Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering manuscript No.

(will be inserted by the editor)

Extension of TOPSIS method and its application in

investment

Yubo Huang · Wen Jiang

Received: date / Accepted: date

Abstract Technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution

(TOPSIS) is an effective technique to solve multi-criteria decision-making (M-
CDM) problem. It aims to select the alternative which has the ”shortest dis-
tance” from positive ideal solution(PIS) and the ”farthest distance” from neg-
ative ideal solution(NIS). Nevertheless, much literature has demonstrated that
the solution calculated by TOPSIS only is the compromise of PIS and NIS and
it is of great restriction in dealing with the practical problems which have di-
verse demands and properties. Therefore, in the presented model, an optimism
coefficient is defined to expand the physical meaning of the standard TOPSIS.
Decision-makers(DMs) can describe their attitudes toward risk and profit by
changing the value of optimism coefficient. Furthermore, intuitionistic fuzzy
number (IFN) is introduced to measure the evaluations(linguistic values) of
DMs to alternatives under diverse criteria. Intuitionistic fuzzy weighted aver-
aging (IFWA) operator is used for fusing the judgements of all DMs. Finally,
a conclusion can be safely obtained that the proposed model is stable and
validity from the illustrative examples and sensitivity analysis.

Yubo Huang
School of Automation, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710072,China
E-mail: huangyubo@[Link]
Wen Jiang
School of Electronics and Information, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an,
Shaanxi 710072,China
Tel.: +86-29-88431267
Fax: +86-29-88431267
E-mail: jiangwen@[Link]
2 Huang and Jiang

Keywords TOPSIS · MCDM · optimism coefficient · IFWA operator ·

investment

1 Introduction

Multi-criteria decision making(MCDM) is one of the predominant models to

manage conflict information. It is widely used to rank alternatives or select the
optimal one[8] with respect to several concerned criteria, such diverse field-
s as economics[32, 18], manufacture[33,34,38], management [2, 35], and mili-
tary[25]. The method of VIKOR (VIseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompro-
misno Resenje) and TOPSIS are regarded as two applicable techniques to be
implemented in MCDM problem. They are both based on an aggregating func-
tion representing ”closeness to the ideal”, which originated in the compromise
programming method. In VIKOR linear normalization and in TOPSIS vec-
tor normalization are used to eliminate the units of criterion functions[30].
However, TOPSIS only select the alternative which has the relatively close
distance from the PIS, but relatively far distance from NIS. VIKOR only com-
pute the optimal point which has the shortest distance from PIS and overlook
the distance from NIS. Thus, these two methods have limits in reflecting the
weights of distances from PIS and NIS. And an extensional TOPSIS model,
which combines and expands the physical means of TOPSIS and VIKOR, is
constituted to overcome these drawbacks.

The foundation for VIKOR which also known as compromise solution method
was established by Yu[52] and Zeleny[54]. Tong et. al[39] and opricovic et. al[31]
later advocated the VIKOR method and interpreted the physical meaning of
it. Ma et. al[28] combined the entropy function and AHP to improve VIKOR
algorithm. And Sanayei et. al[36] generalized the VIKOR method into fuzzy
environment. From then on, Devi[11] applied the intuitionistic fuzzy VIKOR
method to solve a robot selection problem. Yang[51] proposed an information
security risk-control assessment model that could improve information security
for companies and organizations based on VIKOR method. Recently, Huang
et. al[15] presented a hybrid VIKOR method to enhance a company’s core
competitiveness.

TOPSIS is presented by Hwang and Yoon[16]. Initially, Tsaur et. al[41] trans-
formed the fuzzy MCDM problem into crisp one and then solved the nonfuzzy
MCDM problem via the method of TOPSIS. Afterwards, Jahanshahloo et.
al[17] extended the TOPSIS method to decision-making problems with interval
data. Chu[6,7] first derived the membership function of the weighted ratings
in a decision matrix. Triantaphyllou and Lin[40] presented a fuzzy TOPSIS
method based on fuzzy arithmetic operations and the analytic hierarchy pro-
cess, which leads to a fuzzy relative closeness for each alternative. Then, Wang
Extension of TOPSIS method and its application in investment 3

and Chen introduced interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets to overcome the

drawbacks of standard TOPSIS. Because of the excellent feature of fuzzy set
in addressing ambiguous information[24,49, 19], Walczak and Rutkowska[42]
used the fuzzy TOPSIS method to order preference in a participatory bud-
get. Hu [Link][14] developed the TOPSIS method to identify influential nodes
in complex networks. Deng et. al proposed a novel fuzzy dempster MCDM
method for supply selection[23,55]. Lu et. al[27] presented the method of in-
terval 2-tuple induced TOPSIS to select the best treatment technology for
HCW(Health-Care waste). Afsordegan et. al[1] modified the TOPSIS method
by qualitative linguistic labels to select qualitative linguistic labels. Due to the
efficiency to modelling uncertainty [57,43,29], TOPSIS is also extended by D
numbers [12,45,56, 9] and belief function[10,22,44].

Opricovic et. al[30] compared the the method of VIKOR with TOPSIS from
the aggregating function they based on and had pointed out the restrictions
of them. Further more, Abbas et. al[4] had given the scope of application of
VIKOR and TOPSIS and they modified VIKOR to derive preference order of
open pit mines equipment. According to the comparative analysis of VIKOR
and TOPSIS, a conclusion can be summarized that the optimal point is com-
puted based on the particular measure of ”closeness” to the positive ideal solu-
tion in VIKOR. Therefore, the objective of VIKOR is to search the alternative
which can create the maximum profit but the risk of the process is ignored[37].
Besides, the basic principle of TOPSIS is that the chosen alternative should
have the ”shortest distance” from PIS and the ”farthest distance” from NIS.
In this case, it is suitable for the DM who likes to have a decision which not
only makes as much profits as possible, but also avoid as much risk as possible.
However, it is demonstrated that the alternative which chosen by traditional
TOPSIS method is the compromise solution of the PIS and NIS, which means
DMs give the same weights to the distances from the two points[30]. In order
to satisfy the requirements of various applications and overcome the restriction
of traditional TOPSIS, an extensional TOPSIS method is proposed. The core
mean of the presented method is distributing the appropriate weight to the
two distances(D+ and D− ). The weight is defined as optimism coefficient(κ).
When κ is assigned diverse values, it suggests different choices of DMs. This
point is the mainly difference between the extensional TOPSIS and standard
TOPSIS. For example, in investment, if κ = 0, it means that DMs put the
factor of profit in the first location and don’t care the risk of the project. The
choosen alternative is called hazard solution. If κ = 2, it means that the pri-
mary thing is to ensure the safety of the capital and risk should decrease to
the lowest level. If κ = 1, the presented method regresses to standard TOPSIS
method. The detailed certification and interpretation are shown in section 4
and subsection 5.3.

