Methods | Positive grade | Positive and negative grade | Contained imaginary part | Deal with two-dimension information |
Fuzzy sets | √ | × | × | × |
Bipolar fuzzy sets | √ | √ | × | × |
Complex fuzzy sets | √ | × | √ | √ |
Bipolar complex fuzzy sets | √ | √ | √ | √ |
Neck of femur fractures are extremely common worldwide and have a mortality rate of 15% at 1 year. Dual-mobility cups (DMCs) have demonstrated a reduction in dislocation and revision rates for elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) but the benefits of DMC use in neck of femur fractures are less clear. The aim of this study was to compare the rate of dislocation between conventional and DMC THA following neck of femur fracture.
Data was retrospectively collected for patients who received either DMCs or standard acetabular components for neck of femur fractures at our institution. Patients were excluded if they had less than 2 years follow-up. Dislocation and revision rates were collected for all patients in addition to radiographic analysis to assess for loosening.
Data was collected for 39 patients with DMCs and 95 patients with conventional THA. Two patients with DMCs suffered a dislocation (5.1%) compared to 7 patients (7.3%) who underwent a conventional THA (p = 0.49). Both patients in the DMC group had additional risk factors for dislocation. One DMC patient required revision surgery for dislocation and one conventional THA patient underwent a revision for aspetic loosening. There were no cases of radiographic loosening in the DMC group.
Our study showed a trend towards lower dislocation rates in patients treated with a DMC compared to conventional THA. Although there are potential issues associated with DMC implants and cost implications, this study suggests they may be advantageous in patients at high risk for dislocation.
Citation: Matthew C.A. Arnold, John W. Kennedy, Evan Wright, Madeleine Reece, R.M. Dominic Meek. The association of dual-mobility total hip arthroplasty with dislocation compared to conventional hip arthroplasty for neck of femur fracture[J]. AIMS Medical Science, 2023, 10(4): 304-309. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2023023
[1] | Wei Lu, Yuangang Li, Yixiu Kong, Liangli Yang . Generalized triangular Pythagorean fuzzy weighted Bonferroni operators and their application in multi-attribute decision-making. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(12): 28376-28397. doi: 10.3934/math.20231452 |
[2] | Tahir Mahmood, Azam, Ubaid ur Rehman, Jabbar Ahmmad . Prioritization and selection of operating system by employing geometric aggregation operators based on Aczel-Alsina t-norm and t-conorm in the environment of bipolar complex fuzzy set. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(10): 25220-25248. doi: 10.3934/math.20231286 |
[3] | Tahir Mahmood, Ubaid Ur Rehman, Muhammad Naeem . A novel approach towards Heronian mean operators in multiple attribute decision making under the environment of bipolar complex fuzzy information. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(1): 1848-1870. doi: 10.3934/math.2023095 |
[4] | Weiwei Jiang, Zeeshan Ali, Muhammad Waqas, Peide Liu . Decision methods based on Bonferroni mean operators and EDAS for the classifications of circular pythagorean fuzzy Meta-analysis. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(10): 28273-28294. doi: 10.3934/math.20241371 |
[5] | Shichao Li, Zeeshan Ali, Peide Liu . Prioritized Hamy mean operators based on Dombi t-norm and t-conorm for the complex interval-valued Atanassov-Intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their applications in strategic decision-making problems. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(3): 6589-6635. doi: 10.3934/math.2025302 |
[6] | Muhammad Qiyas, Muhammad Naeem, Neelam Khan, Lazim Abdullah . Bipolar complex fuzzy credibility aggregation operators and their application in decision making problem. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(8): 19240-19263. doi: 10.3934/math.2023981 |
[7] | Dilshad Alghazzawi, Sajida Abbas, Hanan Alolaiyan, Hamiden Abd El-Wahed Khalifa, Alhanouf Alburaikan, Qin Xin, Abdul Razaq . Dynamic bipolar fuzzy aggregation operators: A novel approach for emerging technology selection in enterprise integration. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(3): 5407-5430. doi: 10.3934/math.2024261 |
[8] | Anam Habib, Zareen A. Khan, Nimra Jamil, Muhammad Riaz . A decision-making strategy to combat CO$ _2 $ emissions using sine trigonometric aggregation operators with cubic bipolar fuzzy input. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(7): 15092-15128. doi: 10.3934/math.2023771 |
[9] | Khulud Fahad Bin Muhaya, Kholood Mohammad Alsager . Extending neutrosophic set theory: Cubic bipolar neutrosophic soft sets for decision making. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(10): 27739-27769. doi: 10.3934/math.20241347 |
[10] | Asit Dey, Tapan Senapati, Madhumangal Pal, Guiyun Chen . A novel approach to hesitant multi-fuzzy soft set based decision-making. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(3): 1985-2008. doi: 10.3934/math.2020132 |
Neck of femur fractures are extremely common worldwide and have a mortality rate of 15% at 1 year. Dual-mobility cups (DMCs) have demonstrated a reduction in dislocation and revision rates for elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) but the benefits of DMC use in neck of femur fractures are less clear. The aim of this study was to compare the rate of dislocation between conventional and DMC THA following neck of femur fracture.
Data was retrospectively collected for patients who received either DMCs or standard acetabular components for neck of femur fractures at our institution. Patients were excluded if they had less than 2 years follow-up. Dislocation and revision rates were collected for all patients in addition to radiographic analysis to assess for loosening.
Data was collected for 39 patients with DMCs and 95 patients with conventional THA. Two patients with DMCs suffered a dislocation (5.1%) compared to 7 patients (7.3%) who underwent a conventional THA (p = 0.49). Both patients in the DMC group had additional risk factors for dislocation. One DMC patient required revision surgery for dislocation and one conventional THA patient underwent a revision for aspetic loosening. There were no cases of radiographic loosening in the DMC group.
Our study showed a trend towards lower dislocation rates in patients treated with a DMC compared to conventional THA. Although there are potential issues associated with DMC implants and cost implications, this study suggests they may be advantageous in patients at high risk for dislocation.
Abbreviations: FST: Fuzzy set theory; BFST: Bipolar fuzzy set theory; CFST: Complex fuzzy set theory; BCFST: Bipolar complex fuzzy set theory; BM: Bonferroni mean; BCFBM: Bipolar complex fuzzy Bonferroni mean; BCFNWBM: Bipolar complex fuzzy normalized weighted Bonferroni mean; BCFOWBM: Bipolar complex fuzzy ordered weighted Bonferroni mean; MADM: Multiattribute decision-making; SG: Supporting grade
In mathematics, the decision-making technique is the procedure of expressing real life problems and events in a mathematical and statistical format or language. Many techniques exist in the field of mathematics and are used for evaluating or carrying out mathematical and statistical problems and one of these techniques is fuzzy set theory (FST). Zadeh [1] enhanced the classical set theory and initiated the idea of FST in 1965. The information of FST is the group of supportive grade (SG) that gives values belonging to [0, 1]. After successful presentation of the idea of FST, a lot of researchers have enhanced and employed this idea in many fields worldwide, for instance, the qualitative comparative analysis based on FST utilized by Ding and Grundmann [2], Ahamed et al. [3] initiated the layout methodology based on FST and discussed their application, Chen and Tian [4] diagnosed the digital transformation using FST. Furthermore, the fuzzy set measures Python library was deliberated by Sidiropoulos et al. [5] and Kumar et al. [6] diagnosed the fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis in business and management sciences.
Classical set theory and FST have attained a lot of attention and some researchers have done a lot of work in this direction, but as there are some situations where FST fails to work, for instance, if an expert considers economy of a country then along with exports of the country the expert will have also to consider imports of the country. Then in this scenario the notion of FST fails, because here the expert needs some tool which can handle such type of situation that is there is a need of a tool which can handle not only the positive SG but also the negative SG. To overcome this problem Zhang [7] initiated the notion of bipolar FST (BFST). The main structure of BFST includes two functions, called positive and negative SG having values in [0, 1] and [-1, 0] respectively. After successful presentation of the idea of BFST, many researchers enhanced and employed this notion further, for instance, Mahmood [8] initiated the notion of bipolar soft sets, Jana et al. [9] initiated the Dombi operators for BFST, Wei et al. [10] initiated the Hamacher operators for BFST, Jana et al. [11] presented the Dombi prioritized operators for BFST, Zadrozny and Kacprzyk [12] introduced the bipolar queries, Jana and Pal [13] established the extended BFST with EDAS technique, Lu et al. [14] explored the bipolar 2-tuple linguistic information, Jana [15] established the MABAC technique using BFST and worked on their applications, Zhang et al. [16] exposed supply chain management using BFST and Tchangani [17] initiated the theory of normal classification based on weighted cardinal fuzzy measures for BFST and discussed their applications in DM. Akram et al. [18] presented a BF complex linear system. Haque [19] initiated assessing infrastructural encroachment and fragmentation in east Kolkata. Akram and Arshad [20] presented BF TOPSIS and BF ELECTRE-I methods. MCDM technique in the setting of BF was initiated by Alghamdi et al. [21]. The extended TOPSIS technique in the setting of BF was diagnosed by Sarwar et al. [22]. Singh and Kumar [23] presented BF graph. Akram and Arshad [24] established a novel trapezoidal BF TOPSIS technique for DM. The graphs for the analysis of BF data were interpreted by Akram et al. [25].
For Mathematicians it is of great interest to discuss FST of the type in which the membership values are not the real numbers but the complex numbers. To address this issue, Ramot et al. [26] generalized the notion of FS by enhancing the SG defining from a universal set to the unit disc {z∈C:|z|≤1}, called complex FS (CFS). After the introduction of CFS theory (CFST), many researchers worked on it, for instance, Liu et al. [27] worked on complex fuzzy cross-entropy measures, Mahmood and Ali [28] worked on complex fuzzy neighborhood operators, Zeeshan et al. [29] initiated the notion of complex fuzzy soft sets, Qudah and Hassan [30] initiated the notion of complex multifuzzy sets, Luqman et al. [31] worked on analysis of hypergraph structure by using CFST, Thirunavukarasu et al. [32] discussed some applications of complex fuzzy soft set theory, Mahmood et al. [33] initiated the notion of complex fuzzy N-soft sets and Alkouri [34] initiated the notion of complex generalised fuzzy soft set.
To generalize the notions of BFST and CFST, Mahmood and Ur Rehman [35] initiated the notion bipolar complex fuzzy set theory (BCFST). Multi-attribute decision making based BCFST is discussed in [36,37,38].
The main theme of this analysis is stated below:
a) We will show how to utilize this new idea.
b) We will show how to aggregate the information into a singleton set.
c) and how to find the best optimal.
For handling the above problems, we noticed that the theory of BM operators based on BCF information is much more suitable. Because some people have evaluated BM operators based on fuzzy sets and their extensions. The major theme of the BM operator was initiated by Bonferroni [38] in 1950, which proved to be a very effective tool for combining a collection of attributes. Furthermore, Yager [39] diagnosed the generalized BM operators. The geometric BM operator was developed by Xia et al. [40]. The generalized BM operators were also diagnosed by Beliakov et al. [41]. To aggregate or accumulate the collection of a finite number of information into a singleton set, the BM operator plays a very beneficial and dominant role in accurately evaluating the collection of information. The BM operator is massive powerful than the averaging/geometric operators because they are the specific case of the initiated operators. However, in some real life problems, it is a very problematic situation for an expert to capture the relationship between any terms of attributes. For instance, if in some situation we need to find the quality of the laptop, its efficiency, and working capability. Therefore, one thing that is essential for decision-makers is how to find the relation among attributes to make a massive beneficial decision. Additionally, due to the ambiguity and uncertainty of decision-making problems, it is essential to compute a new structure based on BCFST that is helpful to evaluate difficult and unreliable information in real life problems. The main analyses of the introduced approaches are explained below:
a) To deliberate the idea of BCFBM, BCFNWBM, and BCFOWBM operators. Furthermore, some properties and results of the deliberated operators are established.
b) To compute the required decision from the group of opinions, we computed a MADM problem based on the initiated operators for BCF information to evaluate the difficult and unachievable problems.
c) To compare the presented operators with some prevailing operators, we illustrate some examples and try to evaluate the graphical interpretation of the established work to boost the worth of the proposed theory. The influences of the BCFS and their restrictions are available in Table 1.
