Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2023
Combinative-distance-based assessment approach for the evaluation of artificial intelligence cloud platforms using probabilistic linguistic hesitant fuzzy sets
With the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning, the evaluation of AI cloud platforms has become a critical research topic. Given the availability of many platforms, selecting the best AI cloud services that can satisfy the requirements and budget of an organization is crucial. Several solutions, each with its advantages and disadvantages, are available. In this study, a combinative-distance-based assessment approach was proposed in probabilistic linguistic hesitant fuzzy sets (PLHFSs) to accommodate the multiple characteristics of group decision-making. The original data were normalized using a standardized process that integrated numerous methodologies. Furthermore, under PLHFSs, the statistical variance approach was used to generate the weighted objective of the vector of assessment criteria. Finally, an AI cloud platform evaluation and comparison analysis case study was used to validate the feasibility of this method.
ShaharA., Exploring artificial intelligence futures, Journal of AI Humanities2 (2018), 169–194. doi: 10.46397/JAIH.2.7.
2.
VanN.V., Phuoc, The critical factors impacting artificial intelligence applications adoption in Vietnam: A structural equation modeling analysis, Economies10 (2022), 129. doi: 10.3390/Economies10060129.
3.
NguyenT.M.H., NguyenV.P. and NguyenD.T., A new hybrid Pythagorean fuzzy AHP and COCOSO MCDM based approach by adopting artificial intelligence technologies, Theoretical Artificial Intelligence0 (2022), 1–27. doi: 10.1080/0952813X.2022.2143908.
4.
ChatterjeeK., PamucarD. and ZavadskasE.K., Evaluating the performance of suppliers based on using the R’AMATEL-MAIRCA method for green supply chain implementation in electronics industry, Journal of Cleaner Production184 (2018), 101–129. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.186.
5.
ZhaoM., GaoH., WeiG., WeiC. and GuoY., Model for network security service provider selection with probabilistic uncertain linguistic TODIM method based on prospect theory, Technological and Economic Development of Economy28 (2022), 638–654.
6.
Autran Monteiro GomesL.F. and Duncan RangelL.A., An application of the TODIM method to the multicriteria rental evaluation of residential properties, European Journal of Operational Research193 (2009), 204–211. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2007.10.046.
7.
WuJ., LiuX.D., WangZ.W. and ZhangS.T., Dynamic emergency decision-making method with probabilistic hesitant fuzzy information based on GM(1,1) and TOPSIS, IEEE Access7 (2018), 7054–7066. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2890110.
8.
ZhaoM., WeiG., ChenX. and WeiY., Intuitionistic fuzzy MABAC method based on cumulative prospect theory for multiple attribute group decision making, International Journal of Intelligent Systems36 (2021), 6337–6359. doi: 10.1002/int.22552.
9.
ZhangD., SuY., ZhaoM. and ChenX., Cpt-Todim method for interval neutrosophic Magdm and its application to third-party logistics service providers selection, Technological and Economic Development of Economy28 (2021), 201–219. doi: 10.3846/tede.2021.15758.
10.
SuarezC.A., Disruptive legal technology, COVID-19, and resilience in the profession, South Carolina Law Review72 (2020), 393–444. Online: https://heinonline.org/HOL/License
LiouJ.J.H., ChuangY.C., ZavadskasE.K. and TzengG.H., Data-driven hybrid multiple attribute decision-making model for green supplier evaluation and performance improvement, Journal of Cleaner Production241 (2019), 118321. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118321.
13.
TavanaM., ShaabaniA., Santos-ArteagaF.J. and ValaeiN., An integrated fuzzy sustainable supplier evaluation and selection framework for green supply chains in reverse logistics, Environmental Science and Pollution Research28 (2021), 53953–53982. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-14302-w.
14.
KahramanC., Keshavarz GhorabaeeM., ZavadskasE.K., Cevik OnarS., YazdaniM. and OztaysiB., Intuitionistic fuzzy edas method: An application to solid waste disposal site selection, Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management25 (2017), 1–12. Online. https://doi.org/10.3846/16486897.2017.1281139.
15.
Keshavarz GhorabaeeM., ZavadskasE.K., OlfatL. and TurskisZ., Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS), Informatica26 (2015), 435–451. doi: 10.15388/Informatica.2015.57.
16.
