Key research themes
1. How can advanced fuzzy set theories enhance Multi-Attribute Decision Making under uncertainty?
This research area focuses on extending classical fuzzy set frameworks to better capture and handle the inherent uncertainty, vagueness, and indeterminacy present in multi-attribute decision-making (MADM) problems. Advanced fuzzy set models such as neutrosophic sets, Pythagorean fuzzy sets, Fermatean fuzzy sets, and their interval or linguistic extensions provide more expressive power by considering degrees of truth, indeterminacy, and falsity independently. The methodological developments include defining new aggregation operators, distance measures, and ranking methods within these fuzzy frameworks to support more robust decision analysis where information may be incomplete, inconsistent, or linguistic in nature.
2. What role do hybrid and integrated MADM models play in enhancing decision support for complex engineering design and industrial applications?
This theme covers methodological advancements integrating multiple MADM techniques and decision support tools to tackle the complexity and multifaceted nature of industrial problems, especially in engineering design and strategic planning. Hybrid models often combine fuzzy logic, multi-criteria weighting methods, and rule-based expert systems for robust handling of qualitative and quantitative criteria, uncertainty, and preference elicitation. These integrative approaches enhance decision quality in contexts like product design evaluation, land use planning, and performance assessment by enabling systematic analysis within multi-attribute frameworks supported by computational platforms.
3. How do attribute scaling, weighting, and consensus methods influence trade-offs and final rankings in multi-attribute decision making?
This theme investigates methodological issues related to attribute range effects, weight determination, normalization, and consensus modeling in MADM. Properly accounting for how attribute scales and decision-maker opinion weights impact aggregation and ranking results is critical for meaningful trade-offs between conflicting criteria. Approaches include analyzing how attribute range affects preference intensity and rankings, optimizing expert opinion weights to maximize consensus, and exploring normalization methods to balance criteria differing in units or scales. These methods ensure more reliable, interpretable, and justifiable decision outcomes.