Judging from the evidence discussed above, we can arrive at the conclusion
that the conventional TOPSIS method is so rigid that can not reflect the DM’s
attitude toward risk and profit. However, an optimism coefficient is added to
4 Huang and Jiang

the proposed method and it is valid to describe the diverse properties in differ-
ent practical issues. For instance, in order to ensure the safety of patients, the
risk degree should be reduced to the lowest level when selecting armariums and
this prerequisite can be implemented by decreasing the value of optimism co-
efficient. What’s more, DMs can also increase the value of optimism coefficient
to select the lucrative alternative in investment. To sum up, the extensional
TOPSIS method contains the principles of VIKOR and TOPSIS. It is more u-
niversal in addressing conflict information and evaluating the optimal solution
from all of the feasible alternatives.

The remainder of this paper is set out as follows: Section 2 briefly introduces
the concepts of intuitionistic fuzzy sets and the IFWA operator. Section 3
contains the frame of the MCDM model and the proposed method is listed
step by step. The restrictions of traditional TOPSIS method and the physical
meanings of optimism coefficient are analysed in section 4. In Section 5.1, a
numerical example is given to illustrate the efficiency and reasonableness of the
proposed approach, and a comparative analysis is conducted when optimism
coefficient(κ) is given diverse values. What’more, the core conclusions obtained
by investment example are listed in section 5.2. The discovered limitations and
the modified plan in our future works are shown in section 6. Some summary
remarks are given in Section 7.

2 Preliminaries

2.1 Intuitionistic fuzzy sets

Intuitionistic fuzzy set(IFS) introduced by Atanassov[3] is an extension of the

classical fuzzy set presented by Zadeh[53], which is an effective method to solve
the problem under uncertain environment. The concept of IFS is defined as
follows:

Definition 1 Let X be a fixed set, if µA (x) : X → [0, 1] and νA (x) : X →

[0, 1] satisfied:

x ∈ X 7→ µA (x) ∈ [0, 1]
x ∈ X 7→ νA (x) ∈ [0, 1] and (1)
0 ≤ µA (x) + νA (x) ≤ 1,

then an IFS A in X can be denoted as:

A = {⟨x, µA (x), νA (x)⟩|x ∈ X} (2)

Extension of TOPSIS method and its application in investment 5

where µA (x) and νA (x) are membership function and nonmembership function
respectively.

The numbers µA (x) and νA (x) denote, repectively, the degree of membership
and the degree of nonmembership of the element x to A, for all x ∈ X,
additionally, πA (x) = 1 − µA (x) − νA (x) is called the hesitation degree of
x ∈ A, representing the degree of hesitancy of x to A. It is obvious that
0 ≤ πA (x) ≤ 1, ∀x ∈ X. If the value of πA (x) is small, then the value of x
is more certain; Contrarily, if the value of πA (x) is large, then the knowledge
about x is more certain. When µA = 1−νA (x), for all elements of the universe,
the IFS reduces to a classical fuzzy set; When µA (x) = 1 − νA (x) = 1 or
νA (x) = 1 − µA (x) = 0, the IFS regresses to a crisp set. In this case, crisp sets
and fuzzy sets can be seen as special cases of IFS.

For an IFS, the pair(µA (x), νA (x)) is called an intuitionistic fuzzy number(IFN)
and each IFN can be simple denoted as α = (µα , να ), where µα ∈ [0, 1] and
µα + να ≤ 1. For an IFN α = (µα , να ), if the value µα gets bigger and
the value να gets smaller, then the IFN α = (µα , να ) gets larger. Obvious-
ly, α+ = (1, 0) is the largest IFN and α− = (0, 1) is the smallest IFN. In
addition, S(α) = µα − να and H(α) = µα + να are defined the score and
accuracy degree of α, respectively.

The operational laws of IFN were first presented by Xu and Yager[48][46]. For
instance, for any two IFNs(α1 = (µα1 , να1 ), α2 = (µα2 , να2 )):

(1) α1 + α2 = (µα1 + µα2 − µα1 µα2 , να1 να2 ),

(2) α1 × α2 = (µα1 µα2 , να1 + να2 − να1 να2 ),
(3)
(3) λα = (1 − (1 − µα )λ , ναλ ), λ > 0,
(4) αλ = (µλα , 1 − (1 − να )λ ), λ > 0.

Xu and Yager[48] proposed the comparison of any two IFNs laws based on the
score and accuracy function. For any two IFNs α1 and α2 :

If S(α1 ) < S(α2 ), then α1 < α2

If S(α1 ) = S(α2 ), and
(4)
(a) If H(α1 ) < H(α2 ), then α1 < α2 ;
(b) If H(α1 ) = H(α2 ), then α1 = α2 .

Xu and Yager[47] defined the distance of IFNs to measure the deviation be-
tween two IFNs:
6 Huang and Jiang

Definition 2 Let α1 = (µα1 , να1 ) and α2 = (µα2 , να2 ) is defined as:

d(α1 , α2 ) = |α1 − α2 |
1 (5)
= (|µα1 − µα1 | + |να1 − να1 | + |πα1 − πα1 |)
2

2.2 The IFWA operator

In order to solve the MCDM problems more flexibly, Xu[46] presented the
intuitionistic fuzzy weighted averaging(IFWA) which bases on the conception
of IFNs. It is defined as follows:

Definition 3 Let Ω be the set of all IFNs and let αi = (µαi , ναi ), i =
1, 2, . . . , n be a collection of IFNs. IFWA: Ω n → Ω, if

IF W A(α1 , α2 , . . . , αn ) = w1 α1 + w2 α2 + . . . + wn αn
∏
n ∏n
(6)
= (1 − (1 − µαi )wj , (ναi )wi ). i = 1, 2, . . . , n.
i=1 i=1

then IFWA is called an intuitionistic fuzzy weighted averaging operator of

dimension n, where w = (w1 , w2 , . . . , wn )T is the weight vector of αi (i =
∑
n
1, 2, . . . , n),with wi ∈ [0.1] and wi = 1.
i=1

3 Proposed method

In the classical TOPSIS method, the core principle is to search one alterna-
tive which has the farthest distance from the negative ideal solution and the
shortest distance from the ideal solution. So, it is called ”compromise” solution
sometimes. In this section, the extended TOPSIS model will be constituted to
overcome the drawbacks of standard TOPSIS. First, the judgements of DMs
to alternatives under various criteria are always given as crisp numbers in tra-
ditional MCDM problem. In practical application, however, decision-makers
tend to give a linguistic value to determine the performance of alternatives. In
this case, the proposed method will suggest a scale of linguistic variables for
the assessment of decision-maker and the linguistic value will be transformed
into IFN. The scale of linguistic weights of decision-maker and criteria and
the transformation rules are shown in Table 2. The scale of linguistic variables
of decision-maker for criteria performance and the transformation rules are
Extension of TOPSIS method and its application in investment 7

shown in Table 3. Second, after the evaluation matrix is obtained, an optimis-

m coefficient is proposed to expand the physical meaning of the conventional
TOPSIS method. The flow chart of the proposed method is shown in Fig. 1
and the detailed procedures are elaborated step by step as follows:

Table 2 to be inserted here. Table 3 to be inserted here.

Figure 1 to be inserted here.

Step 1 Suppose that there are n decision-makers(D = {D1 , D2 , . . . , Dn }), j

alternatives (A = {A1 , A2 , . . . , Aj }) and k criteria (C1 , C2 , . . . , Ck ). First,
determine the decision matrix Di of ith decision-maker. The performances
of j alternatives under k criteria are obtain with linguistic values based on
Table 3 and it shown as below:

 Ci1 C2i · · · Ck 
A1 m11 m12 · · · mi1k
 mi21 mi22 · · · mi2k 
Di = A2  
..  .. .. . . .. 
.  . . . . 
Aj mij2 mij2 · · · mijk

Second, the linguistic weights of decision-makers and criteria can be obtain

according to Table 2.
Step 2 Transform the linguistic values into IFNs based on transformation rules
in Table (2,3). The IFN decision matrix of ith decision-maker can be trans-
formed into:

 C1 C2 · · · Ck 
A1 (µi11 , ν11
i
) (µi12 , ν12i
) · · · (µi1k , ν1k
i
)
 (µi21 , ν21
i
) (µ i
, ν i
) · · · (µi2k , ν2k
i
)
Di = A2  22 22 
..  .. .. .. . 
.  . . . .. 
Aj (µij1 , νj1
i
) (µij2 , νj2i
) · · · (µijk , νjk
i
)

Then, the weights of n decision-makers and k criteria also are IFNs. The
weights of decision-makers are denoted as: −→
w = (w1 , w2 , . . . , wn ). The
→
−
weights of k criteria are denoted as: q = (q1 , q2 , . . . , qk ). Boran et al.[5]
proposed the rule which can transform the IFN into crisp number. It is
defined as follows:
µi + πi ( µiµ+ν
i
i
)
wi = ∑
n i = 1, 2, . . . , n (7)
(µi + πi ( µiµ+νi
i
))
i=1

Hence, the crisp weights of decision-makers and criteria are calculated via
Eq. (7).
8 Huang and Jiang

Step 3 The weights of n decision-makers is obtained from Step 2 and they are
∑
n
crisp number. From the Eq. (7), a conclusion can be obtained: wj = 1.
i=1
Therefore, the assessments of the n decision-makers can be fused via IFWA
operator Eq. (6). For inatance:
1 2 n
α11 = IF W A(α11 , α11 , . . . , α11 )
Then, the n IFN decision matrix (D1 , D2 , . . . , Dn ) can be fused one(D).
It is shown as follows:
 C1 C2 · · · Ck 
A1 (µ11 , ν11 ) (µ12 , ν12 ) · · · (µ1k , ν1k )
 (µ21 , ν21 ) (µ22 , ν22 ) · · · (µ2k , ν2k ) 
D = A2  
..  .. .. .. .. 
.  . . . . 
Aj (µj1 , νj1 ) (µj2 , νj2 ) · · · (µjk , νjk )
Step 4 Calculate the intuitionistic fuzzy ideal solution and intuitionistic fuzzy
negative ideal solution of the matrix D. C + and C − are denoted as intu-
itionistic fuzzy ideal solution and intuitionistic fuzzy negative ideal solu-
tion, respectively.
−→
C + = c+
k = (max αip |p ∈ K, min αip |p ∈ K)
n n
−→ (8)
− −
C = ck = (min αip |p ∈ K, max αip |p ∈ K)
n n

where max αip and min αip can be obtained via Eq. (4). From Step 2, the
n n
weights of k criteria is: −
→
q = (q , q , . . . , q ). Hence, the intuitionstic fuzzy
1 2 k
hybrid weighted Euclidean distance of αip to positive ideal solution(D+ )
and negative ideal solution(D− ) can be obtain based on Eq. (5):
v
u k
u∑
Di+ = t qi × (d(αip , c+
p ))
2 p = 1, 2, . . . , k

p=1
v (9)
u k
u∑
Di = t
−
qi × (d(αip , c−
p ))
2 p = 1, 2, . . . , k
p=1

Step 5 Calculate the relative closeness coefficient of each alternative. In tradi-

tional TOPSIS method, the relative closeness coefficient reflects the relative
distance far from positive ideal solution and negative ideal solution. In this
case, the relative closeness coefficient is the ”comprise” solution. In this
paper, we definite the relative closeness coefficient as follows:
(D− )κ
RC + = (10)
(2 − κ)D+ + κD−
where κ is called optimism coefficient(0 ≤ κ ≤ 2). The criteria of selecting
optimism coefficient is shown in Table 4. The physical meanings of κ will
be discussed in next section.
Extension of TOPSIS method and its application in investment 9

Table 4 to be inserted here.

4 Model analysis

4.1 Model interpretation

First, we will discuss the superiority of intuitionistic fuzzy set. Crisp number
can not express the judgement of decision-maker precisely since the given
assessment is a linguistic variable. For instance, the judgement of DM1 to A1
under C1 is ”Low”. But what is the importance degree of ”Low”? Is it 0.3? It
may also be 0.29 or 0.31. Accordingly, crisp number has some limitations in
describing the ambiguous phenomenon. Intuitionistic fuzzy set, however, can
describe the ambiguous phenomenon accurately via the membership function
and nonmembership function. What’s more, hesitation function of IFN can
indicate the hesitation degree of DM rather than fuzzy number(FN).

Table 5 to be inserted here.

Second, in classical TOPSIS, the relative closeness coefficient is defined as

follows:
D−
RC + = + (11)
D + D−
The core principle of RC + is to choose one alternative which has the shortest
distance from the positive ideal solution and the farthest distance from neg-
ative ideal solution. However, when the alternative has the shortest distance
from positive ideal solution, will it have the farthest distance from negative
solution meanwhile? The answer is uncertain. For example, in Table 5, alter-
native 1 has the shortest distance from positive ideal solution and alternative 3
has the farthest distance from negative ideal solution. However, the chosen one
is alternative 2 by Eq. (11). In this case, alternative 2 is called ”compromise”
solution in classical TOPSIS. In order to make the TOPSIS method more uni-
versal and flexible, this paper proposed the concept of optimism coefficient(κ)
to define the relative closeness. In real application, taking the invest company
as an example, some decision-makers think profit is primary and they can un-
dertake the risk when they pursue the maximal profit. Some decision-makers
are conservative when they make a decision. They think the profit is subordi-
nate and the primary thing is that getting the rid of risk and insuring the fund
security. However, others may think that not only it is important to pursuit
profit, but we should refrain risk in the investment process as well as possible.
Therefore, the optimum solution in different decision-makers is different and
the optimism coefficient(κ) can satisfy the need of various applications. The
core mean of optimism coefficient(κ) is giving weights to D+ and D− .
10 Huang and Jiang

– if 0 ≤ κ < 1, that indicate that pursuing profit is vital. With the decreasing
of κ, the attitude of decision maker is becoming more intense. When κ = 0,
Eq. (10) regresses to:
1
RC + = (12)
2D+
It reflects that primary aim of the decision-makes is to pursuit profit and
they don’t consider the risk. It is defined as hazard solution.
– if κ = 1. Eq. (10) regresses to Eq. (5) which is the traditional TOPSIS
method. It is the ”compromise” solution of risk and profit.
– if 1 < κ ≤ 2, that indicates that getting rid of risk is more important than
pursuit profit. When κ = 0, Eq. (10) regresses to:

D−
RC + = (13)
2
That means the primary aim of the decision-make is to get rid of risk and
they don’t consider the profit of the invest. It is defined as conservative
solution.

4.2 Sensitivity analysis of the proposed model

In this section, the stability of the proposed model is discussed in detail. The
case of the rotor blades which presented in subsection 5.2 is used for illustrating
the property of the proposed model in restraining external noise. Firstly, in
subsection 5.2, one of the fundamental assumes is that the weights of 3 experts
are equal([1/3, 1/3, 1/3]) and the rank of 17 failures is listed in Table 11. Next,
the weights of 3 experts are changed into [0.37, 0.30, 0.33] and the rank is shown
in Fig. 2. Compared with the two different weights, only the rankings of failure
4 and failure 7 have exchanged and other failure’s rankings have no change.
Table 11 to be inserted here. Figure 2 to be inserted here.

Secondly, in the subsection 5.2, judging from the traits of the rotor blades, the
value of optimism coefficient is 0.66 and the computed results are shown in
Table 11. Next, the value of optimism coefficient is changed into 0.70 and the
rank of 17 failures is shown in Fig. 3. Compared with the two different optimism
coefficients, only the rankings of failure 12 and failure 14 have exchanged and
other failure’s rankings have no change.

Figure 3 to be inserted here.

Therefore, according to the evidence in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, a conclusion can

be safely obtained that the proposed TOPSIS model can output reasonable
results when parameters slight change. That’s to say, the modified TOPSIS
model is stable.
 Extension of TOPSIS method and its application in investment 11

5 Illustrative example and discussion

5.1 Illustrative example of investment

In this subsection, an example of an invest company will be used to demon-

strated the validity of the proposed method.

The invest corporation has a tranche of funding for investing. There are 6
alternatives want to get the investment. The corporation has built 6 criteria
for alternatives:

1. The practicability of the business plan.

2. The background and ability of the group.
3. The size and potential of the chosen market.
4. The rate of return of the investing.
5. Alternative’s service performance - the ongoing improvement of the prod-
uct and service.
6. The level of management of the alternative.

Step 1 Determine the performance matrix of 6 alternatives by linguistic values.

The weights of the 6 criteria are shown in Table 1. Additionally, there
are 4 DMs and they have given their assessments to the performance of
the 6 alternatives with linguistic variables. What’s more, the 4 DMs have
different weights evaluated by the factors of experience, status, ability and
so on. The assessments and the weights of the 4 DMs are shown in Table
1. Table 1 to be inserted here.
Step 2 Transform the linguistic values into IFNs based on transformation rules in
Table (2,3). Then, transform the weight of DMs which are IFNs into crisp
weight by Eq. (7). The results are shown in Table 6.
Table 6 to be inserted here.
Step 3 Fuse the assessments of the 4 DMs by IFWA operate(Eq. (6)). For example:
to alternative 1,
1 2 3 4
α11 = IF W A(α11 , α11 , α11 , α11 )
= IF W A((0.30, 0.65), (0.10, 0.85), (0.50, 0.50), (0.30, 0.65))
= (0.3140, 0.6509)
The others are shown in Table 7.
Table 7 to be inserted here.
Step 4 Calculate the intuitionistic fuzzy ideal solution(C + ) and intuitionistic fuzzy
negative ideal(C − ) solution of the matrix D by Eq. (8). Then, calculate
the intuitionstic fuzzy hybrid weighted Euclidean distance to positive ideal
solution(D+ ) and negative ideal solution(D− ) of each alternative by Eq.
(9).
 12 Huang and Jiang

Step 5 Calculate the relative closeness coefficient of each alternative. Table 7 can
be regarded as an IFN decision matrix which the 6 alternatives can be
ranked by the proposed extensional TOPSIS method. When κ takes dif-
ferent step values(with increasing of 0.25) in Eq. (10). The rank of the 6
alternatives are shown in Table 8.
Table 8 to be inserted here.

5.2 Application analysis of the proposed model to the rotor blades of an

aircraft turbine

Admittedly, failure mode and effect analysis(FMEA) and fault diagnosis[20,

21] are typical MCDM problems. Therefore, the modified TOPSIS method
can be naturally applied in FMEA. In this subsection, the FMEA case of
rotor blades for an aircraft turbine is analysed to demonstrate the validity of
the proposed method in the field of engineering[50].

The rotor blades consist of two different subsystems: the compressor rotor
blades and the turbo rotor blades. In Table 9, there are eight potential failures
of the compressor rotor blades and nine potential failures of the turbo rotors
which caused by fracture and other factors. Under the FMEA framework, three
experts are inverted to evaluate the risk degree of each failure by IFN and the
weight of each criteria and expert is considered equal. The evaluations of 3
experts to 17 failures are listed in Table 10.

Table 9 to be inserted here. Table 10 to be inserted here.

Judging from the results computed by the proposed method(Table 11,κ =

0.66), failure 9 has the high risk degree and it is coincident with the result
computed by Yang’s method. Furthermore, the rank of 17 failures is similar
with Yang’s rank. Nevertheless failure 10, 13, 14 have the same risk priority
number(60) computed by Yang’s method and the risk degree of failure 10, 13,
14 can not be discriminated. As clearly shown in Table 11, however, the rank
of failure 10, 13, 14 is 10 ≻ 14 ≻ 13 computed by the proposed method. In this
case, we can safely arrive at the conclusion that the modified TOPSIS method
is more universal than Yang’ method in failure analysis.
Extension of TOPSIS method and its application in investment 13

5.3 Discusssion

The rank of the 6 alternatives is shown in Fig. 4 to describe the variation

tendency of alternatives more intuitively under different optimism coefficient
κ. From the dates of Fig. 4, some conclusions can be summarized:

Figure 4 to be inserted here.

1. Under different conditions, decision-makes may have different attitudes to-

ward the same event and the optimum solution of the event is different. In
this paper, taking investment company as example, some decision-makes
put the profit in the primary location(This attitude is reflected when κ
is small). In this case, the optimum solution calculated by the proposed
model is alternative 3. Some decision-makes think they should pay the ut-
most attention to the safety of capital fund in the investing process(This
attitude is reflected when κ is small). Accordingly, the optimum solution is
alternative 2. Besides, other decision-makers tend to balance the relation-
ship of profit and risk. The risk in the investing process should reduce to
low level as well as possible when pursuing profit(This attitude is reflected
when κ closes to 1). The optimum solution to them is alternative 1.
2. The solution calculated by traditional method is ”compromise” solution
which means that the chosen alternative may not have the farthest dis-
tance to the negative ideal solution when it has the closest distance to
the positive ideal solution or it may not have the closest distance to the
positive ideal solution when it has the farthest distance to negative ideal
solution. Sometimes, not only has it not the closest distance to the positive
ideal solution, but also it not has the closest distance to the ideal solution.
It is the compromise of the two distances which link to the positive ideal
solution and the negative ideal solution, which can be demonstrated by the
rankings of alternative 1, alternative 2,and alternative 3 since alternative
2 has the farthest distance to the negative ideal solution and the alterna-
tive3 has the closest distance to the positive ideal solution, however, the
optimum solution calculated by the traditional method is alternative 1.
3. Profit and risk have the property of incompatibility. If the investors pursue
the maximum profit in the investing process, they have to undertake the
highest risk. Contrarily, if the aim of the investors is to reduce the risk to
the lowest level, the expense of profit will be the price of their attitude. For
instance, when κ = 0, the ranking of alternative 3 is NO.1 and the ranking
of alternative 2 is NO.6, that means return rate of alternative 3 is high
and alternative 2 is low. However, when κ = 2, the ranking of alternative
3 is NO.6 and the ranking of alternative 2 is NO.1, that means the risk
of alternative 3 is high and alternative 2 is low. In this case, a conclusion
can be obtained that the high profit is accompanied by the high risk and
14 Huang and Jiang

the low risk will damage the proceed of the investing. The relationship of
profit and risk is shown as Fig. 5.

Figure 5 to be inserted here.

5.4 Limitations and future works

In this paper, the way we get the value of optimism coefficient(κ) is based on
the experience of DMs and it may have some minor deviations compared with
the practical situation. Therefore, a computable method about optimism coef-
ficient is planned to study in the future work. Meanwhile, the centrality of this
paper is to expand the scope of application of TOPSIS. For the convenience of
calculation, the marking of DMs may be crude comparing with the methods
which mainly about the expert system and the problem will also be improved
in the future work.

6 Conclusions

In this paper, an extensional TOPSIS method is proposed based on tradi-

tional TOPSIS method and it is applied to an example of investment. In the
presented model, an optimism coefficient is defined to expand the physical
meaning of the standard TOPSIS. Decision-makers(DMs) can describe their
attitudes toward risk and profit by changing the value of optimism coefficient.
Furthermore, intuitionistic fuzzy number (IFN) is introduced to measure the
evaluations(linguistic values) of DMs to alternatives under diverse criteria. In-
tuitionistic fuzzy weighted averaging (IFWA) operator is used for fusing the
judgements of all DMs. Therefore, the proposed method is superior to other
methods since the follow reasons:

– Intuitionistic fuzzy number can describe the judgements of DMs more ap-
propriate than crisp number and fuzzy number which used in other TOPSIS
methods.
– The proposed method includes the advantages of the traditional TOPSIS
method(When κ = 1, the presented model degrades into traditional model.
Proofed in section 4). What’s more, based on the date analysis in subsection
5.3, the presented model can calculate the optimum solution when the DMs
have different attitudes toward risk and profit. However, other TOPSIS
methods don’t have the universal property.
Extension of TOPSIS method and its application in investment 15

– Compared with Yang’s method, the proposed method can rank the failures
which can not be ranked by Yang’ method.

In conclusion, the proposed method is both simple and convenient in deal with
MCDM problems. Therefore, there are broad prospects to apply it in the field
of economics, management, military and so on.

7 Acknowledgment

The work is partially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of

China (Grant No. 61671384), Natural Science Basic Research Plan in Shaanxi
Province of China (Program No. 2016JM6018), Aviation Science Foundation
(Program No. 20165553036), the Fund of Shanghai Aerospace Science and
Technology SAST(Program No. SAST2016083), the Seed Foundation of In-
novation and Creation for Graduate Students in Northwestern Polytechnical
University (Program No. Z2017142).
16 Huang and Jiang

Table 1 Linguistic ratings for criteria performances and the weights of decision-makers and
criteria.
Performance C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
VI MI I I MI I

DM1 (VI) Alternative1 L H H H M H

Alternative2 H M H M VH M
Alternative3 M H M M H H
Alternative4 M M H M H M
Alternative5 H VH H M H M
Alternative6 L H H H H H

DM2 (I) Alternative1 VL M M H H M

Alternative2 H H H H H H
Alternative3 L M M M M M
Alternative4 M M H M H M
Alternative5 M H VH H H M
Alternative6 L H H M M H

DM3 (I) Alternative1 M H H M H H

Alternative2 H VH H M VH H
Alternative3 M M M L H M
Alternative4 H H M M H M
Alternative5 L VH VH H H H
Alternative6 H L L H M M

DM4 (MI) Alternative1 L H M H H H

Alternative2 H VH H H VH H
Alternative3 M H M M M M
Alternative4 M H H H H H
Alternative5 M H H M H M
Alternative6 M H M H VH H

Table 2 Transform rules of linguistic variables of decision-maker and criteria weight rat-
ings[13]

Linguistic terms IFNs

Of little important(LI) (0.10,0.85)
Moderately important(MI) (0.30,0.65)
Important(I) (0.50,0.50)
Very important(VI) (0.75,0.20)
Absolutely important(AI) (0.90,0.05)

Table 3 Transform rules of linguistic variables of decision-maker for criteria performance

of alternative[26]

Linguistic terms IFNs

Very low(VL) (0.10,0.85)
Low(L) (0.30,0.65)
Moderate(M) (0.50,0.50)
High(H) (0.75,0.20)
Very high(VH) (0.90,0.05)
Extension of TOPSIS method and its application in investment 17

Table 4 The criteria of selecting optimism coefficient

Decision-maker’ judgement optimism coefficient(κ)

Maximum profit (disregard risk) 2
Tend to pursue profit (1,2)
The compromise solution of risk and profit 1
Tend to evade risk (0,1)
Minimum risk (disregard profit) 0

Table 5 Example of the performance of three alternatives

D+ D− RC +

Alternative1 0.1 0.6 0.8571

Alternative2 0.2 0.8 0.8886
Alternative3 0.3 0.9 0.7500

Table 6 IFNs for criteria performances and the weights of decision-makers and criteria.
Performance C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
Weights (0.75,0.20) (0.30,0.65) (0.50,0.50) (0.50,0.50) (0.3,0.65) (0.50,0.50)

DM1 Alternative1 (0.30,0.65) (0.75,0.20) (0.75,0.20) (0.75,0.20) (0.5,0.5) (0.75,0.20)

(0.75,0.20) Alternative2 (0.75,0.20) (0.50,0.50) (0.75,0.20) (0.50,0.50) (0.90,0.05) (0.50,0.50)
⇕ Alternative3 (0.50,0.50) (0.75,0.20) (0.50,0.50) (0.50,0.50) (0.75,0.20) (0.75,0.20)
0.375 Alternative4 (0.50,0.50) (0.50,0.50) (0.75,0.20) (0.50,0.50) (0.75,0.20) (0.50,0.50)
Alternative5 (0.75,0.20) (0.90,0.05) (0.75,0.20) (0.50,0.50) (0.75,0.20) (0.50,0.50)
Alternative6 (0.30,0.65) (0.75,0.20) (0.75,0.20) (0.75,0.20) (0.75,0.20) (0.75,0.20)

DM2 Alternative1 (0.10,0.85) (0.50,0.50) (0.50,0.50) (0.75,0.20) (0.75,0.20) (0.50,0.50)

(0.50,0.50) Alternative2 (0.75,0.20) (0.75,0.20) (0.75,0.20) (0.75,0.20) (0.75,0.20) (0.75,0.20)
⇕ Alternative3 (0.30,0.65) (0.50,0.50) (0.50,0.50) (0.50,0.50) (0.50,0.50) (0.50,0.50)
0.2375 Alternative4 (0.50,0.50) (0.50,0.50) (0.75,0.20) (0.50,0.50) (0.75,0.20) (0.50,0.50)
Alternative5 (0.50,0.50) (0.75,0.20) (0.90,0.05) (0.75,0.20) (0.75,0.20) (0.50,0.50)
Alternative6 (0.30,0.65) (0.75,0.20) (0.75,0.20) (0.50,0.50) (0.50,0.50) (0.75,0.20)

DM3 Alternative1 (0.50,0.50) (0.75,0.20) (0.75,0.20) (0.50,0.50) (0.75,0.20) (0.75,0.20)

(0.50,0.50) Alternative2 (0.75,0.20) (0.90,0.05) (0.75,0.20) (0.50,0.50) (0.90,0.05) (0.75,0.20)
⇕ Alternative3 (0.50,0.50) (0.50,0.50) (0.50,0.50) (0.30,0.65) (0.75,0.20) (0.50,0.50)
0.2375 Alternative4 (0.75,0.20) (0.75,0.20) (0.50,0.50) (0.50,0.50) (0.75,0.20) (0.50,0.50)
Alternative5 (0.30,0.65) (0.90,0.05) (0.90,0.05) (0.75,0.20) (0.75,0.20) (0.75,0.20)
Alternative6 (0.75,0.20) (0.30,0.65) (0.30,0.65) (0.75,0.20) (0.50,0.50) (0.50,0.50)

DM4 Alternative1 (0.30,0.65) (0.75,0.20) (0.50,0.50) (0.75,0.20) (0.75,0.20) (0.75,0.20)

(0.30,0.65) Alternative2 (0.75,0.20) (0.90,0.05) (0.75,0.20) (0.75,0.20) (0.90,0.05) (0.75,0.20)
⇕ Alternative3 (0.50,0.50) (0.75,0.20) (0.50,0.50) (0.50,0.50) (0.50,0.50) (0.50,0.50)
0.1500 Alternative4 (0.50,0.50) (0.75,0.20) (0.75,0.20) (0.75,0.20) (0.75,0.20) (0.75,0.20)
Alternative5 (0.50,0.50) (0.75,0.20) (0.75,0.20) (0.50,0.50) (0.75,0.20) (0.50,0.50)
Alternative6 (0.50,0.50) (0.75,0.20) (0.50,0.50) (0.75,0.20) (0.90,0.05) (0.75,0.20)

Table 7 The result of fusing the four decision-make’s judgement(IFNs) by IFWA operator

Performance C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
Weights 0.2702 0.1081 0.1712 0.1712 0.1081 0.1712

Alternative1 (0.3140,0.6509) (0.7053,0.2486) (0.7053,0.2486) (0.7053,0.2486) (0.6758,0.2820) (0.7053,0.2486)

Alternative2 (0.7500,0.2000) (0.7727,0.1648) (0.7500,0.2000) (0.6178,0.3506) (0.8757,0.0695) (0.6758,0.2820)
Alternative3 (0.4584,0.5322) (0.6525,0.3091) (0.5000,0.5000) (0.4584,0.5322) (0.6730,0.2853) (0.6144,0.3546)
Alternative4 (0.5759,0.4022) (0.6178,0.3506) (0.7053,0.2486) (0.5494,0.4358) (0.7500,0.2000) (0.5494,0.4358)
Alternative5 (0.5824,0.3774) (0.8574,0.0856) (0.8382,0.1035) (0.6403,0.3236) (0.7500,0.2000) (0.5759,0.4022)
Alternative6 (0.4788,0.4723) (0.6807,0.2646) (0.6458,0.3036) (0.7053,0.2486) (0.6971,0.2510) (0.7053,0.2486)
18 Huang and Jiang

Table 8 The rank of the 6 alternatives under step κ values

κ 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00

Alternative1 2 2 2 2 1 1 4 4 5
Alternative2 6 6 6 6 3 3 1 1 1
Alternative3 1 1 1 1 5 5 6 6 6
Alternative4 3 4 4 4 6 6 5 5 4
Alternative5 5 5 5 5 4 4 2 2 2
Alternative6 4 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3

Table 9 FMEA for the rotor blades of an aircraft turbine

Item Component Failure mode Major reason to the failure Failure effect Alarm
Low yield strength caused by
the improper material and heat
Compressor treatment technology,low blade
1 Deformation Replace blade Yes
rotor blades strength caused by over-temperature,
high centrifugal stress caused by
engine over-speed
The thermal fatigue, corrosion pit
Compressor
2 Crack and blade wound by foreign Replace blade Yes
rotor blades
objects, improper material
The improper material, crack,
Damage the
Compressor corrosion,low intensity caused by
3 Fracture engine, endanger No
rotor blades improper heat treatment, high
the flight safety
local stress
The oxygen and impurities in
Compressor
4 Corrosion high temperature gas, imperfect Replace blade Yes
rotor blades
surface of blade
The improper material, low intensity
caused by improper heat treatment, Replace blade
Compressor Blade tip
5 horizontal high frequency alternating and engine Yes
rotor blades wear
load, vertical low-frequency casing
centrifugal load,
The low blade strength caused
Compressor
6 Deflection by over-temperature, high centrifugal Replace blade Yes
rotor blades
stress caused by engine over-speed
Compressor Guideway The improper material, the thermal
7 Replace blade No
rotor blades crack tress and centrifugal stress,
Injured by
Compressor Foreign objects of Inhalation of
8 foreign Replace blade No
rotor blades inlet channel
objects
Broke the
High-cycle
Turbo The torsional resonance caused by engine, endanger
9 intrigue No
rotor blades design and technology factors the flight
fracture
safety
Damage the
Low-cycle
Turbo Low intensity caused by improper engine, endanger
10 intrigue No
rotor blades heat treatment the flight
fracture
safety
The blades is over-heating Damage the
Turbo Intergranular because the engine is over- engine, endanger
11 No
rotor blades fracture temperature caused by the flight
unreasonable use safety
The failure resistance is reduced Damage the
Creep
Turbo because recrystallization of local engine, endanger
12 fatigue No
rotor blades part of blades occurs and additional the flight
fracture
stress increases caused by assembly safety
Fatigue The surface coating is desquamated
Turbo
13 creep by the thermal tress and Replace blade No
rotor blades
fracture centrifugal stress
The fracture
The reason is poorly design, Damage the
of combining
Turbo high local stress, the large engine, endanger
14 high cycle No
rotor blades gap of blade crown and the flight
and low
high vibration stress safety
cycle fatigue
High thermal stress, the thermal
Turbo
15 Crack fatigue, corrosion pit and blade Replace blade Yes
rotor blades
wound by foreign objects and
The oxygen and impurities in
Turbo
16 Corrosion high temperature gas, the loss Replace blade Yes
rotor blades
of corrosion resistant materials
Low yield strength caused by
the improper material and heat
Turbo treatment technology, low blade
17 Deformation Replace blade Yes
rotor blades strength caused by over temperature,
high centrifugal stress caused by
engine over-speed
Extension of TOPSIS method and its application in investment 19

Table 10 Evaluation information on 17 failure modes by three experts.

Item Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3

O S D O S D O S D
1 L H VL L H VL L H L
2 VL H M VL H L VL H M
3 VL VH L VL H L VL VH L
4 VL M L VL L L VL M M
5 VL L VL VL L VL VL L VL
6 VL M M VL M L VL M L
7 VL H L VL H L VL H VL
8 L M L L M VL L M VL
9 VL VH H VL VH M VL VH H
10 VL VH H L VH L VL VH M
11 VL H M VL H M VL VH M
12 L VH M VL VH M VL VH M
13 VL H M VL VH M VL H M
14 VL VH L VL VH L VL VH M
15 VL H L VL H L VL H L
16 VL L L L L L VL M L
17 VL L L VL M L VL M L

Table 11 The rank of the 17 failure modes computed by Yang’s method and the proposed
method

f ailuremode 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Yang’method 10 2 12 15 17 3 14 16 1
The proposed method 11 8 5 14 17 12 10 13 1
f ailuremode 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Yang’method 4 8 9 5 6 11 13 7
The proposed method 2 6 4 7 3 9 16 15

Determine the decision-makes(DMs) and

criteria

Give weight(linguistic value) to each DM and

criteria and determine the value of optimism
coefficient

DMs give their assessments to each

alternative

Optimism The weight of

Transform the linguistic values into IFNs
coefficient each DM

Fuse the n decision matrixes to by

IFWA operator

Calculate the ideal solution(( ) and the

negative ideal solution(
n(( ) of decision matrix

Calculate the Euclidean distance

distan of each
alternative from a
and

Calculate the relative closeness coefficient of

each alternative and rank them

Fig. 1 The proposed TOPSIS method

20 Huang and Jiang

w=[1/3,1/3,1/3]

w=[0.37,0.30,0.33]
18

16

14

12

10

Rank 8

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Failure mode

Fig. 2 The rank of 17 failures computed by different weights of 3 experts

0.66

0.70

18

16

14

12

10
Rank

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Failure mode

Fig. 3 The rank of 17 failures computed by different optimism coefficients

6
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
5.5
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
5
Alternative 5
The ranks of the 6 alternatives

Alternative 6
4.5

3.5

2.5

1.5

1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
The step values of optimism coefficient

Fig. 4 The ranks of the 6 alternatives

Extension of TOPSIS method and its application in investment 21

2
Profit decrease

Risk decrease
1

Fig. 5 The relationship of profit and risk

References

1. Afsordegan, A., Snchez, M., Agell, N., Zahedi, S., Cremades, L.V.: Decision making
under uncertainty using a qualitative topsis method for selecting sustainable energy
alternatives. International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology 13(6), 1–14
(2016)
2. Arasteh, A., Aliahmadi, A.: A multi-stage multi criteria model for portfolio manage-
ment. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering 39(5), 4269–4283 (2014)
3. Atanassov, K.T.: Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets & Systems 20(1), 87–96 (1986)
4. Bazzazi, A.A., Osanloo, M., Karimi, B.: Deriving preference order of open pit mines
equipment through madm methods: Application of modified vikor method. Expert
Systems with Applications 38(3), 2550–2556 (2011)
5. Boran, F.E., Genc, S., Kurt, M., Akay, D.: A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group
decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method. Expert Systems With
Applications 36(8), 11,363–11,368 (2009)
6. Chu, T.: Facility location selection using fuzzy topsis under gropu decision. International
Journal of Uncertainty Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 10(6), 687–701 (2012)
7. Chu, T.C.: Selecting plant location via a fuzzy topsis approach. International Journal
of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 20(20), 859–864 (2002)
8. Debnath, A., Majumder, M., Pal, M.: Potential of Fuzzy-ELECTRE MCDM in Eval-
uation of Cyanobacterial Toxins Removal Methods. Arabian Journal For Science And
Engineering 41(10), 3931–3944 (2016)
9. Deng, X., Jiang, W., Zhang, J.: Zero-sum matrix game with payoffs of Dempster-Shafer
belief structures and its applications on sensors. Sensors 17(4), Article ID 922 (2017).
DOI 10.3390/s17040922
10. Deng, X., Xiao, F., Deng, Y.: An improved distance-based total uncertainty measure
in belief function theory. Applied Intelligence pp. In Press, DOI: 10.1007/s10,489–016–
0870–3 (2017)
11. Devi, K.: Extension of vikor method in intuitionistic fuzzy environment for robot selec-
tion. Expert Systems with Applications 38(11), 14,163–14,168 (2011)
12. Fei, L., Hu, Y., Xiao, F., Chen, L., Deng, Y.: A Modified TOPSIS Method Based on D
Numbers and Its Applications in Human Resources Selection. Mathematical Problems
In Engineering (2016). DOI 10.1155/2016/6145196
22 Huang and Jiang