Methods | Positive grade | Positive and negative grade | Contained imaginary part | Deal with two-dimension information |
Fuzzy sets | √ | × | × | × |
Bipolar fuzzy sets | √ | √ | × | × |
Complex fuzzy sets | √ | × | √ | √ |
Bipolar complex fuzzy sets | √ | √ | √ | √ |
Main structure of the current study is organized as: In Section 2, we revise the idea of BCFS and their operational laws with the theory of BM operators. In Section 3, we deliberate the idea of BCFBM, BCFNWBM, and BCFOWBM operators. Furthermore, some properties and results of the deliberated operators are established. In Section 4, to compute the required decision from the group of opinions, we computed a MADM problem based on the initiated operators for BCF information to evaluate the difficult and unachievable problems. Finally, by comparing the presented operators with some existing operators, we illustrate some examples and try to evaluate the graphical interpretation of the diagnosed work to boost the worth of the proposed theory. The final concluding remarks are explained in Section 5.
BM operator works as a tool for aggregating the collection of alternatives into a singleton set. The comparison of BM operators with averaging/geometric operators is massive powerful because they are the particular cases of the initiated operators. The main theme of this review section is to revise the conception of BCFST and their elementary operational laws with BM operators.
Definition 1. [35] A mathematical structure of BCFS is of the form:
J={(τ,γ+J(τ),γ−J(τ))|τ∈T} | (1) |
where γ+J(τ):T→[0,1]+i[0,1] and γ−J(τ):T→[−1,0]+i[−1,0], as known as the positive and negative SG: γ+J(τ)=λ+J(τ)+iδ+J(τ) and γ−J(τ)=λ−J(τ)+iδ−J(τ), with λ+J(τ),δ+J(τ)∈[0,1] and λ−J(τ),δ−J(τ)∈[−1,0]. In simple words, we named the BCF number (BCFN)
J=(τ,γ+J(τ),γ−J(τ))=(τ,λ+J(τ)+iδ+J(τ),λ−J(τ)+iδ−J(τ)). |
Definition 2. [36] The score value SB, explained by using the BCFN
J=(τ,γ+J(τ),γ−J(τ))=(τ,λ+J(τ)+iδ+J(τ),λ−J(τ)+iδ−J(τ)), |
such that
SB(J)=14(2+λ+J(τ)+δ+J(τ)+λ−J(τ)+δ−J(τ)),SB∈[0,1]. | (2) |
Definition 3. [36] The accuracy value SB, explained by using the BCFN
J=(τ,γ+J(τ),γ−J(τ))=(τ,λ+J(τ)+iδ+J(τ),λ−J(τ)+iδ−J(τ)), |
such that
HB(J)=λ+J(τ)+δ+J(τ)−λ−J(τ)−δ−J(τ)4,HB∈[0,1]. | (3) |
Definition 4. [36] For any J=(τ,γ+J(τ),γ−J(τ)) and K=(τ,γ+K(τ),γ−K(τ)), we computed
1) If SB(J)<SB(K), then J<K.
2) If SB(J)>SB(K), then J>K.
3) If SB(J)=(K), then
i. If HB(J)<HB(K), then J<K.
ii. If HB(J)>HB(K), then J>K.
iii. If HB(J)=HB(K), then J=K.
Definition 5. [36] For any
J=(τ,γ+J(τ),γ−J(τ))=(τ,λ+J(τ)+iδ+J(τ),λ−J(τ)+iδ−J(τ)) |
and
K=(γ+K(τ),γ−K(τ))=(λ+K(τ)+iδ+K(τ),λ−K(τ)+iδ−K(τ)), |
with β>0, then
J⊕K=(τ,(λ+J(τ)+λ+K(τ)−λ+J(τ)λ+K(τ)+i(δ+J(τ)+δ+K(τ)−δ+J(τ)δ+K(τ)),−(λ−J(τ)λ−K(τ))+i(−(δ−J(τ)δ−K(τ))))). | (4) |
J⊗K=(τ,(λ+J(τ)λ+K(τ)+iδ+J(τ)δ+K(τ),λ−J(τ)+λ−K(τ)+λ−J(τ)λ−K(τ)+i(δ−J(τ)+δ−K(τ)+δ−J(τ)δ−K(τ)))). | (5) |
βJ=(τ,(1−(1−λ+J(τ))β+i(1−(1−δ+J(τ))β),−|λ−J(τ)|β+i(−|δ−J(τ)|β))). | (6) |
Jβ=(τ,(λ+J(τ)β+iδ+J(τ)β,−1+(1+λ−J(τ))β+i(−1+(1+δ−J(τ))β))). | (7) |
Theorem 1. [37] Under the availability of any BCFNs
J=(τ,γ+J(τ),γ−J(τ))=(τ,λ+J(τ)+iδ+J(τ),λ−J(τ)+iδ−J(τ)) |
and
K=(γ+K(τ),γ−K(τ))=(λ+K(τ)+iδ+K(τ),λ−K(τ)+iδ−K(τ)), |
with β,β1,β2>0, then
1) J⊕K=K⊕J.
2) J⊗K=K⊗J.
3) β(J⊕K)=βJ⊕βK.
4) (J⊗K)β=Jβ⊗Kβ.
5) β1J⊕β2J=(β1+β2)J.
6) Jβ1⊗Jβ2=Jβ1+β2.
7) (Jβ1)β2=Jβ1β2.
Proof. Trivial.
Definition 6. [38] Suppose that 𝓀ᶄ(ᶄ=1,2,..,ň) be a group of positive real numbers, Then
Bƥ,ɋ(𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň)=(1ň(ň−1)∑ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ𝒽ƥᶄ𝒽ɋĺ)1ƥ+ɋ | (8) |
is known as BM, where ƥ,ɋ≥0.
The major investigation of this analysis is to deliberate the idea of BCFBM, BCFNWBM, and BCFOWBM operators. Furthermore, some properties and results of the deliberated operators are diagnosed. The terms
𝓀ᶄ=(γ+𝓀ᶄ,γ−𝓀ᶄ)=(λ+𝓀ᶄ+iδ+𝓀ᶄ,λ−𝓀ᶄ+iδ−𝓀ᶄ)(ᶄ=1,2,3,…,ň), |
stated the family of BCFNs.
Here, we state the BCFBM operator as follows:
Definition 7. The BCFBM operator BCFBƥ,ɋ with ƥ,ɋ≥0, simplified by:
BCFBƥ,ɋ(𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň)=(1ň(ň−1)(ň⊕ᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(𝒽ƥᶄ⊗𝒽ɋĺ)))1ƥ+ɋ. | (9) |
Theorem 2. For Eq (9) with ƥ,ɋ≥0, we diagnose
BCFBƥ,ɋ(𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň)=((1−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(1−λ+ƥ𝓀ᶄλ+ɋ𝓀ĺ)1ň(ň−1))1ƥ+ɋ+i(1−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(1−δ+ƥ𝓀ᶄδ+ɋ𝓀ĺ)1ň(ň−1))1ƥ+ɋ,−1+(1−|−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(−1+(1+λ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ(1+λ−𝓀ĺ)ɋ)|1ň(ň−1))1ƥ+ɋ+i(−1+(1−|−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(−1+(1+δ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ(1+δ−𝓀ĺ)ɋ)|1ň(ň−1))1ƥ+ɋ)). | (10) |
Proof. The proof of this theorem is given in Appendix A.
Furthermore, the BCFBM has the following properties:
1) Idempotency: If all 𝒽ᶄ(ᶄ=1,2,3,..,ň) are same, that is, 𝒽ᶄ=𝒽∀ᶄ, then
BCFBƥ,ɋ(𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň)=BCFBƥ,ɋ(𝒽,𝒽,𝒽,…,𝒽)=𝒽. | (11) |
2) Monotonicity: Suppose 𝒽ᶄ(ᶄ=1,2,3,..,ň) and gᶄ(ᶄ=1,2,3,..,ň) are two collections of BCFNs, if
𝒽ᶄ≤gᶄ∀ᶄ(i.e., λ+𝒽ᶄ≤λ+gᶄ, δ+𝒽ᶄ≤δ+gᶄ, λ−𝒽ᶄ≤λ−gᶄ, and δ−𝒽ᶄ≤δ−gᶄ),
then
BCFBƥ,ɋ(𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň)≤BCFBƥ,ɋ(g1,g2,g3,…,gň). | (12) |
3) Boundedness: Suppose 𝒽ᶄ(ᶄ=1,2,3,..,ň) is a group of BCFNs, and suppose
𝒽−=(min(𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň))=(minᶄ(λ+𝒽ᶄ)+iminᶄ(δ+𝒽ᶄ),maxᶄ(λ−𝒽ᶄ)+imaxᶄ(δ−𝒽ᶄ)), |
𝒽+=(max(𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň))=(maxᶄ(λ+𝒽ᶄ)+imaxᶄ(δ+𝒽ᶄ),minᶄ(λ−𝒽ᶄ)+iminᶄ(δ−𝒽ᶄ)), |
then,
𝒽−≤BCFBƥ,ɋ(𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň)≤𝒽+. | (13) |
4) Commutativity: Suppose 𝒽ᶄ(ᶄ=1,2,3,..,ň) is a collection of BCFNs, then
BCFBƥ,ɋ(𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň)=BCFBƥ,ɋ(𝒽'1,𝒽'2,𝒽'3,…,𝒽'ň) | (14) |
where (𝒽'1,𝒽'2,𝒽'3,…,𝒽'ň) is any permutation of (𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň).
By using distinct values of the parameters ƥ and ɋ, we have the following particular cases of BCFBM.
Case 1: If ɋ→0, then by Eq (10) we obtain
limɋ→0BCFBƥ,ɋ(𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň)=limɋ→0(1ň(ň−1)(ň⊕ᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(𝒽ƥᶄ⊗𝒽ɋĺ)))1ƥ+ɋ |
=limɋ→0((1−ň∏ᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(1−λ+ƥ𝓀ᶄλ+ɋ𝓀ĺ)1ň(ň−1))1ƥ+ɋ+i(1−ň∏ᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(1−δ+ƥ𝓀ᶄδ+ɋ𝓀ĺ)1ň(ň−1))1ƥ+ɋ,−1+(1−|−ň∏ᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(−1+(1+λ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ(1+λ−𝓀ĺ)ɋ)|1ň(ň−1))1ƥ+ɋ+i(−1+(1−|−ň∏ᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(−1+(1+δ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ(1+δ−𝓀ĺ)ɋ)|1ň(ň−1))1ƥ+ɋ)) |
=((1−ň∏ᶄ=1(1−λ+ƥ𝓀ᶄ)ň−1ň(ň−1))1ƥ+i(1−ň∏ᶄ=1(1−δ+ƥ𝓀ᶄ)ň−1ň(ň−1))1ƥ,−1+(1−|−ň∏ᶄ=1(−1+(1+λ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ)|ň−1ň(ň−1))1ƥ+i(−1+(1−|−ň∏ᶄ=1(−1+(1+δ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ)|ň−1ň(ň−1))1ƥ)) |
=((1−ň∏ᶄ=1(1−λ+ƥ𝓀ᶄ)1ň)1ƥ+i(1−ň∏ᶄ=1(1−δ+ƥ𝓀ᶄ)1ň)1ƥ,−1+(1−|−ň∏ᶄ=1(−1+(1+λ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ)|1ň)1ƥ+i(−1+(1−|−ň∏ᶄ=1(−1+(1+δ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ)|1ň)1ƥ)) |
=(1ň(ň⊕ᶄ=1(𝒽ƥᶄ)))1ƥ=BCFBƥ,0(𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň). | (15) |
We call it generalized bipolar complex fuzzy mean (GBCFM).
