World Scientific
  • Search
    Quick Search in Journals
    Access type:
    Quick Search anywhere
    Access type:
    Advanced Search
  • My Cart
  •   
Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu

Cookies Notification

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By continuing to browse the site, you consent to the use of our cookies. Learn More
×

Our site uses Javascript to enchance its usability.You can disable your ad blocker or whitelist our website www.worldscientific.com to view the full content.

Select your blocker:

Adblock Plus Instructions

  1. Click the AdBlock Plus icon in the extension bar
  2. Click the blue power button
  3. Click refresh
Our website is made possible by displaying certain online content using javascript.
In order to view the full content, please disable your ad blocker or whitelist our website www.worldscientific.com.

System Upgrade on Tue, Oct 25th, 2022 at 2am (EDT)

Existing users will be able to log into the site and access content. However, E-commerce and registration of new users may not be available for up to 12 hours.
For online purchase, please visit us again. Contact us at [email protected] for any enquiries.
No Access

Determining Importance of Many-Objective Optimisation Competitive Algorithms Evaluation Criteria Based on a Novel Fuzzy-Weighted Zero-Inconsistency Method

    https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622021500140Cited by:60 (Source: Crossref)
    Previous
    Next

    Abstract

    Along with the developments of numerous MaOO algorithms in the last decades, comparing the performance of MaOO algorithms with one another is also highly needed. Many studies have attempted to manipulate such comparison to analyze the performance quality of MaOO. In such cases, the weight of importance is critical for evaluating the performance of MaOO algorithms. All evaluation studies for MaOO algorithms have ignored to assign such weight for the target criteria during evaluation process, which plays a key role in the final decision results. Therefore, the weight value of each criterion must be determined to guarantee the accuracy of results in the evaluation process. Multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) methods are extremely preferred in solving weighting issues in the evaluation process of MaOO algorithms. Several studies in MCDM have proposed competitive weighting methods. However, these methods suffer from inconsistency issues arising from the high subjectivity of pairwise comparison. The inconsistency rate increases in an exorbitant manner when the number of criteria increases, and the final results are affected. The primary objective of this study is to propose a new method, called a Novel Fuzzy-Weighted Zero-Inconsistency (FWZIC) Method which can determine the weight coefficients of criteria with zero consistency. This method depends on differences in the preference of experts per criterion to compute its significance level in the decision-making process. The proposed FWZIC method comprises five phases for determining the weights of the evaluation criteria: (1) the set of evaluation criteria is explored and defined, (2) the structured expert judgement (SEJ) is used, (3) the expert decision matrix (EDM) is built on the basis of the crossover of criteria and SEJ, (4) a fuzzy membership function is applied to the result of the EDM and (5) the final values of the weight coefficients of the evaluation criteria are computed. The proposed method is applied to the evaluation criteria of MaOO competitive algorithms. The case study consists of more than 50 items distributed amongst the major criteria, subcriteria and indicators. The significant contribution of each item to the algorithm evaluation is determined. Results show that the criteria, subcriteria and their related indicators are weighted without inconsistency. The findings clearly show that the FWZIC method can deal with the inconsistency issue and provide accurate weight values to each criterion.

    References

    • 1. Y. Jin, K. Miettinen and H. Ishibuchi, Guest editorial evolutionary many-objective optimization, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 22(1) (2018) 1–2. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 2. A. de Campos Jr, A. T. Pozo, S. R. Vergilio and T. Savegnago, Many-objective evolutionary algorithms in the composition of web services, in 2010 Eleventh Brazilian Symp. on Neural Networks, 2010, IEEE, pp. 152–157. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • 3. Z. Zheng, H.-L. Liu and L. Chen, An evolutionary many-objective optimization algorithm based on population decomposition and reference distance, in 2016 Sixth Int. Conf. Information Science and Technology (ICIST), 2016, IEEE, pp. 388–393. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • 4. H. Wang and X. Yao, Corner sort for Pareto-based many-objective optimization, IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics 44(1) (2013) 92–102. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 5. R. Cheng, T. Rodemann, M. Fischer, M. Olhofer and Y. Jin, Evolutionary many-objective optimization of hybrid electric vehicle control: from general optimization to preference articulation, IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence 1(2) (2017) 97–111. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • 6. J. Y. Al-Jawad, H. M. Alsaffar, D. Bertram and R. M. Kalin, Optimum socio-environmental flows approach for reservoir operation strategy using many-objectives evolutionary optimization algorithm, Science of the Total Environment 651 (2019) 1877–1891. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 7. E. M. Figueiredo, D. R. Araújo, C. J. Bastos Filho and T. B. Ludermir, Physical topology design of optical networks aided by many-objective optimization algorithms, in 2016 5th Brazilian Conf. Intell. Syst. (BRACIS), 2016, IEEE, pp. 409–414. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • 8. J. Y. Al-Jawad, H. M. Alsaffar, D. Bertram and R. M. Kalin, A comprehensive optimum integrated water resources management approach for multidisciplinary water resources management problems, Journal of Environmental Management 239 (2019) 211–224. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 9. A. Ramírez, J. A. Parejo, J. R. Romero, S. Segura and A. Ruiz-Cortés, Evolutionary composition of QoS-aware web services: a many-objective perspective, Expert Systems with Applications 72 (2017) 357–370. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 10. Q. Fan, Y. Jin, W. Wang and X. Yan, A performance-driven multi-algorithm selection strategy for energy consumption optimization of sea-rail intermodal transportation, Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 44 (2019) 1–17. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 11. B. Trindade, P. Reed, J. Herman, H. Zeff and G. Characklis, Reducing regional drought vulnerabilities and multi-city robustness conflicts using many-objective optimization under deep uncertainty, Advances in Water Resources 104 (2017) 195–209. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 12. R. Wang, Z. Zhou, H. Ishibuchi, T. Liao and T. Zhang, Localized weighted sum method for many-objective optimization, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 22(1) (2018) 3–18. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 13. Y. Zhou, Y. Xiang, Z. Chen, J. He and J. Wang, A scalar projection and angle-based evolutionary algorithm for many-objective optimization problems, IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics 99 (2019) 1–12. Google Scholar
    • 14. Z. Cui, Y. Chang, J. Zhang, X. Cai and W. Zhang, Improved NSGA-III with selection-and-elimination operator, Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 49 (2019) 23–33. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 15. B. Li, K. Tang, J. Li and X. Yao, Stochastic ranking algorithm for many-objective optimization based on multiple indicators, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 20(6) (2016) 924–938. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 16. Y. Liu, J. Wei, X. Li and M. Li, Generational distance indicator-based evolutionary algorithm with an improved niching method for many-objective optimization problems, IEEE Access 7 (2019) 63881–63891. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 17. X. Cai, Z. Mei and Z. Fan, A decomposition-based many-objective evolutionary algorithm with two types of adjustments for direction vectors, IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics 48(8) (2018) 2335–2348. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 18. S. Chebli, A. El Akkary, N. Sefiani and N. J. I. Elalami, PI Stabilization for congestion control of AQM routers with tuning parameter optimization, International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence 4(1) (2016) 52–55. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • 19. H. Ishibuchi, R. Imada, Y. Setoguchi and Y. Nojima, Performance comparison of NSGA-II and NSGA-III on various many-objective test problems, in Evolutionary Computation (CEC), 2016 IEEE Congress on, 2016, IEEE, pp. 3045–3052. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • 20. T. Santos and R. H. Takahashi, On the performance degradation of dominance-based evolutionary algorithms in many-objective optimization, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 22(1) (2018) 19–31. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 21. H. Li, K. Deb, Q. Zhang, P. Suganthan and L. Chen, Comparison between MOEA/D and NSGA-III on a set of novel many and multi-objective benchmark problems with challenging difficulties, Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 46 (2019) 104–117. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 22. X. Yu and Y. Lu, Evaluation of many-objective evolutionary algorithms by hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set and majority operator, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems 20(6) (2018) 2043–2056. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 23. Z. He and G. G. Yen, Visualization and performance metric in many-objective optimization, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 20(3) (2016) 386–402. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 24. N. Riquelme, C. Von Lücken and B. Baran, Performance metrics in multi-objective optimization, in Computing Conf. (CLEI), 2015 Latin American, 2015, IEEE, pp. 1–11. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • 25. L. Cai, S. Qu, Y. Yuan and X. Yao, A clustering-ranking method for many-objective optimization, Applied Soft Computing 35 (2015) 681–694. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 26. O. S. Albahri, A. A. Zaidan, B. B. Zaidan, A. S. Albahri, A. H. Mohsin, K. I. Mohammed and M. A. Alsalem, New mHealth hospital selection framework supporting decentralised telemedicine architecture for outpatient cardiovascular disease-based integrated techniques: Haversine-GPS and AHP-VIKOR, Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing (2021) 1–21. ISI, Google Scholar
    • 27. C. Lin, G. Kou, Y. Peng et al., Aggregation of the nearest consistency matrices with the acceptable consensus in AHP-GDM, Annals of Operations Research (2020), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03572-1. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 28. G. Li, G. Kou and Y. Peng, A group decision making model for integrating heterogeneous information, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, Cybernetics: Systems 48(6) (2016) 982–992. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 29. H. Zhang, G. Kou and Y. Peng, Soft consensus cost models for group decision making and economic interpretations, European Journal of Operational Research 277(3), 964–980 (2019). Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 30. G. Kou et al., Bankruptcy prediction for SMEs using transactional data and two-stage multiobjective feature selection, Decision Support Systems 140 (2020) 113429. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 31. X. Chao, G. Kou, Y. Peng and E. H. Viedma, Large-scale group decision-making with non-cooperative behaviors and heterogeneous preferences: an application in financial inclusion, European Journal of Operational Research 288 (2020) 271–293. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 32. T. J. Mohammed, A. S. Albahri, A. A. Zaidan et al., Convalescent-plasma-transfusion intelligent framework for rescuing COVID-19 patients across centralised/decentralised telemedicine hospitals based on AHP-group TOPSIS and matching component, Appl Intell (2021), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-020-02169-2. Google Scholar
    • 33. A. A. Zaidan, B. B. Zaidan, A. Al-Haiqi, M. L. M. Kiah, M. Hussain and M. Abdulnabi, Evaluation and selection of open-source EMR software packages based on integrated AHP and TOPSIS, Journal of Biomedical Informatics 53(8) (2015) 390–404. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 34. A. Zaidan, B. Zaidan, M. Hussain, A. Haiqi, M. M. Kiah and M. Abdulnabi, Multi-criteria analysis for OS-EMR software selection problem: A comparative study, Decision Support Systems 78(4) (2015) 15–27. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 35. B. N. Abdullateef, N. F. Elias, H. Mohamed, A. Zaidan and B. Zaidan, An evaluation and selection problems of OSS-LMS packages, SpringerPlus 5(1) (2016) 248–255. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • 36. Q. M. Yas, A. Zadain, B. Zaidan, M. Lakulu and B. Rahmatullah, Towards on develop a framework for the evaluation and benchmarking of skin detectors based on artificial intelligent models using multi-criteria decision-making techniques, International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence 31(3) (2017) 1759002. Link, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 37. B. Zaidan, A. Zaidan, H. A. Karim and N. J. S. P. Ahmad, Experience, A new digital watermarking evaluation and benchmarking methodology using an external group of evaluators and multi-criteria analysis based on ‘large-scale data’, 47(10) (2017) 1365–1392. Google Scholar
    • 38. B. Zaidan and A. Zaidan, Software and hardware FPGA-based digital watermarking and steganography approaches: Toward new methodology for evaluation and benchmarking using multi-criteria decision-making techniques, Journal of Circuits, Systems and Computers 26(7) (2017) 1750116. Link, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 39. B. B. Zaidan, A. A. Zaidan, H. A. Karim and N. N. Ahmad, A New Approach based on Multi-dimensional evaluation and benchmarking for data hiding techniques, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 16 (2017) 1–42, https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622017500183. Link, Google Scholar
    • 40. M. Qader, B. Zaidan, A. Zaidan, S. Ali and M. Kamaluddin, A methodology for football players selection problem based on multi-measurements criteria analysis, Measurement 111 (2017) 38–50. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 41. F. Jumaah, A. Zaidan, B. Zaidan, R. Bahbibi, M. Qahtan and A. J. T. S. Sali, Technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution for solving complex situations in multi-criteria optimization of the tracking channels of GPS baseband telecommunication receivers, Telecommunication Systems 68(3) (2018) 425–443. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 42. B. Rahmatullah, A. Zaidan, F. Mohamed and A. Sali, Multi-complex attributes analysis for optimum GPS baseband receiver tracking channels selection, in 2017 4th Int. Conf. on Control, Decision and Information Technologies (CoDIT), 2017, IEEE, pp. 1084–1088. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • 43. O. H. Salman, A. Zaidan, B. Zaidan, Naserkalid and M. Hashim, Novel methodology for triage and prioritizing using big data patients with chronic heart diseases through telemedicine environmental, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 16(5) (2017) 1211–1245. Link, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 44. Q. M. Yas, A. Zaidan, B. Zaidan, B. Rahmatullah and H. A. Karim, Comprehensive insights into evaluation and benchmarking of real-time skin detectors: review, open issues & challenges, recommended solutions, Measurement 114 (2018) 243–260. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 45. B. Zaidan and A. Zaidan, Comparative study on the evaluation and benchmarking information hiding approaches based multi-measurement analysis using TOPSIS method with different normalisation, separation and context techniques, Measurement 117 (2018) 277–294. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 46. N. Kalid et al., Based on real time remote health monitoring systems: a new approach for prioritization large scales data patients with chronic heart diseases using body sensors and communication technology, Journal of Medical Systems 42(4) (2018) 69. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 47. A. Zaidan et al., A review on smartphone skin cancer diagnosis apps in evaluation and benchmarking: coherent taxonomy, open issues and recommendation pathway solution, Health and Technology 8(4) (2018) 223–238. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 48. O. Albahri et al., Systematic review of real-time remote health monitoring system in triage and priority-based sensor technology: Taxonomy, open challenges, motivation and recommendations, Journal of Medical Systems 42(5) (2018) 80. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 49. M. Alsalem et al., Systematic review of an automated multiclass detection and classification system for acute Leukaemia in terms of evaluation and benchmarking, open challenges, issues and methodological aspects, Journal of Medical Systems 42(11), (2018) 204. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 50. N. Kalid, A. Zaidan, B. Zaidan, O. H. Salman, M. Hashim and H. Muzammil, Based real time remote health monitoring systems: A review on patients prioritization and related big data using body sensors information and communication technology, Journal of Medical Systems 42(2) (2018) 30. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 51. F. Jumaah, A. Zadain, B. Zaidan, A. Hamzah and R. J. M. Bahbibi, Decision-making solution based multi-measurement design parameter for optimization of GPS receiver tracking channels in static and dynamic real-time positioning multipath environment, Measurement 118 (2018) 83–95. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 52. A. Albahri, A. Zaidan, O. Albahri, B. Zaidan and M. Alsalem, Real-time fault-tolerant mHealth system: Comprehensive review of healthcare services, opens issues, challenges and methodological aspects, Journal of Medical Systems 42(8) (2018) 137. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 53. O. Albahri, A. Zaidan, B. Zaidan, M. Hashim, A. Albahri and M. Alsalem, Real-time remote health-monitoring Systems in a Medical Centre: A review of the provision of healthcare services-based body sensor information, open challenges and methodological aspects, Journal of Medical Systems 42(9) (2018) 164. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 54. O. Zughoul et al., Comprehensive insights into the criteria of student performance in various educational domains, IEEE Access 6(4) (2018) 73245–73264. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 55. M. M. Salih, B. Zaidan, A. Zaidan and M. A. Ahmed, Survey on fuzzy TOPSIS state-of-the-art between 2007 and 2017, Computers & Operations Research 104 (2019) 207–227. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 56. K. H. Abdulkareem et al., A new standardisation and selection framework for real-time image dehazing algorithms from multi-foggy scenes based on fuzzy Delphi and hybrid multi-criteria decision analysis methods. Neural Computing and Application 33 (2020), https//doi.org/10.1007/s00521-020-05020-4. ISI, Google Scholar
    • 57. A. Albahri et al., Based multiple heterogeneous wearable sensors: A smart real-time health monitoring structured for hospitals distributor, IEEE Access 7 (2019) 37269–37323. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 58. O. Albahri et al., Fault-tolerant mHealth framework in the context of IoT-based real-time wearable health data sensors, IEEE Access 7 (2019) 50052–50080. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 59. E. Almahdi, A. Zaidan, B. Zaidan, M. Alsalem, O. Albahri and A. Albahri, Mobile patient monitoring systems from a benchmarking aspect: Challenges, open issues and recommended solutions, Journal of Medical Systems 43(7) (2019) 207. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 60. M. Alsalem et al., Multiclass benchmarking framework for automated acute Leukaemia detection and classification based on BWM and group-VIKOR, Journal of Medical Systems 43(7) (2019) 212. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 61. E. Almahdi, A. Zaidan, B. Zaidan, M. Alsalem, O. Albahri and A. Albahri, Mobile-based patient monitoring systems: A prioritisation framework using multi-criteria decision-making techniques, Journal of Medical Systems 43(7) (2019) 219. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 62. K. Mohammed et al., Real-time remote-health monitoring systems: A review on patients prioritisation for multiple-chronic diseases, taxonomy analysis, concerns and solution procedure, Journal of Medical Systems 43(7), (2019) 223. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 63. M. Khatari, A. Zaidan, B. Zaidan, O. Albahri and M. Alsalem, Multi-criteria evaluation and benchmarking for active queue management methods: Open issues challenges and recommended pathway solutions, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 18(4) (2019) 1187–1242. Link, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 64. M. Alaa et al., Assessment and ranking framework for the English skills of pre-service teachers based on fuzzy Delphi and TOPSIS methods, IEEE Access 7 (2019) 126201–126223. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 65. N. Ibrahim et al., Multi-criteria evaluation and benchmarking for young learners’ English language mobile applications in terms of LSRW skills, IEEE Access 7(7) (2019) 146620–146651. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 66. M. Talal et al., Comprehensive review and analysis of anti-malware apps for smartphones, Telecommunication Systems 72(2) (2019) 285–337. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 67. N. M. Napi, A. A. Zaidan, B. B. Zaidan, O. S. Albahri, M. A. Alsalem and A. S. Albahri, Medical emergency triage and patient prioritisation in a telemedicine environment: A systematic review, Health and Technology 9(5) (2019) 679–700. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 68. O. Enaizan et al., Electronic medical record systems: Decision support examination framework for individual, security and privacy concerns using multi-perspective analysis, Health and Technology 10(3) (2020) 795–822. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 69. A. Zaidan, B. Zaidan, M. Alsalem, O. Albahri, A. Albahri and M. Qahtan, Multi-agent learning neural network and Bayesian model for real-time IoT skin detectors: A new evaluation and benchmarking methodology, Neural Computing and Applications 32(12) (2020) 8315–8366. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 70. I. Tariq et al., MOGSABAT: A metaheuristic hybrid algorithm for solving multi-objective optimisation problems, Neural Computing and Applications 32( 2018) (2020). Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 71. O. Zughoul, Novel triplex procedure for ranking the ability of software engineering students based on two levels of AHP and Group TOPSIS techniques, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (2020), https://doi.org/10.1142/S021962202050042X. ISI, Google Scholar
    • 72. K. H. Abdulkareem et al., A new standardisation and selection framework for real-time image dehazing algorithms from multi-foggy scenes based on fuzzy Delphi and hybrid multi-criteria decision analysis methods, Neural Computing and Applications (2020), https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-020-05020-4. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 73. K. Mohammed et al., Novel technique for reorganisation of opinion order to interval levels for solving several instances representing prioritisation in patients with multiple chronic diseases, 185 (2020) 105151. Google Scholar
    • 74. K. Mohammed et al., A uniform intelligent prioritisation for solving diverse and big data generated from multiple chronic diseases patients based on hybrid decision-making and voting method, IEEE Access 8 (2020) 91521–91530. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 75. A. Zaidan, B. Zaidan, M. Alsalem, F. Momani and O. Zughoul, Novel multiperspective hiring framework for the selection of software programmer applicants based on AHP and group TOPSIS techniques, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 18(4) (2020) 1–73. Google Scholar
    • 76. K. H. Abdulkareem et al., A Novel multi-perspective benchmarking framework for selecting image dehazing intelligent algorithms based on BWM and group VIKOR techniques, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 19(3) (2020) 909–957. Link, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 77. A. Alamoodi et al., A systematic review into the assessment of medical apps: motivations, challenges, recommendations and methodological aspect, Health and Technology e259 (2020) 1–17. Google Scholar