LeiF., WeiG., ShenW. and GuoY., Pdhl-Edas method for multiple attribute group decision making and its application to 3D printer selection, Technological and Economic Development of Economy28 (2021), 179–200. doi: 10.3846/tede.2021.15884.
17.
SuY., ZhaoM., WeiG., WeiC. and ChenX., Probabilistic uncertain linguistic EDAS method based on prospect theory for multiple attribute group decision-making and its application to green finance, International Journal of Fuzzy System24 (2022), 1318–1331. doi: 10.1007/s40815-021-01184-w.
18.
JiangZ., WeiG. and ChenX., EDAS method based on cumulative prospect theory for multiple attribute group decision-making under picture fuzzy environment, Fuzzy Systems42 (2022), 1723–1735. doi: 10.3233/JIFS-211171.
19.
GouC., An integrated CoCoSo-CRITIC-based decision-making framework for quality evaluation of innovation and entrepreneurship education in vocational colleges with intuitionistic fuzzy information, Mathematical Problems in Engineering2022 (2022), 1–7. doi: 10.1155/2022/6071276.
20.
ZhaoY. and BacaoF., How does the pandemic facilitate mobile payment? An investigation on users’ perspective under the COVID-19 pandemic, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health18 (2021), 1–22. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18031016.
21.
WangS., WeiG., LuJ., WuJ., WeiC. and ChenX., GRP and CRITIC method for probabilistic uncertain linguistic MAGDM and its application to site selection of hospital constructions, Soft Computing26 (2022), 237–251. doi: 10.1007/s00500-021-06429-2.
22.
ZhengG.Z., JingY.Y., HuangH.X. and GaoY.F., Application of improved grey relational projection method to evaluate sustainable building envelope performance, Applied Energy87 (2010), 710–720. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.08.020.
23.
ZhangH., WeiG. and ChenX., SF-GRA method based on cumulative prospect theory for multiple attribute group decision making and its application to emergency supplies supplier selection, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence110 (2022). doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2022.104679.
24.
LaiY.J., LiuT.Y. and HwangC.L., TOPSIS for MODM, European Journal of Operational Research76 (1994), 486–500. doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(94)90282-8.
25.
ZhangD., ZhaoM., WeiG. and ChenX., Single-valued neutrosophic TODIM method based on cumulative prospect theory for multi-attribute group decision making and its application to medical emergency management evaluation, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja35 (2022), 4520–4536. doi:
10.1080/1331677X.2021.2013914.
26.
GegovskaT., KokerR. and CakarT., Green supplier selection using fuzzy multiple-criteria decision-making methods and artificial neural networks, Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience (2020), 8811834. doi: 10.1155/2020/8811834.
27.
GitinavardH., GhaderiH. and PishvaeeM.S., Green supplier evaluation in manufacturing systems: A novel interval-valued hesitant fuzzy group outranking approach, Soft Computing22 (2018), 6441–6460. doi:
10.1007/s00500-017-2697-1.
28.
ZhangT.et al. Automated vehicle acceptance in China: Social influence and initial trust are key determinantsm, Transportation Research Part C112 (2020), 220–233. doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2020.01.027.
29.
NguyenV.P., Evaluating the FinTech success factors model to achieve a sustainable financial technology business: An empirical study in Vietnam, Cogent Engineering9 (2022), 2109317. doi: 10.1080/23311916.2022.2109317.
30.
DeveciM., PamucarD. and GokasarI., Fuzzy Power Heronian function based CoCoSo method for the advantage prioritization of autonomous vehicles in real-time traffic management, Sustainable Cities and Society69 (2021), 102846. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2021.102846.
31.
AnushaG., RamanaP.V. and SarkarR., Hybridizations of Archimedean copula and generalized MSM operators and their applications in interactive decision-making with q-rung probabilistic dual hesitant fuzzy environment, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering6(1) (2023), 646–678. doi: 10.31181/dmame0329102022a.
32.
AkM.F. and GulM., AHP-TOPSIS integration extended with Pythagorean fuzzy sets for information security risk analysis, Intelligent Systems5 (2019), 113–126. doi: 10.1007/s40747-018-0087-7.
33.
ZulqarnainR.M.et al. Pythagorean fuzzy soft einstein ordered weighted average operator in sustainable supplier selection problem, Mathematical Problems in Engineering (2021), 1–16. doi: 10.1155/2021/2559979.