Case 2. If ƥ=2 and ɋ→0, then Eq (10) is converted as
BCFB2,0(𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň)=(1ň(ň⊕ᶄ=1(𝒽2ᶄ)))12 |
=((1−∏ňᶄ=1(1−λ+2𝓀ᶄ)1ň)12+i(1−∏ňᶄ=1(1−δ+2𝓀ᶄ)1ň)12,−1+(1−|−∏ňᶄ=1(−1+(1+λ−𝓀ᶄ)2)|1ň)12+i(−1+(1−|−∏ňᶄ=1(−1+(1+δ−𝓀ᶄ)2)|1ň)12)). | (16) |
We call it bipolar complex fuzzy square mean (BCFSM).
Case 3. If ƥ=1 and ɋ→0, then Eq (10) is converted as
BCFB1,0(𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň)=((1−ň∏ᶄ=1(1−λ+𝓀ᶄ)1ň)+i(1−ň∏ᶄ=1(1−δ+𝓀ᶄ)1ň),−1+(1−|−ň∏ᶄ=1(−1+(1+λ−𝓀ᶄ))|1ň)+i(−1+(1−|−ň∏ᶄ=1(−1+(1+δ−𝓀ᶄ))|1ň))) |
=((1−∏ňᶄ=1(1−λ+𝓀ᶄ)1ň)+i(1−∏ňᶄ=1(1−δ+𝓀ᶄ)1ň),−|−∏ňᶄ=1λ−𝓀ᶄ|1ň+i(−|−∏ňᶄ=1δ−𝓀ᶄ|1ň))=1ň(ň⊕ᶄ=1(𝒽ᶄ)) | (17) |
we call it bipolar complex fuzzy average (BCFA).
Case 4. If ƥ=ɋ=1, then Eq (10) is converted as
BCFB1,1(𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň)=(1ň(ň−1)(ň⊕ᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(𝒽ᶄ⊗𝒽ĺ)))12 |
=((1−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(1−λ+𝓀ᶄλ+𝓀ĺ)1ň(ň−1))12+i(1−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(1−δ+𝓀ᶄδ+𝓀ĺ)1ň(ň−1))12,−1+(1−|−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(−1+(1+λ−𝓀ᶄ)(1+λ−𝓀ĺ))|1ň(ň−1))12+i(−1+(1−|−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(−1+(1+δ−𝓀ᶄ)(1+δ−𝓀ĺ))|1ň(ň−1))12)) | (18) |
we call it bipolar complex fuzzy interrelated square mean (BCFISM).
In MADM, the associated attributes generally have distinct significance and are necessary to be given distinct weights. Thus, AOs should consider the weights of attributes.
Definition 8. The BCFNWBM operator BCFNWBƥ,ɋ with ƥ,ɋ≥0, simplified by:
BCFNWBƥ,ɋῷ(𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň)=(ň⊕ᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺῷᶄῷĺ1−ῷᶄ(𝒽ƥᶄ⊗𝒽ɋĺ))1ƥ+ɋ | (19) |
where, ῷ=(ῷ1,ῷ2,ῷ3,…,ῷň) is the weight vector (WV) of 𝓀ᶄ(ᶄ=1,2,3,…,ň), where ῷᶄ denotes the significance degree of 𝓀ᶄ such that ῷᶄ∈[0,1] and ∑ňᶄ=1ῷᶄ=1, if
Theorem 3. For Eq (19) with ƥ,ɋ≥0, we diagnose
BCFNWBƥ,ɋῷ(𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň)=((1−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(1−λ+ƥ𝓀ᶄλ+ɋ𝓀ĺ)ῷᶄῷĺ1−ῷᶄ)1ƥ+ɋ+i(1−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(1−δ+ƥ𝓀ᶄδ+ɋ𝓀ĺ)ῷᶄῷĺ1−ῷᶄ)1ƥ+ɋ,−1+(1−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ|−1+(1+λ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ(1+λ−𝓀ĺ)ɋ|ῷᶄῷĺ1−ῷᶄ)1ƥ+ɋ+i(−1+(1−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ|−1+(1+δ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ(1+δ−𝓀ĺ)ɋ|ῷᶄῷĺ1−ῷᶄ)1ƥ+ɋ)). | (20) |
Proof. The proof of this theorem is given in Appendix B.
Additionally, the BCFNWBM has the following properties
1) Idempotency: If all 𝒽ᶄ(ᶄ=1,2,3,..,ň) are same, that is, 𝒽ᶄ=𝒽∀ᶄ, then
BCFNWBƥ,ɋῷ(𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň)=BCFNWBƥ,ɋῷ(𝒽,𝒽,𝒽,…,𝒽)=𝒽. | (21) |
2) Monotonicity: Suppose 𝒽ᶄ(ᶄ=1,2,3,..,ň) and gᶄ(ᶄ=1,2,3,..,ň) are two collections of BCFNs, if 𝒽ᶄ≤gᶄ∀ᶄ (i.e., λ+𝒽ᶄ≤λ+gᶄ, δ+𝒽ᶄ≤δ+gᶄ, λ−𝒽ᶄ≤λ−gᶄ, and δ−𝒽ᶄ≤δ−gᶄ), then
BCFNWBƥ,ɋῷ(𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň)≤BCFNWBƥ,ɋῷ(g1,g2,g3,…,gň). | (22) |
3) Boundedness: Suppose 𝒽ᶄ(ᶄ=1,2,3,..,ň) is a group of BCFNs, and suppose
𝒽−=(min(𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň))=(minᶄ(λ+𝒽ᶄ)+iminᶄ(δ+𝒽ᶄ),maxᶄ(λ−𝒽ᶄ)+imaxᶄ(δ−𝒽ᶄ)), |
𝒽+=(max(𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň))=(maxᶄ(λ+𝒽ᶄ)+imaxᶄ(δ+𝒽ᶄ),minᶄ(λ−𝒽ᶄ)+iminᶄ(δ−𝒽ᶄ)), |
then,
𝒽−≤BCFNWBƥ,ɋῷ(𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň)≤𝒽+. | (23) |
4) Commutativity: Suppose 𝒽ᶄ(ᶄ=1,2,3,..,ň) is a collection of BCFNs, then
BCFNWBƥ,ɋῷ(𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň)=BCFNWBƥ,ɋῷ(𝒽'1,𝒽'2,𝒽'3,…,𝒽'ň). | (24) |
In this subsection, we present the BCFOWBM operator.
Definition 9. The BCFOWBM operator BCFOWBƥ,ɋ with ƥ,ɋ≥0, simplified by:
BCFOWBƥ,ɋῷ(𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň)=(ň⊕ᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺῷᶄῷĺ1−ῷᶄ(𝒽ƥϵ(ᶄ)⊗𝒽ɋϵ(ĺ)))1ƥ+ɋ | (25) |
where, ῷ=(ῷ1,ῷ2,ῷ3,…,ῷň) is the WV such that ῷᶄ∈[0,1] and ∑ňᶄ=1ῷᶄ=1, and ϵ(1),ϵ(2),…,ϵ(ň) are the permutation of (ᶄ=1,2,3,..,ň) such that 𝒽ϵ(ᶄ−1)≥𝒽ϵ(ᶄ)∀ᶄ=1,2,3,..,ň.
Theorem 4. For Eq (29) with ƥ,ɋ≥0, we diagnose
BCFOWBƥ,ɋῷ(𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň)=((1−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(1−λ+ƥ𝓀ϵ(ᶄ)λ+ɋ𝓀ϵ(ᶄ))ῷᶄῷĺ1−ῷᶄ)1ƥ+ɋ+i(1−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(1−δ+ƥ𝓀ϵ(ᶄ)δ+ɋ𝓀ϵ(ᶄ))ῷᶄῷĺ1−ῷᶄ)1ƥ+ɋ,−1+(1−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ|−1+(1+λ−𝓀ϵ(ᶄ))ƥ(1+λ−𝓀ϵ(ᶄ))ɋ|ῷᶄῷĺ1−ῷᶄ)1ƥ+ɋ+i(−1+(1−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ|−1+(1+δ−𝓀ϵ(ᶄ))ƥ(1+δ−𝓀ϵ(ᶄ))ɋ|ῷᶄῷĺ1−ῷᶄ)1ƥ+ɋ)) | (26) |
where ϵ(1),ϵ(2),…,ϵ(ň) are the permutation of (ᶄ=1,2,3,..,ň) such that 𝒽ϵ(ᶄ−1)≥𝒽ϵ(ᶄ)∀ᶄ=2,3,..,ň.
Additionally, the BCFOWBM has the following properties.
1) Idempotency: If all 𝒽ᶄ(ᶄ=1,2,3,..,ň) are same, that is, 𝒽ᶄ=𝒽∀ᶄ, then
BCFOWBƥ,ɋῷ(𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň)=BCFNWBƥ,ɋῷ(𝒽,𝒽,𝒽,…,𝒽)=𝒽. | (27) |
2) Monotonicity: Suppose 𝒽ᶄ(ᶄ=1,2,3,..,ň) and gᶄ(ᶄ=1,2,3,..,ň) are two collections of BCFNs, if 𝒽ᶄ≤gᶄ ∀ᶄ (i.e., λ+𝒽ᶄ≤λ+gᶄ, δ+𝒽ᶄ≤δ+gᶄ, λ−𝒽ᶄ≤λ−gᶄ, and δ−𝒽ᶄ≤δ−gᶄ), then
BCFOWBƥ,ɋῷ(𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň)≤BCFOWBƥ,ɋῷ(g1,g2,g3,…,gň). | (28) |
3) Boundedness: Suppose 𝒽ᶄ(ᶄ=1,2,3,..,ň) is a group of BCFNs, and suppose
𝒽−=(min(𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň))=(minᶄ(λ+𝒽ᶄ)+iminᶄ(δ+𝒽ᶄ),maxᶄ(λ−𝒽ᶄ)+imaxᶄ(δ−𝒽ᶄ)), |
𝒽+=(max(𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň))=(maxᶄ(λ+𝒽ᶄ)+imaxᶄ(δ+𝒽ᶄ),minᶄ(λ−𝒽ᶄ)+iminᶄ(δ−𝒽ᶄ)), |
then,
𝒽−≤BCFOWBƥ,ɋῷ(𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň)≤𝒽+. | (29) |
The decision-making technique is used especially for evaluating the beneficial decision from the family of alternatives. The main theme of this analysis is to compute the required decision from the group of opinions, we computed a MADM problem based on the initiated operators for BCF information to evaluate the difficult and unachievable problems.
Suppose V={v1,v2,v3,…,vň} is a set of ň alternatives, O={o1,o2,o3,…,om} is a set of m attributes. The performance of the alternative vᶄ concerning the criteria oĺ is measured by the BCFN
𝒽ᶄĺ=(γ+𝓀ᶄĺ,γ−𝓀ᶄĺ)=(λ+𝓀ᶄĺ+iδ+𝓀ᶄĺ,λ−𝓀ᶄĺ+iδ−𝓀ᶄĺ). |
Suppose that A=(aᶄĺ)m×ň=(γ+𝓀ᶄĺ,γ−𝓀ᶄĺ)m×ň is a BCF decision matrix, where γ+𝓀ᶄĺ is the positive truth grade for which the alternative vᶄ fulfills the attribute oĺ, provided by the decision analyst, and γ−𝓀ᶄĺ is the negative truth grade for which the alternative vᶄ doesn't fulfill the attribute oĺ, provided by the decision analyst. We initiate the algorithm to solve the MCDM problem in the circumstances of BCFSs as follows.
