DOI: 10.17587/prin.17.166-175
About one Approach to Multicriterial Problems if the Information about the Importance of Criteria is Inaccurate
K. N. Kudryavtsev1,2, Cand. Sc. (Phis. & Math.), Associate Professor, kudrkn@gmail.com,
P. K. Simakov1, Postgraduate Student, pavelsimakov35707@gmail.com,
1 South Ural State University, Chelyabinsk, 454080, Russian Federation,
2 Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 125167, Russian Federation
Corresponding author: Pavel K. Simakov, Postgraduate Student, South Ural State University, Chelyabinsk, 454080, Russian Federation, E-mail: pavelsimakov35707@gmail.com
Received on June 02, 2025
Accepted on October 21, 2025
Choice problems in modeling the behavior of complex control systems are often characterized by multiple criteria that the decision maker (DM) must optimize. The importance of these criteria is assessed subjectively, which can lead to different decisions. Numerous methods have been developed for solving multicriteria problems, but their use is hampered by the need for preliminary assessment of criterion importance. This article examines an approach in which the DM determines criterion importance using intervals, given incomplete information. A modification of the EDAS method with interval weights defined on a standard simplex is proposed, and two new decision concepts are formalized: a strong decision and a soft EDAS decision. The practical application of these conceptual concepts is illustrated using a steam boiler selection problem as an example.
Keywords: multicriteria problem, uncertainty, decision making, EDAS, Pareto optimality, soft decision, strong decision, importance of criteria
pp. 166—175
For citation:
Kudryavtsev K. N., Simakov P. K. About one Approach to Multicriterial Problems if the Information about the Importance of Criteria is Inaccurate, Programmnaya Ingeneria, 2026, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 166—175. DOI: 10.17587/prin.17.166-175 (in Russian).
References:
- Pradhan P., Shabbiruddin, Pradhan S. Selection of electric vehicle using integrated Fuzzy-MCDM approach with analysis on challenges faced in hilly terrain, Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 2022, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 2651— 2673. DOI: 10.1080/15567036.2022.2056665.
- Mehta P., Tandon A., Sharma H. Integration of FAHP and COPRAS-G for software component selection, Optimization Models in Software Reliability, 2022, pp. 263—282. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-78919-0_12.
- Rani P., Mishra A. R., Mardani A. An extended Pythagorean fuzzy complex proportional assessment approach with new entropy and score function: Application in pharmacological therapy selection for type 2 diabetes, Applied Soft Computing, 2020, vol. 94, article 106441. DOI: 10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106441.
- Dang T.-T., Nguyen N.-A.-T., Nguyen V.-T.-T., Dang L.-T.-H. A Two-Stage Multi-Criteria Supplier Selection Model for Sustainable Automotive Supply Chain under Uncertainty, Axioms, 2022, vol. 11, no. 5, article 228. DOI: 10.3390/axioms11050228.
- Ansari Z. N., Kant R., Shankar R. Evaluation and ranking of solutions to mitigate sustainable remanufacturing supply chain risks: a hybrid fuzzy SWARA-fuzzy COPRAS framework approach, International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 2020, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 473—494. DOI: 10.1080/19397038.2020.1758973.
- Kayapinar Kaya S., Aycin E. An integrated interval type 2 fuzzy AHP and COPRAS-G methodologies for supplier selection in the era of Industry 4.0, Neural Computing and Applications, 2021, vol. 33, no. 16, pp. 10515—10535. DOI: 10.1007/s00521-021-05809-x.
- Lopez-Cadavid D. A., Vanegas-Lopez J. G., Restrepo-Morales J. A., Roldan-Sepulveda M. Systematic selection of international markets using a hybrid multi-criteria approach: A study in the paper and paperboard industry, Cogent Business & Management, 2023, vol. 10, no. 3. DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2023.2277555.
- Vanegas-Lopez J. G., Baena-Rojas J. J., Lopez-Cadavid D. A., Mathew M. International market selection: an application of hybrid multi-criteria decision-making technique in the textile sector, Review of International Business and Strategy, 2020, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 127—150. DOI: 10.1108/ribs-07-2020-0088.
- Ozdagoglu A., Zeynep Oztas G., Kemal Keles M., Genc V. A comparative bus selection for intercity transportation with an integrated PIPRECIA & COPRAS-G, Case Studies on Transport Policy, 2022, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 993—1004. DOI: 10.1016/j.cstp.2022.03.012.
- Kumar V., Vrat P., Shankar R. Prioritization of strategies to overcome the barriers in Industry 4.0: a hybrid MCDM approach. OPSEARCH, 2021, vol. 58, pp. 711—750. DOI: 10.1007/s12597-020-00505-1.
- Pareto V., Manuel D. D'Economie. Geard, Paris, France, 1909, 695 p.
- Podinovsky V. V., Nogin V. D. Pareto-optimal solutions of multicriteria problems, Moscow, FIZMATLIT, 1982, 256 p. (in Russian).
- Pavic Z., Novoselac V. Notes on TOPSIS Method, International Journal of Research in Engineering and Science, 2013, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 5—12.
- Greco S., Ehrgott M., Figueira J. R. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, 2016, vol. 2, pp. 187—210. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-3094-4.
- Alinezhad A., Khalili J. COPRAS Method, New Methods and Applications in Multiple Attribute Decision Making (MADM), 2019, pp. 87—91. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-15009-9_12.
- FanJ., Han D., Wu M. Picture fuzzy Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS) and VlseKriteriJumska Optimizacija Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR) method for multi-attribute decision problem and their application, Complex & Intelligent Systems, 2023, vol. 9, pp. 5345—5357. DOI: 10.1007/s40747-023-01007-5.
- Alinezhad A., Khalili J. WASPAS Method, New Methods and Applications in Multiple Attribute Decision Making (MADM), Springer, 2019, vol. 0, pp. 93—98. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-15009-9_13.
- Chakraborty S., Chatterjee P., Protim Das P. Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods in Manufacturing Environments, Apple Academic Press, 2023, 450 p. DOI: 10.1201/9781003377030.
- Keshavarz-Ghorabaee M., Amiri M., Zavadskas E. K., Turskis Z. Stochastic EDAS method for multi-criteria decision-making with normally distributed data. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 2017, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 1627—1638. DOI: 10.3233/jifs-17184.
- Bana E., Costa С. A., Vansnick J.C. The MACBETH Approach: Basic Ideas, Software, and an Application, Advances in decision analysis, 1999, vol. 4, pp. 131—157.
- Bradley R. A., Milton E. T. Rank Analysis of Incomplete Block Designs: I. The Method of Paired Comparisons, Biometrika. JSTOR, 1952, vol. 39, no. 3/4, pp. 324—345. DOI: 10.2307/2334029.
- Zhang D., Yu P. L., Wang P. Z. State-dependent weights in multicriteria value functions, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 1992, vol. 74, pp. 1—21.
- Schoner B., Wedley W. С. Ambiguous criteria weights in AHP: consequences and solutions, Decision Sciences, 1989, vol. 20, pp. 462—475.
- Morais D. C., de Almeida A. T., Figueira J. R. A sorting model for group decision making: A case study of water losses in Brazil, Group Decision and Negotiation, 2014, vol. 23, pp. 937—960. DOI: 10.1007/s10726-012-9321-7.
- Llamazares B. Using interval weights in MADM problems, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 2019, vol. 136, pp. 345—354. DOI: 10.1016/j.cie.2019.07.035.
- Keshavarz-Ghorabaee M., Zavadskas E. K., Olfat L., Turskis Z. M. Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average resolution (EDAS), Informatica, 2015, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 435—451. DOI: 10.15388/informatica.2015.57.
- Zhukovsky V. I., Kudryavtsev K. N. Balancing conflicts and applications, Moscow, URSS LENNAND, 2012, 18 p. (in Russian).
- Halmos P. Theory of measure, Moscow, Ripol Classic, 2013, 316 p. (in Russian).
- Ukhobotov V. I., Stabulit I. S., Kudryavtsev K. N. On decision making under fuzzy information about an uncontrolled factor, Procedia Computer Science, 2019, vol. 150, pp. 524—531. DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2019.02.088.
- Kundakci N. An integrated method using MACBETH and EDAS methods for evaluating steam boiler alternatives, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 2019, vol. 26, pp. 27—34. DOI: 10.1002/mcda.1656.
- Kudryavtsev K. N., Simakov P. K. The COPRAS Method with Interval Weights,Communications in Computer and Information Science, 2025, vol. 2363. pp. 136—144. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-80457-1_10.