34.
XianS., WanW. and YangZ., Interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy linguistic TODIM based on PCA and its application for emergency decision, International Journal of Intelligent Systems35 (2020), 2049–2086. doi: 10.1002/int.22284.
35.
WuY.et al. A decision framework of low-speed wind farm projects in hilly areas based on DEMATEL-entropy-TODIM method from the sustainability perspective: A case in China, Energy (2020), 213. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2020.119014.
36.
NguyenT.M.H., NguyenV.P. and NguyenD.T., Model-based evaluation for online food delivery platforms with the probabilistic double hierarchy linguistic EDAS method, Journal of the Operational Research Society0 (2023), 1–18. doi: 10.1080/01605682.2023.2174054.
37.
WuX.L., LiaoH.C., ZavadskasE.K., AntuchevicieneJ., XuZ.S. and ZhouW., A probabilistic linguistic VIKOR method to solve MCDM problems with inconsistent criteria for different alternatives, Technological and Economic Development of Economy28 (2022), 559–580. doi: 10.3846/tede.2022.16634.
38.
NieC.X. and SongF.T., Constructing financial network based on PMFGand threshold methodm, Journal of Physics A495 (2018), 104–113. doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2017.12.037.
39.
LiuP., XuH. and GengY., Normal wiggly hesitant fuzzy linguistic power Hamy mean aggregation operators and their application to multi-attribute decision-making, &, Industrial Engineering (2020), 140. doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2019.106224.
40.
TianX., NiuM., MaJ. and XuZ., A novel TODIM with probabilistic hesitant fuzzy information and its application in green supplier selection, Complexity (2020), 1–26. doi: 10.1155/2020/2540798
41.
LiM., LiY., PengQ., WangJ., YuC. Evaluating community question-answering websites using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy DANP and TODIM methods, Applied Soft Computing (2021), 99.. doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106918.
42.
LiJ., ChenQ.X., NiuL.L. and WangZ.X., An ORESTE approach for multi-criteria decisionmaking with probabilistic hesitant fuzzy information, International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics11 (2020), 1591–1609. doi: 10.1007/s13042-020-01060-3.
43.
ZhaQ.et al. Opinion Dynamics in finance and business: A literature review and research opportunities, Financial Innovation (2020), 6. doi: 10.1186/s40854-020-00211-3.
44.
XuZ. and WangH., On the syntax and semantics of virtual linguistic terms for information fusion in decision making, Information Fusion34 (2017), 43–48. doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2016.06.002.
45.
IrvanizamI., UsmanT., IqbalM., IskandarT. and MarzukiM., An extended fuzzy TODIM approach for multiple-attribute decision-making with dual-connection numbers, Advances in Fuzzy Systems (2020), 1–10. doi: 10.1155/2020/6190149.
46.
GouX., XuZ., LiaoH. and HerreraH.F., 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 Society72 (2021), 2611–2630. doi: 10.1080/01605682.2020.1806741.
47.
SangX. and LiuX., An interval type-2 fuzzy sets-based TODIM method and its application to green supplier selection, Journal of the Operational Research Society67 (2016), 722–734. doi:
10.1057/jors.2015.86
48.
LiuS., ChanF.T.S. and RanW.X., Decision making for the selection of cloud vendor: An improved approach under group decision-making with integrated weights and objective/subjective attributes, Expert Systems with Applications55 (2016), 37–47. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2016.01.059.
49.
MansouriM. and LeghrisC., New Manhattan distance-based fuzzy MADM method for the network selection, IET Communications13 (2019), 1980–1987. doi: 10.1049/iet-com.2018.5454.
50.
ZhangW.K., DuJ. and TianX.L., Finding a promising venture capital project with TODIM under probabilistic hesitant fuzzy circumstance, Technological and Economic Development of Economy24 (2018), 2026–2044. doi: 10.3846/tede.2018.5494.
51.
HeY., LeiF., WeiG., WangR., WuJ. and WeiC., Edas method for multiple attribute group decision making with probabilistic uncertain linguistic information and its application to green supplier selection, International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems12 (2019), 1361–1370. doi: 10.2991/ijcis.d.191028.001.
52.
Montserrat-AdellJ., XuX., GouX. and AgellN., Free double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets: An application on ranking alternatives in GDM, Information Fusion47 (2019), 45–59. doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2018.07.002.