Step 1. All
aᶄĺ=(γ+𝓀ᶄĺ,γ−𝓀ᶄĺ)=(λ+𝓀ᶄĺ+iδ+𝓀ᶄĺ,λ−𝓀ᶄĺ+iδ−𝓀ᶄĺ)(ᶄ=1,2,..,ň)(ĺ=1,2,..,m) |
are presented in a BCF decision matrix A=(aᶄĺ)m×ň=(γ+𝓀ᶄĺ,γ−𝓀ᶄĺ)m×ň, 𝒽ᶄĺ signifies a BCFN, which is on the ᶄth row and ĺth column in the matrix.
Step 2. Diagnose the best values 𝒽ᶄĺ(ĺ=1,2,3,…,m) by aggregating the suggested information based on BCFNWBM for ƥ=ɋ=1, such that
𝒽ᶄĺ=(γ+𝓀ᶄĺ,γ−𝓀ᶄĺ)=BCFNWBMƥ,ɋ(𝒽ᶄ1,𝒽ᶄ2,𝒽ᶄ3,…,𝒽ᶄm) |
Step 3. Diagnose the score values of the evaluated preferences.
Step 4. Diagnose ranking values.
The Supplier Sustainability Toolkit is expected exclusively to give general direction for matters of interest and does not comprise proficient counsel. You should not follow up on the data contained in this toolkit without acquiring explicit proficient exhortation. JJ (some company) will utilize sensible endeavors to remember up-to-date and exact data for this toolkit, however, makes no portrayal, guarantees, or affirmation concerning the precision, money, or fulfillment of the data.
JJ will not be responsible for any harm or injury coming about because of your admittance to, or failure to get to, this toolkit, or from your dependence on any data given in this toolkit. This Toolkit might give connections or references to different locales, however, JJ have no liability regarding the substance of such different locales and will not be at risk for any harm or injury emerging from that substance. Any connections to other destinations are given as simply an accommodation to the clients of this toolkit.
Supportability incorporates a scope of natural, social, and monetary themes. These themes additionally alluded to as "Individuals, planet, profit" or "the triple primary concern, " can be applied to organizations in all areas, from examination to assembling to administration. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) measures, Corporate Sustainability, Practical Business, and Corporate Citizenship are different terms generally utilized broadly to portray comparative projects, drives, and activities. We urge providers to utilize the term that reverberates best with its association. At JJ, we use the terms Citizenship and sustainability to characterize our desire to further develop wellbeing in all that we do. To examine the above problem, for this, we considered Sustainability & Citizenship at Johnson & Johnson in the form of alternatives:
v1: Defining Sustainability at J & J.
v2: Sustainability Reporting at J & J.
v3: Delivering Health for Humanity.
v4: Engaging Our Suppliers.
To deeply evaluate the above information, we use some attributes in the form: Cost savings through efficiency, improving risk management, driving innovation, and growing customer loyalty and brand position. This section includes a real life example to exhibit the efficiency and advantages of the initiated methods.
Step 1. As all attributes are of the same sort, thus the data specified in Table 2 don't need to normalize.
o1 | o2 | o3 | o4 | |
v1 | (0.78+ι0.9,−0.6−ι0.5,) | (0.36+ι0.65,−0.5−ι0.8) | (0.45+ι0.7,−0.34−ι0.8) | (0.9+ι0.5,−0.2−ι0.4) |
v2 | (0.4+ι0.36,−0.39−ι0.4) | (0.76+ι0.19,−0.28−ι0.5) | (0.6+ι0.38,−0.5−ι0.87) | (0.15+ι0.25,−0.43−ι0.34,) |
v3 | (0.5+ι0.46,−0.49−ι0.5) | (0.67+ι0.29,−0.38−ι0.6) | (0.5+ι0.48,−0.4−ι0.78) | (0.25+ι0.35,−0.44−ι0.43) |
v4 | (0.47+ι0.2,−0.7−ι0.8) | (0.19+ι0.5,−0.7−ι0.8) | (0.2+ι0.4,−0.3−ι0.4) | (+ι0.9,−0.8−ι0.1) |
Step 2. Aggregate all BCFNs presented in Table 2 by employing the BCFNWBM operator to get the overall BCFNs 𝒽ĺ(ĺ=1,2,3,…,m) of the alternatives vᶄ(ᶄ=1,2,3,4). The aggregating values are displayed in Table 3.
BCFNWBM | |
v1 | (0.5449+ι0.7078,−0.4364−ι0.6953) |
v2 | (0.5613+ι0.2862,−0.3909−ι0.5777) |
v3 | (0.53+ι0.3882,−0.4174−ι0.402) |
v4 | (0.2586+ι0.4539,−0.606−ι0.6066) |
Step 3. The score function of the alternatives, as per the aggregated values displayed in Table 3, is established in Table 4.
Score value | |
v1 | 0.5303 |
v2 | 0.4697 |
v3 | 0.5247 |
Step 4. The ranking of the alternatives is v1>v2>v3>v4 as per the score values given in Table 4 and the v1 is the finest alternative.
Step 1. As all attributes are of the same sort, thus the data specified in Table 2 don't need to normalize.
Step 2. Aggregate all BCFNs presented in Table 2 by employing the BCFOWBM operator to get the overall BCFNs 𝒽ĺ(ĺ=1,2,3,…,m) of the alternatives vᶄ(ᶄ=1,2,3,4). The aggregating values are displayed in Table 5.
BCFNWBM | |
v1 | (0.6697+ι0.7233,−0.4235−ι0.6113) |
v2 | (0.4194+ι0.2885,−0.3899−ι0.4541) |
v3 | (0.53+ι0.3882,−0.4174−ι0.402) |
v4 | (0.244+ι0.5161,−0.6057−ι0.5003) |
Step 3. The score function of the alternatives, as per the aggregated values displayed in Table 5, is established in Table 6.
Score value | |
v1 | 0.5895 |
v2 | 0.466 |
v3 | 0.5247 |
v4 | 0.4135 |
Step 4. The ranking of the alternatives is v1>v3>v2>v4 as per the score values given in Table 6 and the v1 is the finest alternative.
To verify the worth of the diagnosed operators, we discussed different aspects of the proposed theory by considering their different values. If we use the value of the imaginary part as zero, then what happened for this, we use the information in Table 7.
o1 | o2 | o3 | o4 | |
v1 | (0.78+ι0.0,−0.6−ι0.0,) | (0.36+ι0.0,−0.5−ι0.0) | (0.45+ι0.0,−0.34−ι0.0) | (0.9+ι0.0,−0.2−ι0.0) |
v2 | (0.4+ι0.0,−0.39−ι0.0) | (0.76+ι0.0,−0.28−ι0.0) | (0.6+ι0.0,−0.5−ι0.0) | (0.15+ι0.0,−0.43−ι0.0,) |
v3 | (0.5+ι0.0,−0.49−ι0.0) | (0.67+ι0.0,−0.38−ι0.0) | (0.5+ι0.0,−0.4−ι0.0) | (0.25+ι0.0,−0.44−ι0.0) |
v4 | (0.47+ι0.0,−0.7−ι0.0) | (0.19+ι0.0,−0.7−ι0.0) | (0.2+ι0.0,−0.3−ι0.0) | (0.29+ι0.0,−0.8−ι0.0) |
Aggregate all BCFNs presented in Table 2 by employing the BCFNWBM operator and BCFOWBM operator to get the overall BCFNs 𝒽ĺ(ĺ=1,2,3,…,m) of the alternatives vᶄ(ᶄ=1,2,3,4). The aggregating values are displayed in Table 8.
BCFNWBM | BCFOWBM | |
v1 | (0.5449+ι0.0,−0.4364−ι0.0) | (0.6697+ι0.0,−0.4235−ι0.0) |
v2 | (0.5613+ι0.0,−0.3909−ι0.0) | (0.4194+ι0.0,−0.3899−ι0.0) |
v3 | (0.53+ι0.0,−0.4174−ι0.0) | (0.53+ι0.0,−0.4174−ι0.0) |
v4 | (0.2586+ι0.0,−0.606−ι0.0) | (0.244+ι0.0,−0.6057−ι0.0) |
The score function of the alternatives, as per the aggregated values displayed in Table 8, is established in Table 9.
BCFNWBM | BCFOWBM | |
v1 | 0.5271 | 0.6515 |
v2 | 0.5426 | 0.5074 |
v3 | 0.5282 | 0.5282 |
v4 | 0.4132 | 0.4096 |
The ranking of the alternatives is v2>v3>v1>v4 and v1>v3>v2>v4 as per the score values given in Table 9 and the v2 and v1 is the finest alternative.
Here, we compare this analysis with some prevailing algorithms and DM techniques such as [20,36,37,42,43,44,45]. The outcome of this comparison is portrayed in Table 10 and Figure 1.
Operators | SB(v1) | SB(v2) | SB(v3) | SB(v4) |
Akram and Arshad [20] | Failed | Failed | Failed | Failed |
Akram and Al-Kenani [43] | Failed | Failed | Failed | Failed |
Jana et al. [44] | Failed | Failed | Failed | Failed |
Wei et al. [45] | Failed | Failed | Failed | Failed |
BCFDWA [36] | 0.671 | 0.508 | 0.521 | 0.552 |
BCFDWG [36] | 0.2177 | 0.4041 | 0.3892 | 0.3663 |
BCFHWA [37] | 0.6329 | 0.4876 | 0.4837 | 0.4812 |
BCFHWG [37] | 0.3671 | 0.5124 | 0.5163 | 0.5188 |
BCFWAA [42] | 0.555 | 0.499 | 0.494 | 0.424 |
BCFOWAA [42] | 0.6329 | 0.4876 | 0.4837 | 0.4812 |
BCFWGA [42] | 0.499 | 0.422 | 0.484 | 0.337 |
BCFOWGA [42] | 0.563 | 0.439 | 0.484 | 0.377 |
BCFNWBM | 0.5303 | 0.5697 | 0.5247 | 0.375 |
BCFOWBM | 0.5895 | 0.466 | 0.5247 | 0.4135 |
From Table 10, we noticed that the TOPSIS and ELECTRIC-I methods initiated by Akram and Arshad [20] failed to provide any sort of result because this method can't deal with the imaginary part of the information. Likewise, the method ELECTRIC-II diagnosed by Akram and Al-Kenani [43] also failed to provide the result as it can't overcome the imaginary part of both positive and negative SGs. Furthermore, Jana et al. [44] diagnosed Dombi AOs but these operators are not able to provide a result in any sort of DM where two dimensions are involved. The Hamacher AOs for BFS [45] failed as these operators are also not able to provide a result in any sort of DM where two dimensions are involved. The operators discussed in [36,37,42] and proposed operators for weighted averaging are given the same ranking results in the form of, but the information is given in Ref. [36] and the proposed operator for weighted geometric gives their results in the form of and the weighted geometric operator in [37] give their result in the form of. The operators of [42] give that is the finest one.
Below we will display that the diagnosed operators and DM technique are more generalized and modified than the prevailing work. For this, we take an example from Akram and Arshad [20] and solve it by using the DM technique given in this analysis. The result of this example is portrayed in Table 11.
Methods | SB(v1) | SB(v2) | SB(v3) | SB(v4) |
Akram and Arshad [20] | 0.2639 | 0.7316 | 0.7292 | 0.4045 |
BCFNWBM | 0.4516 | 0.5468 | 0.5861 | 0.4836 |
BCFOWBM | 0.5007 | 0.5458 | 0.5914 | 0.5314 |
In Table 11, the outcome of the example is taken from Akram and Arshad [20]. Akram and Arshad imitated the TOPSIS technique and found outcome are shown in Table 11, while we employed the proposed DM technique on the same example and the obtained results are also shown in Table 11. From the above discussion, it is evident that the diagnosed approach is better and is more generalized than the prevailing ones, as the prevailing ones can't deal with the BCF information, but the adopted approach can handle the fuzzy information, BF information, and complex fuzzy information.
We discussed the influence of parameters by using their different values. Using the information in Table 2 and the proposed AOs, the stability of the parameters is discussed in the form of Table 12 and Figure 2.
ƥ=1 | Operator | SB(v1) | SB(v2) | SB(v3) | SB(v4) | Ranking value |
ɋ=1 | BCFBNWM | 0.5303 | 0.4697 | 0.5247 | 0.375 | v1>v3>v2>v4 |
BCFBOWM | 0.5895 | 0.466 | 0.5247 | 0.4135 | v1>v3>v2>v4 | |
ɋ=3 | BCFBNWM | 0.5681 | 0.4954 | 0.4843 | 0.4369 | v1>v2>v3>v4 |
BCFBOWM | 0.62 | 0.4924 | 0.4843 | 0.4694 | v1>v2>v3>v4 | |
ɋ=5 | BCFBNWM | 0.6046 | 0.5172 | 0.498 | 0.4988 | v1>v2>v4>v3 |
BCFBOWM | 0.6497 | 0.5149 | 0.498 | 0.5257 | v1>v4>v2>v3 | |
ɋ=7 | BCFBNWM | 0.6325 | 0.5332 | 0.5093 | 0.5443 | v1>v4>v2>v3 |
BCFBOWM | 0.6721 | 0.5315 | 0.5093 | 0.5667 | v1>v4>v2>v3 | |
ɋ=10 | BCFBNWM | 0.6628 | 0.5506 | 0.5222 | 0.5894 | v1>v4>v2>v3 |
BCFBOWM | 0.696 | 0.5493 | 0.5222 | 0.6073 | v1>v4>v2>v3 |
Hence, for every value of the parameter, we get the same ranking result as v1. Furthermore, using the information in Table 2 and the proposed AOs, the stability of the parameters is discussed in the form of Table 13 and Figure 3.
ɋ=1 | Operator | SB(v1) | SB(v2) | SB(v3) | SB(v4) | Ranking value |
ƥ=1 | BCFBNWM | 0.5303 | 0.4697 | 0.5247 | 0.375 | v1>v3>v2>v4 |
BCFBOWM | 0.5895 | 0.466 | 0.5247 | 0.4135 | v1>v3>v2>v4 | |
ƥ=3 | BCFBNWM | 0.557 | 0.4974 | 0.4847 | 0.4261 | v1>v2>v3>v4 |
BCFBOWM | 0.6201 | 0.4899 | 0.4847 | 0.4647 | v1>v2>v3>v4 | |
ƥ=5 | BCFBNWM | 0.5915 | 0.5195 | 0.4985 | 0.4853 | v1>v2>v4>v3 |
BCFBOWM | 0.6489 | 0.5115 | 0.4985 | 0.5187 | v1>v4>v2>v3 | |
ƥ=7 | BCFBNWM | 0.6195 | 0.5356 | 0.5099 | 0.5312 | v1>v4>v2>v3 |
BCFBOWM | 0.6706 | 0.5279 | 0.5099 | 0.5596 | v1>v4>v2>v3 | |
ƥ=10 | BCFBNWM | 0.651 | 0.5528 | 0.5225 | 0.5782 | v1>v4>v2>v3 |
BCFBOWM | 0.6939 | 0.5457 | 0.5229 | 0.6011 | v1>v4>v2>v3 |
Similarly, for every value of the parameter, we again get the same ranking result as v1. Therefore, the presented operators are not yet diagnosed by any researcher and these are more generalized than the information in [36,37,42]. Hence, the diagnosed operator is more beneficial and dominant to handle difficult and unreliable information.
The Decision-making technique is the procedure of expressing real life problems and events in a mathematical and statistical format or language. Many kinds of techniques and methods are present in various theories such as FST, BFST, CFST, etc. However, in regard to evaluating the difficult and unreliable information, for example, the information in two dimensions with positive and negative grades or opinion of human beings, then the decision-maker has no such kind of tool or DM technique that can handle such sort of information. The only concept to handle such sort of information is BCFST. The BCFST contains both positive and negative opinions of human beings with both real and unreal parts. The major investigation of this analysis is evaluated below:
1) We employed the BM operators in the setting of BCFST with the described idea of BCFBM, BCFNWBM, and BCFOWBM operators.
2) Furthermore, some properties and results of the deliberated operators are diagnosed.
3) We computed the required decision from the group of opinions, we computed a MADM problem based on the initiated operators for BCF information.
4) For comparing the presented work with some prevailing operators, we illustrated some examples and tried to evaluate the graphical interpretation of the diagnosed work to prove the authenticity of the proposed work.
In future, we try to review the theory of similarity measures for Fermatean fuzzy sets [46], new score values based on Fermatean fuzzy sets [47], TOPSIS technique based on Fermatean fuzzy sets [48], complex spherical fuzzy sets [49], picture fuzzy aggregation operators [50], Aczel-Alsina operators for T-spherical fuzzy sets [51], complex Fermatean fuzzy N-soft set [52] and try to utilize it in the environment of bipolar complex fuzzy sets as in the current analysis these areas are not covered. These areas have a significant role in the generalization of FST, for example, Fermatean FS theory (FFST) handles the information that can't be handled by intuitionistic FST.
Appendix A.
Proof. From Definition 5, we have
𝒽ƥ=((λ+𝒽)ƥ+i(δ+𝒽)ƥ,−1+(1+λ−𝒽)ƥ+i(−1+(1+δ−𝒽)ƥ)), |
𝒽ɋ=((λ+𝒽)ɋ+i(δ+𝒽)ɋ,−1+(1+λ−𝒽)ɋ+i(−1+(1+δ−𝒽)ɋ)), |
Then we have
𝒽ƥᶄ⊗𝒽ɋĺ=((λ+𝒽ᶄ)ƥ(λ+𝒽ĺ)ɋ+i(δ+𝒽ᶄ)ƥ(δ+𝒽ĺ)ɋ,−1+(1+λ−𝒽ᶄ)ƥ(1+λ−𝒽ĺ)q+i(−1+(1+δ−𝒽ᶄ)ƥ(1+δ−𝒽ĺ)q)). | (30) |
Now by mathematical induction we prove the following:
(ň⊕ᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(𝒽ƥᶄ⊗𝒽ɋĺ))=(1−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(1−λ+ƥ𝓀ᶄλ+ɋ𝓀ĺ)+i(1−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(1−δ+ƥ𝓀ᶄδ+ɋ𝓀ĺ)),−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(−1+(1+λ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ(1+λ−𝓀ĺ)ɋ)+i(−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(−1+(1+δ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ(1+δ−𝓀ĺ)ɋ))). | (31) |
For ň=2, we obtain
2⊕ᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(𝒽ƥᶄ⊗𝒽ɋĺ)=(𝒽ƥ1⊗𝒽ɋ2)⊕(𝒽ƥ2⊗𝒽ɋ1) |
=1−(1−λ+ƥ𝓀1λ+ɋ𝓀2)(1−λ+ƥ𝓀2λ+ɋ𝓀1)+i(1−(1−δ+ƥ𝓀1δ+ɋ𝓀2)(1−δ+ƥ𝓀2δ+ɋ𝓀1)),−1+(1+λ−𝓀1)ƥ(1+λ−𝓀2)ɋ |
×(−1+(1+λ−𝓀2)ƥ(1+λ−𝓀1)ɋ)+i(−(−1+(1+δ−𝓀1)ƥ(1+δ−𝓀2)ɋ×(−1+(1+δ−𝓀2)ƥ(1+δ−𝓀1)ɋ))). | (32) |
If Eq (32) true for ň=T,
T⊕ᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(𝒽ƥᶄ⊗𝒽ɋĺ)=(1−∏Tᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(1−λ+ƥ𝓀ᶄλ+ɋ𝓀ĺ)+i(1−∏Tᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(1−δ+ƥ𝓀ᶄδ+ɋ𝓀ĺ)),−∏Tᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(−1+(1+λ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ(1+λ−𝓀ĺ)ɋ)+i(−∏Tᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(−1+(1+δ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ(1+δ−𝓀ĺ)ɋ))), |
then, ň=T+1, by Definition 5, we obtain
T+1⊕ᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(𝒽ƥᶄ⊗𝒽ɋĺ)=(T⊕ᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(𝒽ƥᶄ⊗𝒽ɋĺ))⊕(T⊕ᶄ=1(𝒽ƥᶄ⊗𝒽ɋT+1))⊕(T⊕ĺ=1(𝒽ƥT+1⊗𝒽ɋĺ)). |
Next, we show that
T⊕ᶄ=1(𝒽ƥᶄ⊗𝒽ɋT+1) |
=(1−∏Tᶄ=1(1−λ+ƥ𝓀ᶄλ+ɋ𝓀T+1)+i(1−∏Tᶄ=1(1−δ+ƥ𝓀ᶄδ+ɋ𝓀T+1)),−∏Tᶄ=1(−1+(1+λ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ(1+λ−𝓀T+1)ɋ)+i(−∏Tᶄ=1(−1+(1+δ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ(1+δ−𝓀T+1)ɋ))) | (33) |
by utilizing mathematical induction on T as below.
For T=2, then by Eq (31), we have
𝒽ƥᶄ⊗𝒽ɋ2+1 |
=((λ+𝒽ᶄ)ƥ(λ+𝒽2+1)ɋ+i(δ+𝒽ᶄ)ƥ(δ+𝒽2+1)ɋ,−1+((1+λ−𝒽ᶄ)ƥ)((1+λ−𝒽2+1)q)+i(−1+((1+δ−𝒽ᶄ)ƥ)((1+δ−2+1)q))),ᶄ=1,2. |
And consequently,
2⊕ᶄ=1(𝒽ƥᶄ⊗𝒽ɋ2+1)=(𝒽ƥ1⊗𝒽ɋ2+1)⊕(𝒽ƥ2⊗𝒽ɋ2+1) |
=(1−∏2ᶄ=1(1−λ+ƥ𝓀ᶄλ+ɋ𝓀3)+i(1−∏2ᶄ=1(1−δ+ƥ𝓀ᶄδ+ɋ𝓀3)),−∏2ᶄ=1(−1+(1+λ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ(1+λ−𝓀3)ɋ)+i(−∏2ᶄ=1(−1+(1+δ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ(1+δ−𝓀3)ɋ))). |
If Eq (33) holds for T=T0, that is,
T0⊕ᶄ=1(𝒽ƥᶄ⊗𝒽ɋT0+1) |
=(1−T0∏ᶄ=1(1−λ+ƥ𝓀ᶄλ+ɋ𝓀T0+1)+i(1−T0∏ᶄ=1(1−δ+ƥ𝓀ᶄδ+ɋ𝓀T0+1)),−T0∏ᶄ=1(−1+(1+λ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ(1+λ−𝓀T0+1)ɋ)+i(−T0∏ᶄ=1(−1+(1+δ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ(1+δ−𝓀T0+1)ɋ))) |
then, when T=T0+1, by Eq (31), and Definition 5, we have
T0+1⊕ᶄ=1(𝒽ƥᶄ⊗𝒽ɋT0+2) |
=T0⊕ᶄ=1(𝒽ƥᶄ⊗𝒽ɋT0+2)⊕(𝒽ƥT0+1⊗𝒽ɋT0+2) |
=(1−∏T0+1ᶄ=1(1−λ+ƥ𝓀ᶄλ+ɋ𝓀T0+2)+i(1−∏T0+1ᶄ=1(1−δ+ƥ𝓀ᶄδ+ɋ𝓀T0+2)),−∏T0+1ᶄ=1(−1+(1+λ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ(1+λ−𝓀T0+2)ɋ)+i(−∏T0+1ᶄ=1(−1+(1+δ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ(1+δ−𝓀T0+2)ɋ))). |
This shows that Eq (33) true for T=T0+1. Thus, Eq (33) holds ∀T. In the same manner, one can show that
T⊕ĺ=1(𝒽ƥT+1⊗𝒽ɋĺ)=(1−∏Tᶄ=1(1−λ+ƥ𝓀T+1λ+ɋ𝓀ĺ)+i(1−∏Tᶄ=1(1−δ+ƥ𝓀T+1δ+ɋ𝓀ĺ)),−∏Tᶄ=1(−1+(1+λ−𝓀T+1)ƥ(1+λ−𝓀ĺ)ɋ)+i(−∏Tᶄ=1(−1+(1+δ−𝓀T+1)ƥ(1+δ−𝓀ĺ)ɋ))). |
Thus,
T+1⊕ᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(𝒽ƥᶄ⊗𝒽ɋĺ) |
=(1−T∏ᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(1−λ+ƥ𝓀ᶄλ+ɋ𝓀ĺ)+i(1−T∏ᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(1−δ+ƥ𝓀ᶄδ+ɋ𝓀ĺ)),−T∏ᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(−1+(1+λ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ(1+λ−𝓀ĺ)ɋ)+i(−T∏ᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(−1+(1+δ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ(1+δ−𝓀ĺ)ɋ))) |
⊕ |
(1−T∏ᶄ=1(1−λ+ƥ𝓀ᶄλ+ɋ𝓀T+1)+i(1−T∏ᶄ=1(1−δ+ƥ𝓀ᶄδ+ɋ𝓀T+1)),−T∏ᶄ=1(−1+(1+λ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ(1+λ−𝓀T+1)ɋ)+i(−T∏ᶄ=1(−1+(1+δ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ(1+δ−𝓀T+1)ɋ))) |
⊕ |
(1−T∏ᶄ=1(1−λ+ƥ𝓀T+1λ+ɋ𝓀ĺ)+i(1−T∏ᶄ=1(1−δ+ƥ𝓀T+1δ+ɋ𝓀ĺ)),−T∏ᶄ=1(−1+(1+λ−𝓀T+1)ƥ(1+λ−𝓀ĺ)ɋ)+i(−T∏ᶄ=1(−1+(1+δ−𝓀T+1)ƥ(1+δ−𝓀ĺ)ɋ))) |
=(1−∏T+1ᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(1−λ+ƥ𝓀ᶄλ+ɋ𝓀ĺ)+i(1−∏T+1ᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(1−δ+ƥ𝓀ᶄδ+ɋ𝓀ĺ)),−∏T+1ᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(−1+(1+λ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ(1+λ−𝓀ĺ)ɋ)+i(−∏T+1ᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(−1+(1+δ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ(1+δ−𝓀ĺ)ɋ))). |
This implies that Eq (12) true for ň=T+1. Consequently, Eq (12) true ∀ň.
Next, by Eq (32), and Definition 5, we have
1ň(ň−1)(ň⊕ᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(𝒽ƥᶄ⊗𝒽ɋĺ))=(1−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(1−λ+ƥ𝓀ᶄλ+ɋ𝓀ĺ)1ň(ň−1)+i(1−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(1−δ+ƥ𝓀ᶄδ+ɋ𝓀ĺ)1ň(ň−1)),−|−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(−1+(1+λ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ(1+λ−𝓀ĺ)ɋ)|1ň(ň−1)+i(−|−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(−1+(1+δ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ(1+δ−𝓀ĺ)ɋ)|1ň(ň−1))) | (34) |
and then, by Eq (34), and Definition 5,
BCFBƥ,ɋ(𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň)=(1ň(ň−1)(ň⊕ᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(𝒽ƥᶄ⊗𝒽ɋĺ)))1ƥ+ɋ |
=((1−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(1−λ+ƥ𝓀ᶄλ+ɋ𝓀ĺ)1ň(ň−1))1ƥ+ɋ+i(1−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(1−δ+ƥ𝓀ᶄδ+ɋ𝓀ĺ)1ň(ň−1))1ƥ+ɋ,−1+(1−|−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(−1+(1+λ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ(1+λ−𝓀ĺ)ɋ)|1ň(ň−1))1ƥ+ɋ+i(−1+(1−|−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(−1+(1+δ−𝓀ᶄ)ƥ(1+δ−𝓀ĺ)ɋ)|1ň(ň−1))1ƥ+ɋ)). |
Completed proof of the results.
Appendix B.
Proof. From Definition 5, we have
𝒽ƥ=((λ+𝒽)ƥ+i(δ+𝒽)ƥ,−1+(1+λ−𝒽)ƥ+i(−1+(1+δ−𝒽)ƥ)), |
𝒽ɋ=((λ+𝒽)ɋ+i(δ+𝒽)ɋ,−1+(1+λ−𝒽)ɋ+i(−1+(1+δ−𝒽)ɋ)), |
then we have
𝒽ƥᶄ⊗𝒽ɋĺ=((λ+𝒽ᶄ)ƥ(λ+𝒽ĺ)ɋ+i(δ+𝒽ᶄ)ƥ(δ+𝒽ĺ)ɋ,−1+(1+λ−𝒽ᶄ)ƥ(1+λ−𝒽ĺ)q+i(−1+(1+δ−𝒽ᶄ)ƥ(1+δ−𝒽ĺ)q)). |
ῷᶄῷĺ1−ῷᶄ(𝒽ƥᶄ⊗𝒽ɋĺ)=(1−(1−(λ+𝒽ᶄ)ƥ(λ+𝒽ĺ)ɋ)ῷᶄῷĺ1−ῷᶄ+i(1−(1−(δ+𝒽ᶄ)ƥ(δ+𝒽ĺ)ɋ)ῷᶄῷĺ1−ῷᶄ),−(|−1+(1+λ−𝒽ᶄ)ƥ(1+λ−𝒽ĺ)q|ῷᶄῷĺ1−ῷᶄ)+i(−(|−1+(1+δ−𝒽ᶄ)ƥ(1+δ−𝒽ĺ)q|ῷᶄῷĺ1−ῷᶄ))). |
ň⊕ᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺῷᶄῷĺ1−ῷᶄ(𝒽ƥᶄ⊗𝒽ɋĺ)=(1−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(1−λ+ƥ𝓀ᶄλ+ɋ𝓀ĺ)ῷᶄῷĺ1−ῷᶄ+i(1−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(1−δ+ƥ𝓀ᶄδ+ɋ𝓀ĺ)ῷᶄῷĺ1−ῷᶄ),−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(|−1+(1+λ−𝒽ᶄ)ƥ(1+λ−𝒽ĺ)q|ῷᶄῷĺ1−ῷᶄ)+i(−∏ňᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(|−1+(1+δ−𝒽ᶄ)ƥ(1+δ−𝒽ĺ)q|ῷᶄῷĺ1−ῷᶄ))). |
(ň⊕ᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺῷᶄῷĺ1−ῷᶄ(𝒽ƥᶄ⊗𝒽ɋĺ))1ƥ+ɋ |
=((1−ň∏ᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(1−λ+ƥ𝓀ᶄλ+ɋ𝓀ĺ)ῷᶄῷĺ1−ῷᶄ)1ƥ+ɋ+i(1−ň∏ᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(1−δ+ƥ𝓀ᶄδ+ɋ𝓀ĺ)ῷᶄῷĺ1−ῷᶄ)1ƥ+ɋ,−1+(1−ň∏ᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(|−1+(1+λ−𝒽ᶄ)ƥ(1+λ−𝒽ĺ)q|ῷᶄῷĺ1−ῷᶄ))1ƥ+ɋ+i(−1+(1−ň∏ᶄ,ĺ=1ᶄ≠ĺ(|−1+(1+δ−𝒽ᶄ)ƥ(1+δ−𝒽ĺ)q|ῷᶄῷĺ1−ῷᶄ))1ƥ+ɋ)) |
=BCFNWBƥ,ɋῷ(𝒽1,𝒽2,𝒽3,…,𝒽ň). |
The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Khalid University, Abha 61413, Saudi Arabia, for funding this work through the research group program under grant number R.G. P-1/129/43.
The data employed in this analysis are speculative and artificial. One can employ the data before earlier approval simply by citing this article.
The authors state that they have no conflicts of interest.
[1] |
Morri M, Ambrosi E, Chiari P, et al. (2019) one-year mortality after hip fracture surgery and prognostic factors: A prospective cohort study. Sci Rep 9: 18718. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-55196-6 ![]() |
[2] | Royal College of Physicians, Facing new challenges—The National Hip Fracture Database report on 2020. London Royal College of Physicians, 2021. Available from: https://www.nhfd.co.uk/FFFAP/Reports.nsf/0/220AC3A08F5AC22080258789007CCC92/$file/NHFD_2021_Report.pdf |
[3] |
Iorio R, Healy WL, Lemos DW, et al. (2001) Displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: Outcomes and cost effectiveness. Clin Orthop Relat Res 383: 229-242. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200102000-00027 ![]() |
[4] |
Tarasevicius S, Busevicius M, Robertsson O, et al. (2010) Dual mobility cup reduces dislocation rate after arthroplasty for femoral neck fracture. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 11: 175. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-11-175 ![]() |
[5] |
De Martino I, Triantafyllopoulos GK, Sculco PK, et al. (2014) Dual mobility cups in total hip arthroplasty. World J Orthop 5: 180-187. https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v5.i3.180 ![]() |
[6] | Yang S, Xie F, Cui W, et al. (2021) A review of the clinical and engineering performance of dual-mobility cups for total hip arthroplasty. Am J Transl Res 13: 9383-9394. |
[7] |
De Martino I, D'Apolito R, Soranoglou VG, et al. (2017) Dislocation following total hip arthroplasty using dual mobility acetabular components: A systematic review. Bone Joint J 99: 18-24. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B1.BJJ-2016-0398.R1 ![]() |
[8] |
Adam P, Philippe R, Ehlinger M, et al. (2012) Dual mobility cups hip arthroplasty as a treatment for displaced fracture of the femoral neck in the elderly. A prospective, systematic, multicenter study with specific focus on postoperative dislocation. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98: 296-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OTSR.2012.01.005 ![]() |
[9] |
Slover J, Hoffman MV, Malchau H, et al. (2009) A cost-effectiveness analysis of the arthroplasty options for displaced femoral neck fractures in the active, healthy, elderly population. J Arthroplasty 24: 854-860. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ARTH.2008.05.008 ![]() |
[10] |
Hudson JI, Kenzora JE, Hebel JR, et al. (1998) Eight-year outcome associated with clinical options in the management of femoral neck fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 348: 59-66. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-199803000-00011 ![]() |
[11] | Canton G, Moghnie A, Cleva M, et al. (2019) Dual mobility total hip arthroplasty in the treatment of femoral neck fractures: A retrospective evaluation at mid-term follow-up. Acta Biomed 90: 98-103. https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v90i1-S.8070 |
[12] | Tarasevičius S, Robertsson O, Dobozinskas P, et al. (2013) A comparison of outcomes and dislocation rates using dual articulation cups and THA for intracapsular femoral neck fractures. 23: 22-26. https://doi.org/10.5301/HIP.2013.10632 |
[13] |
Bensen AS, Jakobsen T, Krarup N (2014) Dual mobility cup reduces dislocation and re-operation when used to treat displaced femoral neck fractures. Int Orthop 38: 1241-1245. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00264-013-2276-8 ![]() |
[14] |
Mufarrih SH, Qureshi NQ, Masri B, et al. (2021) Outcomes of total hip arthroplasty using dual-mobility cups for femoral neck fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. HIP Int 31: 12-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120700020926652 ![]() |
[15] |
Nich C, Vandenbussche E, Augereau B, et al. (2016) Do dual-mobility cups reduce the risk of dislocation in total hip arthroplasty for fractured neck of femur in patients aged older than 75 years?. J Arthroplasty 31: 1256-1260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.11.041 ![]() |
[16] | Canton G, Moghnie A, Ratti C, et al. (2018) Dual mobility total hip arthroplasty in the treatment of femoral neck fracture: A systematic review of the literature. Recent Adv Arthroplast 2: 32-38. |
[17] |
Cha YH, Yoo JI, Kim JT, et al. (2020) Dual mobility total hip arthroplasty in the treatment of femoral neck fractures. Bone Joint J 102: 1457-1466. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.102B11.BJJ-2020-0610.R2 ![]() |
[18] |
Farey JE, Masters J, Cuthbert AR, et al. (2022) Do dual-mobility cups reduce revision risk in femoral neck fractures compared with conventional THA designs? An international meta-analysis of arthroplasty registries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 480: 1912-1925. https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000002275 ![]() |
[19] |
Lecuire F, Benareau I, Rubini J, et al. (2004) Intra-prosthetic dislocation of the Bousquet dual mobility socket. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 90: 249-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0035-1040(04)70101-4 (Article in French language) ![]() |
[20] |
Kobayashi S, Takaoka K, Tsukada A, et al. (1998) Polyethylene wear from femoral bipolar neck-cup impingement as a cause of femoral prosthetic loosening. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 117: 390-391. https://doi.org/10.1007/S004020050274 ![]() |
[21] |
Neri T, Boyer B, Geringer J, et al. (2019) Intraprosthetic dislocation of dual mobility total hip arthroplasty: Still occurring?. Int Orthop 43: 1097-1105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4054-0 ![]() |
[22] |
Massin P, Orain V, Philippot R, et al. (2012) Fixation failures of dual mobility cups: A mid-term study of 2601 hip replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470: 1932-1940. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-2213-3 ![]() |
[23] |
Khoshbin A, Haddad FS, Ward S, et al. (2020) A cost-effectiveness assessment of dual-mobility bearings in revision hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 102: 1128-1135. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.102B9.BJJ-2019-1742.R1 ![]() |
[24] |
Montgomery S, Bourget-Murray J, You DZ, et al. (2021) Cost-effectiveness of dual-mobility components in patients with displaced femoral neck fractures. Bone Joint J 103: 1783-1790. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.103B12.BJJ-2021-0495.R2 ![]() |
1. | Muhammad Akram, Sumera Naz, Tahir Abbas, Complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy 2-tuple linguistic group decision-making framework with Muirhead mean operators, 2023, 0269-2821, 10.1007/s10462-023-10408-4 | |
2. | Tahir Mahmood, Ubaid Ur Rehman, Muhammad Naeem, A novel approach towards Heronian mean operators in multiple attribute decision making under the environment of bipolar complex fuzzy information, 2023, 8, 2473-6988, 1848, 10.3934/math.2023095 | |
3. | Ubaid ur Rehman, Tahir Mahmood, A study and performance evaluation of computer network under the environment of bipolar complex fuzzy partition Heronian mean operators, 2023, 180, 09659978, 103443, 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2023.103443 | |
4. | Xiaopeng Yang, Tahir Mahmood, Ubaid Ur Rehman, Analyzing the effect of different types of pollution with bipolar complex fuzzy power Bonferroni mean operators, 2022, 10, 2296-665X, 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1026316 | |
5. | Tahir Mahmood, Ubaid Ur Rehman, Muhammad Naeem, Dombi Bonferroni Mean Operators Under Bipolar Complex Fuzzy Environment and Their Applications in Internet World, 2023, 11, 2169-3536, 22727, 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3249198 | |
6. | Tahir Mahmood, Ubaid Ur Rehman, Gustavo Santos-García, The prioritization of solutions for reducing the influence of climate change on the environment by using the conception of bipolar complex fuzzy power Dombi aggregation operators, 2023, 11, 2296-665X, 10.3389/fenvs.2023.1040486 | |
7. | Tahir Mahmood, Ubaid ur Rehman, Xindong Peng, Zeeshan Ali, Evaluation of mental disorder with prioritization of its type by utilizing the bipolar complex fuzzy decision-making approach based on Schweizer-Sklar prioritized aggregation operators, 2023, 9, 2376-5992, e1434, 10.7717/peerj-cs.1434 | |
8. | Tahir Mahmood, Ubaid ur Rehman, Providing decision-making approaches for the assessment and selection of cloud computing using bipolar complex fuzzy Einstein power aggregation operators, 2024, 129, 09521976, 107650, 10.1016/j.engappai.2023.107650 | |
9. | Ubaid ur Rehman, Tahir Mahmood, Xiaopeng Yang, Assessment and prioritization of economic systems by using decision-making approach based on bipolar complex fuzzy generalized Maclaurin symmetric mean operators, 2024, 1598-5865, 10.1007/s12190-024-02104-5 | |
10. | Tahir Mahmood, Ubaid ur Rehman, Digital technology implementation and impact of artificial intelligence based on bipolar complex fuzzy Schweizer–Sklar power aggregation operators, 2023, 143, 15684946, 110375, 10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110375 | |
11. | Tahir Mahmood, Abdul Jaleel, Ubaid ur Rehman, Determination of the most influential robot in the medical field by utilizing the bipolar complex fuzzy soft aggregation operators, 2024, 251, 09574174, 123878, 10.1016/j.eswa.2024.123878 | |
12. | Ubaid ur Rehman, Tahir Mahmood, Prioritization of types of wireless sensor networks by applying decision-making technique based on bipolar complex fuzzy linguistic heronian mean operators, 2024, 46, 10641246, 967, 10.3233/JIFS-232167 | |
13. | Qian Yu, Hamacher Operations for Complex Cubic q-Rung Orthopair Fuzzy Sets and Their Application to Multiple-Attribute Group Decision Making, 2023, 15, 2073-8994, 2118, 10.3390/sym15122118 | |
14. | Jianping Fan, Ge Hao, Meiqin Wu, A Bipolar Complex Fuzzy CRITIC-ELECTRE III Approach Using Einstein Averaging Aggregation Operators for Enhancing Decision Making in Renewable Energy Investments, 2024, 26, 1562-2479, 2359, 10.1007/s40815-024-01739-7 | |
15. | Muhammad Naeem, Tahir Mahmood, Ubaid ur Rehman, Faisal Mehmood, Classification of renewable energy and its sources with decision-making approach based on bipolar complex fuzzy frank power aggregation operators, 2023, 49, 2211467X, 101162, 10.1016/j.esr.2023.101162 | |
16. | Hanan Alolaiyan, Maryam Liaqat, Abdul Razaq, Umer Shuaib, Abdul Wakil Baidar, Qin Xin, Optimal selection of diagnostic method for diabetes mellitus using complex bipolar fuzzy dynamic data, 2025, 15, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-024-84460-7 |
Methods | Positive grade | Positive and negative grade | Contained imaginary part | Deal with two-dimension information |
Fuzzy sets | √ | × | × | × |
Bipolar fuzzy sets | √ | √ | × | × |
Complex fuzzy sets | √ | × | √ | √ |
Bipolar complex fuzzy sets | √ | √ | √ | √ |
o1 | o2 | o3 | o4 | |
v1 | (0.78+ι0.9,−0.6−ι0.5,) | (0.36+ι0.65,−0.5−ι0.8) | (0.45+ι0.7,−0.34−ι0.8) | (0.9+ι0.5,−0.2−ι0.4) |
v2 | (0.4+ι0.36,−0.39−ι0.4) | (0.76+ι0.19,−0.28−ι0.5) | (0.6+ι0.38,−0.5−ι0.87) | (0.15+ι0.25,−0.43−ι0.34,) |
v3 | (0.5+ι0.46,−0.49−ι0.5) | (0.67+ι0.29,−0.38−ι0.6) | (0.5+ι0.48,−0.4−ι0.78) | (0.25+ι0.35,−0.44−ι0.43) |
v4 | (0.47+ι0.2,−0.7−ι0.8) | (0.19+ι0.5,−0.7−ι0.8) | (0.2+ι0.4,−0.3−ι0.4) | (+ι0.9,−0.8−ι0.1) |
BCFNWBM | |
v1 | (0.5449+ι0.7078,−0.4364−ι0.6953) |
v2 | (0.5613+ι0.2862,−0.3909−ι0.5777) |
v3 | (0.53+ι0.3882,−0.4174−ι0.402) |
v4 | (0.2586+ι0.4539,−0.606−ι0.6066) |
Score value | |
v1 | 0.5303 |
v2 | 0.4697 |
v3 | 0.5247 |
BCFNWBM | |
v1 | (0.6697+ι0.7233,−0.4235−ι0.6113) |
v2 | (0.4194+ι0.2885,−0.3899−ι0.4541) |
v3 | (0.53+ι0.3882,−0.4174−ι0.402) |
v4 | (0.244+ι0.5161,−0.6057−ι0.5003) |
Score value | |
v1 | 0.5895 |
v2 | 0.466 |
v3 | 0.5247 |
v4 | 0.4135 |
o1 | o2 | o3 | o4 | |
v1 | (0.78+ι0.0,−0.6−ι0.0,) | (0.36+ι0.0,−0.5−ι0.0) | (0.45+ι0.0,−0.34−ι0.0) | (0.9+ι0.0,−0.2−ι0.0) |
v2 | (0.4+ι0.0,−0.39−ι0.0) | (0.76+ι0.0,−0.28−ι0.0) | (0.6+ι0.0,−0.5−ι0.0) | (0.15+ι0.0,−0.43−ι0.0,) |
v3 | (0.5+ι0.0,−0.49−ι0.0) | (0.67+ι0.0,−0.38−ι0.0) | (0.5+ι0.0,−0.4−ι0.0) | (0.25+ι0.0,−0.44−ι0.0) |
v4 | (0.47+ι0.0,−0.7−ι0.0) | (0.19+ι0.0,−0.7−ι0.0) | (0.2+ι0.0,−0.3−ι0.0) | (0.29+ι0.0,−0.8−ι0.0) |
BCFNWBM | BCFOWBM | |
v1 | (0.5449+ι0.0,−0.4364−ι0.0) | (0.6697+ι0.0,−0.4235−ι0.0) |
v2 | (0.5613+ι0.0,−0.3909−ι0.0) | (0.4194+ι0.0,−0.3899−ι0.0) |
v3 | (0.53+ι0.0,−0.4174−ι0.0) | (0.53+ι0.0,−0.4174−ι0.0) |
v4 | (0.2586+ι0.0,−0.606−ι0.0) | (0.244+ι0.0,−0.6057−ι0.0) |
BCFNWBM | BCFOWBM | |
v1 | 0.5271 | 0.6515 |
v2 | 0.5426 | 0.5074 |
v3 | 0.5282 | 0.5282 |
v4 | 0.4132 | 0.4096 |
Operators | SB(v1) | SB(v2) | SB(v3) | SB(v4) |
Akram and Arshad [20] | Failed | Failed | Failed | Failed |
Akram and Al-Kenani [43] | Failed | Failed | Failed | Failed |
Jana et al. [44] | Failed | Failed | Failed | Failed |
Wei et al. [45] | Failed | Failed | Failed | Failed |
BCFDWA [36] | 0.671 | 0.508 | 0.521 | 0.552 |
BCFDWG [36] | 0.2177 | 0.4041 | 0.3892 | 0.3663 |
BCFHWA [37] | 0.6329 | 0.4876 | 0.4837 | 0.4812 |
BCFHWG [37] | 0.3671 | 0.5124 | 0.5163 | 0.5188 |
BCFWAA [42] | 0.555 | 0.499 | 0.494 | 0.424 |
BCFOWAA [42] | 0.6329 | 0.4876 | 0.4837 | 0.4812 |
BCFWGA [42] | 0.499 | 0.422 | 0.484 | 0.337 |
BCFOWGA [42] | 0.563 | 0.439 | 0.484 | 0.377 |
BCFNWBM | 0.5303 | 0.5697 | 0.5247 | 0.375 |
BCFOWBM | 0.5895 | 0.466 | 0.5247 | 0.4135 |
ƥ=1 | Operator | SB(v1) | SB(v2) | SB(v3) | SB(v4) | Ranking value |
ɋ=1 | BCFBNWM | 0.5303 | 0.4697 | 0.5247 | 0.375 | v1>v3>v2>v4 |
BCFBOWM | 0.5895 | 0.466 | 0.5247 | 0.4135 | v1>v3>v2>v4 | |
ɋ=3 | BCFBNWM | 0.5681 | 0.4954 | 0.4843 | 0.4369 | v1>v2>v3>v4 |
BCFBOWM | 0.62 | 0.4924 | 0.4843 | 0.4694 | v1>v2>v3>v4 | |
ɋ=5 | BCFBNWM | 0.6046 | 0.5172 | 0.498 | 0.4988 | v1>v2>v4>v3 |
BCFBOWM | 0.6497 | 0.5149 | 0.498 | 0.5257 | v1>v4>v2>v3 | |
ɋ=7 | BCFBNWM | 0.6325 | 0.5332 | 0.5093 | 0.5443 | v1>v4>v2>v3 |
BCFBOWM | 0.6721 | 0.5315 | 0.5093 | 0.5667 | v1>v4>v2>v3 | |
ɋ=10 | BCFBNWM | 0.6628 | 0.5506 | 0.5222 | 0.5894 | v1>v4>v2>v3 |
BCFBOWM | 0.696 | 0.5493 | 0.5222 | 0.6073 | v1>v4>v2>v3 |
ɋ=1 | Operator | SB(v1) | SB(v2) | SB(v3) | SB(v4) | Ranking value |
ƥ=1 | BCFBNWM | 0.5303 | 0.4697 | 0.5247 | 0.375 | v1>v3>v2>v4 |
BCFBOWM | 0.5895 | 0.466 | 0.5247 | 0.4135 | v1>v3>v2>v4 | |
ƥ=3 | BCFBNWM | 0.557 | 0.4974 | 0.4847 | 0.4261 | v1>v2>v3>v4 |
BCFBOWM | 0.6201 | 0.4899 | 0.4847 | 0.4647 | v1>v2>v3>v4 | |
ƥ=5 | BCFBNWM | 0.5915 | 0.5195 | 0.4985 | 0.4853 | v1>v2>v4>v3 |
BCFBOWM | 0.6489 | 0.5115 | 0.4985 | 0.5187 | v1>v4>v2>v3 | |
ƥ=7 | BCFBNWM | 0.6195 | 0.5356 | 0.5099 | 0.5312 | v1>v4>v2>v3 |
BCFBOWM | 0.6706 | 0.5279 | 0.5099 | 0.5596 | v1>v4>v2>v3 | |
ƥ=10 | BCFBNWM | 0.651 | 0.5528 | 0.5225 | 0.5782 | v1>v4>v2>v3 |
BCFBOWM | 0.6939 | 0.5457 | 0.5229 | 0.6011 | v1>v4>v2>v3 |
Methods | Positive grade | Positive and negative grade | Contained imaginary part | Deal with two-dimension information |
Fuzzy sets | √ | × | × | × |
Bipolar fuzzy sets | √ | √ | × | × |
Complex fuzzy sets | √ | × | √ | √ |
Bipolar complex fuzzy sets | √ | √ | √ | √ |
o1 | o2 | o3 | o4 | |
v1 | (0.78+ι0.9,−0.6−ι0.5,) | (0.36+ι0.65,−0.5−ι0.8) | (0.45+ι0.7,−0.34−ι0.8) | (0.9+ι0.5,−0.2−ι0.4) |
v2 | (0.4+ι0.36,−0.39−ι0.4) | (0.76+ι0.19,−0.28−ι0.5) | (0.6+ι0.38,−0.5−ι0.87) | (0.15+ι0.25,−0.43−ι0.34,) |
v3 | (0.5+ι0.46,−0.49−ι0.5) | (0.67+ι0.29,−0.38−ι0.6) | (0.5+ι0.48,−0.4−ι0.78) | (0.25+ι0.35,−0.44−ι0.43) |
v4 | (0.47+ι0.2,−0.7−ι0.8) | (0.19+ι0.5,−0.7−ι0.8) | (0.2+ι0.4,−0.3−ι0.4) | (+ι0.9,−0.8−ι0.1) |
BCFNWBM | |
v1 | (0.5449+ι0.7078,−0.4364−ι0.6953) |
v2 | (0.5613+ι0.2862,−0.3909−ι0.5777) |
v3 | (0.53+ι0.3882,−0.4174−ι0.402) |
v4 | (0.2586+ι0.4539,−0.606−ι0.6066) |
Score value | |
v1 | 0.5303 |
v2 | 0.4697 |
v3 | 0.5247 |
BCFNWBM | |
v1 | (0.6697+ι0.7233,−0.4235−ι0.6113) |
v2 | (0.4194+ι0.2885,−0.3899−ι0.4541) |
v3 | (0.53+ι0.3882,−0.4174−ι0.402) |
v4 | (0.244+ι0.5161,−0.6057−ι0.5003) |
Score value | |
v1 | 0.5895 |
v2 | 0.466 |
v3 | 0.5247 |
v4 | 0.4135 |
o1 | o2 | o3 | o4 | |
v1 | (0.78+ι0.0,−0.6−ι0.0,) | (0.36+ι0.0,−0.5−ι0.0) | (0.45+ι0.0,−0.34−ι0.0) | (0.9+ι0.0,−0.2−ι0.0) |
v2 | (0.4+ι0.0,−0.39−ι0.0) | (0.76+ι0.0,−0.28−ι0.0) | (0.6+ι0.0,−0.5−ι0.0) | (0.15+ι0.0,−0.43−ι0.0,) |
v3 | (0.5+ι0.0,−0.49−ι0.0) | (0.67+ι0.0,−0.38−ι0.0) | (0.5+ι0.0,−0.4−ι0.0) | (0.25+ι0.0,−0.44−ι0.0) |
v4 | (0.47+ι0.0,−0.7−ι0.0) | (0.19+ι0.0,−0.7−ι0.0) | (0.2+ι0.0,−0.3−ι0.0) | (0.29+ι0.0,−0.8−ι0.0) |
BCFNWBM | BCFOWBM | |
v1 | (0.5449+ι0.0,−0.4364−ι0.0) | (0.6697+ι0.0,−0.4235−ι0.0) |
v2 | (0.5613+ι0.0,−0.3909−ι0.0) | (0.4194+ι0.0,−0.3899−ι0.0) |
v3 | (0.53+ι0.0,−0.4174−ι0.0) | (0.53+ι0.0,−0.4174−ι0.0) |
v4 | (0.2586+ι0.0,−0.606−ι0.0) | (0.244+ι0.0,−0.6057−ι0.0) |
BCFNWBM | BCFOWBM | |
v1 | 0.5271 | 0.6515 |
v2 | 0.5426 | 0.5074 |
v3 | 0.5282 | 0.5282 |
v4 | 0.4132 | 0.4096 |
Operators | SB(v1) | SB(v2) | SB(v3) | SB(v4) |
Akram and Arshad [20] | Failed | Failed | Failed | Failed |
Akram and Al-Kenani [43] | Failed | Failed | Failed | Failed |
Jana et al. [44] | Failed | Failed | Failed | Failed |
Wei et al. [45] | Failed | Failed | Failed | Failed |
BCFDWA [36] | 0.671 | 0.508 | 0.521 | 0.552 |
BCFDWG [36] | 0.2177 | 0.4041 | 0.3892 | 0.3663 |
BCFHWA [37] | 0.6329 | 0.4876 | 0.4837 | 0.4812 |
BCFHWG [37] | 0.3671 | 0.5124 | 0.5163 | 0.5188 |
BCFWAA [42] | 0.555 | 0.499 | 0.494 | 0.424 |
BCFOWAA [42] | 0.6329 | 0.4876 | 0.4837 | 0.4812 |
BCFWGA [42] | 0.499 | 0.422 | 0.484 | 0.337 |
BCFOWGA [42] | 0.563 | 0.439 | 0.484 | 0.377 |
BCFNWBM | 0.5303 | 0.5697 | 0.5247 | 0.375 |
BCFOWBM | 0.5895 | 0.466 | 0.5247 | 0.4135 |
Methods | SB(v1) | SB(v2) | SB(v3) | SB(v4) |
Akram and Arshad [20] | 0.2639 | 0.7316 | 0.7292 | 0.4045 |
BCFNWBM | 0.4516 | 0.5468 | 0.5861 | 0.4836 |
BCFOWBM | 0.5007 | 0.5458 | 0.5914 | 0.5314 |
ƥ=1 | Operator | SB(v1) | SB(v2) | SB(v3) | SB(v4) | Ranking value |
ɋ=1 | BCFBNWM | 0.5303 | 0.4697 | 0.5247 | 0.375 | v1>v3>v2>v4 |
BCFBOWM | 0.5895 | 0.466 | 0.5247 | 0.4135 | v1>v3>v2>v4 | |
ɋ=3 | BCFBNWM | 0.5681 | 0.4954 | 0.4843 | 0.4369 | v1>v2>v3>v4 |
BCFBOWM | 0.62 | 0.4924 | 0.4843 | 0.4694 | v1>v2>v3>v4 | |
ɋ=5 | BCFBNWM | 0.6046 | 0.5172 | 0.498 | 0.4988 | v1>v2>v4>v3 |
BCFBOWM | 0.6497 | 0.5149 | 0.498 | 0.5257 | v1>v4>v2>v3 | |
ɋ=7 | BCFBNWM | 0.6325 | 0.5332 | 0.5093 | 0.5443 | v1>v4>v2>v3 |
BCFBOWM | 0.6721 | 0.5315 | 0.5093 | 0.5667 | v1>v4>v2>v3 | |
ɋ=10 | BCFBNWM | 0.6628 | 0.5506 | 0.5222 | 0.5894 | v1>v4>v2>v3 |
BCFBOWM | 0.696 | 0.5493 | 0.5222 | 0.6073 | v1>v4>v2>v3 |
ɋ=1 | Operator | SB(v1) | SB(v2) | SB(v3) | SB(v4) | Ranking value |
ƥ=1 | BCFBNWM | 0.5303 | 0.4697 | 0.5247 | 0.375 | v1>v3>v2>v4 |
BCFBOWM | 0.5895 | 0.466 | 0.5247 | 0.4135 | v1>v3>v2>v4 | |
ƥ=3 | BCFBNWM | 0.557 | 0.4974 | 0.4847 | 0.4261 | v1>v2>v3>v4 |
BCFBOWM | 0.6201 | 0.4899 | 0.4847 | 0.4647 | v1>v2>v3>v4 | |
ƥ=5 | BCFBNWM | 0.5915 | 0.5195 | 0.4985 | 0.4853 | v1>v2>v4>v3 |
BCFBOWM | 0.6489 | 0.5115 | 0.4985 | 0.5187 | v1>v4>v2>v3 | |
ƥ=7 | BCFBNWM | 0.6195 | 0.5356 | 0.5099 | 0.5312 | v1>v4>v2>v3 |
BCFBOWM | 0.6706 | 0.5279 | 0.5099 | 0.5596 | v1>v4>v2>v3 | |
ƥ=10 | BCFBNWM | 0.651 | 0.5528 | 0.5225 | 0.5782 | v1>v4>v2>v3 |
BCFBOWM | 0.6939 | 0.5457 | 0.5229 | 0.6011 | v1>v4>v2>v3 |