Innovative q-rung orthopair fuzzy prioritized interactive aggregation operators to evaluate efficient autonomous vehicles for freight transportation

Document Type : Article

Authors

Department of Mathematics, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan

Abstract

Road freight transport, in particular, is associated with a number of negative external factors, including environmental and health care concerns, as well as the excessive use of nonrenewable natural resources. In the metropolitan climate, urban freight transport has a particularly noticeable ecological footprint. This is the most pressing issue confronting all stake holders involved in urban freight transportation. In multi-criteria group decision-making (MCGDM) strategies, the lack of contact between membership degree (MSD) and non-membership degree (NMSD) would be the basic factor for poor results in many MCGDM. To address these drawbacks, we define new aggregation operators (AOs) methods based on generalized membership grades of q-rung orthopair fuzzy (q-ROF) information, in this way, the input evaluation is interpreted in terms of q-rung orthopair fuzzy numbers (q-ROFNs). While interactive operators are well-known for interrelationship between generalized membership grades, prioritized operators are well-suited to exploit prioritized relationships among various criterion. Based on the characteristics of such flexible operators, two novel hybrid aggregation operators are proposed named as "q-rung orthopair fuzzy prioritized interactive weighted averaging operator and the q-rung orthopair fuzzy prioritized interactive weighted geometric operator".