13. Guo, S., Zhao, H., Yan, J.: Optimal site selection of electric vehicle charging station by
using fuzzy topsis based on sustainability perspective. Applied Energy 158, 390–402
(2015)
14. Hu, J., Du, Y., Mo, H., Wei, D., Deng, Y.: A modified weighted topsis to identify influ-
ential nodes in complex networks. Physica A Statistical Mechanics & Its Applications
444, 73–85 (2016)
15. Huang, K.W., Huang, J.H., Tzeng, G.H.: New hybrid multiple attribute decision-making
model for improving competence sets: Enhancing a companys core competitiveness.
Sustainability 8(2) (2016)
16. Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K.: Multiple attribute decision making. Computer Science Univer-
sity of Southampton Uk Her 186 (1995)
17. Jahanshahloo, G.R., Lotfi, F.H., Izadikhah, M.: An algorithmic method to extend topsis
for decision-making problems with interval data. Applied Mathematics & Computation
175(2), 1375–1384 (2006)
18. Jang, W., Hong, H.U., Han, S.H., Baek, S.W.: Optimal Supply Vendor Selection Model
for LNG Plant Projects Using Fuzzy-TOPSIS Theory. Journal Of Management In
Engineering 33(2) (2017)
19. Jiang, W., Xie, C., Luo, Y., Tang, Y.: Ranking z-numbers with an improved ranking
method for generalized fuzzy numbers. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems 32(3),
1931–1943 (2017). DOI DOI:10.3233/JIFS-16139
20. Jiang, W., Xie, C., Zhuang, M., Shou, Y., Tang, Y.: Sensor data fusion with z-numbers
and its application in fault diagnosis. Sensors 16(9), 1509 (2016)
21. Jiang, W., Xie, C., Zhuang, M., Tang, Y.: Failure mode and effects analysis based on a
novel fuzzy evidential method. Applied Soft Computing 57, 672–683 (2017)
22. Jiang, W., Zhan, J.: A modified combination rule in generalized evidence theory. Applied
Intelligence 46(3), 630–640 (2017). DOI 10.1007/s10489-016-0851-6
23. Kang, B., Hu, Y., Deng, Y., Zhou, D.: A new methodology of multicriteria decision-
making in supplier selection based on d-numbers. Mathematical Problems in Engineer-
ing 2016(1), 1–17 (2016)
24. Kuo, T.: A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index. European Journal Of
Operational Research 260(1), 152–160 (2017)
25. Lin, K.P., Hung, K.C.: An efficient fuzzy weighted average algorithm for the military
uav selecting under group decision-making. Knowledge-Based Systems 24(6), 877–889
(2011)
26. Liu, H.C., You, J.X., Shan, M.M., Shao, L.N.: Failure mode and effects analysis using
intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid topsis approach. Soft Computing 19(4), 1085–1098 (2015)
27. Lu, C., You, J.X., Liu, H.C., Li, P.: Health-care waste treatment technology selection us-
ing the interval 2-tuple induced topsis method. International Journal of Environmental
Research& Public Health 13(6) (2016)
28. Ma, L., Zhang, Y., Zhao, Z.: Improved vikor algorithm based on ahp and shannon en-
tropy in the selection of thermal power enterprise’s coal suppliers. In: International
Conference on Information Management, Innovation Management and Industrial Engi-
neering, pp. 129–133 (2009)
29. Mo, H., Deng, Y.: A new aggregating operator in linguistic decision making based on d
numbers. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems
24(6), 831–846 (2016)
30. Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.H.: Compromise solution by mcdm methods: A comparative
analysis of vikor and topsis. European Journal of Operational Research 156(2), 445–
455 (2004)
31. Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.H.: Extended vikor method in comparison with outranking
methods. European Journal of Operational Research 178(2), 514–529 (2007)
32. Peng, Y., Wang, G., Kou, G., Shi, Y.: An empirical study of classification algorith-
m evaluation for financial risk prediction. Applied Soft Computing 11(2), 2906–2915
(2011)
33. Quader, M.A., Ahmed, S.: A hybrid fuzzy mcdm approach to identify critical factors
and co 2 capture technology for sustainable iron and steel manufacturing. Arabian
Journal for Science & Engineering 41(11), 1–20 (2016)
34. Rudnik, K., Kacprzak, D.: Fuzzy TOPSIS method with ordered fuzzy numbers for flow
control in a manufacturing system. Applied Soft Computing 52, 1020–1041 (2017)
Extension of TOPSIS method and its application in investment 23

35. Sadoddin, A., Sheikh, V., Mostafazadeh, R., Halili, M.G.: Analysis of vegetation-based
management scenarios using mcdm in the ramian watershed, golestan, iran. Interna-
tional Journal of Plant Production 4(1), 1735–6814 (2010)
36. Sanayei, A., Mousavi, S.F., Yazdankhah, A.: Group decision making process for supplier
selection with vikor under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications 37(1),
24–30 (2010)
37. Sayadi, M.K., Heydari, M., Shahanaghi, K.: Extension of vikor method for decision
making problem with interval numbers. Applied Mathematical Modelling 33(5), 2257–
2262 (2009)
38. Toklu, M.C., Erdem, M.B., Taskin, H.: A fuzzy sequential model for realization of
strategic planning in manufacturing firms. Computers & Industrial Engineering 102,
512–519 (2016)
39. Tong, L.I., Chen, C.C., Wang, C.H.: Optimization of multi-response processes using the
vikor method. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 31(11),
1049–1057 (2007)
40. Triantaphyllou, E., Lin, C.T.: Development and evaluation of five fuzzy multiattribute
decision-making methods. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 14(4), 281–
310 (1996)
41. Tsaur, S.H., Chang, T.Y., Yena, C.H.: The evaluation of airline service quality by fuzzy
mcdm. Tourism Management 23(2), 107–115 (2002)
42. Walczak, D., Rutkowska, A.: Project rankings for participatory budget based on the
fuzzy TOPSIS method. European Journal Of Operational Research 260(2), 706–714
(2017)
43. Wang, J., Hu, Y., Xiao, F., Deng, X., Deng, Y.: A novel method to use fuzzy soft sets in
decision making based on ambiguity measure and Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence:
An application in medical diagnosis. Artificial Intelligence In Medicine 69, 1–11 (2016)
44. Wang, J., Xiao, F., Deng, X., Fei, L., Deng, Y.: Weighted Evidence Combination Based
on Distance of Evidence and Entropy Function. International Journal of Distributed
Sensor Networks 12(7) (2016). DOI 10.1177/155014773218784
45. Wang, N., Liu, F., Wei, D.: A Modified Combination Rule for D Numbers Theory.
Mathematical Problems In Engineering (2016). DOI 10.1155/2016/3596517
46. Xu, Z.: Intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems
14(6), 1179–1187 (2008)
47. Xu, Z., Cai, X.: Dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute decision making. Interna-
tional Journal of Approximate Reasoning 48(1), 246–262 (2008)
48. Xu, Z., Yager, R.R.: Some geometric aggregation operators based on intuitionistic fuzzy
sets. International Journal of General Systems 35(4), 417–433 (2006)
49. Yaakob, A.M., Serguieva, A., Gegov, A.: FN-TOPSIS: Fuzzy Networks for Ranking
Traded Equities. IEEE Transactions On Fuzzy Systems 25(2, SI), 315–332 (2017)
50. Yang, J., Huang, H.Z., He, L.P., Zhu, S.P., Wen, D.: Risk evaluation in failure mode and
effects analysis of aircraft turbine rotor blades using Dempster-Shafer evidence theory
under uncertainty. Engineering Failure Analysis 18(8), 2084–2092 (2011)
51. Yang, Y.P.O., Shieh, H.M., Tzeng, G.H.: A vikor technique based on dematel and anp
for information security risk control assessment. Information Sciences 232(5), 482–500
(2013)
52. Yu, P.L.: A class of solutions for group decision problems. Management Science 19(8),
936–946 (1973)
53. Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Information & Control 8(3), 338–353 (1965)
54. Zeleny, M.: Multiple criteria decision making. Springer-Verlag (1980)
55. Zhang, X., Deng, Y., Chan, F.T.S., Adamatzky, A., Mahadevan, S.: Supplier selection
based on evidence theory and analytic network process. Proceedings of the Institution
of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 230(3), 562–573
(2016). DOI 10.1177/0954405414551105
56. Zhou, X., Deng, X., Deng, Y., Mahadevan, S.: Dependence assessment in human reli-
ability analysis based on d numbers and ahp. Nuclear Engineering and Design 313,
243–252 (2017)
57. Zhou, X., Shi, Y., Deng, X., Deng, Y.: D-DEMATEL: A new method to identify critical
success factors in emergency management. Safety Science 91, 93–104 (2017)