A multi-criteria decision-making approach for portfolio selection by using an automatic spherical fuzzy AHP algorithm

References

• Abdel-Basset, M., Mohamed, M., Zhou, Y., & Hezam, I. (2017). Multi-criteria group decision making based on neutrosophic analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 33(6), 4055–4066. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-17981
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdullah, L., Jaafar, S., & Taib, I. (2013). Intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approach in ranking of human capital indicators. Journal of Applied Sciences, 13(3), 423–429. https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2013.423.429
   Google Scholar
• Abdullah, L., & Najib, L. (2014). A new type-2 fuzzy set of linguistic variables for the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(7), 3297–3305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.11.028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akao, Y., & Mazur, G. H. (2003). The leading edge in QFD: Past, present and future. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 20(1), 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710310453791
   Google Scholar
• Atanassov, K. (2016). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. International Journal of Bioautomation, 20, 1.
   Google Scholar
• Ayd In, S., Aktas, A., & Kabak, M. (2018). Neutrosophic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approach for safe cities evaluation criteria. International Conference on Theory and Applications of Fuzzy Systems and Soft Computing (pp. 958–965). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Ayyildiz, E., & Gumus, A. T. (2021). Interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy AHP method-based supply chain performance evaluation by a new extension of SCOR model: SCOR 4.0. Complex & Intelligent Systems, 7(1), 559–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40747-020-00221-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolturk, E., & Kahraman, C. (2018). Interval-valued neutrosophic AHP with possibility degree method. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 10(3), 431–446. https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v10i3.545
   Google Scholar
• Brans, J. P., Vincke, P., & Mareschal, B. (1986). How to select and how to rank projects: The PROMETHEE method. European Journal of Operational Research, 24(2), 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(86)90044-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Büyüközkan, G., Göçer, F., & Feyzioğlu, O. (2018). Cloud computing technology selection based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy MCDM methods. Soft Computing, 22(15), 5091–5114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3317-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Celik, E., & Akyuz, E. (2018). An interval type-2 fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods for decision-making problems in maritime transportation engineering: The case of ship loader. Ocean Engineering, 155, 371–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.01.039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demir, E., Ak, M. F., & Sari, K. (2022). Pythagorean fuzzy based AHP-VIKOR integration to assess rail transportation systems in Turkey. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-022-01404-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fahmi, A., Derakhshan, A., Kahraman, C. (2015). Human resources management using interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. 2015 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE) (pp. 1–5. IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Faizi, S., Rashid, T., & Zafar, S. (2018). A multicriteria decision-making approach based on fuzzy AHP with intuitionistic 2-tuple linguistic sets. Advances in Fuzzy Systems, 2018, 5789192. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5789192
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gou, X., Xu, Z., & Liao, H. (2017). Hesitant fuzzy linguistic entropy and cross-entropy measures and alternative queuing method for multiple criteria decision making. Information Sciences, 388, 225–246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gou, X., Xu, Z., Liao, H., & Herrera, F. (2021). Probabilistic double hierarchy linguistic term set and its use in designing an improved VIKOR method: The application in smart healthcare. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 72(12), 2611–2630. https://doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2020.1806741
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gul, M. (2018). Application of Pythagorean fuzzy AHP and VIKOR methods in occupational health and safety risk assessment: The case of a gun and rifle barrel external surface oxidation and colouring unit. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 26(4), 705–718.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Chiclana, F. (2001). Multiperson decision-making based on multiplicative preference relations. European Journal of Operational Research, 129(2), 372–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00197-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F., Chiclana, F., & Luque, M. (2004). Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations. European Journal of Operational Research, 154(1), 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00725-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ilbahar, E., Karaşan, A., Cebi, S., & Kahraman, C. (2018). A novel approach to risk assessment for occupational health and safety using Pythagorean fuzzy AHP & fuzzy inference system. Safety Science, 103, 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.10.025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• İnce, M., Yiğit, T., & Hakan Işik, A. (2020). A novel hybrid fuzzy AHP-GA method for test sheet question selection. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 19(2), 629–647. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622020500054
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jun Yi Tey, D., Fei Gan, Y., Selvachandran, G., Gai Quek, S., Smarandache, F., Hoang Son, L., Abdel-Basset, M., & Viet Long, H. (2019). A novel neutrosophic data analytic hierarchy process for multi-criteria decision making method: A case study in Kuala Lumpur stock exchange. IEEE Access, 7, 53687–53697. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2912913
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahraman, C., Öztayşi, B., & Onar, S. Ç. (2018). An integrated intuitionistic fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS approach to evaluation of outsource manufacturers. Journal of Intelligent Systems, 29(1), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1515/jisys-2017-0363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahraman, C., Oztaysi, B., Onar, S. C., & Dogan, O. (2018). Intuitionistic fuzzy originated interval type-2 fuzzy AHP: An application to damless hydroelectric power plants. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 10(2), 266–292.
   Google Scholar
• Kahraman, C., Öztayşi, B., Sari, İ. U., & Turanoğlu, E. (2014). Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process with interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Knowledge-Based Systems, 59, 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2014.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karasan, A. (2019). A novel hesitant intuitionistic fuzzy linguistic AHP method and its application to prioritization of investment alternatives. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 11(1), 127–142. https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v11i1.610
   Google Scholar
• Karasan, A., Erdogan, M., & Ilbahar, E. (2018). Prioritization of production strategies of a manufacturing plant by using an integrated intuitionistic fuzzy AHP & TOPSIS approach. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 31(4), 510–528. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-01-2018-0001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karasan, A., Ilbahar, E., & Kahraman, C. (2019). A novel Pythagorean fuzzy AHP and its application to landfill site selection problem. Soft Computing, 23(21), 10953–10968. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3649-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaur, P. (2014). Selection of vendor based on intuitionistic fuzzy analytical hierarchy process. Advances in Operations Research, 2014, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/987690
   Google Scholar
• Kutlu Gündoğdu, F., & Kahraman, C. (2019). Spherical fuzzy sets and spherical fuzzy TOPSIS method. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 36(1), 337–352. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-181401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutlu Gündoğdu, F., & Kahraman, C. (2020). A novel spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and its renewable energy application. Soft Computing, 24(6), 4607–4621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04222-w
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao, H., & Xu, Z. (2014). Automatic procedures for group decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 27(5), 2341–2353. https://doi.org/10.3233/IFS-141203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markowitz, H. M. (1952). Portfolio selection. The Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohd, W. R. W., & Abdullah, L. (2017). Pythagorean fuzzy analytic hierarchy process to multi-criteria decision making. AIP Conference proceedings (Vol. 1905, No. 1, p. 040020). AIP Publishing LLC.
   Google Scholar
• Nirmala, G., & Uthra, G. (2016). Intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process based on possibility degree. International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 109(9), 184–192.
   Google Scholar
• Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 445–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oztaysi, B. (2015). A group decision making approach using interval type-2 fuzzy AHP for enterprise information systems project selection. Journal of Multiple-Valued Logic & Soft Computing, 24, 475–500.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Öztayşi, B., & Kahraman, C. (2017). Evaluation of renewable energy alternatives using hesitant fuzzy TOPSIS and interval type-2 fuzzy AHP. Renewable and Alternative Energy: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 1378–1412). IGI Global.
   Google Scholar
• Öztaysi, B., Onar, S. C., Boltürk, E., Kahraman, C. (2015). Hesitant fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE) (pp. 1–7). IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Radwan, N. M., Senousy, M. B., & Riad, A. M. (2017). Neutrosophic AHP multi criteria decision making method applied on the selection of learning management system. International Journal of Advancements in Computing Technology, 8, 95–105.
   Google Scholar
• Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saaty, T. L. (1996). Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic network process (Vol. 4922, No. 2). RWS Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Sadiq, R., & Tesfamariam, S. (2009). Environmental decision-making under uncertainty using intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (IF-AHP). Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 23(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-007-0197-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanino, T. (1984). Fuzzy preference orderings in group decision making. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 12(2), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(84)90032-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tavana, M., Zareinejad, M., Di Caprio, D., & Kaviani, M. A. (2016). An integrated intuitionistic fuzzy AHP and SWOT method for outsourcing reverse logistics. Applied Soft Computing, 40, 544–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.12.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tooranloo, H. S., & Iranpour, A. (2017). Supplier selection and evaluation using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy AHP method. International Journal of Procurement Management, 10(5), 539–554. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPM.2017.086399
   Google Scholar
• Varma, K., & Kumar, K. S. (2012). Criteria analysis aiding portfolio selection using DEMATEL. Procedia Engineering, 38, 3649–3661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2012.06.421
   Google Scholar
• Wang, X., Xu, Z., & Gou, X. (2022). The Interval probabilistic double hierarchy linguistic EDAS method based on natural language processing basic techniques and its application to hotel online reviews. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 13(6), 1517–1534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-021-01463-w
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, J., Huang, H. B., & Cao, Q. W. (2013). Research on AHP with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets and its application in multi-criteria decision making problems. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 37(24), 9898–9906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2013.05.035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xia, M., & Xu, Z. (2011). On consensus in group decision making based on fuzzy preference relations. Consensual processes (pp. 263–287). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Xu, Z., & Liao, H. (2014). Intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 22(4), 749–761. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2013.2272585
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yager, R. R. (2013). Pythagorean fuzzy subsets. 2013 Joint IFSA World Congress and NAFIPS Annual Meeting (IFSA/NAFIPS) (pp. 57–61). IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Yoon, K. P., & Hwang, C. L. (1995). Multiple attribute decision making: an introduction. Sage publications.
   Google Scholar
• Yücesan, M. (2019). Green supplier selection for plastic industry using integrated model based on Pythagorean fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. İşletme Araşt Irmalar i Dergisi, 11(1), 26–41.
   Google Scholar
• Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, R., Xu, Z., & Gou, X. (2022). ELECTRE II method based on the cosine similarity to evaluate the performance of financial logistics enterprises under double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic environment. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 1–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zopounidis, C. (1993). On the use of the MINORA multicriteria decision aiding system to portfolio selection and management. Journal of Information Science and Technology, 2(2), 150–156.
   Google Scholar