Keywords

References

References:
1. Hung, S., Subic, A., and Wellnitz, J., Sustainable Automotive Technologies, Springer, Berlin (2011). 
2. Jaller, M., Pineda, L., and Ambrose, H. "Evaluating the use of zero-emission vehicles in last mile deliveries", ITS Reports (2017). http://dx.doi.org/10.7922/G2JM27TW.
3. Davis, B.A. and Figliozzi, M.A. "A methodology to evaluate the competitiveness of electric delivery trucks", Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 49(1), pp. 8-23 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2012.07.003.
4. Rasouli, S. and Timmermans, H. "Uncertainty in travel demand forecasting models: Literature review and research agenda", Transportation Letters, 4(1), pp. 55-73 (2012). https://doi.org/10.3328/TL.2012.04.01.55-73.
5. Klemick, H., Kopits, E., Wolverton, A., et al. "Heavyduty trucking and the energy efficiency paradox: evidence from focus groups and interviews", Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 77, pp. 154- 166 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.04.004.
6. Brownstone, D., Bunch, D.S., Golob, T.F., et al. "Atransactions choice model for forecasting demand for alternative-fuel vehicles", Research in Transportation Economics, 4, pp. 87-129 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0739-8859(96)80007-2.
7. Miller, M., Wang, Q., and Fulton, L. "Truck Choice Modeling: Understanding California's Transition to Zero-Emission Vehicle Trucks Taking into Account Truck Technologies, Costs, and Fleet Decision Behavior", UC Davis: National Center for Sustainable Transportation (2017). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1xt3k10x.
8. Zhang, Y., Jiang, Y., Rui, W., et al. "Analyzing truck fleets, acceptance of alternative fuel freight vehicles in China", Renewable Energy, 134, pp. 1148-1155 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.09.016.
9. Bunch, D.S., Brandley, M., Golob, T.F., et al. "Demand for clean alternative-fuel vehicles in California: A discrete-choice stated preference pilot project", Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 27(3), pp. 237-253 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1016/0965- 8564(93)90062-P.
10. Kurani, K.S., Turrentine, T., and Sperling, D. "Demand for electric vehicles in hybrid household: An exploratory analysis", Transport Policy, 1(4), pp. 224- 256 (1994). 10.1016/0967-070X(94)90005-1.
11. Jeremy, H. and Richard, N. "Life cycle model of alternative fuel vehicles: Emissions, energy, and cost tradeo ffs", Transportation Research Part, 35, pp. 243-266 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0965-8564(99)00057-9.
12. Aydin, S. and Kahraman, C. "Vehicle selection for public transportation using an integrated multi criteria decision making app. roach: a case of Ankara", Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 26(5), pp. 2467-2481 (2014). DOI: 10.1177/0036850420950120.
13. Yavuz, M., Oztaysi, B., Onar, S.C., et al. "Multicriteria evaluation of alternativefuel vehicles via a hierarchical hesitant fuzzy linguistic model", Expert System and Application, 42(5), pp. 2835-2848 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.010.
14. Wtrobski, J., Maecki, K., Kijewska, K., et al. "Multi-criteria analysis of electric vans for city logistics", Sustainability, 9(8), p. 1453 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9081453.
15. Jaller, M. and Otay, I. "Evaluating sustainable vehicle technologies for freight transportation using spherical fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS", Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 1197, pp. 118-126 (2020).
16. Alkharabsheh, A., Moslem, S., Oubahman, L., et al. "An integrated app. roach of multi-criteria decisionmaking and grey theory for evaluating urban public transportation systems", Sustainability, 13(2740) (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052740.
17. Ma, J., Wang, N., and Kong, D. "Market forecasting modeling study for new energy vehicle based on AHP and logit regression", Journal of Tongji University, 37(8), pp. 1079-1084 (2009). 10.3969/j.issn.0253-374x.2009.08.018.
18. Erdem, C., Enturk, I.S., and Simsek, T. "Identifying the factors affecting the willingness to pay for fuel-efficient vehicles in Turkey: A case of hybrids", Energy Policy, 38(6), pp. 3038-3043 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.01.043.
19. Maria, Y.R., Susana, M., Manfred, F., et al. "Public attitudes towards and demand for hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles: A review of the evidence and methodological implications", Energy Policy, 38, pp. 5301-5310 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.03.029.
20. Mabit, S.L. and Fosgerau, M. "Demand for alternativefuel vehicles when registration taxes are high", Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 16(3), pp. 225-231 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2010.11.001.
21. Behnam, V., Zandieh, M., and Moghaddam, R.T. "Two novel FMCDM methods for alternative-fuel buses selection", Applied Mathematical Modeling, 35, pp. 1396-1412 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2010.09.018.
22. Zhang, Y., Yu, Y., and Zou, B. "Analyzing public awareness and acceptance of alternative fuel vehicles in China: The case of EV", Energy Policy, 39, pp. 7015-7024 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.07.055.
23. Koohathongsumrit, N. and Meethom, W. "An integrated app. roach of fuzzy risk assessment model and data envelopment analysis for route selection in multimodal transportation networks", Expert  Systems with Applications, 171(114342) (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.114342.
24. Poudenx, P. "The effect of transportation policies on energy consumption and greenhouse gas emission from urban passenger transportation", Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 42(6), pp. 901- 909 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2008.01.013.
25. Daryanto, Y., Wee, H.M., and Astanti, R.D. "Threeechelon supply chain model considering carbon emission and item deterioration", Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 122, pp. 368- 383 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2018.12.014.
26. Zadeh, L.A. "Fuzzy sets", Information and Control, 8, pp. 338-353 (1965). 10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X.
27. Atanassov, K.T. "Intuitionistic fuzzy sets", Fuzzy Sets ans Systems, 20(1), pp. 87-96 (1986). 10.1016/S0165- 0114(86)80034-3.
28. Yager, R.R. and Abbasov, A.M. "Pythagorean membership grades, complex numbers, and decision making", International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 28, pp. 436-452 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1002/int.21584.
29. Yager, R.R. "Pythagorean fuzzy subsets", IFSA World Congress and NAFIPS Annual Meeting (IFSA/NAFIPS), Edmonton, Canada, IEEE, pp. 57-61 (2013).
30. Yager, R.R. "Pythagorean membership grades in multi criteria decision-making", IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 22, pp. 958-965 (2014). DOI: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2013.2278989.
31. Yager, R.R. "Generalized orthopair fuzzy sets", IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 25, pp. 1222-1230 (2017). DOI: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2016.2604005.
32. Liu, P. and Wang, P. "Some q-rung orthopair fuzzy aggregation operator and their application to multi-attribute decision making", International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 33(2), pp. 259-280 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1002/int.21927.
33. Garg, H. "CN-ROFS: connection number-based qrung orthopair fuzzy set and their application to decision-making process", International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 36(7), pp. 3106-3143 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22406.
34. Peng, X., Dai, J., and Garg, H. "Exponential operation and aggregation operator for q-rung orthopair fuzzy set and their decision-making method with a new score function", International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 33(11), pp. 2255-2282 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22028.
35. Jana, C., Muhiuddin, G., and Pal, M. "Some Dombi aggregation of q-rung orthopair fuzzy numbers in multiple-attribute decision making", International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 34(12), pp. 3220-3240 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22191.
36. Wei, G., Gao, H., and Wei, Y. "Some q-rung orthopair fuzzy Heronian mean operators in multiple attribute decision making", International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 33(7), pp. 1426-1458 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1002/int.21985.
37. Lin, M., Li, X., and Chen, L. "Linguistic q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets and their interactional partitioned Heronian mean aggregation operators", International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 35(2), pp. 217-249 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22136.
38. Riaz, M., Salabun, W., Farid, H.M.A., et al. "A robust q-rung orthopair fuzzy information aggregation using Einstein operations with application to sustainable energy planning decision management", Energies, 13(9), 2125 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/en13092155.
39. Riaz, M., Pamucar, D., Farid, H.M.A., et al. "qrung orthopair fuzzy prioritized aggregation operators and their app. lication towards green supp. lier chain management", Symmetry, 12(6), Article no. 976 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12060976.
40. Riaz, M., Farid, H.M.A., Kalsoom, H., et al. "A robust q-rung orthopair fuzzy Einstein prioritized aggregation operators with app. lication towards MCGDM", Symmetry, 12(6), Article no. 1058 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12061058.
41. Farid, H.M.A. and Riaz, M. "Some generalized qrung orthopair fuzzy Einstein interactive geometric aggregation operators with improved operational laws", International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 36, pp. 7239-7273 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22587.
42. Liu, P. and Liu, J. "Some q-rung orthopai fuzzy bonferroni mean operators and their application to multi-attribute group decision making", International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 33(2), pp. 315-347 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1002/int.21933.
43. Joshi, B.P. and Gegov, A. "Confidence levels q-rung orthopair fuzzy aggregation operators and its applications to MCDM problems", International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 35(1), pp. 125-149 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22203.
44. Riaz, M., Razzaq, A., Kalsoom, H., et al. "qrung orthopair fuzzy geometric aggregation operators based on generalized and group-generalized parameters  with app. lication to water loss management", Symmetry, 12(8), Article no. 1236 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12081236.
45. Riaz, M., Garg, H., Farid, H.M.A., et al. "Novel qrung orthopair fuzzy interaction aggregation operators and their application to low-carbon green supply chain management", Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 41(2), pp. 4109-4126 (2021). DOI: 10.3233/JIFS- 210506.
46. Akram, M., Khan, A., Alcantud, J.C.R., et al. "A hybrid decision-making framework under complex spherical fuzzy prioritized weighted aggregation operators", Expert Systems, 4, Article no. 12712 (2021). /doi.org/10.1111/exsy.12712.
47. Jana, C., Pal, M., and Liu, P. "Multiple attribute dynamic decision making method based on some complex aggregation functions in CQROF setting", Comp. App. l. Math, 41(103) (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-022-01806-5.
48. Feng, F., Zheng, Y., Alcantud, J.C.R., et al. "Minkowski weighted score functions of intuitionistic fuzzy values", Mathematics, 8(7), pp. 1-30 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/math8071143.
49. Ashraf, S., Abdullah, S., Zeng, S., et al. "Fuzzy decision supp. ort modeling for hydrogen power plant selection based on single valued neutrosophic Sine trigonometric aggregation operators", Symmetry, 12(2), Article no. 298 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12020298.
50. Liu, P., Chen, S.M., and Wang, P. "Multiple-attribute group decision-making based on q-rung orthopair fuzzy power maclaurin symmetric mean operators", IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 99, pp. 1-16 (2019). DOI: 10.1109/TSMC.2018.2852948.
51. Xing, Y., Zhang, R., and Zhou, Z. "Some q-rung orthopair fuzzy point weighted aggregation operators for multi-attribute decision making", Soft Computing, 23(11), pp. 627-649 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-03712-7.
52. Liu, P. and Wang, P. "Multiple-attribute decisionmaking based on Archimedean Bonferroni operators of q-rung orthopair fuzzy numbers", IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 27(5), pp. 834-848 (2019). DOI: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2018.2826452.
53. Liu, Z., Liu, P., and Liang, X. "Multiple attribute decision- making method for dealing with heterogeneous relationship among attributes and unknown attribute weight information under q-rung orthopair fuzzy environment", International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 33, pp. 1900-1928 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22001.
54. Mahmood, T. and Ali, Z. "A novel approach of complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy hamacher aggregation operators and their app. lication for cleaner production assessment in gold mines", Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 12, pp. 8933-8959(2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-020-02697-2.
55. Saha, A., Majumder, P., Dutta, D., et al. "Multiattribute decision making using q-rung orthopair fuzzy weighted fairly aggregation operators", Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 12, pp. 8149-8171 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-020- 02551-5.
56. Hussain, A., Ali, M.I., and Mahmood, T. "Hesitant q-rung orthopair fuzzy aggregation operators with their app. lications in multi-criteria decision making", Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 17(3), pp. 117-134 (2020). 10.22111/ijfs.2020.5353.
57. Jana, C., Pal, M., and Wang, J. "A robust aggregation operator for multi-criteria decision-making method with bipolar fuzzy soft environment", Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 16(6), pp. 1-16 (2019). 10.22111/ijfs.2019.5014.
58. Wang, L., Garg, H., and Li, N. "Pythagorean fuzzy interactive Hamacher power aggregation operators for assessment of express service quality with entropy weight", Soft Computing, 25, pp. 973-993 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-020-05193-z.
59. Wang, L. and Garg, H. "Algorithm for multiple attribute decision-making with interactive archimedean norm operations under pythagorean fuzzy uncertainty", International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 14(1), pp. 503-527 (2021). 10.2991/ijcis.d.201215.002.
60. Wang, L. and Li, N. "Pythagorean fuzzy interaction power Bonferroni mean aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making", International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 35(1), pp. 150-183 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22204.
61. Wei, G. "Pythagorean fuzzy interaction aggregation operators and their application to multiple attribute decision making", Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 33(4), pp. 2119-2132 (2017). 10.3233/JIFS- 162030.
62. Gao, H., Lu, M., Wei, G., et al. "Some novel Pythagorean fuzzy interaction aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making", Fundamenta Informaticae, 159(4), pp. 385-428 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22157.
63. Garg, H. "Some series of intuitionistic fuzzy interactive averaging aggregation operators", Springer Plus, 5, Artilce no. 999 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064- 016-2591-9.
64. Garg, H. "Generalised Pythagorean fuzzy geometric interactive aggregation operators using Einstein operations and their application to decision making", Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 30(6), pp. 763-794 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/0952813X.2018.1467497.
65. Garg, H. and Arora, R. "Novel scaled prioritized intuitionistic fuzzy soft interaction averaging aggregation operators and their application to multi criteria decision making", Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 71, pp. 100-112 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2018.02.005.
66. Farid, H.M.A. and Riaz, M. "Single-valued neutrosophic Einstein interactive aggregation operators with app. lications for material selection in engineering design: case study of cryogenic storage tank", Complex and Intelligent Systems, 8, pp. 2131-2149 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40747-021-00626-0.
67. Lin, M., Li, X., Chen, R., et al. "Picture fuzzy interactional partitioned Heronian mean aggregation operators: An application to MADM process", Artificial Intelligence Review, 55, pp. 1171-1208 (2022). ttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-021-09953-7.
68. Luo, S. and Xing, L. "Picture fuzzy interaction partitioned heronian aggregation operators for hotel selection", Mathematics, 8(1), Aricle no. 3 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/math8010003.
69. He, Y.D., Chen, H.Y., and Zhou, L.G. "Generalized intuitionistic fuzzy geometric interaction operators and their application to decision making", Expert System and App. lication, 41, pp. 2484-2495 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.09.048.
70. Yager, R.R. "Prioritized aggregation operators", International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 48, pp. 263-274 (2008). 
71. Third Assessment Report-Climate Change 2001, the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, IPCC/WMO/UNEP. 
72. www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/ transport-emissions-of-air-pollutants-8/transport -emissions-of-air-pollutants-8.
73. Dobranskyte-Niskota, A., Perujo, A., and Pregl, M. "Indicators to assess sustainability of transport activities", European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability, DOI:10.2788/54736.
Scientia Iranica
Volume 31, Issue 21
Transactions on Computer Science & Engineering and Electrical Engineering (D)
November and December 2024
Pages 2008-2031

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 20 December 2021
  • Revise Date: 21 March 2022
  • Accept Date: 11 July 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics