑥𝑖𝑗 . (2) of large values. In other words, an alternative with poor performance in
𝑖=1
respect to some criteria and fine performance in respect to the remained
Ratio System, as a fully compensatory model, is useful when “in- criteria can be substituted by an alternative with moderate performance
dependent” criteria exist in the problem. For cases with the existence in respect to all criteria [59]. To compute the utility of Ratio System,
147
the weighted normalized ratings are added for beneficial criteria and TOPSIS and VIKOR also fall into the group of “Goal or Reference
deducted for non-beneficial criteria as follows [39]: Level Models.” Both of them are based on LP -Metric. TOPSIS is supported
𝑔 𝑛 on L2 while VIKOR is formulated on the basis of L1 and L∞. In TOPSIS,
∑ ∑
𝑦𝑖 = 𝑤𝑗 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗 − 𝑤𝑗 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗 , (3) there exist two Reference Points, including the Positive-Ideal Solution
𝑗=1 𝑗=𝑔+1 (PIS) inspired by MORP and the Negative-Ideal Solution (NIS) inspired
by AORP. In Classical Reference Point Approach, only MORP Vector is
where g is the number of beneficial criteria and (𝑛 − 𝑔) is the number of
considered without paying attention to AORP Vector, but in Extended
non-beneficial criteria. The best alternative based on Ratio System has
Reference Point Approach suggested by Eghbali-Zarch et al. [79], AORP
the maximum utility yi and the ranking of this method is obtained in
Vector is also taken into account. Reference Point Approach sometimes
descending order as:
cannot differ on two or more alternatives; that is, the approach leads to
{ }
same rankings [89]. Thus, Reference Point Approach is often integrated
𝐑RS = 𝐴 𝑖| max 𝑦𝑖 ≻ ⋯ ≻ 𝐴 𝑖| min 𝑦𝑖 . (4)
𝑖 𝑖 with other decision-making tools to remedy the defect.
Ratio System, is inspired by SAW. In SAW, same as Ratio System, the • Full Multiplicative Form
utility is obtained by aggregation of the weighted normalized alterna-
tives ratings; however, there is only one term for sum (i.e., no term exists Full Multiplicative Form, which uses the geometric weighted aggre-
for subtraction) because SAW’s normalization is based on a linear ratio. gation operator, is an incompletely-compensatory model. In this tech-
For beneficial criteria, each alternative rating is divided by the maxi- nique, small normalized values of an alternative could not be completely
mum value of ratings per criterion and for non-beneficial criteria, mini- compensated by the same degree of large values. Thus, the issue leads to
mum value of ratings per criterion is divided by each alternative rating. the perception that an alternative with moderate performance may be
The concept of Ratio System can be also found in other MCDM meth- superior to an alternative which has both good and bad performances
ods like WASPAS and MOOSRA (Multi-Objective Optimization by Sim- with respect to different criteria [59]. To obtain the utility of Full Multi-
ple Ratio Analysis). The first term of WASPAS utility is inspired by Ratio plicative Form, the product of weighted normalized alternatives ratings
System. In MOOSRA, the beneficial sum is divided by the non-beneficial on beneficial criteria are divided by the product of weighted normalized
sum while in Ratio System, the non-beneficial sum is subtracted from alternatives ratings on non-beneficial criteria [39]:
the beneficial sum. ∏𝑔 ( )𝑤𝑗 ∏𝑛 ( )𝑤 𝑗
𝑢𝑖 = 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗 ∕ 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗 . (9)
𝑗=1 𝑗=𝑔+1
• Reference Point Approach
In utility formula of Full Multiplicative Form, multiplying normal-
In Reference Point Approach, the best alternative is the one that its ized ratings with weights leads to the same result as the situation in
worst value in respect of all criteria is not very bad [59]. This approach, which no weights are considered. Thus, weights should be considered
as a non-compensatory model, first finds the alternatives ratings with as exponent in utility equation of Full Multiplicative Form. The best al-
the worst performance with respect to each criterion and finally selects ternative based on Full Multiplicative Form has the maximum utility
the overall best value (i.e., the minimum value) from these worst rat- 𝑢𝑖 and the ranking of this technique is generated in descending order as:
ings. Reference Point Approach is based on Tchebycheff Min–Max Met- { }
ric [10]. Tchebycheff Min–Max Metric is originated from the general 𝐑FMF = 𝐴 𝑖| max 𝑢𝑖 ≻ ⋯ ≻ 𝐴 𝑖| min 𝑢𝑖 . (10)
𝑖 𝑖
theory of Murkowski Metric which is the source of several decision anal-
ysis approaches in literature such as Goal Programming. To obtain the The concept of Full Multiplicative Form can be observed in other
utility, first, Maximal Objective Reference Point (MORP) Vector is de- MCDM techniques like WASPAS. That is, the second term of WASPAS
fined as [10]: utility index is similar to Full Multiplicative Form. However, WASPAS
{ } uses a linear ratio for normalization considering the maximum and min-
𝑟𝑗 = max 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗 , 𝑗 ≤ 𝑔; min 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗 , 𝑗 > 𝑔 . (5) imum values of alternatives ratings.
𝑖 𝑖
The distance between the weighted value of each member of MORP

2.3. Ranking aggregation tools
Vector and the weighted alternative rating is obtained as [100]:
| |
𝑑𝑖𝑗 = |𝑤𝑗 𝑟𝑗 − 𝑤𝑗 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗 |. (6) After obtaining the subordinate rankings, we need to fuse these rank-
| |
ings to obtain the final ranking of alternatives. As discussed by Brauers
The utility of Reference Point Approach is obtained by maximizing and Zavadskas [35], by aggregating multiple subordinate rankings, we
the distance introduced in Eq. (6) as follows [100]: could obtain an integrative ranking list that is more robust than each in-
dividual ranking. This section mainly reviews these ranking aggregation
𝑧𝑖 = max 𝑑𝑖𝑗 . (7)
𝑗 tools.
The best alternative based on Reference Point Approach has the min- The existing aggregation tools to combine subordinate rankings of
imum utility 𝑧𝑖 and the ranking of the approach is produced in ascending MULTIMOORA are listed in Table 2. As we can see, four types of
order as: ranking aggregation tools have been used in MULTIMOORA develop-
{ } ments, including Dominance-based concepts (original Dominance The-
𝐑RPA = 𝐴 𝑖| min 𝑧𝑖 ≻ ⋯ ≻ 𝐴 𝑖| max 𝑧𝑖 . (8) ory and Dominance-Directed Graph), Mathematical operators (Arith-
𝑖 𝑖 metic/Geometric Mean, Borda Rule, Improved Borda Rule, and Rank
In Reference Point Approach, the distance of each alternative rating Position Method), MCDM approaches (ORESTE Method and Technique
from MORP Vector is obtained. There are other forms of Reference Point of Precise Order Preference), and Programming approaches (such as the
Vectors in the literature, including: Nonlinear Optimization Model). It is clear that Dominance Theory has
the most frequencies; however, in the recent years, other tools which
• Utopian Objective Reference Point (UORP) Vector: In this vector, have more advantages have been used in place of the theory. From the
higher values are targeted not the maximum values, necessarily; tools introduced in Table 2, the Improved Borda Rule has a different con-
• Aspiration Objective Reference Point (AORP) Vector: This vector cept as it also uses the subordinate utilities besides subordinate rankings
tries to moderate aspirations as finding the maximum distance to produce final ranking list.
from the target values; that is, finding the alternatives with the We continue this section with explaining the theory of the ranking
worst performance. aggregation tools used in MULTIMOORA models, as follows:
148
Table 2
Distribution of ranking aggregation tools.
Ranking aggregation tool Frequency Percentage frequency Reference(s)
Dominance theory 100 94 [3,11,20–29,12,30–39,13,40,42–50,14,51–55,57,58,60–62,15,63–72,

16,73–77,79–83,17,84–88,90–94,18,95–101,103–105,19,106–115]
Arithmetic/geometric mean 2 1.9 [89,102]
Borda rule 1 0.9 [67]
Dominance-directed graph 1 0.9 [67]
Improved Borda rule 1 0.9 [56]
Optimization model 1 0.9 [41]
ORESTE method 1 0.9 [59]
Rank position method 1 0.9 [67]
Technique of precise order preference 1 0.9 [78]
• Dominance Theory and Dominance-Directed Graph • Borda and Improved Borda Rules
Dominance Theory was used in the original MULTIMOORA method. Borda Rule, also named Borda Count, is an easy but effective tech-
This theory is supported on some principles including Dominance (Ab- nique from the group of single-winner election methods in which the
solute Dominance and Partial Dominance), Equality (Absolute Equal- number of votes equals to the number of alternatives [67]. In this
ity, Partial Equality, and Equality according to Circular Reasoning), and method, if there are t alternatives, the first-ranked alternative gets tvotes
Transitiveness [35]. There are some drawbacks to utilizing Dominance and the second-ranked gets one vote less, and so on. The final score of
Theory: (1) obtaining ranks of alternatives is hard as the theory is not Borda Rule is computed by the summation of the scores of the subor-
yet automated [85]; (2) the theory only uses ordinal values by neglect- dinate methods. The highest value of Borda Rule score shows the best
ing the relative importance of alternatives; and (3) circular reasoning alternative.
happens in some cases which leads to identical ranks which is not satis- Improved Borda Rule is based on Borda Count [56]; however, it in-
factory [59]. tegrates both cardinal and ordinal values (i.e., utilities and rankings, re-
Dominance-Directed Graph, also called Tournaments, considers each spectively) of each subordinate methods of MULTIMOORA. In this sense,
of three subordinate rankings of MULTIMOORA as a tournament [67]. the Improved Borda Rule is superior to Dominance Theory. To employ
Besides, each alternative could be also considered as a team. In this the- the Improved Borda Rule, first, the subordinate utilities are normalized
ory, team a can dominate team b or vice versa, but not both. Vertex based on Vector Normalization to produce 𝑦∗𝑖 , 𝑧∗𝑖 , and 𝑢∗𝑖 . The assess-
matrix M is produced which shows the relation of dominance among ment value of Improved Borda Rule, i.e., IMB(Ai ), is obtained using the
alternatives for each tournament. In matrix 𝐌 = [𝑚𝑃 𝑄 ] of each tourna- following equation [56]:
ment, if team a dominates team b, mPQ equals to 1, otherwise 0. After- ( ) 𝑚 − 𝑟 (𝑦𝑖 ) + 1 𝑟(𝑧𝑖 ) 𝑚 − 𝑟(𝑢𝑖 ) + 1
wards, M2 is computed and then 𝐀 = 𝐌+𝐌𝟐 . The row summation of A 𝐼 𝑀 𝐵 𝐴𝑖 = 𝑦∗𝑖 − 𝑧∗𝑖 + 𝑢∗𝑖 , (12)
𝑚(𝑚 + 1)∕2 𝑚(𝑚 + 1)∕2 𝑚(𝑚 + 1)∕2
represents relative preference. The highest value of row sums shows the
best alternative and the lowest value indicates the worst alternative. where r(yi ), r(zi ), and r(ui ) are the rankings of Ratio System, Reference
Point approach, and Full Multiplicative Form, respectively. The best al-
• Rank Position Method ternative based on Improved Borda Rule has the maximum value of
IMB(Ai ).
This ranking aggregation approach, also entitled Reciprocal Rank
Method, takes into consideration the position of each alternative accord- Remark. Dominance Theory is complicated due to pairwise compar-
ing to each subordinate ranking technique [67]. Rank Position Method isons and probable occurrence of circular reasoning. The case would be
is based on score RPM(Ai ) for each alternative employed to generate more confusing for decision-makers when the number of alternatives
final ranking. The score is as follows [67]: and criteria are large because Dominance Theory is based on manual
( ) ( ( ) ( ) ( )) comparison. Nevertheless, Improved Borda Rule neither needs any man-
𝑅𝑃 𝑀 𝐴𝑖 = 1∕ 1∕𝑟 𝑦𝑖 + 1∕𝑟 𝑧𝑖 + 1∕𝑟 𝑢𝑖 , (11)
ual comparison, nor has special conditions.
where r(yi ), r(zi ), and r(ui ) are the rankings of Ratio System, Reference
• ORESTE Method
Point approach, and Full Multiplicative Form, respectively. The best al-
ternative based on Rank Position Method has the minimum value of ORESTE Method belongs to the third group of MCDM approaches
RPM(Ai ). (i.e., Outranking Techniques). ORESTE has a multi-level procedure to
produce decision results. First, weak rankings are generated and then
• Technique of Precise Order Preference
they are improved to global rankings. The outcomes are not a single
Technique of Precise Order Preference uses the concept of MCDM to ranking but in the form of preference, indifference, and incomparability
obtain a compromise solution. First, it constructs a decision matrix from correlations of alternatives [120]. For integration of subordinate rank-
the results of the ranking methods [119]. In case of MULTIMOORA, a ings of MULTIMOORA using ORESTE, a decision matrix of the rankings
decision matrix is composed of the utility values of candidate alterna- is first constructed [59]. Second, the weak Besson’s mean ranks are gen-
tives in response to Ratio System, Reference Point approach, and Full erated. Third, the global preference score is computed for each alter-
Multiplicative Form. If the utility values are not linguistic, normaliza- native. Fourth, the global Besson’s mean ranks are calculated for each
tion is also needed. Then, relative weights of each method can be com- subordinate parts of MULTIMOORA. Eventually, the final ranking is ob-
puted subjectively based on comments of experts [78] or objectively tained by summation of the ternary global Besson’s mean ranks.
using a weighting technique like Entropy [119]. Technique of Precise • Optimization Model
Order Preference consolidates the normalized subordinate utilities and
their computed weights to reach Precise Selection Index. The best alter- The final ranking of MULTIMOORA can also be obtained using an
native based on this ranking aggregation tool is identified by minimizing Optimization Model. The concept of the model is based on the expecta-
Precise Selection Index. Details of the process of Technique of Precise tion that the final result has the minimum overall deviation comparing
Order Preference can be found in Refs. [78,119]. the three subordinate rankings. An Optimization Model is considered
149
Table 3
Distribution of weighting methods.
Weighting method Frequency Percentage frequency Reference(s)
Entropy 9 8.5 [15,39,40,74,77,82,88,94,100]

AHP 8 7.5 [3,37,56,68,76,80,92,102]
SWARA 7 6.6 [31,73,75,79,89,101,110]
BWM 3 2.8 [69,74,81]
DEMATEL 3 2.8 [25,83,92]
Statistical variance 3 2.8 [84,100,107]
CRITIC 2 1.9 [56,100]
Maximizing deviation method 2 1.9 [62,69]
Choquet integral 1 0.9 [48]
Logarithmic least square method 1 0.9 [59]
MACBETH 1 0.9 [95]
Numeric logic 1 0.9 [47]
Optimization model 1 0.9 [57]
TOPSIS-inspired method 1 0.9 [72]
to minimize the sum of deviation between the final rankings and three objective weighting approaches (i.e., 27 to 16, respectively). Weight-
ranking results as follows [41]: ing methods can also be categorized into three groups based on their
(𝑚 𝑚 𝑚
) scientific origins:
∑ ∑ ∑
min |𝑅 − 𝑟(𝑦 )| + |𝑅 − 𝑟(𝑧 )| + |𝑅 − 𝑟(𝑢 )| ,
| 𝑖 𝑖 | | 𝑖 𝑖 | | 𝑖 𝑖 | • Operations Research and Decision-Making: AHP, BWM, SWARA, DE-
𝑖=1 𝑖=1 𝑖=1
MATEL, TOPSIS-Inspired Method, Optimization Model, MACBETH,
s.t . 𝑅𝑖 = 𝑅𝑘 , 𝑖, 𝑘 = 1, 2, … , 𝑚, 𝑖 ≠ 𝑘, and Numeric Logic.
𝑅𝑖 > 𝑅𝑘 if 𝑟(𝑦𝑖 ) > 𝑟 (𝑦𝑘 ), 𝑟(𝑧𝑖 ) > 𝑟 (𝑧𝑘 ), and 𝑟 (𝑢𝑖 ) > 𝑟 (𝑢𝑘 ), • Statistical Analysis: Statistical Variance, CRITIC, Maximizing De-
viation Method, Choquet Integral, and Logarithmic Least Square
𝑅𝑖 ≤ 𝑅𝑘 if 𝑟(𝑦𝑖 ) ≤ 𝑟 (𝑦𝑘 ), 𝑟(𝑧𝑖 ) ≤ 𝑟 (𝑧𝑘 ), and 𝑟 (𝑢𝑖 ) ≤ 𝑟 (𝑢𝑘 ),
Method.
1 ≤ 𝑅𝑖 ≤ 𝑚, 𝑖 = 1, 2, … , 𝑚, (13) • Engineering: Entropy.
where r(yi ), r(zi ), and r(ui ) are the rankings of Ratio System, Ref- The methods in the group of Operations Research and Decision-
erence Point approach, and Full Multiplicative Form, respectively. Making can also be employed to compute relative utilities of alterna-
Eq. (13) is a nonlinear programming model for which some mathe- tives; thus, they can act as MCDM approaches, in practice. Entropy orig-
matical computations are needed. The related details can be found in inates form Thermodynamics theory which is an important concept in
Ref. [41]. Engineering.
2.5. Group decision-making

2.4. Weighting methods for criteria
In real life, many significant decisions are made through a group of

In an MCDM problem, there are multiple different criteria that their
elites and experts rather than considering an individual decision-maker.
significance are not necessarily identical; thus, criteria weights play a
In industries and factories, technical expert panel takes the crucial deci-
key role in evaluating the overall utility values of the alternatives for
sions on identifying plans and strategies, selecting staff, and exploiting
the problem [121]. The weights are importance parameters employed
available resources. In practical problems like legal systems, healthcare
to differentiate the effect of each criterion on the final result [122]. The
management, and social services, the significant decisions are usually
criterion weights could be subjective, i.e., based on the comments made
made based on collective opinions of multiple advisors and experts.
by the experts, or objective, i.e., those which evaluate the structure of
Sometimes, experts may have different fields and levels of expertise;
the data of decision matrix. The procedure of weighting criteria can be
therefore, in such cases, collective decisions are analyzed to handle the
one expert or multiple decision-makers [123]. In the category of sub-
conflicts among various opinions [124].
jective weighting methods, AHP, supported on the concept of pairwise
Group decision-making can be done in cooperative or non-
comparison, is the most common method. BWM is another important
cooperative styles. Cooperative group decisions are significant in engi-
subjective weighting method which is based on comparison according
neering, medical, and scientific fields while non-cooperative group deci-
to the best and worst criteria. In the category of objective weighting
sions are common in economic and political areas. Even by considering
methods, there are different techniques like Entropy and CRITIC. For
cooperative group decisions, reaching a complete consensus among all
MULTIMOORA models, a variety of weighting methods have been used
members of the group on the eventual solution is nearly infeasible be-
to provide contrast between criteria. Table 3 provides the list of these
cause decision-makers, who are supposed to have identical goals, may
weighting methods. Entropy and AHP have the most frequent applica-
have some opinion conflicts, in practice [125].
tion as weighting methods for MULTIMOORA.
Near a half of total studies on MULTIMOORA has a group decision-
The classification of the utilized weighting methods with MULTI-
making structure, which shows the importance of group decision-
MOORA according to subjective or objective type is as follows:
making in MCDM. In Appendix, Table A.5 shows the related references
• Subjective Weighting Methods: AHP, SWARA, BWM, DEMATEL, MAC- on group decision-making. In some studies on MULTIMOORA, group
BETH, Numeric Logic, and Optimization Model. decision-making structure is employed to generate criteria weights and
• Objective Weighting Methods: Entropy, Statistical Variance, CRITIC, alternatives ratings on the criteria; however, in the others, multiple
Maximizing Deviation Method, Choquet Integral, Logarithmic Least decision-makers only participate in criteria weighting procedure.
Square Method, and TOPSIS-Inspired Method.
2.6. Combination with other models
The number of subjective weighting methods is equal to that of ob-
jective weighting approaches (i.e., both 7 items); however, utilization MCDM techniques could be combined with other models from
frequency of subjective weighting methods is near two-fold comparing different scientific scopes to handle complex and interdisciplinary
150
Table 4
Distribution of models combined with MULTIMOORA.
Models combined with MULTIMOORA Frequency Percentage frequency Reference(s)
Failure mode and effects analysis 3 2.8 [32,40,80]

Quality function deployment 3 2.8 [62,69,74]
Data envelopment analysis 2 1.9 [22,113]
Goal programming 2 1.9 [63,93]
Cluster analysis 1 0.9 [49]
Fine-Kinney method 1 0.9 [48]
Finite element simulation 1 0.9 [47]
Geographic information system 1 0.9 [68]
Prospect theory 1 0.9 [42]
Regret theory 1 0.9 [77]
Table 5
Performance of MOORA regarding other MCDM methods [35].
MCDM method Computational time Simplicity Mathematical calculations Stability Information type
MOORA Very less Very simple Minimum Good Quantitative

AHP Very less Very critical Maximum Poor Mixed
TOPSIS Moderate Moderately critical Moderate Medium Quantitative
VIKOR Less Simple Moderate Medium Quantitative
ELECTRE High Moderately critical Moderate Medium Mixed
PROMETHEE High Moderately critical Moderate Medium Mixed
problems. For instance, there are some hybrid TOPSIS extensions based decision-makers, (4) using three different methods for determining sub-
on the following approaches: Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Genetic ordinate rankings, and (5) employing ranking aggregation tools for in-
Algorithm, Regression Model, Fractional Programming, K-Means Clus- tegrating the subordinate rankings. To clarify item (5), it is worthwhile
tering, Taguchi Method, And Particle Swarm Optimization [126]. An- to mention that many MCDM methods have only one utility function;
other MCDM method that has been often combined to produce hybrid however, MULTIMOORA produces an integrative outcome by combin-
models is ELECTRE. This approach has been integrated with concepts ining three utility values employing a ranking aggregation tool.
cluding Regression Approach, Heuristic Algorithm, and Axiomatic De- The three subordinate parts of MULTIMOORA are based on the fully
sign Principles [127]. When it comes to the case of MULTIMOORA, a compensatory, non-compensatory, and incompletely-compensatory
variety of models are used to generate hybrid models as collected in models. As discussed in Sections 2.2, each of the approaches may have
Table 4. Failure Mode and Effects Analysis and Quality Function De- some shortcomings, in practice. Therefore, integration of their outcomes
ployment have the most application for integrative models. would lead to a more robust final result comparing to the individual out-
The methods used for hybrid MULTIMOORA models have six differ- comes by curing the existing defects.
ent scientific origins, as follows:
2.8. Graphical summary of MULTIMOORA theory
• Risk Management: Failure Mode and Effects Analysis and Fine-
Kinney Method.
The concepts used in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 to derive the model of
• Engineering: Quality Function Deployment, Finite Element Simu-
MULTIMOORA can be summarized into five phases as illustrated in
lation.
Fig. 2. Decision matrix and weight vector are constructed in Phase 1.
• Operations Research and Decision-Making: Data Envelopment Anal-
The decision matrix is normalized in Phase 2. The utilities of subor-
ysis, Goal Programming, and Regret Theory.
dinate parts of MULTIMOORA, i.e., Ratio System, Reference Point Ap-
• Data Mining: Cluster Analysis.
proach, and Full Multiplicative Form, are computed in Phase 3. Rankings
• Geography: Geographic Information System.
of subordinate methods are produced in Phase 4. Eventually, the subor-
• Cognitive Psychology: Prospect Theory.
dinate rankings are combined into final outcomes of MULTIMOORA in
Phase 5.
2.7. Robustness of MULTIMOORA Fig. 3 graphically shows the theoretical features of the main stud-
ies on MULTIMOORA, except uncertainty theories which are separately
In Table 5, the performance of MOORA which is a part of MULTI- described in Section 3. In the group of weighting models, there exist a
MOORA is compared with other MCDM methods. As we can find from number of different approaches; however, the frequencies of objective
Table 5, MOORA is simple and reliable. Original MULTIMOORA com- weighting method is lower. Generally, weighting models has frequency
bines MOORA with the full multiplicative form using the dominance 43 with Entropy and AHP as the more significant methods with fre-
theory. Brauers and Zavadskas [35] claimed that “use of two differ- quencies 9 and 8, respectively. Totally, in 16 studies, integrative models
ent methods of multi-objective optimization is more robust than the have been employed from which Failure Mode and Effects Analysis and
use of a single method; the use of three methods is more robust than Quality Function Deployment have the most application with frequency
the use of two, and so on;” thus, “MULTIMOORA is more robust than 3. When it comes to ranking aggregation tools, Dominance Theory has
MOORA.” been mostly used by researchers on MULTIMOORA for fusion of rank-
Generally, the advantages of MULTIMOORA include: (1) simple ings with frequency 100. Group decision-making is a significant concept
mathematics, (2) low computational time, (3) straightforwardness for in MULTIMOORA models as it has frequency 48.
151
Fig. 2. Flowchart of MULTIMOORA phases.
Fig. 3. Infographics of MULTIMOORA theoretical features (numerals represent the frequencies).
152
Fig. 4. Co-occurrence network for MULTIMOORA theoretical features.
The co-occurrence network of MULTIMOORA theoretical features the important models. Section 3.3 goes through Linguistic Term The-
(i.e., related to the categories: ranking aggregation tools, weighting ory. Section 3.4 describes the significance of Neutrosophic Fuzzy Set
methods, group decision-making, combination with other models, and Theory and studies the related significant studies besides introducing
verification techniques) are illustrated in Fig. 4 (with number of occur- a fundamental model in the field. In Sections 3.1–3.3, for simplicity
rences of a keyword ≥ 3). The list of verification techniques for MULTI- and briefness, we avoid to separately present the mathematical prelimi-
MOORA are collected in Table A.6 in Appendix. Fig. 4 emphasizes the naries of uncertainty theories; instead, the related mathematical rela-
importance of Dominance Theory, Group Decision-Making, Fuzzy Set tions are inserted within the formulas of the subordinate utility val-
Theory, Linguistic Term Theory, TOPSIS, and VIKOR in the studies on ues. Section 3.5 presents a discussion on the models based on Rough
MULTIMOORA. The most applied scope in the real-world applications Set, Z-number, and Cloud Model Theories. Section 3.6 evaluates MUL-
is the case of Ranking Countries/Cities/Regions. TIMOORA uncertain developments by presenting the distribution based
In Appendix, Tables A.1–A.4 give the details of the main studies on on uncertainty theories and uncertainty sets as well as illustrating the
MULTIMOORA including theoretical and practical features and the bib- timeline of uncertain works. Finally, Section 3.7 summarizes this sec-
liographical information. These tables are presented based on time pe- tion through demonstrating an infographics of MULTIMOORA uncertain
riods, i.e., Tables A.1–A.4 are related to the studies conducted in the pe- developments. In Appendix, Table A.8 lists all acronyms used in this
riods: 2018 (Jan-Sep), 2016–17, 2013–15, and 2010–12, respectively. paper.
The tables shows that from 2010 to 2018, the theoretical aspects of the
developments are getting more complicated.
3.1. Developments based on interval number theory
3. Analysis of the developments of MULTIMOORA based on
uncertainty theories Interval Number Theory is a simple but applicable concept of con-
sidering vagueness in decision-making problems. Interval Numbers (INs)
In the present section, we discuss the extensions of MULTIMOORA can be defined as: (1) an extension of a real number; (2) a degenerate
supported by the theories of uncertainty. Section 3.1 is allocated to the flat fuzzy number without membership function; and (3) an 𝛼-cut of a
developments based on Interval Number Theory. In this section, first, fuzzy number. INs are important in MCDM problems, because: (1) INs
the advantages of Interval Numbers are depicted and then the related require the minimum amount of data; (2) decision-makers could easily
studies are explained. Fuzzy Set Theory is discussed in Section 3.2. present the range of available data as interval numbers; and (3) INs are
In the section, first, the theories are introduced followed by explain- very practical as many data in real problems are essentially reported in
ing the mathematics of several related extensions and the formulas of the form of ranges.
153
There are four MULTIMOORA extensions based on Interval Theory. Kracka and Zavadskas [60] proposed Interval MULTIMOORA utilizing arith-
metic of INs (MOORE Rule), the crisp distance of INs, and comparison based on arithmetic average. Hafezalkotob et al. [46] suggested a new model
of Interval MULTIMOORA by using Preference matrix without degeneration of INs. Hafezalkotob and Hafezalkotob [33] presented Interval Target-
Based MULTIMOORA employing MOORE Rule, Interval distance of INs, and the preference matrix. Hafezalkotob and Hafezalkotob [38] developed
Interval Target-Based MULTIMOORA by adding preference-based rankings of INs. Interval Target-Based MULTIMOORA [38], which is an important
model in the context of Interval Number Theory, is formulated as follows.
In Interval Target-Based MULTIMOORA, alternatives ratings are in the form of INs 𝑥̄ 𝑖𝑗 = [𝑥𝐿 𝑈
𝑖𝑗 , 𝑥𝑖𝑗 ] and the preference matrix is used to obtain the
maximum, minimum, and ranking of INs. Interval distance of INs is employed in this method. Normalization ratio 𝑥̄ ∗𝑖𝑗 in this method is defined as
follows:
⎛ ( ) ⎞
[ ] 𝑑̄∗ 𝑥̄ 𝑖𝑗 , 𝑡̄𝑗
𝑥̄ ∗𝑖𝑗 ∗,𝐿 ∗,𝑈
= 𝑥𝑖𝑗 , 𝑥𝑖𝑗 = exp − ⎜ ( )⎟
⎜ max 𝑑 ∗ 𝑥̄ 𝑖𝑗 , 𝑡̄𝑗 ⎟
⎝ 𝑖 ⎠
[ { } (( ) ) (( ) )]
⎛ ⎧ min ||𝑥𝐿 − 𝑡𝑈 ||, ||𝑥𝑈 − 𝑡𝐿 || , || 𝑥𝐿 + 𝑥𝑈 ∕2 − 𝑡𝐿 + 𝑡𝑈 ∕2 || , if 𝑥̄ 𝑖𝑗 ∩ 𝑡̄𝑗 = ∅ ⎫ ⎞⎟
⎜ ⎪ | 𝑖𝑗 𝑗 | | 𝑖𝑗 𝑗| | 𝑖𝑗 𝑖𝑗 𝑗 𝑗 | ⎪
[ | ] |
⎜ ⎨ |(( 𝐿 ) ) (( ) )| ⎬ ⎟
⎜ | 𝑈
⎪ 0, | 𝑥𝑖𝑗 + 𝑥𝑖𝑗 ∕2 − 𝑡𝑗 + 𝑡𝑗 ∕2 | , 𝐿 𝑈 | if 𝑥̄ 𝑖𝑗 ∩ 𝑡𝑗 ≠ ∅⎪ ⎟
̄
⎜ ⎩ | | ⎭ ⎟
= exp⎜− ( { } |(( ) ) (( ) )|) ⎟,
⎜ ⎧ | | | 𝑈 | ⎫
⎪ min |𝑥𝐿 − 𝑡𝑈 |, |𝑥𝑖𝑗 − 𝑡𝐿 | + || 𝑥𝐿 + 𝑥𝑈 ∕2 − 𝑡𝐿 + 𝑡𝑈 ∕2 || ∕2, if 𝑥̄ 𝑖𝑗 ∩ 𝑡̄𝑗 = ∅⎪ ⎟
⎜ | 𝑖𝑗 𝑗 | | 𝑗 | 𝑖𝑗 𝑖𝑗 𝑗 𝑗 ⎟
⎜ max𝑖
⎨ |(( ) ) (( ) | )| | ⎬⎟
⎜ ⎪ || 𝑥𝐿 + 𝑥 𝑈 ∕2 − 𝑡 𝐿 + 𝑡𝑈 ∕2 |∕2,
| if 𝑥̄ 𝑖𝑗 ∩ ̄
𝑡 𝑗 ≠ ∅ ⎪ ⎟
⎝ ⎩| 𝑖𝑗 𝑖𝑗 𝑗 𝑗
| ⎭⎠
(14)
where 𝑡̄𝑗 is interval target value of each criterion and is calculated as 𝑡̄𝑗 = [𝑡𝐿 𝑈
𝑗 , 𝑡𝑗 ] = {max 𝑥
̄ 𝑖𝑗 , if 𝑗 ∈ 𝐼; min 𝑥̄ 𝑖𝑗 , if 𝑗 ∈ 𝐽 ; 𝑔̄𝑗 , if 𝑗 ∈ 𝐾 } where
𝑖 𝑖
I, J, and K is the sets of beneficial, non-beneficial, and target-based criteria, respectively. Besides, 𝑔̄𝑗 is the interval goal value of each target-
based criterion. The utility values of interval target-based models of Ratio system, Reference Point Approach, and Full Multiplicative Form, i.e., 𝑦̄𝑇𝑖 ,
𝑧̄ 𝑇𝑖 , and 𝑢̄ 𝑇𝑖 , respectively, are obtained as follows:
[ 𝑔 ]
[ ] ∑𝑔 ∑ 𝑔
∑
𝑦̄𝑇𝑖 = 𝑦𝑇𝑖 ,𝐿 , 𝑦𝑇𝑖 ,𝑈 = 𝑤𝑗 𝑥̄ ∗𝑖𝑗 = 𝑤𝑗 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,𝐿 , 𝑤𝑗 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,𝑈 , (15)
𝑗=1 𝑗=1 𝑗=1
[ ] ( ) ( {[ { } | (( ) )|]
| | | 𝐿| |1 − 𝑥𝐿 + 𝑥𝑈 ∕2 | ,
𝑧̄ 𝑇𝑖 = 𝑧𝑇𝑖 ,𝐿 , 𝑧𝑇𝑖 ,𝑈 = max 𝑑̄∗ 𝑤𝑗 [1, 1], 𝑤𝑗 𝑥̄ ∗𝑖𝑗 = max 𝑤𝑗 ⋅ min |1 − 𝑥𝑈 |, | 1 − 𝑥 | , | |
𝑗 𝑗 | 𝑖𝑗 | | 𝑖𝑗 |
|
𝑖𝑗 𝑖𝑗
|
[ (( ) )|] })
|
if [1, 1] ∩ 𝑥̄ 𝑖𝑗 = ∅; 0, ||1 − 𝑥𝑖𝑗 + 𝑥𝑖𝑗 ∕2 || , if [1, 1] ∩ 𝑥̄ 𝑖𝑗 ≠ ∅ ,
∗ 𝐿 𝑈 ∗
(16)
| |
[ ] ∏𝑔 ( )𝑤𝑗 [∏𝑔 ( )𝑤𝑗 ∏𝑔 ( )𝑤𝑗 ]

𝑢̄ 𝑇𝑖 = 𝑢𝑇𝑖 ,𝐿 , 𝑢𝑇𝑖 ,𝑈 = 𝑥̄ ∗𝑖𝑗 = 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,𝐿 , 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,𝑈 . (17)
𝑗=1 𝑗=1 𝑗=1
3.2. Developments based on fuzzy set theory
Fuzzy Set Theory, introduced by Zadeh [128] in 1965, is an important theory of uncertainty which models the vagueness or imprecision of the
human cognitive process. A Fuzzy Set (FS) is generally introduced by a membership function that maps elements to degrees of membership in a
certain interval [69]. The theory is very applicable in various fields such as decision making, artificial intelligence, expert systems, control theory,
and neural networks. There are different types of Fuzzy Sets like Interval-Valued Fuzzy Number (IVFN), Intuitionistic Fuzzy Number (IFN), and
Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Set (IT2FS) [129].
As Fuzzy Theory is one of most important concepts of uncertainty, there are many extensions of MULTIMOORA based on this the-
ory. Triangular Fuzzy Number (TFN) is the simplest form of representing the fuzziness of data. TFN with mathematical features such
as Vertex method for crisp distance and centroid-based method for defuzzification has combined with MULTIMOORA in several studies
[19,25,26,34,55,63,79,80,85,87,91,93,98,114]. However, Tian et al. [69] employed graded mean integration as defuzzification technique to gen-
erate Triangular Fuzzy MULTIMOORA. Trapezoidal Fuzzy Number (TrFN) with concepts of Vertex method for crisp distance and centroid-based
method for defuzzification is used for three developments [32,88,94]. Liu et al. [74] applied the integral of area for defuzzification to derive Trape-
zoidal Fuzzy MULTIMOORA. Stanujkic et al. [44] suggested Interval-Valued Fuzzy MULTIMOORA based on the weighted averaging operator and
the geometric averaging operator of IVFNs. Dorfesh et al. [78] suggested Interval Type-2 Fuzzy MULTIMOORA. Generalized Interval-Valued Fuzzy
Number (GIVFN) is a basis for four developments [54,97,103,108]. In these studies, centroid-based method is used for crisp distance of GIVFNs and
defuzzification is also based on the crisp distance. Baležentis and Baležentis [18] introduced Intuitionistic Fuzzy MULTIMOORA based on the power
ordered weighted average operator and the power ordered weighted geometric operator as well as Euclidean distance and expected values of IFNs.
Baležentis et al. [17] presented another version of Intuitionistic Fuzzy MULTIMOORA using negation operator, the power ordered weighted average
operator, the power ordered weighted geometric operator, comparison rule, and crisp distance of IFNs. Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy MUL-
TIMOORA has been developed considering the weighted average operator, the weighted geometric operator, and score function of IVIFNs [40,70].
Hesitant Fuzzy Set (HFS) was exploited in three studies [16,106,130] for new developments.
This section continues with the presentation of the formulations of the subordinate utility values of two developments of MULTIMOORA. The
extensions that are discussed below are based on GIVFN and IVIFN.
154
• Generalized Interval-Valued Fuzzy MULTIMOORA
In this technique, alternatives ratings are in the form of GIVFNs shown as 𝑥̃ ij = [𝑥̃ 𝐿
ij
, 𝑥̃ 𝑈
ij
] = [(𝑥𝐿 , 𝑥𝐿 , 𝑥𝐿 , 𝑥𝐿 ; 𝑤𝑥̃ 𝐿 ), (𝑥𝑈
ij,1 ij,2 ij,3 ij,4
, 𝑥𝑈 , 𝑥𝑈 , 𝑥𝑈 ; 𝑤𝑥̃ 𝑈 )].
ij,1 ij,2 ij,3 ij,4 ij ij
Normalization ratio 𝑥̃ ∗ 𝑖𝑗 and the utility values of generalized interval-valued fuzzy models of Ratio system, Reference Point Approach, and Full
Multiplicative Form, i.e., 𝑦̃𝐺𝐼𝑉 𝑖 , 𝑧𝐺𝐼𝑉
𝑖 , and 𝑢̃ 𝐺𝐼𝑉
𝑖 , respectively, are obtained as follows:
[ ] [( )( )]
𝑥̃ ∗ij = 𝑥̃ ∗ij,𝐿 , 𝑥̃ ∗ij,𝑈 = 𝑥∗ij,𝐿
,1
, 𝑥∗ij,𝐿
,2
, 𝑥∗ij,𝐿
,3
, 𝑥∗ij,𝐿
,4
; 𝑤𝑥̃ ∗,𝐿 , 𝑥∗ij,𝑈
,1
, 𝑥∗ij,𝑈
,2
, 𝑥∗ij,𝑈
,3
, 𝑥∗ij,𝑈
,4
; 𝑤𝑥̃ ∗,𝑈
ij ij
[( )( )]
= 𝑘𝑗 𝑥𝐿 , 𝑘 𝑥 𝐿
, 𝑘 𝑥 𝐿
, 𝑘 𝑥
ij,1 𝑗 ij,2 𝑗 ij,3 𝑗 ij,4
𝐿
; 𝑤 𝑥̃ 𝐿 , 𝑘 𝑥 𝑈
, 𝑘 𝑥 𝑈
, 𝑘 𝑥 𝑈
, 𝑘 𝑥
𝑗 ij,1 𝑗 ij,2 𝑗 ij,3 𝑗 ij,4
𝑈
; 𝑤 𝑥̃ 𝑈 , (18)
ij ij
∑𝑚 ∑4 𝐿 2 ∑𝑚 ∑4 2
where 𝑘𝑗 = ( 𝑖=1 𝑝=1 (𝑥𝑖𝑗,𝑝 ) + 𝑖=1 𝑞=1 (𝑥𝑈
𝑖𝑗,𝑞 ) )
−1∕2 ,
[ ] [( ) ( )]
𝑦̃𝐺𝐼𝑉
𝑖 = 𝑦̃𝐺𝐼𝑉
𝑖
,𝐿 𝐺𝐼𝑉 ,𝑈
, 𝑦̃𝑖 = 𝑦𝐺𝐼𝑉
𝑖,1
,𝐿
, 𝑦𝐺𝐼𝑉𝑖,2
,𝐿
, 𝑦𝐺𝐼𝑉
𝑖,3
,𝐿 𝐺𝐼𝑉 ,𝐿
, 𝑦𝑖,4 ; 𝑤𝑦̃𝐺𝐼𝑉 ,𝐿 , 𝑦𝐺𝐼𝑉 𝑖,1
,𝑈
, 𝑦𝐺𝐼𝑉
𝑖,2
,𝑈
, 𝑦𝐺𝐼𝑉
𝑖,3
,𝑈
, 𝑦𝐺𝐼𝑉
𝑖,4
,𝑈
; 𝑤𝑦̃𝐺𝐼𝑉 ,𝑈
𝑖 𝑖
[({ 𝑔 𝑛
} { 𝑔 𝑛
} { 𝑔 𝑛
}
∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑
= 𝑤𝑗 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝐿1 − 𝑤𝑗 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝐿4 , 𝑤𝑗 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝐿2 − 𝑤𝑗 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝐿3 , 𝑤𝑗 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝐿3 − 𝑤𝑗 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝐿2 ,
𝑗=1 𝑗=𝑔+1 𝑗=1 𝑗=𝑔+1 𝑗=1 𝑗=𝑔+1
{ 𝑔 𝑛
} { }) ({ 𝑔 𝑛
}
∑ ∑ ∑ ∑
𝑤𝑗 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝐿4 − 𝑤𝑗 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝐿1 ; min 𝑤𝑥̃ ∗,𝐿 , 𝑤𝑗 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝑈1 − 𝑤𝑗 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝑈4 ,
1≤𝑗≤𝑛 𝑖𝑗
𝑗=1 𝑗=𝑔+1 𝑗=1 𝑗=𝑔+1
{ 𝑔 𝑛
} { 𝑔 𝑛
} { 𝑔 𝑛
} { })]
∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑
𝑤𝑗 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝑈2 − 𝑤𝑗 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝑈3 , 𝑤𝑗 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝑈3 − 𝑤𝑗 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝑈2 , 𝑤𝑗 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝑈4 − 𝑤𝑗 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝑈1 ; min 𝑤𝑥̃ ∗,𝑈 , (19)
𝑗=1 𝑗=𝑔+1 𝑗=1 𝑗=𝑔+1 𝑗=1 𝑗=𝑔+1
√ (
( ) ⎡ √ √1 ( )2 ( )2 ( )2 ( )2 )⎤
𝑧𝐺𝐼𝑉
𝑖 = max 𝑑 𝑤𝑗 𝑟̃𝑗 , 𝑤𝑗 𝑥̃ ∗𝑖𝑗 = max ⎢𝑤𝑗 .√ 𝑒𝑟̃𝐿 − 𝑒𝑥̃ ∗,𝐿 + 𝑓𝑟̃𝐿 − 𝑓𝑥̃ ∗,𝐿 + 𝑒𝑟̃𝑈 − 𝑒𝑥̃ ∗,𝑈 + 𝑓𝑟̃𝑈 − 𝑓𝑥̃ ∗,𝑈 ⎥, (20)
𝑗 𝑗 ⎢ 4 𝑗 𝑖𝑗 𝑗 𝑖𝑗 𝑗 𝑖𝑗 𝑗 𝑖𝑗 ⎥
⎣ ⎦
where 𝑟̃𝑗 = [𝑟̃𝐿 𝑈 𝐿 𝐿 𝐿 𝐿
𝑗 , 𝑟̃𝑗 ]=[(𝑟𝑗,1 , 𝑟𝑗,2 , 𝑟𝑗,2 , 𝑟𝑗,4 ; 𝑤𝑟̃𝐿 ), (𝑟𝑈
𝑗,1
, 𝑟𝑈
𝑗,2
, 𝑟𝑈
𝑗,2
, 𝑟𝑈
𝑗,4
; 𝑤𝑟̃𝑈 )] = {(1, 1, 1, 1; 1), 𝑗 ≤ 𝑔; (0, 0, 0, 0; 1), 𝑗 > 𝑔}, 𝑒𝑟̃𝐿 = [𝑓𝑟̃𝐿 (𝑟𝐿
𝑗,2
+ 𝑟𝐿
𝑗,3
)
𝑗 𝑗 𝑗 𝑗
+ (𝑟𝐿
𝑗,1
𝐿
+ 𝑟𝑗,4 )(1 − 𝑓𝑟̃𝐿 )]∕2, 𝑓𝑟̃𝐿 = {(𝑟𝑗,3 − 𝑟𝑗,2 )∕(𝑟𝑗,4 − 𝑟𝑗,1 ) + 2, 𝑟𝑗,1 ≠ 𝑟𝐿
𝐿 𝐿 𝐿 𝐿 𝐿
𝑗,4
; 1∕2 𝑟𝐿
𝑗,1
= 𝑟𝐿𝑗,4
}, 𝑒𝑟̃𝑈 = [𝑓𝑟̃𝐿 (𝑟𝑈
𝑗,2
+ 𝑟𝑈
𝑗,3
) + (𝑟𝑈
𝑗,1
+ 𝑈
𝑟𝑗,4 )(1 − 𝑓𝑟̃𝑈 )]∕2, and
𝑗 𝑗 𝑗 𝑗 𝑗
𝑓𝑟̃𝑈 = 𝑈 𝑈 𝑈 𝑈 𝑈 𝑈 𝑈
{(𝑟𝑗,3 − 𝑟𝑗,2 )∕(𝑟𝑗,4 − 𝑟𝑗,1 ) + 2, 𝑟𝑗,1 ≠ 𝑟𝑗,4 ; 1∕2 𝑟𝑗,1 = 𝑟𝑗,4 }, 𝑈
𝑗
[ ] [( ) ( )]
𝑢̃ 𝐺𝐼𝑉
𝑖 = 𝑢̃ 𝐺𝐼𝑉
𝑖
,𝐿 𝐺𝐼𝑉 ,𝑈
, 𝑢̃ 𝑖 = 𝑢𝐺𝐼𝑉
𝑖,1
,𝐿 𝐺𝐼𝑉 ,𝐿 𝐺𝐼𝑉 ,𝐿 𝐺𝐼𝑉 ,𝐿
, 𝑢𝑖,2 , 𝑢𝑖,3 , 𝑢𝑖,4 ; 𝑤𝑢̃𝐺𝐼𝑉 ,𝐿 , 𝑢𝐺𝐼𝑉
𝑖,1
,𝑈
, 𝑢𝐺𝐼𝑉
𝑖,2
,𝑈
, 𝑢𝐺𝐼𝑉
𝑖,3
,𝑈
, 𝑢𝐺𝐼𝑉
𝑖,4
,𝑈
; 𝑤𝑢̃𝐺𝐼𝑉 ,𝑈
𝑖 𝑖
[( { })
( ) ( )
= min 𝑠𝐿 , min 𝑠𝐿 ∖𝑝𝐿 , max 𝑠𝐿 ∖𝑞 𝐿 , max 𝑠𝐿 ; min 𝑤𝑥̃ ∗,𝐿 , (21)
( { })]
( ) ( )
min 𝑠𝑈 , min 𝑠𝑈 ∖𝑝𝑈 , max 𝑠𝑈 ∖𝑞 𝑈 , max 𝑠𝑈 ; min 𝑤𝑥̃ ∗,𝑈 ,
∏𝑔𝑤𝑗 ∏ 𝑤𝑗 ∏ 𝑤𝑗 ∏ 𝑤𝑗 ∏ 𝑤𝑗 ∏ 𝑤𝑗 ∏ 𝑤𝑗 ∏ 𝑤𝑗
where 𝑠𝐿 = {{ 𝑗=1 (𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝐿1 ) ∕ 𝑛𝑗=𝑔+1 (𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝐿4 ) }, { 𝑔𝑗=1 (𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝐿2 ) ∕ 𝑛𝑗=𝑔+1 (𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝐿3 ) }, { 𝑔𝑗=1 (𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝐿3 ) ∕ 𝑛𝑗=𝑔+1 (𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝐿2 ) }, { 𝑔𝑗=1 (𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝐿4 ) ∕ 𝑛𝑗=𝑔+1 (𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝐿1 ) }},
∏ 𝑤𝑗 ∏ 𝑤𝑗 ∏ 𝑤𝑗 ∏ 𝑤𝑗 ∏ 𝑤𝑗 ∏ 𝑤𝑗 ∏ 𝑤𝑗 ∏ 𝑤𝑗
𝑠𝑈 = {{ 𝑔𝑗=1 (𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝑈1 ) ∕ 𝑛𝑗=𝑔+1 (𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝑈4 ) }, { 𝑔𝑗=1 (𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝑈2 ) ∕ 𝑛𝑗=𝑔+1 (𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝑈3 ) }, { 𝑔𝑗=1 (𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝑈3 ) ∕ 𝑛𝑗=𝑔+1 (𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝑈2 ) }, { 𝑔𝑗=1 (𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝑈4 ) ∕ 𝑛𝑗=𝑔+1 (𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝑈1 ) }}, 𝑝𝐿 =
𝐿 𝑈 𝑈 𝐿 𝐿 𝑈 𝑈
min 𝑠 , 𝑝 = min 𝑠 , 𝑞 = max 𝑠 , 𝑞 = max 𝑠 , and the operator “\” shows the exclusion of the right hand term from the left hand set.
• Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy MULTIMOORA
In this approach, alternatives ratings are in the form of IVIFNs shown as 𝑥̃ 𝑖𝑗 =([𝑥𝐿 𝑈 𝐿 𝑈 𝐿 𝑈 𝐿 𝑈
𝑖𝑗, 𝜇 , 𝑥𝑖𝑗, 𝜇 ], [𝑥𝑖𝑗, 𝜈 , 𝑥𝑖𝑗, 𝜈 ]) where [𝑥𝑖𝑗, 𝜇 , 𝑥𝑖𝑗, 𝜇 ] and [𝑥𝑖𝑗, 𝜈 , 𝑥𝑖𝑗, 𝜈 ]
are related to ranges of membership and non-membership functions, respectively. Normalization ratio 𝑥̃ 𝑖𝑗 and the utility values of interval-valued
∗
intuitionistic fuzzy models of Ratio system, Reference Point Approach, and Full Multiplicative Form, i.e., 𝑦̃𝐼𝑉 𝑖
𝐼 , 𝑧𝐼𝑉 𝐼 , and 𝑢̃ 𝐼𝑉 𝐼 , respectively, are
𝑖 𝑖
obtained as follows:
([ ] [ ]) ([ ] [ ])
𝑥̃ ∗𝑖𝑗 = 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝐿𝜇 , 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝐿𝜇 , 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝐿𝜈 , 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝐿𝜈 = 𝑘𝑗 𝑥𝐿 𝑈 𝐿 𝑈
𝑖𝑗, 𝜇 , 𝑘𝑗 𝑥𝑖𝑗, 𝜇 , 𝑘𝑗 𝑥𝑖𝑗, 𝜈 , 𝑘𝑗 𝑥𝑖𝑗, 𝜈 , (22)
𝑚
∑ 1
2 𝑈 2 𝑈 2 2
where 𝑘𝑗 = 4( ((𝑥𝐿 𝐿
𝑖𝑗, 𝜇 ) + (𝑥𝑖𝑗, 𝜇 ) + (𝑥𝑖𝑗, 𝜈 ) + (𝑥𝑖𝑗, 𝜈 ) ))
− 2
,
𝑖=1
([ ] [ ]) ([ {( ∏𝑔 ( )𝑤 𝑗 ) ( ∏𝑛 ( )𝑤𝑗 )}
𝑦̃𝐼𝑉
𝑖
𝐼
= 𝑦𝐼𝑖,𝑉𝜇 𝐼 ,𝐿 , 𝑦𝐼𝑖,𝑉𝜇 𝐼 ,𝑈 , 𝑦𝐼𝑖,𝑉𝜈 𝐼 ,𝐿 , 𝑦𝐼𝑖,𝑉𝜈 𝐼 ,𝑈 = min 1 − 1 − 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝐿𝜇 , 1− 1 − 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝐿𝜇 ,
𝑗=1 𝑗=𝑔+1
{( ∏𝑔 ( )𝑤𝑗 ) ( ∏𝑛 ( )𝑤𝑗 )}] [ {∏𝑔 ( ) 𝑤 𝑗 ∏𝑛 ( )𝑤𝑗 }
∗,𝑈 ∗,𝑈 ∗,𝐿 ∗,𝐿
min 1 − 1 − 𝑥𝑖𝑗, 𝜇 , 1− 1 − 𝑥𝑖𝑗, 𝜇 , max 𝑥𝑖𝑗, 𝜈 , 𝑥𝑖𝑗, 𝜈 ,
𝑗=1 𝑗=𝑔+1 𝑗=1 𝑗=𝑔+1
{∏𝑔 ( ) 𝑤 𝑗 ∏𝑛 ( )𝑤𝑗 }])
max 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝑈𝜈 , 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝑈𝜈 , (23)
𝑗=1 𝑗=𝑔+1
|{ ( ( )𝑤𝑗 ) ( ( )𝑤𝑗 ) } { ( )𝑤𝑗

𝑧𝐼𝑉
𝑖
𝐼
= max || max 1 − 1 − 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝐿𝜇 , 𝑗 ≤ 𝑔; min 1 − 1 − 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝐿𝜇 , 𝑗 > 𝑔 − min 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝐿𝜈 , 𝑗 ≤ 𝑔;
𝑗 | 𝑖 𝑖 𝑖
( )𝑤𝑗 } { ( ( )𝑤 𝑗 ) ( ( )𝑤𝑗 ) }
max 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝐿𝜈 , 𝑗 > 𝑔 + max 1 − 1 − 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝑈𝜇 , 𝑗 ≤ 𝑔; min 1 − 1 − 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝑈𝜇 , 𝑗>𝑔 (24)
𝑖 𝑖 𝑖
{ ( )𝑤𝑗 ( )𝑤𝑗 } ( ( )𝑤𝑗 ) ( )𝑤𝑗 ( ( )𝑤𝑗 ) ( )𝑤𝑗 |
− min 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝑈𝜈 , 𝑗 ≤ 𝑔; max 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝑈𝜈 , 𝑗 > 𝑔 − 1 − 1 − 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝐿𝜇 + 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝐿𝜈 − 1 − 1 − 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝑈𝜇 + 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝑈𝜈 |,
𝑖 |
𝑖 |
155
([ ] [ ]) ([ {( ∏𝑔 ( )𝑤𝑗 ) ( ∏𝑛 ( )𝑤𝑗 )}
𝑢̃ 𝐼𝑉
𝑖
𝐼
= 𝑢𝐼𝑖,𝑉𝜇 𝐼 ,𝐿 , 𝑢𝐼𝑖,𝑉𝜇 𝐼 ,𝑈 , 𝑢𝐼𝑖,𝑉𝜈 𝐼 ,𝐿 , 𝑢𝐼𝑖,𝑉𝜈 𝐼 ,𝑈 = min 𝑔 − 1 − 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝐿𝜇 , (𝑛 − 𝑔 ) − 1 − 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝐿𝜇 ,
𝑗=1 𝑗=𝑔+1
[ {( 𝑔
{( ∏𝑔 ( )𝑤𝑗 ) ( ∏𝑛 ( )𝑤𝑗 )}] ∑ ( ∗,𝐿 )𝑤𝑗
min 𝑔− 1 − 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝑈𝜇 , (𝑛 − 𝑔 ) − 1 − 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝑈𝜇 , max 𝑥𝑖𝑗, 𝜈
𝑗=1 𝑗=𝑔+1
𝑗=1
∑ (( )𝑤 𝑗 ( )𝑤𝑗 ) ∑ (( )𝑤𝑗 ( )𝑤𝑗 ( )𝑤𝑗 )

𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,𝐿, 𝜈 ⋅ 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,𝐿, 𝜈 + ⋯ + (−1)𝑘+1 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,𝐿, 𝜈 ⋅ 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,𝐿, 𝜈 ⋅ ⋯ ⋅ 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,𝐿, 𝜈
1 2 1 2 𝑘
−
1 2 1 2 𝑘
𝑗1 < 𝑗2 𝑗1 < 𝑗2 < ⋯<𝑗𝑘
𝑗1 ,𝑗2 ∈ {1,2,…,𝑔} 𝑗1 ,𝑗2 , …,𝑗𝑘 ∈ {1,2,…,𝑔}
(
(( )𝑤 𝑗 ( )𝑤 𝑗 ( )𝑤𝑔 )) 𝑛 (
∑ )𝑤 𝑗 ∑ (( )𝑤𝑗 ( )𝑤𝑗 )
+ ⋯ + (−1)𝑔+1 𝑥∗𝑖1,𝐿, 𝜈 1
⋅ 𝑥∗𝑖2,𝐿, 𝜈 2
⋅ ⋯ ⋅ 𝑥∗𝑖𝑔,,𝐿𝜈 , 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝐿𝜈 − 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,𝐿, 𝜈 1
⋅ 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,𝐿, 𝜈 2
1 2
𝑗=𝑔+1 𝑗1 < 𝑗2
𝑗1 ,𝑗2 ∈ {(𝑔+1),(𝑔+1),…,𝑛}
∑ (( )𝑤𝑗 ( )𝑤𝑗 ( )𝑤 𝑗 )
+ ⋯ + (−1)𝑘+1 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,𝐿, 𝜈 ⋅ 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,𝐿, 𝜈 ⋅ ⋯ ⋅ 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,𝐿, 𝜈
1 2 𝑘
1 2 𝑘
𝑗1 < 𝑗2 < ⋯<𝑗𝑘
𝑗1 ,𝑗2 , …,𝑗𝑘 ∈ {(𝑔+1),(𝑔+1),…,𝑛}
{( 𝑔
(( )𝑤(𝑔+1) ( )𝑤(𝑔+2) ( )𝑤𝑛 ))} ∑ ( ∗,𝑈 )𝑤𝑗
+ ⋯ + (−1)𝑛+1 𝑥∗𝑖 (,𝐿
𝑔+1), 𝜈
⋅ 𝑥∗𝑖 (,𝐿
𝑔+2), 𝜈
⋅ ⋯ ⋅ 𝑥∗𝑖𝑛,,𝐿𝜈 , max 𝑥𝑖𝑗, 𝜈
𝑗=1
∑ (( )𝑤 𝑗 ( )𝑤𝑗 ) ∑ (( )𝑤𝑗 ( )𝑤𝑗 ( )𝑤 𝑗 )

𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,𝑈, 𝜈 ⋅ 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,𝑈, 𝜈 + ⋯ + (−1)𝑘+1 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,𝑈, 𝜈 ⋅ 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,𝑈, 𝜈 ⋅ ⋯ ⋅ 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,𝑈, 𝜈
1 2 1 2 𝑘
−
1 2 1 2 𝑘
𝑗1 < 𝑗2 𝑗1 < 𝑗2 < ⋯<𝑗𝑘
𝑗1 ,𝑗2 ∈ {1,2,…,𝑔} 𝑗1 ,𝑗2 , …,𝑗𝑘 ∈ {1,2,…,𝑔}
(
(( )𝑤 𝑗 ( )𝑤 𝑗 ( )𝑤𝑔 )) 𝑛 (
∑ )𝑤 𝑗 ∑ (( )𝑤𝑗 ( )𝑤𝑗 )
+ ⋯ + (−1) 𝑔+1
𝑥∗𝑖1,𝑈, 𝜈 1
⋅ 𝑥∗𝑖2,𝑈, 𝜈 2
⋅ ⋯ ⋅ 𝑥∗𝑖𝑔,,𝑈𝜈 , 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,,𝑈𝜈 − 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,𝑈, 𝜈 1
⋅ 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,𝑈, 𝜈 2
1 2
𝑗=𝑔+1 𝑗1 < 𝑗2
𝑗1 ,𝑗2 ∈ {(𝑔+1),(𝑔+1),…,𝑛}
∑ (( )𝑤𝑗 ( )𝑤𝑗 ( )𝑤 𝑗 )
+ ⋯ + (−1)𝑘+1 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,𝑈, 𝜈 ⋅ 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,𝑈, 𝜈 ⋅ ⋯ ⋅ 𝑥∗𝑖𝑗,𝑈, 𝜈
1 2 𝑘
1 2 𝑘
𝑗1 < 𝑗2 < ⋯<𝑗𝑘
𝑗1 ,𝑗2 , …,𝑗𝑘 ∈ {(𝑔+1),(𝑔+1),…,𝑛}
(( )𝑤(𝑔+1) ( )𝑤(𝑔+2) ( )𝑤𝑛 ))} ] )
+ ⋯ + (−1)𝑛+1 𝑥∗𝑖 (,𝑈
𝑔+1), 𝜈
⋅ 𝑥∗𝑖 (,𝑈
𝑔+2), 𝜈
⋅ ⋯ ⋅ 𝑥∗𝑖𝑛,,𝑈𝜈 . (25)
3.3. Developments based on linguistic term theory
In many decision-making problems, a realistic approach is to employ linguistic evaluation instead of numerical values. The significance of
linguistic decision-making can be underscored as: (1) the information may be unquantifiable and essentially by linguistic terms; (2) the precise
quantitative information may not be provided due to its unavailability or the translation cost of the data may be very high [131]. Linguistic variables
are not numbers but words or sentences in a natural or artificial language. Linguistic decision-making has a broad range of real-world applications
in different areas such as supply chain management, personnel evaluation, medical diagnostics, and online auctions [132]. There are a variety of
linguistic term sets like Interval 2-Tuple Linguistic Term set (ITLTS), Uncertain Linguistic Variable (ULV), and Two-Dimension Uncertain Linguistic
Variable (TDULV). The concept of fuzzy sets and linguistic variables have been employed in a number of hybrid models of uncertain data such
as Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Term Set (HFLTS), Unbalanced Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Term Set (UHFLTS), and Double Hierarchy Hesitant Fuzzy
Linguistic Term Set (DHHFLTS).
2-Tuple Linguistic Term set (TLTS) was utilized in three developments [12,14,96]. In the researches, the mathematical concepts like negation
operator, arithmetic average, linguistic distance, geometric average, and comparison rule of TLTSs are applied. Liu et al. [84] put forward Hesi-
tant Fuzzy Linguistic MULTIMOORA considering transformation of HFLTSs to TLTSs, linguistic distance, and comparison rule of TLTSs. Gou et al.
[58] suggested Double Hierarchy Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic MULTIMOORA by using crisp distance and expectation function of DHHFLTSs. Unbal-
anced Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Term Set (UHFLTS) was a basis for another development considering a novel Score function based on Hesitant
Degrees and Linguistic Scale Functions (Score-HeDLiSF) [59]. Liu et al. [107] introduced Interval 2-Tuple Linguistic MULTIMOORA by exploiting
linguistic distance and comparison rule of ITLTSs. Probabilistic Linguistic Term Set (PLTS) was a motivation for a new model [56] in which crisp
distance and expectation function of PLTSs were the governing concepts. Liu et al. [83] generated Uncertain Linguistic MULTIMOORA supported
on negation operator, crisp distance, and preference degree of Uncertain Linguistic Variables (ULVs). Two-Dimension Uncertain Linguistic Variable
(TDULV) was used in another extension considering negation operator, perceived-value-based expectation value of TDULVs, and regret theory [77].
We provide the derivations of the subordinate utility values of three linguistic developments of MULTIMOORA based on ITLTS, DHHFLTS, and
PLTS, as follows:
• Interval 2-Tuple Linguistic MULTIMOORA
In this method, alternatives ratings are in the form of ITLTSs represented as 𝑥̃ 𝑖𝑗 =[(𝑠𝑖𝑗 , 𝛼𝑖𝑗 ), (𝑡𝑖𝑗 , 𝜀𝑖𝑗 )]. The performance of one alternative on a
criterion is between the 2-tuples (sij , 𝛼 ij ) and (tij , ɛij ). Weighted normalization ratio 𝑥̃ ∗𝑖𝑗 in Interval 2-Tuple Linguistic MULTIMOORA is defined as:
[( ) ( )] [ ( ) ( )]
𝑥̃ ∗𝑖𝑗 = 𝑠∗𝑖𝑗 , 𝛼𝑖𝑗∗ , 𝑡∗𝑖𝑗 , 𝜀∗𝑖𝑗 =Δ 𝑤𝑗 𝑘𝑗 Δ−1 𝑠𝑖𝑗 , 𝛼𝑖𝑗 , 𝑤𝑗 𝑘𝑗 Δ−1 𝑡𝑖𝑗 , 𝜀𝑖𝑗 , (26)
∑ ∑𝑚
where 𝑘𝑗 = ( 𝑚
2 2 − 1∕2
𝑖=1 (Δ (𝑠𝑖𝑗 , 𝛼𝑖𝑗 )) + 𝑖=1 (Δ (𝑡𝑖𝑗 , 𝜀𝑖𝑗 )) ) and Δ and Δ−1 are the translation functions as follows (let 𝑃 = {𝑝1 , 𝑝2 , … , 𝑝ℎ } be a
−1 −1
linguistic term set and 𝛽 ∈ [0, 1] a value showing the result of a symbolic aggregation operation):
( ) { [ ]}
Δ(𝛽) = 𝑝𝑙 , 𝛿 , with 𝑝𝑙 , 𝑙 = round (𝛽 ⋅ ℎ); 𝛿 = 𝛽 − 𝑙∕ℎ, 𝛿 ∈ −1∕(2ℎ), 1∕(2ℎ) , (27)
156
( )
Δ−1 𝑝𝑙 , 𝛿 = (𝑙∕ℎ + 𝛿) = 𝛽, (28)
The utility values of interval 2-tuple linguistic models of Ratio system, Reference Point Approach, and Full Multiplicative Form, i.e., 𝑦̃𝐼𝑇
𝑖
𝐿, 𝑧𝐼𝑇
𝑖
𝐿,
and 𝑢̃ 𝐼𝑇
𝑖
𝐿 , respectively, are obtained as follows:
[( 𝑔 ) ( 𝑔 )]
[( ) ( )] ∑ ( ) 𝑛
∑ ( ) ∑ ( ) 𝑛
∑ ( )
𝐼𝑇 𝐿 𝑦 𝑦 𝑦 𝑦
𝑦̃𝑖 = 𝑠𝑖𝑗 , 𝛼𝑖𝑗 , 𝑡𝑖𝑗 , 𝜀𝑖𝑗 = Δ Δ −1 ∗
𝑠𝑖𝑗 , 𝛼𝑖𝑗 −
∗
Δ−1 ∗
𝑡𝑖𝑗 , 𝜀𝑖𝑗
∗
, Δ−1 ∗
𝑡𝑖𝑗 , 𝜀𝑖𝑗 −
∗
Δ−1 ∗
𝑠𝑖𝑗 , 𝛼𝑖𝑗
∗
, (29)
𝑗=1 𝑗=𝑔+1 𝑗=1 𝑗=𝑔+1
( ) [ ( )|)]
| −1 ( ∗ ∗ ) ( )| | ( ) (
𝑧𝐼𝑇 𝐿
= max 𝑑 𝑟
̃ , 𝑥
̃ ∗
= Δ max |Δ 𝑠 , 𝛼 − Δ−1
𝑟 , 𝛾 |, |Δ−1 𝑡∗ , 𝜀∗ − Δ−1 𝑟 , 𝛾 | , (30)
𝑖 𝑗 𝑖𝑗 | 𝑖𝑗 𝑖𝑗 𝑗 𝑗 | | 𝑖𝑗 𝑖𝑗 𝑗 𝑗 |
𝑗 | | | |
where 𝑟̃𝑗 = [(𝑟𝑗 , 𝛾𝑗 )] = {max{(𝑡∗𝑖𝑗 , 𝜀∗𝑖𝑗 )}, 𝑗 ≤ 𝑔 ; min{(𝑠∗𝑖𝑗 , 𝛼𝑖𝑗∗ )}, 𝑗 > 𝑔} ,
𝑖 𝑖
[( ) ( )] [(∏𝑔 ( ) ∏𝑛 ( )) (∏𝑔 ( ) ∏𝑛 ( ))]
𝑢̃ 𝐼𝑇
𝑖
𝐿
= 𝑠𝑢𝑖𝑗 , 𝛼𝑖𝑗𝑢 , 𝑡𝑢𝑖𝑗 , 𝜀𝑢𝑖𝑗 = Δ Δ−1 𝑠∗𝑖𝑗 , 𝛼𝑖𝑗∗ ∕ Δ−1 𝑡∗𝑖𝑗 , 𝜀∗𝑖𝑗 , Δ−1 𝑡∗𝑖𝑗 , 𝜀∗𝑖𝑗 ∕ Δ−1 𝑠∗𝑖𝑗 , 𝛼𝑖𝑗∗ . (31)
𝑗=1 𝑗=𝑔+1 𝑗=1 𝑗=𝑔+1
• Double Hierarchy Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic MULTIMOORA
In this technique, alternatives ratings are in the form of DHHFLTSs represented as ℎ𝑖𝑗
𝑆
= {(𝑆𝜙𝑙 < 𝑂𝜑 > ) | 𝑆𝜙𝑙 < 𝑂𝜑 > ∈ 𝑆𝑂 ; 𝑙 = 1, 2, … , 𝐿}where
𝑂 𝑙 𝑖𝑗 𝑙
L is the number of double hierarchy linguistic terms in ℎ𝑖𝑗

𝑆𝑂
and (𝑆𝜙𝑙 < 𝑂𝜑 > )𝑖𝑗 in each ℎ𝑆 are continuous linguistic terms in SO , i.e., double hierarchy
𝑙 𝑂𝑖𝑗
linguistic term set. Normalization ratio ℎ∗𝑆, 𝑖𝑗 in Double Hierarchy Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic MULTIMOORA is presented as:
𝑂
( ) ∑𝑚 ( )
ℎ∗𝑆, 𝑖𝑗 = 𝐸 ℎ𝑖𝑗
𝑆
∕ 𝐸 ℎ𝑖𝑗
𝑆
, (32)
𝑂 𝑂 𝑂
𝑖=1
∑𝐿
where 𝐸(ℎ𝑖𝑗
𝑆
) is the expected value of ℎ𝑖𝑗
𝑆
and defined as 𝐸(ℎ𝑆 )= 1
𝐿 𝑙=1 𝐹 ((𝑆𝜙𝑙 < 𝑂𝜑 > ) ) with transformation function F from double hierarchy
𝑂 𝑂 𝑂𝑖𝑗 𝑙 𝑖𝑗
hesitant fuzzy linguistic to hesitant fuzzy alternative ratings. The utility values of double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic models of Ratio system,
Reference Point Approach, and Full Multiplicative Form, i.e., 𝑦DHHFL
𝑖 , 𝑧𝐷𝐻
𝑖
𝐻 𝐹 𝐿 , and 𝑢DHHFL , respectively, are obtained as follows:
𝑖
𝑔
∑ 𝑛
∑
∗,ij ∗,ij
𝑦DHHFL
𝑖 = ℎ𝑆 − ℎ𝑆 , (33)
𝑂 𝑂
𝑗=1 𝑗=𝑔+1
√
( ) √ ( ) ( )
√1 ∑ 𝐿
( 𝑙 )2
𝑧𝐷𝐻
𝑖
𝐻𝐹 𝐿
= max 𝑑 ℎ𝑗+
𝑆𝑂
, ℎ∗𝑆, 𝑖𝑗 = max √ 𝜂1 − 𝜂2𝑙 ; 𝜂1 ∈ 𝐹 ℎ𝑗+
𝑆
, 𝜂2 ∈ 𝐹 ℎ∗𝑆, 𝑖𝑗 , (34)
𝑗 𝑂 𝑗 𝐿 𝑙=1 𝑂 𝑂
where ℎ𝑗+
𝑆
= {max ℎ∗𝑆, 𝑖𝑗 , 𝑗 ≤ 𝑔; min ℎ∗𝑆, 𝑖𝑗 , 𝑗 > 𝑔} ,
𝑂 𝑖 𝑂 𝑖 𝑂
𝑔
∏ 𝑛
∏
∗,ij ∗,ij
𝑢DHHFL
𝑖 = ℎ𝑆 ∕ ℎ𝑆 . (35)
𝑂 𝑂
𝑗=1 𝑗=𝑔+1
• Probabilistic Linguistic MULTIMOORA

∑
In this method, alternatives ratings are in the form of PLTSs represented as ℎ𝑖𝑗
𝑆
(𝑝) = {𝑠𝑖𝑗(𝑙) (𝑝(𝑙) )| 𝑠𝑖𝑗(𝑙) ∈ 𝑆, 𝑝(𝑙) ≥ 0; 𝑙 = 1, 2, … , 𝐿, 𝐿 (𝑙)
𝑙=1 𝑝 ≤ 1}
𝑖𝑗 ∗, 𝑖𝑗
where s (p ) is the l th linguistic term s with the probability p , L is the number of linguistic terms in ℎ𝑆 (𝑝). Normalization ratio ℎ𝑆 (𝑝) in
ij ( l ) ( l ) ij ( l ) ( l )
Probabilistic Linguistic MULTIMOORA is introduced as:

√
( ) √
√∑𝑚 [ ( )]2
ℎ 𝑆 (𝑝 ) = 𝐸 ℎ 𝑆 (𝑝 ) ∕ √
∗, 𝑖𝑗 𝑖𝑗
𝐸 ℎ𝑖𝑗
𝑆
(𝑝 ) , (36)
𝑖=1
∑𝐿 (𝑙) ∑𝐿
where 𝐸(ℎ𝑖𝑗
𝑆
(𝑝)) is the expected value of ℎ𝑖𝑗
𝑆
(𝑝). For ℎ𝑆 (𝑝), we have 𝐸(ℎ𝑆 (𝑝)) = 𝑙=1 ( 𝛼 2𝜏+𝜏 𝑝(𝑙) )∕ 𝑙=1 𝑝(𝑙) with 𝛼 (l) being the subscript of the linguistic
term 𝑠(𝛼𝑙) ,
𝛼 = −𝜏, … , −1, 0, 1, … , 𝜏. The utility values of probabilistic linguistic models of Ratio system, Reference Point Approach, and Full
Multiplicative Form, i.e., 𝑦PL 𝑃𝐿
𝑖 , 𝑧𝑖 , and 𝑢𝑖 , respectively, are obtained as follows:
PL
𝑔
∑ 𝑛
∑
∗,ij ∗,ij
𝑦PL
𝑖 = 𝑤𝑗 ℎ𝑆 − 𝑤𝑗 ℎ𝑆 , (37)
𝑂 𝑂
𝑗=1 𝑗=𝑔+1
{ [ ( ) ( )]}
𝑧𝑃𝑖 𝐿 = max 𝑤𝑗 𝑑 ℎ𝑗+
𝑆
𝑖𝑗 𝑗− 𝑗+
(𝑝), ℎ𝑆 (𝑝) ∕𝑑 ℎ𝑆 (𝑝), ℎ𝑆 (𝑝) , (38)
𝑗
where ℎ𝑗+
𝑆
(𝑝) = {max {ℎ𝑖𝑗
𝑆
(𝑝)}, 𝑗 ≤ 𝑔; min {ℎ𝑖𝑗
𝑆
(𝑝)}, 𝑗 > 𝑔} , ℎ𝑗−
𝑆
(𝑝) = {min {ℎ𝑖𝑗
𝑆
(𝑝)}, 𝑗 ≤ 𝑔; max {ℎ𝑖𝑗
𝑆
(𝑝)}, 𝑗 > 𝑔} and d is distance function of proba-
𝑖 𝑖 𝑖 𝑖
bilistic linguistic terms and can be defined based on different concepts.
√ √
√ 𝑔 ( ( )𝑤𝑗 ) √ 𝑛 ( ( )𝑤𝑗 )
√∏ √∏
PL
𝑢𝑖 = √𝑔 ∗,ij
1 − 1 − ℎ 𝑆 (𝑝 ) 𝑛−√
∕ 𝑔
∗,ij
1 − 1 − ℎ 𝑆 (𝑝 ) . (39)
𝑗=1 𝑗=𝑔+1
157
3.4. Development based on neutrosophic set theory
Neutrosophic Sets (NSs), suggested by Smarandache [133] in 1998, are the extensions of Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets (IFSs). The word “neutrosophy”
means “the knowledge of neutral thought” which is the main distinction between fuzzy and intuitionistic fuzzy. NSs are defined based on membership
(i.e., truth-membership), indeterminacy membership, and non-membership (i.e., falsity-membership) functions. Indeterminacy is independent of
truth and falsity values. No constraints exist between the degree of truth, indeterminacy, and falsity [134]. Some applications of NSs include conflict
resolution, decision-making, education, medical diagnosis, image processing, social problem, and robotics [135]. Various types of NS extensions exist,
such as Single-Valued Neutrosophic Set (SVNS), Interval-Valued Neutrosophic set (IVNS), and Neutrosophic Soft Set (NSS) [136]. There are some
combined sets based on Linguistic and Neutrosophic Theories like Linguistic Neutrosophic Number (LNN) and Simplified Neutrosophic Linguistic
Set (SNLS).
Five studies have utilized the theory of NSs to produce extensions of MULTIMOORA. Liang et al. [73] developed an MULTIMOORA extension
based on LNN employing the improved generalized weighted Heronian mean operator, the generalized distance, score function of LNNs, and the
improved generalized geometric weighted Heronian mean operator. Tian et al. [72] suggested Simplified Neutrosophic Linguistic MULTIMOORA
based on the normalized weighted Bonferroni mean, the normalized geometric weighted Bonferroni mean, besides crisp distance and score function
of SNLSs. Zavadskas et al. [31] introduced Single-Valued Neutrosophic MULTIMOORA supported on the concepts of crisp distance of SVNSs and
score function of SVNSs. The model is further developed by considering the weighted average operator, the weighted geometric operator, and crisp
maximum distance of SVNSs [36,76]. As SVNS has been used more than the other types of NSs in the literature, we present the formulation of its
combination with MULTIMOORA model as follows.
In Single-Valued Neutrosophic MULTIMOORA, alternatives ratings are in the form of SVNSs shown as 𝑥̃ 𝑖𝑗 = (𝑥𝑖𝑗,𝑇 , 𝑥𝑖𝑗,𝐼 , 𝑥𝑖𝑗,𝐹 ) where 𝑥𝑖𝑗,𝑇 , 𝑥𝑖𝑗,𝐼 ,
and 𝑥𝑖𝑗,𝐹 are terms based on truth-membership, indeterminacy-membership, and falsity-membership functions, respectively. 𝑥̃ 𝑖𝑗 is supposed to be
comparable with values between 0 and 1; thus, normalization is not needed. The utility values of neutrosophic models of Ratio system, Reference
Point Approach, and Full Multiplicative Form, i.e., 𝑦𝑁 𝑁 𝑁
𝑖 , 𝑧𝑖 , and 𝑢𝑖 , respectively, are obtained as follows:
( ∏𝑔 ( )𝑤𝑗 ∏ ( )𝑤𝑗 ∏ ( )𝑤𝑗 )
𝑦𝑁
𝑖 = 2− 𝑗=1
1 − 𝑥𝑖𝑗,𝑇 − 2 𝑔𝑗=1 𝑥𝑖𝑗,𝐼 − 𝑔𝑗=1 𝑥𝑖𝑗,𝐹 ∕2
( ∏𝑛 ( )𝑤𝑗 ∏𝑛 ( )𝑤 𝑗 ∏ ( )𝑤𝑗 ) (40)
− 2 − 𝑗=𝑔+1 1 − 𝑥𝑖𝑗,𝑇 − 2 𝑗=𝑔+1 𝑥𝑖𝑗,𝐼 − 𝑛𝑗=𝑔+1 𝑥𝑖𝑗,𝐹 ∕2,
( ) ( { })
| | | |
𝑧𝑁
𝑖 = max 𝑑max 𝑤𝑗 𝑟̃𝑗 , 𝑤𝑗 𝑥̃ 𝑖𝑗 = max 𝑤𝑗 . |𝑟𝑗,𝑇 − 𝑥𝑖𝑗,𝑇 |, 𝑗 ≤ 𝑔; |𝑟𝑗,𝐹 − 𝑥𝑖𝑗,𝐹 |, 𝑗≤𝑔 , (41)
𝑗 𝑗 | | | |
where 𝑟̃𝑗 = (𝑟𝑗,𝑇 , 𝑟𝑗,𝐼 , 𝑟𝑗,𝐹 ) = {(max 𝑥𝑖𝑗,𝑇 , max 𝑥𝑖𝑗,𝐼 , max 𝑥𝑖𝑗,𝐹 ), 𝑗 ≤ 𝑔; (min 𝑥𝑖𝑗,𝑇 , min 𝑥𝑖𝑗,𝐼 , min 𝑥𝑖𝑗,𝐹 ), 𝑗 > 𝑔},
𝑖 𝑖 𝑖 𝑖 𝑖 𝑖
{( ∏ ( )𝑤𝑗 ∏ ( )𝑤𝑗 ∏ ( )𝑤𝑗 ) }
𝑢𝑁
𝑖 = −2 + 𝑔𝑗=1 𝑥𝑖𝑗,𝑇 + 2 𝑔𝑗=1 1 − 𝑥𝑖𝑗,𝐼 + 𝑔𝑗=1 1 − 𝑥𝑖𝑗,𝐹 ∕2
(42)
{( ∏ ( )𝑤 𝑗 ∏ ( )𝑤𝑗 ∏ ( )𝑤𝑗 ) }
∕ −2 + 𝑛𝑗=𝑔+1 𝑥𝑖𝑗,𝑇 + 2 𝑛𝑗=𝑔+1 1 − 𝑥𝑖𝑗,𝐼 + 𝑛𝑗=𝑔+1 1 − 𝑥𝑖𝑗,𝐹 ∕2 .
3.5. Development based on rough Set, Z-number, and cloud theories
Rough Set Theory was introduced by Pawlak [137] (in 1982) to interpret uncertainty in different way comparing the previous theories such
as Fuzzy Set Theory. Rough Set Theory is not focused on obtaining membership of an uncertain value. In fact, the theory presents a new idea in
the context of uncertainty concepts which is “indiscernibility.” It related to our perception about elements of the universe. In real life, two various
elements can be “seen” as the same although they are essentially different. That is, the elements are “indiscernible” according to the information that
can be perceived from them [138]. Rough Set Theory is helpful for many practical problems such as knowledge acquisition, expert systems, machine
learning, pattern recognition, and medical diagnostics applications [139]. Two studies have developed Rough MULTIMOORA models [3,92].
Z-number (ZN) was proposed by Zadeh [140] (in 1998) to provide the “reliability” of information which is one of the limits of traditional fuzzy
numbers. Typically, a ZN has two components, i.e., 𝑍 = (𝐴, 𝐵 ), in which A is a constraint on the values of a real-valued uncertain variable and B
is an indicator for the degree of reliability of A. Normally, A and B are expressed using natural language. ZNs are beneficial for application in many
areas including risk evaluation, decision-making, economics, and prediction [57]. ZNs can be transformed to classical fuzzy numbers [141]. Peng and
Wang [57] introduced Z-MULTIMOORA. For the model, first, it is needed that ZNs are translated into normal Z+ -values. The following key features
of Z+ -values were used in the development: generalized normal power weighted average operator, crisp distance rule, normal power weighted
geometric operator, and closeness coefficient inspired by TOPSIS.
Cloud Model, suggested by Li et al. [142] in 2009, considers the “randomness” of data besides its fuzziness. By considering probability theory
and fuzzy sets, Cloud Model provides a new way of cognition of uncertainty [62]. Randomness and fuzziness are significant uncertainties inherent in
human cognition necessary to be tackled in artificial intelligence research. By using a generalized normal distribution with weak constraints, Cloud
Model is adaptive for description of uncertainty embodied in linguistic concepts. The model avoids quantifying the membership degree of an element
as an accurate value as it is usual in Fuzzy Set Theory [142]. Clouds has been employed in various applications like tunneling excavation technology,
wind farm site selection, healthcare waste treatment, and efficiency of energy consumption. Wu el al. [62] formulated Cloud MULTIMOORA using
negation operator, crisp distance, and comparison rule of clouds.
3.6. Statistical evaluation of MULTIMOORA uncertain developments
Table 6 scrutinizes the frequencies of uncertainty theories employed for extensions of MULTIMOORA. With no surprise, Fuzzy Set Theory has
been used more than the other uncertainty theories. Interval Number and Linguistic Set Theories have the subsequent ranks of the table with near the
same utilization frequencies. Also, they have often been employed in a combined mode together with other uncertainty theories as aforementioned
in previous sections.
158
Fig. 5. Timeline of uncertainty theories.
Table 6
Distribution of uncertainty theories.
Uncertainty theory Frequency Percentage frequency Reference(s)
Fuzzy set theory 39 36.8 [14,16,41,42,44,48,54,55,58,59,63,69,17,70,71,74,78-80,84,85,87,88,18,91,93,94,97,98,103,106,108,

114,19,25,26,32,34,40]
Interval number 13 12.2 [33,38,103,107,108,40,44,46,54,60,70,78,97]
theory
Linguistic term 12 11.3 [12,14,96,107,56,58,59,72,73,77,83,84]
theory
Neutrosophic set 5 4.7 [31,36,72,73,76]
theory
Rough set theory 2 1.9 [3,92]
Cloud model theory 1 0.9 [62]
Z-number theory 1 0.9 [57]
Table 7
Distribution of uncertainty sets (items with frequency ≥ 3).
Uncertainty set Frequency Percentage frequency Reference(s)
Triangular Fuzzy Number (TFN) 20 18.9 [14,19,69,71,79,80,85,87,91,93,98,114,25,26,34,41,42,48,55,63]

Interval Number (IN) 4 3.8 [33,38,60,108]
Generalized Interval-Valued Fuzzy Number (GIVFN) 4 3.8 [54,97,103,108]
Trapezoidal Fuzzy Number (TrFN) 4 3.8 [32,74,88,94]
2-Tuple Linguistic Term set (TLTS) 3 2.9 [12,14,96]
Single-Valued Neutrosophic Set (SVNS) 3 2.9 [31,36,76]
Fig. 5 displays an overall upward trend in the employment of un-

certainty theories with passing of time; however, there is a modest application in the uncertain developments of MULTIMOORA. The table
fall in 2016. In 2017, it was the beginning of utilization of Cloud shows that simpler uncertainty sets have been exploited more frequently
Model, Rough Set, and Neutrosophic Term Theories in modeling un- by researchers.
certain MULTIMOORA followed by an extensive investigation into un-
certainty theories, in 2018, besides unveiling Z-MULTIMOORA. Interval 3.7. Graphical summary of MULTIMOORA uncertain developments
Number and Fuzzy Set Theories are nearly employed in all the years;
however, there is a rugged trend in exploitation of Linguistic Term As Fig. 6 shows, there are various uncertainty theories used to de-
Theory. velop extensions of MULTIMOORA. The first circle illustrates seven un-
The frequencies of studies on uncertainty sets are collected in certainty theories (i.e., Interval Number, Fuzzy Set, Linguistic Term,
Table 7. TFN which is the simplest type of fuzzy numbers has the most Neutrosophic Set, Z-number, Rough Set, and Cloud Model Theories)
159
Fig. 6. Infographics of MULTIMOORA uncertain developments. (numerals represent the frequencies).
which are the sources of uncertainty sets of the second circles. Some 4. Analysis of the applications of MULTIMOORA
sets originate from more than one theory. Furthermore, this figure
provides the frequencies of utilization of the uncertainty theories and In this section, the applications of MULTIMOORA are discussed.
sets. Section 4.1 presents the applications of MULTIMOORA in the field of In-
In the first circle, Fuzzy Set Theory has the most frequency 39 and dustries which is the most frequent applications of the MCDM technique.
Z-number and Cloud Model Theories have the minimum frequency 1. In- Section 4.2 goes through the problems in the area of Economics. The ap-
terval Number and Linguistic Term Theories are also important in MUL- plications related to Civil Services and Environmental Policy-Making are
TIMORA uncertain developments which have frequencies 13 and 12, re- described in Section 4.3. Medical/Healthcare Management and Informa-
spectively. In the second circle, TFN is the mostly used uncertainty set tion and Communications Technologies (ICT) applications are depicted
with frequency 20. The important unmixed sets which are only based on in Section 4.4. In Section 4.5, all practical problems of MULTIMOORA
one uncertainty theory include: IN (with frequency 4), TrFN (with fre- are evaluated statistically by discussing the distribution based on appli-
quency 4), TLTS (with frequency 3), and SVNS (with frequency 3). From cation sectors and subsectors as well as case studies besides illustrating
the category of hybrid sets which are based on two uncertainty theories the timeline of application types. Eventually, Section 4.6 encapsulates
GIVFN has the most exploitation in MULTIMORA uncertain models with this section by presenting an infographics of MULTIMOORA applica-
frequency 4. There are some sets that have high-degree of uncertainty, tions. In Appendix, Table A.7 lists some MULTIMOORA applications in
including: HFLTS, DHHFLTS, UHFLTS, and TDULV. miscellaneous areas.
160
4.1. Applications in the sector of industries [65] scrutinized economic scenarios in Belgian regions. In Banking Sys-
tem subsector, four case studies have tackled the problems concerning
The applications of MULTIMOORA in the sector of Industries are Ranking Countries/Cities/Regions, Ranking Banks, and Bank Loan Eval-
divided into the following subsectors: Construction, Automotive, Agri- uation. Önay [90] assessed Turkey’ Regions according to the perfor-
cultural, Mining, Entertainment, Logistics, Steel, Aviation, Beverage, mance of banks. There are two researches into ranking banks in Lithua-
Carpentry, Energy, Ship-Building, and Textile Industries, besides Man- nia [104,105]. Brauers and Zavadskas [143] handled a problem regard-
ufacturing System. In Construction Industry subsector, there are sev- ing bank loans from different banks to purchase property in Lithuania. In
eral case studies related to Buildings Revitalization Appraisal [70], Stock Exchange subsector, two case studies have dealt with the decision-
Project Management [78,102], and Ranking Countries/Cities/Regions making about investment in Belgian shares based on BEL20® index (i.e.,
[61] besides the selection of Investment [70], Component [31,66], De- the benchmark stock market index of Euronext Brussels) [64,99].
sign [15,51,60], Material [31], Supplier [92], and Technology [110].
In Automotive Industry subsector, there are multiple case studies re- 4.3. Applications in the sector of civil services and environmental
lated to Battery Recycling Mode Selection [77] and Location Planning policy-making
[83] as well as the selection of Material [39,94], Robot [84], Supplier
[89], and Vehicle [62,67,95]. In Agricultural Industry subsector, the For this sector, there are two subsectors: Environmental Policy-
case studies include Farming Efficiency Estimation [114] and the selec- Making and Bike-Sharing Program. In Environmental Policy-Making
tion of Crop [26], Machine [81], and Supplier [74]. In Mining Indus- subsector, there are several case studies related to Climate Change
try subsector, there exist four case studies related to Design Selection Policy-Making, Ranking Countries/Cities/Regions, Ranking Coun-
[36,44], Mining Technique Selection [73], and Personnel Management tries/Cities/Regions, Supplier Selection, Warehouse Selection, and
[101]. In Entertainment Industry subsector, two case studies exist con- Warehouse Selection. Streimikiene and Baležentis [24] analyzed climate
cerning Company/Industrial Group Selection [56] and Device Selection change mitigation measures in Lithuania. Gou et al. [58] assessed China
[76]. In Logistics Industry subsector, two case studies have considered cities with respect to air pollution control measures for treating haze.
the problems regarding Partner Selection [85] and Transportation Effi- Peng and Wang [57] tackled the practical problem of air pollution po-
ciency Evaluation [113]. In Manufacturing System subsector, the prac- tential evaluation in Chengdu, China. Sen et al. [91] dealt with the prob-
tical cases are Enterprise Resource Planning [72] and the selection of lem of suppliers’ appraisement according to environmental issues. Sezer
Design [47], Machine [33,97], and Material [39,46]. In Steel Industry [98] evaluated the alternatives of warehouse for hazardous materials.
subsector, two researches exist in respect to Risk Evaluation [40,80]. Chen et al. [41] appraised the candidates of wastewater treatment. In
For other subsectors of Industries sector, there is only one case Bike-Sharing Program subsector, there exist three case studies related
study. Dorfeshan et al. [78] evaluated a project management problem to Investment Selection, Location Planning, and Service Selection. Tian
in the area aircraft component development planning. Çebi and Otay et al. [69] conducted a study on the performance of bike-sharing services
[93] tackled a supplier selection problem in a company operating in bev- in Changsha, China. Kabak et al. [68] examined the priorities of bike-
erage industry. Stojić et al. [3] assessed selection process of supplier for share stations in Izmir, Turkey. Liao et al. [59] assessed an investment
a PVC carpentry manufacturing company. Hafezalkotob and Hafezalko- problem in shared-bikes service in China.
tob [88] handled material selection process for the blades of industrial
gas turbine. Qin and Liu [96] chose a suitable supplier for purchasing
components of ship equipment. Brauers and Zavadskas [29] undertook 4.4. Applications in the sectors of medical/healthcare management and ICT
a project management problem for Tunisian textile industry.
The applications of MULTIMOORA in the sector of Medi-
4.2. Applications in the sector of economics cal/Healthcare Management are divided into the following subsectors:
Medical Service, Biomedical Service, and Health-Care Management. In
The applications of MULTIMOORA in the sector of Economics are Medical Service subsector, there is one case study related to pharmaco-
divided into the following subsectors: Sustainable Development, Eco- logical selection of type 2 diabetes [79]. In Biomedical Service subsector,
nomic Growth, Banking System, and Stock Exchange. In Sustainable De- two studies has conducted on the selection process of biomaterials for
velopment subsector, there are several case studies related to Ranking hip and knee surgical prostheses [38,100]. In Health-Care Management
Countries/Cities/Regions, Facility Management, and Energy Manage- subsector, three case studies have handled Risk Evaluation and Waste
ment. Five studies measured the performance of the European Union Management. Liu et al. [32] used the concept of failure mode and effects
countries with respect to the goals of the Lisbon Strategy 2000–2008 analysis to prevent infant abduction from hospitals. Two researched an-
[19,20,28,50,112]. Two researches evaluated the level of preparation of alyzed the treatment technologies regarding health-care waste manage-
European Union countries for Europe 2020 targets [21,109]. Lazauskas ment in Shanghai, China [25,107].
et al. [30] ranked several cities for the development of sustainable The applications of MULTIMOORA in the sector of ICT are divided
construction. Stankevičienė and Rosov [52] evaluated the public debt into two subsectors: Information System and Telecommunication Sys-
risks of European Union member states in 2005–2010 considering struc- tem. Li [106] tackled a software selection problem concerning a com-
tural indicators. Baležentis et al. [115] assessed European Union mem- puter center at a university. Aytaç Adalı and Tuş Işık [37] addressed a
ber states according to well-being level. Stankevičienė et al. [53] ana- problem about suitable laptops for administrative affairs. Three studies
lyzed the country risk besides economic sustainability and security in have been undertaken on choosing a manager for research and develop-
European Union Baltic Sea region countries. Brauers et al. [86] exam- ment department of a telecommunication company [16,18,54].
ined the preference of alternatives of the facilities sector in Lithuania.
Streimikiene et al. [27] tackled a problem about sustainable electricity 4.5. Statistical evaluation of MULTIMOORA applications
production technologies.
In Economic Growth subsector, there exist four case studies related Fig. 7 exhibits the percentages of application sectors of MULTI-
to Ranking Countries/Cities/Regions and Economic Evaluation. Brauers MOORA as a pie-chart besides providing the related frequencies and
and Zavadskas [45] compared 27 European Union countries accord- references in its legend. MULTIMOORA has mostly been utilized for In-
ing to economic growth. Baležentis et al. [22] appraised economic sec- dustrial and Economic application sectors with frequency percentages
tors in Lithuania with respect to indicators of efficiency and produc- 41 and 22, respectively. Medical/Healthcare Management as well as In-
tivity. Brauers and Zavadskas [43] dealt with economic scenarios for formation and Communications Technologies application sectors have
an optimal Input-output structure in Tanzania. Brauers and Ginevičius the minimum frequency percentages 6 and 5, respectively.
161
Fig. 7. Distribution of application sectors.
Fig. 8. Timeline of application sectors.
Fig. 8 illustrates the timeline of application sectors of MULTI- nications Technologies application sectors have been used with a low
MOORA. From the figure, it can be perceived that there is a upward frequency rate.
trend in the frequencies of applications with passing time except the The frequency of works in different application subsectors are sorted
case of year 2013 to 2014. The other point is the gradual decrease in in Table 8. Sustainable Development, Construction Industry, and Auto-
the amount of works in the field of Economics; instead, the area of motive Industry (with frequencies 13, 11, and 9, respectively) totally
Industries grabs more attention from researchers in the recent years. have more than a one-third share of all items of application subsectors.
The application sector regarding Civil Services & Environmental Policy- The frequency of studies in various case studies are shown in Table 9.
Making is rarely employed in period 2010–17; however, it has been Ranking Countries/Cities/Regions, Supplier Selection, and Personnel
considered markedly in 2018 with frequency 5. From 2013 onward, management (with frequencies 16, 11, and 8, respectively) together
Medical/Healthcare Management as well as Information and Commu- have a one-third share of all items of case studies.
162
Table 8
Distribution of application subsectors.
Application subsector Frequency Percentage frequency Reference(s)
Sustainable development 13 12.3 [19,20,109,112,115,21,27,28,30,50,52,53,86]

Construction industry 11 10.4 [15,31,110,60,61,66,70,78,89,92,102]
Automotive industry 9 8.5 [39,51,62,67,77,83,84,94,95]
Environmental policy-making 6 5.7 [24,41,57,58,91,98]
Manufacturing system 6 5.7 [33,39,46,47,72,97]
Agricultural industry 4 3.8 [26,74,81,114]
Banking system 4 3.8 [23,90,104,105]
Economic growth 4 3.8 [22,43,45,65]
Mining industry 4 3.8 [36,44,73,101]
Bike-sharing program 3 2.8 [59,68,69]
Healthcare management 3 2.8 [25,32,107]
Telecommunication sector 3 2.8 [16,18,54]
Biomedical service 2 1.9 [38,100]
Entertainment industry 2 1.9 [56,76]
Information system 2 1.9 [37,106]
Logistics industry 2 1.9 [85,113]
Steel industry 2 1.9 [40,80]
Stock exchange 2 1.9 [64,99]
Aviation industry 1 0.9 [78]
Beverage industry 1 0.9 [93]
Carpentry industry 1 0.9 [3]
Energy industry 1 0.9 [88]
Medical service 1 0.9 [79]
Ship-building industry 1 0.9 [96]
Textile industry 1 0.9 [29]
Table 9
Distribution of case studies.
Case study Frequency Percentage frequency Reference(s)
Ranking countries/cities/regions 16 15.1 [19,20,58,61,90,109,112,115,21,28,30,45,50,52,53,57]

Supplier selection 11 10.4 [3,12,103,14,49,74,89,91-93,96]
Personnel management 8 7.5 [16–18,34,54,55,82,101]
Material selection 7 6.6 [31,38,39,46,88,94,100]
Design selection 6 5.7 [15,36,44,47,51,60]
Investment selection 6 5.7 [42,59,64,70,71,99]
Project management 6 5.7 [11,13,29,78,102,111]
Risk evaluation 4 3.8 [32,40,48,80]
Economic evaluation 3 2.8 [22,43,65]
Machine selection 3 2.8 [33,81,97]
Vehicle selection 3 2.8 [62,67,95]
Company industrial group selection 2 1.9 [56,108]
Component selection 2 1.9 [31,66]
Device selection 2 1.9 [37,76]
Location planning 2 1.9 [68,83]
Partner selection 2 1.9 [85,103]
Ranking banks 2 1.9 [104,105]
Waste management 2 1.9 [25,107]
Bank loan evaluation 1 0.9 [23]
Battery recycling-mode selection 1 0.9 [77]
Buildings revitalization appraisal 1 0.9 [70]
Climate change policy-making 1 0.9 [24]
Crop selection 1 0.9 [66]
Energy management 1 0.9 [26]
Enterprise resource planning 1 0.9 [27]
Facility management 1 0.9 [72]
Farming efficiency estimation 1 0.9 [86]
Fuel selection 1 0.9 [114]
Mining technique selection 1 0.9 [75]
Robot selection 1 0.9 [31]
Service selection 1 0.9 [73]
Software selection 1 0.9 [85]
Student selection 1 0.9 [84]
Technology selection 1 0.9 [69]
Therapy selection 1 0.9 [106]
Transportation efficiency evaluation 1 0.9 [63]
Warehouse selection 1 0.9 [103]
Wastewater treatment 1 0.9 [110]
163
Fig. 9. Infographics of MULTIMOORA applications (numerals represent the frequencies; items with frequency of application sectors ≥ 6).
4.6. Graphical summary of MULTIMOORA applications teria, group decision-making, combination with other models, uncertain
developments, and practical applications, respectively.
Fig. 9 demonstrates a multi-level categorization of MULTIMOORA
applications. The first circle includes the application sectors: Industries, 5.1. Challenges for subordinate ranking methods
Economics, Civil Services & Environmental Policy-Making, and Medi-
cal/Healthcare Management (the application sector regarding Informa- For MCDM approaches, there exist a number of normalization ratios
tion and Communications Technologies is omitted from Fig. 9 due to its like Weitendorf, Peldschus, Jüttler, Stopp, Jüttler and Körth, Logarith-
low frequencies). Each application sector is then expanded in the sec- mic, Voogd (i.e., Linear), and Pattern Normalizations as well as Stan-
ond and third circles of categorization to include application subsectors dardization, Maximum Standardization, and Peldschus Nonlinear Nor-
and the related case studies, respectively. The frequencies of items in malization. In this regard, a research can be conducted on comparative
the circles are also mentioned in the figure. analysis of the normalization ratios to determine the effect of changing
Industries Sector (with frequency 43) has 14 application subsec- normalization ratio on final result of MULTIMOORA model.
tors including: Construction, Automotive, Agricultural, Mining, Enter- Based on the concept of TOPSIS, Eghbali-Zarch et al. [79] extended
tainment, Logistics, Steel, Aviation, Beverage, Carpentry, Energy, Ship- the Reference Point Approach by considering negative ideal point.
Building, and Textile Industries as well as Manufacturing System. The For future developments, Reference Point Approach could be extended
mostly utilized application subsectors from the category of Industries, based on UORP Vector to consider near-ideal point. Extensions of Ra-
are Construction Industry and Automotive Industry with frequencies 11 tio System and Full Multiplicative Form are also interesting. For exam-
and 9, respectively. Economics Sector (with frequency 23) has 4 appli- ple, a coefficient can be considered for the terms related the beneficial
cation subsectors including: Sustainable Development, Banking System, and non-beneficial criteria to consider the unidentical importance for
Economic Growth, and Stock Exchange. The mostly employed applica- the terms. In contrast to Ratio System, MOOSRA employs operator “di-
tion subsector from the category of Economics, is Sustainable Develop- vision” instead of “subtraction.” According to this issue, the effect of
ment with frequency 13. Civil Services & Environmental Policy-Making changing the mathematical operator “division” to “subtraction” can be
Sector (with frequency 10) has 2 application subsectors including: Envi- assessed in the utility function of Full Multiplicative Form. Generally, a
ronmental Policy-Making and Bike-Sharing Program with frequencies 6 study can be conducted on comparatively analyzing the effect of differ-
and 3, respectively. Medical/Healthcare Management Sector (with fre- ent mathematical operators in the triple subordinate utility functions of
quency 6) has 3 application subsectors including: Healthcare Manage- MULTIMOORA.
ment, Biomedical Service, and Medical Service with frequencies 3, 2,
and 1, respectively.
5.2. Challenges for ranking aggregation tools
5. Challenges to future studies on MULTIMOORA As potential researches into the field of ranking aggregation of rank-
ings of MULTIMOORA, the application of Copeland, Nanson, Dodgson,
In this section, we present challenges for future researches into the- Kemeny-Young methods could be interesting. In Copeland method, al-
ory, developments, and applications of MULTIMOORA. The challenges ternatives are ordered based on the number of pairwise victories and
are presented in the following seven sections regarding subordinate pairwise defeats. Each alternative is compared against other candidates
ranking methods, ranking aggregation tools, weighting methods for cri- in a series of imaginary one-on-one contests. The alternative that de-
164
feats the largest number of others is the Copeland winner, i.e., the best panel negotiates to reach an acceptable group solution which may not
alternative [144]. necessarily be the favorite opinion of each decision-maker [125].
Nanson method is on the basis of Borda scores of alternatives. It In the previous studies on MULTIMOORA, it is supposed that
has a multistage system in which alternatives with the lowest Borda decision-makers have the same expertise level; thus, the weights of their
score are eliminated at each stage, then new scores are calculated for the comments were usually considered to be identical. However, in real-
remaining alternatives. The elimination procedure continues to reach world problems, the expertise level are not necessarily equal. In this
only one alternative which is identified as the best candidate [144]. regard, the evaluation of differentiating the level of influence of each
Dodgson method is another ranking aggregation which works supported expert in MULTIMOORA group decision model could be a valuable re-
on the concept of pairwise comparison and swap of alternatives. Based search. Another significant issue for potential studies is assessing the
on this technique, the best alternative is the candidate that needs the consistency of the structure of decision analysis of the expert panel. Con-
minimum number of pairwise swaps [145]. sistency is important both for individual and collective decisions [125].
Kemeny-Young method considers a score for each imaginary se- The occurrence of inconsistencies may lead to erroneous judgments and
quence in which each sequence determines which alternative may be incoherent outcomes.
the most suitable, which alternative may be the second-most suitable,
which alternative may be the third-most suitable, and so on down to 5.5. Challenges for combination with other models
which alternative may be the least-popular. The sequence with the high-
est score is the winner sequence in which its first alternative is identified For the integrative MULTIMOORA-based approaches, useful ideas
as the best candidate [146]. A comparative research on applications of like Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) and ANN can be employed.
different ranking aggregation tools in the model of MULTIMOORA and ERP which is a key tool concerning the management of business pro-
analysis of the advantages and drawbacks of each tool could also be an cesses can be considered as a solution for inefficient business processes.
appealing prospective study. It standardizes the processes of a firm and stores data besides recalls the
information when it is needed in real time environment [151].
ANN could also be beneficial in MULTIMOORA model. It can be used
5.3. Challenges for weighting methods for criteria
to narrow down the decision analysis from a pool of alternatives to reach
a set of candidates as a decision matrix which will be then tackled in
Some important weighting approaches are missed to be utilized
the MULTIMOORA approach to reach the optimal alternative. In con-
in the model of MULTIMOORA, such as: Analytical Network Process
trast with the conventional programming, ANNs present an approach to
(ANP), Simos method, and Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique
computing which does not require a thorough algorithmic specification.
(SMART). ANP is the general extension of AHP. In the model of AHP,
A genetic algorithm-based ANNs can decrease the time of computing and
target, criteria, and alternatives are considered in the decision-making
increase the precision of the results. This approach has been previously
problem based on a hierarchical structure; however, ANP tackles the
employed in TOPSIS model [152].
problem as a network. Both techniques use a pairwise comparisons
Risk Management and Data Mining approaches are also less worked
structure to obtain the weights of criteria [147]. ANP could decrease
in the studies on MULTIMOORA. Measuring multifarious risks and spec-
the error related to judgmental forecast based on the concept of “reli-
ifying the acceptability degree of each risk and analysis of costs and
ability of information processing.” In AHP, each criterion is supposed
advantages of considering risks are the challenges at the heart of real-
to be independent according to other criteria, but in practical cases,
world MCDM problems. As discussed in Section 2.6, only one study has
there may exist “interdependence” among criteria. ANP does not need
combined a data mining technique with MULTIMOORA. Thus, in this
“independence” among criteria; thus, the results of a potential ANP-
area, novel works could be implemented by integrating MULTIMOORA
MULTIMOORA methodology would be more reliable [148].
with data mining methods. For instance, clustering and classification
Simos method is on the basis of “card playing” procedure where var-
of data is essential before constructing a decision-matrix in MCDM ap-
ious criteria are categorized into varied levels by the decision-maker fol-
proaches. Many methods in the area of data mining can implement the
lowed by ranking and weighting of the assigned levels [149]. SMART,
task of clustering and classification.
as a compensatory MCDM technique, is designed to present a way to
implement the initial steps of Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT).
5.6. Challenges for uncertain developments
SMART employs the concept of SAW for the weighting procedure [150].
Besides, low works have been employed using the integrated weights,
As shown in Fig. 5, the uncertainty sets previously used in MUL-
i.e., via combining objective and subjective weights. Analysis of the ef-
TIMOORA uncertain developments are limited to 23 items. Thus, in-
fects of various weighting methods for application in the algorithm of
teresting and applicable researches could be conducted on MULTI-
MULTIMOORA can be also an issue for potential studies.
MOORA by exploiting new uncertainty sets such as Hesitant Linguistic
Neutrosophic Number (HLNN), Hesitant Uncertain Linguistic Z-number
5.4. Challenges for group decision-making (HULZN), Interval-Valued Neutrosophic Soft Set (IVNSS), Generalized
Interval Neutrosophic Rough Set (GINRS), and Hesitant Fuzzy Rough
Future studies can focus on multi-level group decision-making struc- Set (HFRS).
ture in which there is a senior decision-maker who manages an expert Cui and Ye [153] introduced HLNNs for MCDM process based on
panel. This structure is practically common, for example in public orga- similarity measures and the least common multiple cardinality. Peng
nizations (e.g., parliaments or commissions) and private institutes (e.g., and Wang [154] suggested HULZNs and assessed its application in
industrial factories or social service companies). In a hierarchical struc- MCDM with multiple experts using the power aggregation operators
ture, more power can be considered for the senior decision-maker and and VIKOR model. Mukherjee [155] developed IVNS, IVNSS, and dis-
in an extreme case, this leader can make the decision on his/her own cussed different types of IVNSS relations. Yang et al. [156] proposed
regardless of or with low attention to the opinions of the expert panel. GINRS supported on interval neutrosophic relations and evaluate the hy-
As another hint for complementary works on group decision-making, brid methodology using constructive technique and axiomatic approach.
prospective researchers may focus on cooperative and non-cooperative Yang et al. [157] studied HFRS based on constructive and axiomatic ap-
multi-expert MULTIMOORA models. The comparative analysis of the co- proaches.
operative and non-cooperative group decision-making models can also Recently, some hybrid uncertain sets have been developed using
be interesting. A further step in the field could be a consensus-based Cloud model. In this regard, Wang et al. [158] presented an interval-
MULTIMOORA model. In consensus-based decision-making, the expert valued intuitionistic linguistic group decision-making procedure using
165
Trapezium Cloud Model. Kumar and Sanjay [159] introduced Interval- by categorizing into application sectors, application subsectors, and case
Valued Intuitionistic Hesitant Fuzzy Set (IVIHFS) based on Trapezium studies. Fourth, we presented detailed directions for potential works on
Cloud Model. Thus, for further studies, Cloud model could be integrated MULTIMOORA.
with other uncertain sets to be applied in the MULTIMOORA algorithm. The following items are the benefits of this overview study:
Also, the hybrid MULTIMOORA models based on stochastic data or
• Only one review study exists on the context of MULTIMOORA which
proposing integrative hypotheses supported on probability theory such
implemented by Baležentis and Baležentis [1] in 2014. The men-
as probabilistic neutrosophic set are worthwhile to be scrutinized.
tioned work only discussed a few extensions besides shortly ex-
amining its applications. Apart from addressing the need of sur-
5.7. Challenges for practical applications
veying the studies from 2014 onward, the present paper has at-
tempted to provide a thorough investigation into MULTIMOORA
Additionally, despite a number of various real-world decision-
by considering multiple issues: theory, importance, uncertain exten-
making problems have been tackled to date exploiting MULTIMOORA
sions, case studies, bibliometric analyses, and directions for further
and its developments, researchers can prospectively work on exam-
studies.
ining fundamental problems in Industrial and Socio-Economic Fields.
• The major focus of this overview is on presentation and analy-
For instance, the following applications can be regarded: Industrial
sis of the models and applications with giving a minor priority to
Field → Technology Selection, Food Industry, and Power Plants Manage-
bibliometric-based survey.
ment; Socio-Economic Field → E-Commerce Application and Analysis of
• Separate detailed reviews on developments and applications were
Online Social Networks.
provided. Also, the equations of subordinate utilities of several sig-
Moreover, low works have been implemented in the sector of In-
nificant MULTIMOORA extensions were discussed.
formation and Communications Technologies. Besides, applications of
• A set of challenges were depicted regarding theoretical features and
MULTIMOORA in the medical/biomedical sector are very limited as dis-
practical applications of MULTIMOORA.
cussed in Section 4.4. In this field, target-based decision-making is very
useful. In spite of the benefits and applicability of target-based criteria, The following theoretical and practical points can be concluded from
the field is somewhat ignored in decision-making algorithm of MULTI- the discussions presented in this overview:
MOORA (i.e., target-based MULTIMOORA models are limited to four
• Seven uncertainty theories are employed for producing the exten-
studies [33,38,81,100]). In target-based MULTIMOORA, unlike tradi-
tional MCDM models, the objective of criteria is not only maximization sions of MULTIMOORA. Among them, there are some models which
or minimization but also assessing the distance to the goal point. Signif- mix two concepts to produce high-degree uncertain sets such as
icance of target-based criteria can be impressively grasped in real-life DHHFLTSs, TDULVs, and PLTSs. Among the seven discussed uncer-
problems such as biomedical applications concerning finding suitable tainty theories, Interval Number and Fuzzy SetTheories are more
biomaterial for surgical prostheses. The suitable biomaterial for a pros- used for combination with the other methods. Some uncertain devel-
thesis should have the closest properties to the properties of its nearby opments need more mathematical concepts for generating the mod-
body tissue (which are supposed as the target values) to minimize iter- els; however, there are several developments which do not require
ations and harmful side effects [100]. uncertain arithmetic because they simply use score functions which
only need crisp arithmetic, such as: the extensions based on PLTSs,
6. Conclusions ZNs, UHFLTSs, HFLTSs, and DHHFLTSs. Fuzzy Theory far outweighs
the other uncertainty theories. The reason is Fuzzy Theory as a fun-
Among a variety of MCDM methods, MULTIMOORA is a signifi- damental concept of uncertainty is the source of many fuzzy opera-
cant MCDM technique that combines three subordinate rankings ob- tors and score functions. From 2017 onward, there is a considerable
tained by the fully compensatory, non-compensatory and incompletely- rise in utilization of uncertainties in addition to inserting new con-
compensatory models entitled Ratio System, Reference Point Approach, cepts like Cloud Model, Rough Set, and Z-number theories into MUL-
and Full Multiplicative Form. The results of the three ranking methods TIMOORA. Among uncertain sets, TFN, as a simple fuzzy number, is
are then fused to a final ranking list for which different ranking aggre- mostly applied to develop extensions.
• Regarding the real-world problems of MULTIMOORA, the most
gation tools such as Dominance Theory, Arithmetic/Geometric Mean,
Borda Rule, Dominance-Directed Graph, Improved Borda Rule, Opti- frequent application sector, application subsector, and case study
mization Model, ORESTE Method, Rank Position Method, and Tech- are Industries, Sustainable Development, and Ranking Coun-
nique of Precise Order Preference can be utilized. In this paper, we tries/Cities/Regions, respectively. In the recent years, there is a
presented an exhaustive overview on MULTIMOORA by surveying 106 marked tendency for more works in the sector of Industries which is
important researches. First, we highlighted the theory of MULTIMOORA in contrast with the sector of Economics. Medical/Healthcare Man-
through scrutinizing its robustness and several features including deriv- agement as well as Information and Communications Technologies
ing the utilities of subordinate rankings methods, ranking aggregation are the new application sectors of MULTIMOORA.
tools, approaches of criteria weighting, multi-experts structure in the
decision-making process, and integrative models besides a short biblio- Acknowledgments
metric exploration regarding analysis of journals and publication years.
The bibliometric co-occurrence graph was produced by employing VOS- The work was supported in part by the National Natural Science
Viewer software. Second, we prepared a detailed review on uncertain Foundation of China (Nos. 71771156 and 71501135), the 2019 Sichuan
developments of MULTIMOORA supported on the concepts of Inter- Planning Project of Social Science (No. SC18A007), the 2018 Key Project
val Number, Fuzzy Set, Linguistic Term, Neutrosophic Set, Z-number, of the Key Research Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences in
Rough Set, and Cloud Model Theories besides presenting the equations Sichuan Province (No. Xq18A01, No. LYC18-02), and the Spark Project
of some important models. Third, the practical problems were discussed of Innovation at Sichuan University (No. 2018hhs-43).
166
A. Hafezalkotob, A. Hafezalkotob and H. Liao et al.
Appendix
Table A.1
Details of the main studies on MULTIMOORA in 2018 (Jan–Sep).
Year Author(s) [Ref.] Source title Ranking aggregation tool Uncertainty Weighting GDM∗ Target– Combination Case study Verification
Dominance Dominance– Rank TPOP∗ Borda Rule Improved ORESTE Optimization Arithmetic/ theory method based with other technique
Theory Directed Position Method Borda Method Model Geometric criteria models
Graph Method Rule Mean
√
2018 Aydın [76] Journal of Enterprise Neutrosophic AHP – – – Device selection TOPSIS
Information Management
√ √
2018 Chen et al. [41] Soft Computing Fuzzy – – – Wastewater –
treatment
√ √
2018 Dai et al. [42] Soft Computing Fuzzy – – Prospect theory Investment TOPSIS, VIKOR
selection
√ √
2018 Ding and Zhong [77] Scientific Programming Linguistic Entropy – Regret theory Battery VIKOR, TODIM
recycling mode
selection
√ √
2018 Dorfeshan et al. [78] Computers and Industrial Interval, Fuzzy – – – Project –
Engineering management
√
2018 Eghbali-Zarch et al. Artificial Intelligence in Fuzzy SWARA – – – Therapy SAW, TOPSIS,
[79] Medicine selection VIKOR
√ √
2018 Erdogan and Sayin Sustainability – SWARA – – Fuel selection –
[75]
√ √
2018 Fattahi et al. [80] Safety Science Fuzzy AHP – Failure mode Risk evaluation –
and effects
analysis
√ √
2018 Hafezalkotob et al. Computers and Electronics – BWM – – Machine WASPAS
[81] in Agriculture selection
√
2018 Ijadi Maghsoodi et al. Computers and Industrial – – – – Cluster analysis Supplier –
[82] Engineering selection
√
2018 Ijadi Maghsoodi et al. Frontiers of Business – Entropy – – – Personnel TOPSIS
[49] Research in China management
√ √
2018 Kabak et al. [68] Journal of Cleaner – AHP – Geographic Location –
167
Production Information planning

System
√ √
2018 Liang et al. [73] Neural Computing and Linguistic, SWARA – – Mining TOPSIS,
Applications Neutrosophic technique LNWAA
selection operator,
LNWGA
operator
√ √
2018 Liao et al. [59] Information Fusion Fuzzy, Logarithmic – – Investment TOPSIS, VIKOR
Linguistic least square selection
method
√ √
2018 Liu et al. [74] Journal of Testing and Fuzzy, Statistical – – Robot selection TOPSIS, VIKOR
Evaluation Linguistic variance
√ √
2018 Liu et al. [83] IEEE Transactions on Linguistic DEMATEL – – Location –
Intelligent Transportation planning
Systems
√ √
2018 Liu et al. [84] Sustainability Fuzzy Entropy, BWM – Quality Supplier TOPSIS, VIKOR,
function selection COPRAS
deployment
√ √
2018 Peng and Wang [57] IEEE Transactions on Z Optimization – – Ranking coun- TOPSIS, VIKOR,
Fuzzy Systems model tries/cities/regionsCloud score
function
√ √
2018 Stojić et al. [3] Information Rough AHP – – Supplier SAW, VIKOR,

selection WASPAS,
EDAS, MABAC,
MAIRCA
√ √
2018 Tian et al. [69] Journal of Cleaner Fuzzy BWM, – Quality Service TOPSIS, VIKOR,
Production Maximizing function selection Weighted
deviation deployment average
method aggregation
operator
√ √
2018 Wang et al. [48] Computers & Industrial Fuzzy Choquet – Fine-Kinney Risk evaluation VIKOR
Engineering integral method
√ √
2018 Wu et al. [56] IEEE Transactions on Linguistic AHP, CRITIC – – Company –
Fuzzy Systems selection
∗
TPOP: Technique Of Precise Order Preference; GDM: Group Decision-Making.
Table A.2
Details of the main studies on MULTIMOORA in 2016–17.
Year Author(s) [Ref.] Source title Ranking aggregation tool Uncertainty Weighting GDM Target– Combination Case study Verification
Dominance Dominance– Rank TPOP Borda Improved ORESTE Optimization Arithmetic/ theory method based with other technique
Theory Directed Position Method Rule Borda Method Model Geometric criteria models
√ √
2017 Awasthi and International Journal of Fuzzy – – – Partner selection –
Baležentis [85] Logistics Systems and
Management
√
2017 Aytaç Adalı and Tuş Journal of Industrial – AHP – – – Device selection MOOSRA
Işık [37] Engineering International
√
2017 Brauers et al. [86] Romanian Journal of – – – – – Facility management –
Economic Forecasting
√
2017 Ceballos et al. [87] International Journal of Fuzzy – – – – – TOPSIS, VIKOR,
Intelligent Systems WASPAS
√ √
2017 Deliktas and Ustun International Transactions Fuzzy – – Goal Student selection –
[63] in Operational Research programming
√ √
2017 Gou et al. [58] Information Fusion Fuzzy, – – – Ranking coun- TOPSIS
Linguistic tries/cities/regions
√ √
2017 Hafezalkotob and Engineering Applications Interval – – – Machine selection VIKOR, FAD
Hafezalkotob [38] of Artificial Intelligence
√
2017 Hafezalkotob and Applied Soft Computing Fuzzy Entropy – – – Material selection FAD
Hafezalkotob [33]
√ √
2017 Hafezalkotob and Journal of Industrial Interval – – – Material selection TOPSIS, VIKOR,
Hafezalkotob [88] Engineering International ELECTRE,
Limits on
properties
method, Goal
programming,
MABAC
√ √
2017 Karaca and Ulutaş Economics, Management, – SWARA – – Supplier selection –
[89] & Econometrics
√
168
2017 Önay [90] Applying Predictive – – – – – Ranking coun- –

Analytics Within the tries/cities/regions
Service Sector
√ √
2017 Sen et al. [91] International Journal of Fuzzy – – – Supplier selection TOPSIS
Services and Operations
Management
√
2017 Souzangarzadeh Applied Mathematical – Numeric – – Finite element Design selection –
et al. [47] Modelling logic simulation
√
2017 Stanujkic et al. [36] Informatica Neutrosophic – – – – Design selection –
√ √
2017 Stević et al. [92] Symmetry Rough AHP, – – Supplier selection COPRAS, EDAS,
DEMATEL MABAC,
MAIRCA
√
2017 Tian et al. [72] Neural Computing and Linguistic, TOPSIS- – – – Enterprise resource TOPSIS,
Applications Neutrosophic inspired planning Simplified
method Neutrosophic
Linguistic
Normalized
Weighted
Bonferroni
(SNLNWB)
mean operator
√ √
2017 Wu et al. [62] International Transactions Cloud – Quality Vehicle selection TOPSIS, VIKOR
in Operational Research Maximizing function

deviation deployment
method
√ √
2017 Zavadskas et al. [31] Engineering Applications Neutrosophic SWARA – – Material & –
of Artificial Intelligence component selection
√ √
2017 Zhao et al. [40] Soft Computing Interval, Fuzzy Entropy – Failure mode Risk evaluation TOPSIS,
and effects WASPAS
analysis
√ √
2016 Baležentis and Economic Computation Fuzzy – – – Personnel –
Baležentis [18] and Economic Cybernetics management
Studies and Research
(continued on next page)

Table A.2 (continued)
√ √
2016 Çebi and Otay [93] Information Sciences Fuzzy – – Goal Supplier selection TOPSIS, VIKOR
programming
√ √
2016 Dai et al. [71] Mathematical Problems in Fuzzy – – – Investment selection TOPSIS, VIKOR,
Engineering PROMETHEE,
OCRA
√ √
2016 Hafezalkotob and Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Entropy – – Material selection VIKOR
Hafezalkotob [94] Fuzzy Systems
√
2016 Hafezalkotob and Journal of Industrial – Entropy – – – Material selection TOPSIS, VIKOR,
Hafezalkotob [39] Engineering International ELECTRE,
Linear
assignment,
WPM, GTMA,
169
Fuzzy logic, Z–
transformation
√
2016 Hafezalkotob et al. Applied Mathematical Interval – – – – Material selection TOPSIS, VIKOR,
[46] Modelling PROMETHEE,
ORESTE,
COPRAS,
OCRA,
EXPROM2,
Projection
√
2016 Kundakci [95] Alphanumeric Journal – MACBETH – – – Vehicle selection –
√
2016 Qin and Liu [96] Kybernetes Linguistic – – – – Supplier selection Muirhead mean
operator
√ √
2016 Sahu et al. [97] International Journal of Fuzzy – – – Machine selection –
Computer Aided
Engineering and
Technology
√ √
2016 Sezer et al. [98] Journal of Economics Interval, Fuzzy – – – Warehouse selection –
Bibliography

Table A.3
√ √ √ √
2015 Altuntas et al. [67] Journal of Civil – – – – – Vehicle selection –
Engineering and
Management
√
2015 Brauers et al. [99] International Journal of – – – – – Investment selection –
Applied Nonlinear Science
√
2015 Hafezalkotob and Acta Montanistica Slovaca – SWARA – – – Personnel –
Hafezalkotob [100] management
√ √
2015 Karabasevic et al. Materials & Design – Entropy, – – Material selection TOPSIS, VIKOR,
[101] Statistical Limits on
variance, properties
CRITIC method, Goal
programming
√ √
2015 Lazauskas et al. Journal of the Croatian – AHP – – Project management ARAS
[102] Association of Civil
Engineers
√
2015 Lazauskas et al. [30] E a M: Ekonomie a – – – – – Ranking coun- –
Management tries/cities/regions
√ √
2015 Liu et al. [25] Renewable and Fuzzy DEMATEL – – Waste management TOPSIS, VIKOR
Sustainable Energy
Reviews
√ √
2015 Mishra et al. [103] International Journal of Interval, Fuzzy – – – Supplier/partner –
Operational Research selection
√ √
170
2015 Stanujkic et al. [44] Transformations in Interval, Fuzzy – – – Design selection –

Business and Economics
√ √
2015 Zavadskas et al. [70] Mathematical Problems in Interval, Fuzzy – – – Buildings TOPSIS,
Engineering revitalization WASPAS,
appraisal, Investment COPRAS,
selection IFOWA
√ √
2014 Baležentis et al. [17] Economic Computation Fuzzy – – – Personnel –
and Economic Cybernetics management
√
2014 Brauers et al. [104] Panoeconomicus – – – – – Ranking banks –
√
2014 Brauers et al. [105] Annals of Management – – – – – Ranking banks –
Science
√ √
2014 Li [106] Journal of Applied Fuzzy – – – Software selection –
Mathematics
√ √
2014 Liu et al. [32] Engineering Applications Fuzzy – – Failure mode Risk evaluation –
of Artificial Intelligence and effects
analysis
√ √
2014 Liu et al. [107] Waste Management Interval, Statistical – – Waste management –
Linguistic variance
√ √
2014 Sahu et al. [108] International Journal of Interval, Fuzzy – – – Company/industrial –
Business Excellence group selection
√
2013 Balezentiene et al. Renewable and Fuzzy – – – – Crop selection –
[26] Sustainable Energy

Reviews
√ √
2013 Baležentis and Zeng Expert Systems with Interval, Fuzzy – – – Personnel –
[54] Applications management
√
2013 Baležentis et al. [22] Technological and – – – – Data Economic evaluation –
Economic Development of envelopment
Economy analysis

√
2013 Brauers and Journal of Business – – – – – Investment selection –
Ginevičius [64] Economics and
Management
√
2013 Brauers and International Journal of – – – – – Ranking coun- –
Zavadskas [109] Operations Research tries/cities/regions
√
2013 Brauers and Transformations in – – – – – Ranking coun- –
Zavadskas [45] Business and Economics tries/cities/regions
√
2013 Brauers et al. [61] International Journal of – – – – – Ranking coun- –
Strategic Property tries/cities/regions
Management
√
2013 Kracka and International Journal of Interval – – – – Design selection –
171
Zavadskas [60] Strategic Property

Management
√
2013 Stankevičienė and Entrepreneurial Business – – – – – Ranking coun- –
Rosov [52] and Economics Review tries/cities/regions
√
2013 Stankevičienė et al. Entrepreneurial Business – – – – – Ranking coun- –
[53] and Economics Review tries/cities/regions
√
2013 Streimikiene and Renewable and – – – – – Climate change –
Baležentis [24] Sustainable Energy policy-making
Reviews
√ √
2013 Zavadskas et al. Studies in Informatics and – SWARA – – Technology selection TOPSIS, VIKOR,
[110] Control ELECTRE
√
2013 Zavadskas et al. [15] Economic Computation – Entropy – – – Design selection WASPAS
and Economic Cybernetics
√ √
2013 Zeng et al. [16] Economic Computation Fuzzy – – – Personnel –
and Economic Cybernetics management

Table A.4
Dominance Dominance- Rank TPOP Borda Improved ORESTE Optimization Arithmetic/ theory method based with other technique
Theory Directed Position Method Rule Borda Rule Method Model Geometric criteria models
Graph Method Mean
√ √
Baležentis et al. [55] Expert Systems with Fuzzy – – – Personnel –
Applications management
√ √
2012 Baležentis et al. [34] Informatica Fuzzy – – – Personnel –
management
√
2012 Brauers [111] Czech Economic Review – – – – – Project management –
√
2012 Brauers and Informatica – – – – – – –
Zavadskas [35]
√
2012 Brauers and E a M: Ekonomie a – – – – – Project management –
Zavadskas [29] Management
√
2012 Brauers et al. [66] Journal of Civil – – – – – Component selection –
Engineering and
Management
√
2012 Brauers et al. [21] Technological and – – – – – Ranking coun- –
Economic Development of tries/cities/regions
Economy
√
2012 Brauers et al. [112] Actual Problems of – – – – – Ranking coun- –
Economics tries/cities/regions
√
2012 Streimikiene et al. Renewable and – – – – – Energy management TOPSIS
[27] Sustainable Energy
Reviews
√
2011 Baležentis [114] Management Theory and Fuzzy – – – – Farming efficiency –
Studies for Rural Business estimation
and Infrastructure
Development
√
2011 Baležentis and Transport – – – – Data Transportation –
Baležentis [113] envelopment efficiency evaluation
172
analysis
√
2011 Baležentis and Engineering Economics – – – – – Ranking coun- –
Baležentis [50] tries/cities/regions
√ √
2011 Baležentis and Economic Computation Linguistic – – – Supplier selection –
Baležentis [12] and Economic Cybernetics
√
2011 Baležentis and Economic Computation Fuzzy, – – – – Supplier selection –
Baležentis [14] and Economic Cybernetics Linguistic
√
2011 Baležentis et al. Ekonomska Istrazivanja – – – – – Ranking coun- –
[115] tries/cities/regions
√
2011 Baležentis et al. [28] E a M: Ekonomie a – – – – – Ranking coun- –
Management tries/cities/regions
√
2011 Brauers and Economic Computation – – – – – Project management –
Zavadskas [13] and Economic Cybernetics
√
2011 Brauers and Technological and – – – – – Bank Loan evaluation –
Zavadskas [23] Economic Development of
Economy
√
2011 Brauers et al. [19] Technological and Fuzzy – – – – Ranking coun- –
Economy
√
2010 Baležentis et al. [20] Technological and – – – – – Ranking coun- –

Economy
√
2010 Brauers and Journal of Business – – – – – Economic evaluation –
Ginevičius [65] Economics and
Management
√
2010 Brauers and Transformations in – – – – – Economic evaluation –
Zavadskas [43] Business and Economics
√
2010 Brauers and Technological and – – – – – Project management –
Zavadskas [11] Economic Development of
Economy
√
2010 Kracka et al. [51] Engineering Economics – – – – – Design selection –
Table A.5
Distribution of group decision-making structure.
Item Frequency Percentage frequency Reference(s)
Group Decision-Making 48 45.3 [3,12,41,42,44,48,54-59,16,62,63,68-71,73-75,77,17,78,80,83-85,89,91-94,18,97,98,102,103,106-

Structure 108,110,25,31,32,34,40]
Table A.6
Distribution of verification techniques.
Verification technique Frequency Percentage frequency Reference(s)
TOPSIS 26 24.5 [25,27,62,69–74,76,79,82,38,84,87,91,93,100,110,39,40,42,46,57-59]

VIKOR 22 20.8 [3,25,62,69,71,74,77,79,84,87,93,94,33,100,110,38,39,42,46,48,57,59]
WASPAS 6 5.7 [3,15,40,70,81,87]
COPRAS 4 3.8 [46,70,74,92]
ELECTRE 3 2.8 [38,39,110]
MABAC 3 2.8 [3,38,92]
EDAS 2 1.9 [3,92]
FAD 2 1.9 [33,88]
Goal programming 2 1.9 [38,100]
Limits on properties method 2 1.9 [38,100]
MAIRCA 2 1.9 [3,92]
OCRA 2 1.9 [46,71]
PROMETHEE 2 1.9 [46,71]
SAW 2 1.9 [3,79]
ARAS 1 0.9 [102]
Cloud score function 1 0.9 [57]
EXPROM2 1 0.9 [46]
Fuzzy logic 1 0.9 [39]
GTMA 1 0.9 [39]
IFOWA operator 1 0.9 [70]
Linear assignment 1 0.9 [39]
LNWAA operator 1 0.9 [73]
LNWGA operator 1 0.9 [73]
MOOSRA 1 0.9 [37]
Muirhead mean operator 1 0.9 [96]
ORESTE 1 0.9 [46]
Projection method 1 0.9 [46]
SNLNWB mean operator 1 0.9 [72]
TODIM 1 0.9 [77]
WAA operator 1 0.9 [77]
WPM 1 0.9 [77]
Z-transformation 1 0.9 [39]
Table A.7
Explanations of MULTIMOORA applications in miscellaneous areas.
Case study Description of the problem Reference(s)
Company/industrial group selection Selection of industrial group according to supply chain performance evaluation index [108]
Fuel selection Selection of a suitable fuel from a set of candidate animal fat biodiesels [75]
Investment selection Analysis of alternatives for investing by an investment company in China [42,71]
Personnel management Personnel selection in an enterprise considering performance criteria and professional experience [17,34,55]
Personnel management Ranking employee performance appraisal methods in a multi-national cross-industry company in Iran [82]
Project management Enlarged project management in China [13]
Project management Evaluating projects for a transition economy [11]
Project management Project management of a national economy in search for new projects [111]
Risk evaluation Assessment of the risks entailed in a ballast tank maintenance problem [48]
Student selection Ranking students based on their performance in English proficiency exam [160]
Supplier selection Supplier selection problem regarding a multi-national corporation [49]
Supplier selection Supplier selection problem with hybrid data [14]
Supplier selection Supplier selection to develop an appropriate procurement policy [12]
Supplier selection, partner selection Selection of suitable supplier/partner in an agile supply chain [103]
Table A.8
List of acronyms and their explanations.
Abbreviation Explanation
AHP Analytic Hierarchical Process

ANN Artificial Neural Network
ANP Analytical Network Process
AORP Aspiration Objective Reference Point
ARAS Additive Ratio ASsessment
BEL20® The benchmark stock market index of Euronext Brussels
BWM Best-Worst Method
CODAS COmbinative Distance-based Assessment
173
Abbreviation Explanation
COPRAS COmplex PRoportional Assessment

CRITIC CRiteria Importance Through Inter-criteria Correlation
DEMATEL DEcision MAking Trial and Evaluation Laboratory
DHHFLTS Double Hierarchy Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Term Set
EDAS Evaluation based on Distance from Average Solution
ELECTRE ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité, in French (Elimination and Choice Expressing Reality)
ERP Enterprise Resource Planning
EXPROM2 EXtended PROMethee 2
FAD Fuzzy Axiomatic Design
FMF Full Multiplicative Form
FS Fuzzy Set
GINRS Generalized Interval Neutrosophic Rough Set
GIVFN Generalized Interval-Valued Fuzzy Number
GLDS Gained and Lost Dominance Score
GRA Gray Relational Analysis
GTMA Graph Theory and Matrix Approach
HFLTS Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Term Set
HFRS Hesitant Fuzzy Rough Set
HFS Hesitant Fuzzy Set
HLNN Hesitant Linguistic Neutrosophic Number
HULZN Hesitant Uncertain Linguistic Z-number
ICT Information and Communications Technologies
IFN Intuitionistic Fuzzy Number
IFOWA Intuitionistic Fuzzy Ordered Weighted Averaging
IFS Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set
IN Interval Number
IT2FS Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Set
ITLTS Interval 2-Tuple Linguistic Term set
IVFN Interval-Valued Fuzzy Number
IVIFN Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Number
IVIHFS Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Hesitant Fuzzy Set
IVNS Interval-Valued Neutrosophic set
IVNSS Interval-Valued Neutrosophic Soft Set
LNN Linguistic Neutrosophic Number
LNWAA Linguistic Neutrosophic Weighted Arithmetic Averaging
LNWGA Linguistic Neutrosophic Weighted geometric Averaging
MABAC Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison
MABAC Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison
MACBETH Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical Based Evaluation TecHnique
MAIRCA Multi-Attributive Ideal-Real Comparative Analysis
MAUT Multi-Attribute Utility Theory
MCDM Multiple Criteria Decision-Making
MOORA Multi-Objective Optimization by Ratio Analysis
MOOSRA Multi-Objective Optimization by Simple Ratio Analysis
MORP Maximal Objective Reference Point
MULTIMOORA Multi-Objective Optimization by Ratio Analysis plus the full MULTIplicative form
NIS Negative-Ideal Solution
NS Neutrosophic Set
NSS Neutrosophic Soft Set
OCRA Operational Competitiveness Rating Analysis
ORESTE Organísation, Rangement Et SynThèse de DonnéEs Relarionnelles, in French (Organization, Arrangement and Synthesis of Relational Data)
PIS Positive-Ideal Solution
PLTS Probabilistic Linguistic Term Set
PROMETHEE Preference Ranking Organization METHod for Enrichment of Evaluations
RN Rough Number
RPA Reference Point Approach
RS Ratio System
SAW Simple Additive Weighting
SMART Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique
SNLNWB Simplified Neutrosophic Linguistic Normalized Weighted Bonferroni
SNLS Simplified Neutrosophic Linguistic Set
SVNS Single-Valued Neutrosophic Set
SWARA Stepwise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis
TDULV Two-Dimension Uncertain Linguistic Variable
TFN Triangular Fuzzy Number
TLTS 2-Tuple Linguistic Term set
TODIM TOmada de Decisao Interativa e Multicritévio, in Portuguese (Interactive and Multiple Criteria Decision-Making)
TOPSIS Technique for Order Performance by Similarity to Ideal Solution
TPOP Technique of Precise Order Preference
TrFN Trapezoidal Fuzzy Number
UHFLTS Unbalanced Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Term Set
ULV Uncertain Linguistic Variable
UORP Utopian Objective Reference Point
VIKOR VIse Kriterijumska Optimizacija kompromisno Resenje, in Serbian (Multiple Criteria Optimization Compromise Solution)
WASPAS Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment
WPM Weighted Product Method
ZN Z-number
174
References [30] M. Lazauskas, E.K. Zavadskas, J. Šaparauskas, Ranking of priorities among the
baltic capital cities for the development of sustainable construction, E a M: Ekon.
[1] T. Baležentis, A. Baležentis, A survey on development and applications of the mul- a Manag. 18 (2) (2015) 15–24.
ti-criteria decision making method MULTIMOORA, J. Multi Criteria Decis. Anal. [31] E.K. Zavadskas, R. Bausys, B. Juodagalviene, I. Garnyte-Sapranaviciene, Model for
21 (3-4) (2014) 209–222. residential house element and material selection by neutrosophic MULTIMOORA
[2] P. Wang, Z. Zhu, Y. Wang, A novel hybrid MCDM model combining the SAW, method, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 64 (2017) 315–324.
TOPSIS and GRA methods based on experimental design, Inf. Sci. 345 (2016) 27– [32] H.-C. Liu, X.-J. Fan, P. Li, Y.-Z. Chen, Evaluating the risk of failure modes with
45. extended MULTIMOORA method under fuzzy environment, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell.
[3] G. Stojić, Ž. Stević, J. Antuchevičienė, D. Pamučar, M. Vasiljević, A novel rough 34 (2014) 168–177.
WASPAS approach for supplier selection in a company manufacturing PVC carpen- [33] A. Hafezalkotob, A. Hafezalkotob, Interval target-based VIKOR method supported
try products, Information 9 (5) (2018) 121. on interval distance and preference degree for machine selection, Eng. Appl. Artif.
[4] Z. Pei, J. Liu, F. Hao, B. Zhou, FLM-TOPSIS: the fuzzy linguistic multiset TOPSIS Intell. 57 (2017) 184–196.
method and its application in linguistic decision making, Inf. Fusion 45 (2019) [34] A. Baležentis, T. Baležentis, W.K.M. Brauers, MULTIMOORA-FG: a multi-objective
266–281. decision making method for linguistic reasoning with an application to personnel
[5] T.-Y. Chen, Remoteness index-based Pythagorean fuzzy VIKOR methods with a gen- selection, Informatica 23 (2) (2012) 173–190.
eralized distance measure for multiple criteria decision analysis, Inf. Fusion 41 [35] W.K.M. Brauers, E.K. Zavadskas, Robustness of MULTIMOORA: a method for mul-
(2018) 129–150. ti-objective optimization, Informatica 23 (1) (2012) 1–25.
[6] T.-Y. Chen, An interval type-2 fuzzy PROMETHEE method using a likelihood-based [36] D. Stanujkic, E.K. Zavadskas, F. Smarandache, W.K.M. Brauers, D. Karabasevic, A
outranking comparison approach, Inf. Fusion 25 (2015) 105–120. neutrosophic extension of the MULTIMOORA method, Informatica 28 (1) (2017)
[7] H.C. Liao, L.Y. Yang, Z.S. Xu, Two new approaches based on ELECTRE II to solve 181–192.
the multiple criteria decision making problems with hesitant fuzzy linguistic term [37] E. Aytaç Adalı, A. Tuş Işık, The multi-objective decision making methods based on
sets, Appl. Soft Comput. 63 (2018) 223–234. MULTIMOORA and MOOSRA for the laptop selection problem, J. Ind. Eng. Int. 13
[8] X. Wu, H. Liao, An approach to quality function deployment based on probabilistic (2) (2017) 229–237.
linguistic term sets and ORESTE method for multi-expert multi-criteria decision [38] A. Hafezalkotob, A. Hafezalkotob, Interval MULTIMOORA method with target val-
making, Inf. Fusion 43 (2018) 13–26. ues of attributes based on interval distance and preference degree: biomaterials
[9] X. Wu, H. Liao, A consensus-based probabilistic linguistic gained and lost domi- selection, J. Ind. Eng. Int. 13 (2) (2017) 181–198.
nance score method, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 272 (3) (2019) 1017–1027. [39] A. Hafezalkotob, A. Hafezalkotob, Extended MULTIMOORA method based on Shan-
[10] W.K.M. Brauers, E.K. Zavadskas, The MOORA method and its application to priva- non entropy weight for materials selection, J. Ind. Eng. Int. 12 (1) (2016) 1–13.
tization in a transition economy, Control Cybern. 35 (2) (2006) 445–469. [40] H. Zhao, J.-X. You, H.-C. Liu, Failure mode and effect analysis using MULTI-
[11] W.K.M. Brauers, E.K. Zavadskas, Project management by multimoora as an instru- MOORA method with continuous weighted entropy under interval-valued intu-
ment for transition economies, Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 16 (1) (2010) 5–24. itionistic fuzzy environment, Soft Comput. 21 (18) (2017) 5355–5367.
[12] A. Baležentis, T. Baležentis, A novel method for group multi-attribute decision mak- [41] X. Chen, L. Zhao, H. Liang, A novel multi-attribute group decision-making method
ing with two-tuple linguistic computing: Supplier evaluation under uncertainty, based on the MULTIMOORA with linguistic evaluations, Soft Comput. 22 (16)
Econ. Comput. Econ. Cybern. Stud. Res. 45 (4) (2011) 5–30. (2018) 5347–5361.
[13] W.K.M. Brauers, E.K. Zavadskas, From a centrally planned economy to multiob- [42] W. Dai, Q. Zhong, C. Qi, Multi-stage multi-attribute decision-making method based
jective optimization in an enlarged project management: the case of China, Econ. on the prospect theory and triangular fuzzy MULTIMOORA, Soft Comput. (2018)
Comput. Econ. Cybern. Stud. Res. 45 (1) (2011) 167–188. In press, doi:10.1007/s00500-018-3017-0.
[14] A. Baležentis, T. Baležentis, An innovative multi-criteria supplier selection based [43] W.K.M. Brauers, E.K. Zavadskas, Robustness in the MULTIMOORA model: the ex-
on two-tuple MULTIMOORA and hybrid data, Econ. Comput. Econ. Cybern. Stud. ample of Tanzania, Transform. Bus. Econ. 9 (3) (2010) 67–83.
Res. 45 (2) (2011) 37–56. [44] D. Stanujkic, E.K. Zavadskas, W.K.M. Brauers, D. Karabasevic, An extension of the
[15] E.K. Zavadskas, J. Antuchevičienė, J. Šaparauskas, Z. Turskis, MCDM methods MULTIMOORA method for solving complex decision-making problems based on
WASPAS and MULTIMOORA: verification of robustness of methods when assessing the use of interval-valued triangular fuzzy numbers, Transform. Bus. Econ. 14 (2B)
alternative solutions, Econ. Comput. Econ. Cybern. Stud. Res. 47 (2) (2013) 5–20. (2015) 355–377.
[16] S. Zeng, A. Baležentis, W. Su, The multi-criteria hesitant fuzzy group decision mak- [45] W.K.M. Brauers, E.K. Zavadskas, Multi-objective economic evaluation of the Euro-
ing with MULTIMOORA method, Econ. Comput. Econ. Cybern. Stud. Res. 47 (3) pean Union member states. As opposed to credit rating agencies opinions? Trans-
(2013) 171–184. form. Bus. Econ. 12 (2) (2013) 102–124.
[17] T. Baležentis, S. Zeng, A. Baležentis, MULTIMOORA-IFN: a MCDM method based [46] A. Hafezalkotob, A. Hafezalkotob, M.K. Sayadi, Extension of MULTIMOORA
on intuitionistic fuzzy number for performance management, Econ. Comput. Econ. method with interval numbers: an application in materials selection, Appl. Math.
Cybern. Stud. Res. 48 (4) (2014). Model. 40 (2) (2016) 1372–1386.
[18] T. Baležentis, A. Baležentis, Group decision making procedure based on trapezoidal [47] H. Souzangarzadeh, M.J. Rezvani, A. Jahan, Selection of optimum design for coni-
intuitionistic fuzzy numbers: MULTIMOORA methodology, Econ. Comput. Econ. cal segmented aluminum tubes as energy absorbers: Application of MULTIMOORA
Cybern. Stud. Res. 50 (1) (2016) 103–122. method, Appl. Math. Model. 51 (2017) 546–560.
[19] W.K.M. Brauers, A. Baležentis, T. Baležentis, Multimoora for the EU member states [48] W. Wang, X. Liu, Y. Qin, A fuzzy Fine-Kinney-based risk evaluation approach with
updated with fuzzy number theory, Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 17 (2) (2011) extended MULTIMOORA method based on Choquet integral, Comput. Ind. Eng.
259–290. 125 (2018) 111–123.
[20] A. Baležentis, T. Baležentis, R. Valkauskas, Evaluating situation of Lithuania in [49] A. Ijadi Maghsoodi, A. Kavian, M. Khalilzadeh, W.K.M. Brauers, CLUS-MCDA: a
the European Union: Structural indicators and multimoora method, Technol. Econ. novel framework based on cluster analysis and multiple criteria decision theory in
Dev. Econ. 16 (4) (2010) 578–602. a supplier selection problem, Comput. Ind. Eng. 118 (2018) 409–422.
[21] W.K.M. Brauers, A. Baležentis, T. Baležentis, European Union member states [50] A. Baležentis, T. Baležentis, Framework of strategic management model for strat-
preparing for Europe2020. An application of the MULTIMOORA method, Technol. egy Europe 2020: diachronic analysis and proposed guidelines, Eng. Econ. 22 (3)
Econ. Dev. Econ. 18 (4) (2012) 567–587. (2011) 271–282.
[22] T. Baležentis, A. Misiūnas, A. Baležentis, Efficiency and productivity change across [51] M. Kracka, W.K.M. Brauers, E.K. Zavadskas, Ranking heating losses in a building
the economic sectors in Lithuania (2000–2010): the DEA–MULTIMOORA approach, by applying the MULTIMOORA, Eng. Econ. 21 (4) (2010) 352–359.
Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 19 (sup1) (2013) S191–S213. [52] J. Stankevičienė, S. Rosov, Implementation of multi-objective evaluation method
[23] W.K.M. Brauers, E.K. Zavadskas, Multimoora optimization used to decide on a bank in public debt risk management, Entrep. Bus. Econ. Rev. 1 (4) (2013) 7–19.
loan to buy property, Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 17 (1) (2011) 174–188. [53] J. Stankevičienė, T. Sviderskė, A. Miečinskienė, Relationship between economic
[24] D. Streimikiene, T. Baležentis, Multi-objective ranking of climate change mitiga- security and country risk indicators in EU Baltic sea region countries, Entrep. Bus.
tion policies and measures in Lithuania, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 18 (2013) Econ. Rev. 1 (3) (2013) 21–33.
144–153. [54] T. Baležentis, S. Zeng, Group multi-criteria decision making based upon interval–
[25] H.-C. Liu, J.-X. You, C. Lu, Y.-Z. Chen, Evaluating health-care waste treatment tech- valued fuzzy numbers: an extension of the MULTIMOORA method, Expert Syst.
nologies using a hybrid multi-criteria decision making model, Renew. Sustain. En- Appl. 40 (2) (2013) 543–550.
ergy Rev. 41 (2015) 932–942. [55] A. Baležentis, T. Baležentis, W.K.M. Brauers, Personnel selection based on com-
[26] L. Balezentiene, D. Streimikiene, T. Baležentis, Fuzzy decision support methodol- puting with words and fuzzy MULTIMOORA, Expert Syst. Appl. 39 (9) (2012)
ogy for sustainable energy crop selection, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 17 (2013) 7961–7967.
83–93. [56] X. Wu, H. Liao, Z. Xu, A. Hafezalkotob, F. Herrera, Probabilistic linguistic MULTI-
[27] D. Streimikiene, T. Baležentis, I. Krisciukaitienė, A. Baležentis, Prioritizing sustain- MOORA: a multi-criteria decision making method based on the probabilistic lin-
able electricity production technologies: MCDM approach, Renew. Sustain. Energy guistic expectation function and the improved Borda rule, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst.
Rev. 16 (5) (2012) 3302–3311. 26 (6) (2018) 3688–3702.
[28] A. Baležentis, T. Baležentis, W.K.M. Brauers, Implementation of the strategy Europe [57] H.-G. Peng, J.-Q. Wang, A multicriteria group decision-making method based on
2020 by the multi-objective evaluation method MULTIMOORA, E a M: Ekon. a the normal cloud model with Zadeh’s Z-numbers, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 26 (6)
Manag. 14 (2) (2011) 6–21. (2018) 3246–3260.
[29] W.K.M. Brauers, E.K. Zavadskas, A multi-objective decision support system for [58] X. Gou, H. Liao, Z. Xu, F. Herrera, Double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic term
project selection with an application for the Tunisian textile industry, E a M: Ekon. set and MULTIMOORA method: a case of study to evaluate the implementation
a Manag. 15 (1) (2012) 28–43. status of haze controlling measures, Inf. Fusion 38 (2017) 22–34.
175
[59] H. Liao, R. Qin, C. Gao, X. Wu, A. Hafezalkotob, F. Herrera, Score-HeDLiSF: a [89] C. Karaca, A. Ulutaş, Supplier performance evaluation by using SWARA and MUL-
score function of hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set based on hesitant degrees and TIMOORA, in: A.M. Çilingirtürk, A. Albrychiewicz-Słocińska, B.B. Bali (Eds.),
linguistic scale functions: An application to unbalanced hesitant fuzzy linguistic Economics Management and Econometrics, IJOPEC Publication Limited, London,
MULTIMOORA, Inf. Fusion 48 (2019) 39–54. 2017, pp. 137–151.
[60] M. Kracka, E.K. Zavadskas, Panel building refurbishment elements effective selec- [90] O. Önay, An evaluation of Turkey’s NUTS Level 1 Regions according to banking
tion by applying multiple-criteria methods, Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag. 17 (2) sector with MULTIMOORA method, in: R. Sahu, M. Dash, A. Kumar (Eds.), Applying
(2013) 210–219. Predictive Analytics Within the Service Sector, IGI Global, Hershey, USA, 2017,
[61] W.K.M. Brauers, S. Kildienė, E.K. Zavadskas, A. Kaklauskas, The construction sector pp. 13–33.
in twenty European countries during the recession 2008–2009 – Country ranking [91] D.K. Sen, S. Datta, S.K. Patel, S.S. Mahapatra, Green supplier selection in fuzzy
by MULTIMOORA, Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag. 17 (1) (2013) 58–78. context: a decision-making scenario on application of fuzzy-MULTIMOORA, Int. J.
[62] S.-M. Wu, X.-Y. You, H.-C. Liu, L.-E. Wang, Improving quality function deployment Serv. Oper. Manag. 28 (1) (2017) 98.
analysis with the cloud MULTIMOORA method, Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 00 (2017) [92] Ž. Stević, D. Pamučar, M. Vasiljević, G. Stojić, S. Korica, Novel integrated multi-
1–22. -criteria model for supplier selection: case study construction company, Symmetry
[63] D. Deliktas, O. Ustun, Student selection and assignment methodology based on 9 (11) (2017) 279.
fuzzy MULTIMOORA and multichoice goal programming, Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 24 [93] F. Çebi, I. Otay, A two-stage fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and order
(5) (2017) 1173–1195. allocation problem with quantity discounts and lead time, Inf. Sci. 339 (2016)
[64] W.K.M. Brauers, R. Ginevičius, How to invest in Belgian shares by MULTIMOORA 143–157.
optimization, J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 14 (5) (2013) 940–956. [94] A. Hafezalkotob, A. Hafezalkotob, Fuzzy entropy-weighted MULTIMOORA method
[65] W.K.M. Brauers, R. Ginevičius, The economy of the Belgian regions tested with for materials selection, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst 31 (3) (2016) 1211–1226.
MULTIMOORA, J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 11 (2) (2010) 173–209. [95] N. Kundakci, Combined multi-criteria decision making approach based on MAC-
[66] W.K.M. Brauers, M. Kracka, E.K. Zavadskas, Lithuanian case study of masonry BETH and MULTI-MOORA methods, Alphanumeric J. 4 (1) (2016) 17–26.
buildings from the Soviet period, J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 18 (3) (2012) 444–456. [96] J. Qin, X. Liu, 2-tuple linguistic Muirhead mean operators for multiple attribute
[67] S. Altuntas, T. Dereli, M.K. Yilmaz, Evaluation of excavator technologies: appli- group decision making and its application to supplier selection, Kybernetes 45 (1)
cation of data fusion based MULTIMOORA methods, J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 21 (8) (2016) 2–29.
(2015) 977–997. [97] A.K. Sahu, N.K. Sahu, A.K. Sahu, Application of modified MULTI-MOORA for CNC
[68] M. Kabak, M. Erbaş, C. Çetinkaya, E. Özceylan, A GIS-based MCDM approach for machine tool evaluation in IVGTFNS environment: an empirical study, Int. J. Com-
the evaluation of bike-share stations, J. Clean. Prod. 201 (2018) 49–60. put. Aided Eng. Technol. 8 (3) (2016) 234–259.
[69] Z. Tian, J. Wang, J. Wang, H. Zhang, A multi-phase QFD-based hybrid fuzzy MCDM [98] F. Sezer, Ö. Bali, P. Gürol, Hazardous materials warehouse selection as a multiple
approach for performance evaluation: a case of smart bike-sharing programs in criteria decision making problem, J. Econ. Bibliogr. 3 (1S) (2016) 63–73.
Changsha, J. Clean. Prod. 171 (2018) 1068–1083. [99] W.K.M. Brauers, E.K. Zavadskas, R. Ginevičius, Multi-objective decision making in
[70] E.K. Zavadskas, J. Antuchevičienė, S.H. Razavi Hajiagha, S.S. Hashemi, The inter- macro- and micro-economics with application of the MULTIMOORA method, Int.
val-valued intuitionistic fuzzy MULTIMOORA method for group decision making J. Appl. Nonlinear Sci. 2 (1/2) (2015) 75–99.
in engineering, Math. Probl. Eng. 2015 (2015) 13. Article ID 560690. [100] A. Hafezalkotob, A. Hafezalkotob, Comprehensive MULTIMOORA method with tar-
[71] W. Dai, Q. Zhong, C. Qi, Multistage Multiattribute group decision-making method get-based attributes and integrated significant coefficients for materials selection
based on triangular fuzzy MULTIMOORA, Math. Probl. Eng. 2016 (2016) 8. Article in biomedical applications, Mater. Des. 87 (2015) 949–959.
ID 1687068. [101] D. Karabasevic, D. Stanujkic, S. Urosevic, M. Maksimovic, Selection of candidates in
[72] Z. Tian, J. Wang, J. Wang, H. Zhang, An improved MULTIMOORA approach for the mining industry based on the application of the SWARA and the MULTIMOORA
multi-criteria decision-making based on interdependent inputs of simplified neu- methods, Acta Montan. Slovaca 20 (2) (2015) 116–124.
trosophic linguistic information, Neural Comput. Appl. 28 (S1) (2017) 585–597. [102] M. Lazauskas, V. Kutut, E.K. Zavadskas, Multicriteria assessment of unfinished con-
[73] W. Liang, G. Zhao, C. Hong, Selecting the optimal mining method with ex- struction projects, J. Croat. Assoc. Civ. Eng. 67 (4) (2015) 319–328.
tended multi-objective optimization by ratio analysis plus the full multiplica- [103] S. Mishra, A.K. Sahu, S. Datta, S.S. Mahapatra, Application of fuzzy integrated MUL-
tive form (MULTIMOORA) approach, Neural Comput. Appl. (2018) In press, TIMOORA method towards supplier/partner selection in agile supply chain, Int. J.
doi:10.1007/s00521-018-3405-5. Oper. Res. 22 (4) (2015) 466.
[74] A. Liu, Y. Xiao, X. Ji, K. Wang, S.-B. Tsai, H. Lu, J. Cheng, X. Lai, J. Wang, A novel [104] W.K.M. Brauers, R. Ginevičius, A. Podviezko, Development of a methodology of
two-stage integrated model for supplier selection of green fresh product, Sustain- evaluation of financial stability of commercial banks, Panoeconomicus 61 (3)
ability 10 (7) (2018) 2371. (2014) 349–367.
[75] S. Erdogan, C. Sayin, Selection of the most suitable alternative fuel depending on [105] W.K.M. Brauers, R. Ginevičius, A. Podviezko, Ranking of the Lithuanian banks dur-
the fuel characteristics and price by the hybrid MCDM method, Sustainability 10 ing the recession of 2008–2009 by the MULTIMOORA method, Ann. Manag. Sci. 3
(5) (2018) 1583. (1) (2014) 1–28.
[76] S. Aydın, Augmented reality goggles selection by using neutro- [106] Z.-H. Li, An extension of the MULTIMOORA method for multiple criteria group
sophic MULTIMOORA method, J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. (2018) In press, decision making based upon hesitant fuzzy sets, J. Appl. Math. 2014 (2014) 16.
doi:10.1108/JEIM-01-2018-0023. Article ID 527836.
[77] X. Ding, J. Zhong, Power battery recycling mode selection using an extended MUL- [107] H.-C. Liu, J.-X. You, C. Lu, M.-M. Shan, Application of interval 2-tuple linguistic
TIMOORA method, Sci. Program. 2018 (2018) 14. Article ID 7675094. MULTIMOORA method for health-care waste treatment technology evaluation and
[78] Y. Dorfeshan, S.M. Mousavi, V. Mohagheghi, B. Vahdani, Selecting project-critical selection, Waste Manag. 34 (11) (2014) 2355–2364.
path by a new interval type-2 fuzzy decision methodology based on MULTIMOORA, [108] A.K. Sahu, S. Datta, S.S. Mahapatra, Use of IVFNs and MULTIMOORA method for
MOOSRA and TPOP methods, Comput. Ind. Eng. 120 (2018) 160–178. supply chain performance measurement, benchmarking and decision-making: an
[79] M. Eghbali-Zarch, R. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, F. Esfahanian, M.M. Sepehri, empirical study, Int. J. Bus. Excell. 7 (2) (2014) 237–280.
A. Azaron, Pharmacological therapy selection of type 2 diabetes based on the [109] W.K.M. Brauers, E.K. Zavadskas, Multi-objective decision making with a large num-
SWARA and modified MULTIMOORA methods under a fuzzy environment, Artif. ber of objectives. an application for Europe 2020, Int. J. Oper. Res. 10 (2) (2013)
Intell. Med. 87 (2018) 20–33. 67–79.
[80] R. Fattahi, M. Khalilzadeh, Risk evaluation using a novel hybrid method based on [110] E.K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, R. Volvačiovas, S. Kildienė, Multi-criteria assessment
FMEA, extended MULTIMOORA, and AHP methods under fuzzy environment, Saf. model of technologies, Stud. Inform. Control 22 (4) (2013) 249–258.
Sci. 102 (2018) 290–300. [111] W.K.M. Brauers, Project management for a country with multiple objectives, Czech
[81] A. Hafezalkotob, A. Hami-Dindar, N. Rabie, A. Hafezalkotob, A decision support Econ. Rev. 6 (1) (2012) 80–101.
system for agricultural machines and equipment selection: a case study on olive [112] W.K.M. Brauers, A. Baležentis, T. Baležentis, Implementing the EU strategy in
harvester machines, Comput. Electron. Agric. 148 (2018) 207–216. Baltic states: a multi-objective evaluation, Actual Probl. Econ. 134 (8) (2012) 317–
[82] A. Ijadi Maghsoodi, G. Abouhamzeh, M. Khalilzadeh, E.K. Zavadskas, Ranking 329.
and selecting the best performance appraisal method using the MULTIMOORA ap- [113] A. Baležentis, T. Baležentis, Assessing the efficiency of Lithuanian transport sector
proach integrated Shannon’s entropy, Front. Bus. Res. China 12 (2018) 2. by applying the methods of multimoora and data envelopment analysis, Transport
[83] H.-C. Liu, M. Yang, M. Zhou, G. Tian, An integrated multi-criteria decision making 26 (3) (2011) 263–270.
approach to location planning of electric vehicle charging stations, IEEE Trans. [114] T. Baležentis, A farming efficiency estimation model based on fuzzy MULTI-
Intell. Transp. Syst. (2018) In press, doi:10.1109/TITS.2018.2815680. MOORA, Manag. Theory Stud. Rural Bus. Infrastruct. Dev. 29 (5) (2011) 43–52.
[84] H. Liu, H. Zhao, X.-Y. You, W.-Y. Zhou, Robot evaluation and selection using the [115] T. Baležentis, A. Baležentis, W.K.M. Brauers, Multi-objective optimization of
hesitant fuzzy linguistic MULTIMOORA method, J. Test. Eval. (2018) In press, well-being in the European union member states, Ekon. Istraz. 24 (4) (2011) 1–15.
doi:10.1520/JTE20170094. [116] W. Gardziejczyk, P. Zabicki, Normalization and variant assessment methods in se-
[85] A. Awasthi, T. Baležentis, A hybrid approach based on BOCR and fuzzy MULTI- lection of road alignment variants – case study, J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 23 (4) (2017)
MOORA for logistics service provider selection, Int. J. Logist. Syst. Manag. 27 (3) 510–523.
(2017) 261–282. [117] H. Liao, X. Wu, F. Herrera, DNBMA: a double normalization-based multi-aggre-
[86] W.K.M. Brauers, E.K. Zavadskas, N. Lepkova, The future of facilities management gation method, in: J. Y.R. Medina, M. Ojeda-Aciego, J. Verdegay, I. Perfilieva,
in Lithuania, Rom. J. Econ. Forecast. 20 (1) (2017) 98–115. B. Bouchon-Meunier (Eds.), Information Processing and Management of Uncer-
[87] B. Ceballos, M.T. Lamata, D.A. Pelta, Fuzzy multicriteria decision-making methods: tainty in Knowledge-Based Systems Applications, IPMU, 2018, Springer, Cham,
a comparative analysis, Int. J. Intell. Syst. 32 (7) (2017) 722–738. 2018, pp. 63–73.
[88] A. Hafezalkotob, A. Hafezalkotob, Risk-based material selection process supported [118] W.K.M. Brauers, E.K. Zavadskas, F. Peldschus, Z. Turskis, Multi‐objective deci-
on information theory: a case study on industrial gas turbine, Appl. Soft Comput. sion‐making for road design, Transport 23 (3) (2008) 183–193.
52 (2017) 1116–1129.
176
[119] B. Bairagi, B. Dey, B. Sarkar, S.K. Sanyal, A De Novo multi-approaches multi-cri- [142] D. Li, C. Liu, W. Gan, A new cognitive model: cloud model, Int. J. Intell. Syst. 24
teria decision making technique with an application in performance evaluation of (3) (2009) 357–375.
material handling device, Comput. Ind. Eng. 87 (2015) 267–282. [143] W.K.M. Brauers, E.K. Zavadskas, MULTIMOORA optimization used to decide on a
[120] C. Zhang, X. Wu, D. Wu, H. Liao, L. Luo, E. Herrera-Viedma, An intuitionistic mul- bank loan to buy property, Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 17 (1) (2011) 174–188.
tiplicative ORESTE method for patients’ prioritization of hospitalization, Int. J. En- [144] H. Nurmi, An assessment of voting system simulations, Public Choice 73 (4) (1992)
viron. Res. Public Health 15 (4) (2018) 1–18. 459–487.
[121] E.U. Choo, B. Schoner, W.C. Wedley, Interpretation of criteria weights in multicri- [145] T.C. Ratliff, A comparison of Dodgson’s method and Kemeny’s rule, Soc. Choice
teria decision making, Comput. Ind. Eng. 37 (3) (1999) 527–541. Welfare 18 (1) (2001) 79–89.
[122] B. Roy, V. Mousseau, A theoretical framework for analysing the notion of relative [146] B. Miller, P. Hemmer, M. Steyvers, M. Lee, The wisdom of crowds in rank ordering
importance of criteria, J. Multi Criteria Decis. Anal. 5 (2) (1996) 145–159. problems, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Cognitive Modeling,
[123] I. Vinogradova, V. Podvezko, E.K. Zavadskas, The recalculation of the weights of 147, 2009, pp. 1–7.
criteria in MCDM methods using the Bayes approach, Symmetry 10 (6) (2018) [147] A. Baykasoglu, E. Ozbay, M.T. Gogus, A. Oztas, Contractor selection with multi
1–18. criteria decision support tools, Int. J. Ind. Syst. Eng. 4 (2) (2009) 174–197.
[124] A. Hafezalkotob, A. Hafezalkotob, A novel approach for combination of individ- [148] T.L. Saaty, L.G. Vargas, Decision making with the analytic network process: eco-
ual and group decisions based on fuzzy best-worst method, Appl. Soft Comput. 59 nomic, political, social and technological applications with benefits, opportunities,
(2017) 316–325. Costs and Risks, Springer, US, 2006.
[125] W. Pedrycz, P. Ekel, R. Parreiras, Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making, Springer [149] A. Shanian, A.S. Milani, N. Vermaak, K. Bertoldi, T. Scarinci, M. Gerendas, A com-
US, Boston, MA, 2008. bined finite element-multiple criteria optimization approach for materials selection
[126] M. Behzadian, S. Khanmohammadi Otaghsara, M. Yazdani, J. Ignatius, A state-of of gas turbine components, J. Appl. Mech. 79 (6) (2012) 061019.
the-art survey of TOPSIS applications, Expert Syst. Appl. 39 (17) (2012) [150] S. Çakır, An integrated approach to machine selection problem using fuzzy
13051–13069. SMART-fuzzy weighted axiomatic design, J. Intell. Manuf. 29 (7) (2018) 1433–
[127] K. Govindan, M.B. Jepsen, ELECTRE: A comprehensive literature review on 1445.
methodologies and applications, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 250 (1) (2016) 1–29. [151] T. Gürbüz, S.E. Alptekin, G. Işıklar Alptekin, A hybrid MCDM methodology for
[128] L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Inf. Control 8 (3) (1965) 338–353. ERP selection problem with interacting criteria, Decis. Support Syst. 54 (1) (2012)
[129] H. Bustince, E. Barrenechea, M. Pagola, J. Fernandez, Z. Xu, B. Bedregal, J. Mon- 206–214.
tero, H. Hagras, F. Herrera, B. De Baets, A historical account of types of fuzzy sets [152] G. Sakthivel, S. Senthil Kumar, M. Ilangkumaran, A genetic algorithm-based arti-
and their relationships, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 24 (1) (2016) 179–194. ficial neural network model with TOPSIS approach to optimize the engine perfor-
[130] L. Dong, X. Gu, X. Wu, H. Liao, An improved MULTIMOORA method with combined mance, Biofuels (2017), doi:10.1080/17597269.2017.1338123.
weights and its application in assessing the innovative ability of universities, Expert [153] W. Cui, J. Ye, Multiple-attribute decision-making method using similarity measures
Syst. (2018) In press, doi:10.1111/exsy.12362. of hesitant linguistic neutrosophic numbers regarding least common multiple car-
[131] Z. Xu, Linguistic Decision Making: Theory and Methods, Springer-Verlag, Berlin dinality, Symmetry 10 (8) (2018) 330.
Heidelberg, 2012. [154] H. Peng, J. Wang, Hesitant uncertain linguistic Z-numbers and their application in
[132] H. Liao, Z. Xu, E. Herrera-Viedma, F. Herrera, Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set multi-criteria group decision-making problems, Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 19 (5) (2017)
and its application in decision making: a state-of-the-art survey, Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 1300–1316.
20 (7) (2018) 2084–2110. [155] A. Mukherjee, Interval-valued neutrosophic soft sets, in: Generalized Rough Sets.
[133] F. Smarandache, Neutrosophy. Neutrosophic Probability, Set, and Logic, ProQuest Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Springer, New Delhi, 2015, pp. 89–
information and learning, Ann. Arbor, Michigan, USA, 1998. 109.
[134] C. Kahraman, İ. Otay, fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making using neutrosophic sets, [156] H. Yang, Y. Bao, Z. Guo, Generalized interval neutrosophic rough sets and its ap-
Springer Nature, Switzerland, 2019. plication in multi-attribute decision making, Filomat 32 (1) (2018) 11–33.
[135] S. Pramanik, K. Mondal, Cotangent similarity measure of rough neutrosophic sets [157] X. Yang, X. Song, Y. Qi, J. Yang, Constructive and axiomatic approaches to hesitant
and cotangent similarity measure of rough neutrosophic sets and its application to fuzzy rough set, Soft Comput. 18 (6) (2014) 1067–1077.
medical diagnosis, J. New Theory 4 (2015) 90–102. [158] J.Q. Wang, P. Wang, J. Wang, H.Y. Zhang, X.H. Chen, Atanassov’s interval-valued
[136] F. Advances, Computational Intelligence for Big Data Analysis, Springer Interna- intuitionistic linguistic multicriteria group decision-making method based on the
tional Publishing, Switzerland, 2015. trapezium cloud model, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 23 (3) (2015) 542–554.
[137] Z. Pawlak, Rough sets, Int. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. 11 (5) (1982) 341–356. [159] D. Kumar, J. Sanjay, Trapezium cloud TOPSIS method with interval-valued in-
[138] B. Walczak, D.L. Massart, Rough sets theory, Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 47 (1) tuitionistic hesitant fuzzy linguistic information, Granul. Comput. 3 (2) (2017)
(1999) 1–16. 139–152.
[139] Q. Zhang, Q. Xie, G. Wang, A survey on rough set theory and its applications, CAAI [160] D. Deliktas, O. Ustun, Student selection and assignment methodology based on
Trans. Intell. Technol. 1 (4) (2016) 323–333. fuzzy MULTIMOORA and multichoice goal programming, Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 24
[140] L.A. Zadeh, A note on Z-numbers, Inf. Sci. 181 (14) (2011) 2923–2932. (5) (2017) 1173–1195.
[141] H. Aboutorab, M. Saberi, M.R. Asadabadi, O. Hussain, E. Chang, ZBWM: the Z-num-
ber extension of best worst method and its application for supplier development,
Expert Syst. Appl. 107 (2018) 115–125.
177

An Overview of Multi Moor A Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Overview of Multi Moor A Theory

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Overview of Multi Moor A Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Information Fusion 51 (2019) 145–177

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

An overview of MULTIMOORA for multi-criteria decision-making: Theory,

Journal Frequency Percentage frequency References

Fig. 1. Distribution of publication years.

The distance between the weighted value of each member of MORP

Ranking aggregation tool Frequency Percentage frequency Reference(s)

Dominance theory 100 94 [3,11,20–29,12,30–39,13,40,42–50,14,51–55,57,58,60–62,15,63–72,

Weighting method Frequency Percentage frequency Reference(s)

Entropy 9 8.5 [15,39,40,74,77,82,88,94,100]

2.5. Group decision-making

In real life, many signiﬁcant decisions are made through a group of

Models combined with MULTIMOORA Frequency Percentage frequency Reference(s)

Failure mode and eﬀects analysis 3 2.8 [32,40,80]

MOORA Very less Very simple Minimum Good Quantitative

Fig. 2. Flowchart of MULTIMOORA phases.

Fig. 3. Infographics of MULTIMOORA theoretical features (numerals represent the frequencies).

Fig. 4. Co-occurrence network for MULTIMOORA theoretical features.

[ ] ∏𝑔 ( )𝑤𝑗 [∏𝑔 ( )𝑤𝑗 ∏𝑔 ( )𝑤𝑗 ]

3.2. Developments based on fuzzy set theory

• Generalized Interval-Valued Fuzzy MULTIMOORA

|{ ( ( )𝑤𝑗 ) ( ( )𝑤𝑗 ) } { ( )𝑤𝑗

∑ (( )𝑤 𝑗 ( )𝑤𝑗 ) ∑ (( )𝑤𝑗 ( )𝑤𝑗 ( )𝑤𝑗 )

∑ (( )𝑤 𝑗 ( )𝑤𝑗 ) ∑ (( )𝑤𝑗 ( )𝑤𝑗 ( )𝑤 𝑗 )

3.3. Developments based on linguistic term theory

• Double Hierarchy Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic MULTIMOORA

L is the number of double hierarchy linguistic terms in ℎ𝑖𝑗

• Probabilistic Linguistic MULTIMOORA

Probabilistic Linguistic MULTIMOORA is introduced as:

3.4. Development based on neutrosophic set theory

3.5. Development based on rough Set, Z-number, and cloud theories

3.6. Statistical evaluation of MULTIMOORA uncertain developments

Fig. 5. Timeline of uncertainty theories.

Uncertainty theory Frequency Percentage frequency Reference(s)

Fuzzy set theory 39 36.8 [14,16,41,42,44,48,54,55,58,59,63,69,17,70,71,74,78-80,84,85,87,88,18,91,93,94,97,98,103,106,108,

Uncertainty set Frequency Percentage frequency Reference(s)

Triangular Fuzzy Number (TFN) 20 18.9 [14,19,69,71,79,80,85,87,91,93,98,114,25,26,34,41,42,48,55,63]

Fig. 5 displays an overall upward trend in the employment of un-

Fig. 6. Infographics of MULTIMOORA uncertain developments. (numerals represent the frequencies).

Fig. 7. Distribution of application sectors.

Fig. 8. Timeline of application sectors.

Application subsector Frequency Percentage frequency Reference(s)

Sustainable development 13 12.3 [19,20,109,112,115,21,27,28,30,50,52,53,86]

Case study Frequency Percentage frequency Reference(s)

Ranking countries/cities/regions 16 15.1 [19,20,58,61,90,109,112,115,21,28,30,45,50,52,53,57]

Production Information planning

Information Fusion 51 (2019) 145–177

2017 Önay [90] Applying Predictive – – – – – Ranking coun- –

Information Fusion 51 (2019) 145–177

(continued on next page)

Information Fusion 51 (2019) 145–177

2015 Stanujkic et al. [44] Transformations in Interval, Fuzzy – – – Design selection –

Information Fusion 51 (2019) 145–177

(continued on next page)

Zavadskas [60] Strategic Property

Information Fusion 51 (2019) 145–177

Information Fusion 51 (2019) 145–177

Item Frequency Percentage frequency Reference(s)

Group Decision-Making 48 45.3 [3,12,41,42,44,48,54-59,16,62,63,68-71,73-75,77,17,78,80,83-85,89,91-94,18,97,98,102,103,106-