    • 78. M. M. Salih, B. Zaidan and A. Zaidan, Fuzzy decision by opinion score method, Applied Soft Computing 96(4) (2020) 106595. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 79. R. Mohammed et al., Review of the research landscape of multi-criteria evaluation and benchmarking processes for many-objective optimisation methods: Coherent taxonomy, challenges and recommended solution, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 19 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622020300049. Link, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 80. A. Albahri et al., Multi-biological laboratory examination framework for the prioritization of patients with COVID-19 based on integrated AHP and group VIKOR methods, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 19(5) (2020) 1247–1269. Link, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 81. O. Albahri et al., Systematic review of artificial intelligence techniques in the detection and classification of COVID-19 medical images in terms of evaluation and benchmarking: Taxonomy analysis, challenges, future solutions and methodological aspects, Journal of Infection and Public Health 13(10) (2020) 1381–1396. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 82. K. A. Dawood, K. Y. Sharif, A. A. Ghani, H. Zulzalil, A. Zaidan and B. Zaidan, Towards a Unified criteria model for usability evaluation in the context of open source software based on a fuzzy Delphi method, Information and Software Technology 130 (2020) 106453. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 83. O. Albahri et al., Helping doctors hasten COVID-19 treatment: Towards a rescue framework for the transfusion of best convalescent plasma to the most critical patients based on biological requirements via ml and novel MCDM methods, Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 196 (2020) 105617. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 84. M. Khatari, Multidimensional benchmarking framework for AQMs of network congestion control based on AHP and Group-TOPSIS, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 19 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22322. Google Scholar
    • 85. K. A. Dawood, Novel multi-perspective usability evaluation framework for selection of open source software based on BWM and group VIKOR techniques, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 19 (2020), https//doi.org/10.1142/S0219622020500169. Google Scholar
    • 86. K. H. Abdulkareem et al., A novel multi-perspective benchmarking framework for selecting image dehazing intelligent algorithms based on BWM and group VIKOR techniques, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 19 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622020500169. Link, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 87. F. Liang, M. Brunelli and J. Rezaei, Consistency issues in the best worst method: measurements and thresholds, Omega 96 (2019) 102175. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 88. O. A. Arqub, Adaptation of reproducing kernel algorithm for solving fuzzy Fredholm–Volterra integrodifferential equations, Neural Computing and Applications 28(7) (2017) 1591–1610. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 89. O. A. Arqub, M. Al-Smadi, S. Momani and T. Hayat, Application of reproducing kernel algorithm for solving second-order, two-point fuzzy boundary value problems, Soft Computing 21(23) (2017) 7191–7206. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 90. O. A. Arqub, A.-S. Mohammed, S. Momani and T. Hayat, Numerical solutions of fuzzy differential equations using reproducing kernel Hilbert space method, Soft Computing 20(8) (2016) 3283–3302. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 91. S. Nădăban, S. Dzitac and I. Dzitac, Fuzzy topsis: A general view, Procedia Computer Science 91 (2016) 823–831. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • 92. A. Hafezalkotob and A. Hafezalkotob, A novel approach for combination of individual and group decisions based on fuzzy best-worst method, Applied Soft Computing 59 (2017) 316–325. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 93. S. Ghaffari, A. Arab, J. Nafari and M. Manteghi, Investigation and evaluation of key success factors in technological innovation development based on BWM, Decision Science Letters 6(3) (2017) 295–306. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • 94. A. Sotoudeh-Anvari, S. Sadjadi, S. Molana and S. Sadi-Nezhad, A new MCDM-based approach using BWM and SAW for optimal search model, Decision Science Letters 7(4) (2018) 395–404. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • 95. H. Gupta, Evaluating service quality of airline industry using hybrid best worst method and VIKOR, Journal of Air Transport Management 68 (2018) 35–47. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 96. D. Pamučar, I. Petrović and G. Ćirović, Modification of the best–worst and MABAC methods: a novel approach based on interval-valued fuzzy-rough numbers, Expert Systems With Applications 91 (2018) 89–106. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar