SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Acta Infologica / 2026 / Volume: 10 Issue: 1

Classical MCDM Methods and Their Operators on Grey Numbers Through Operator Overloading

Mehmet Hakan Satman(ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-9402-1982
Seda Karakaş Geyik(ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-2218-6689
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Switching the whitening parameter from zero to one also provides a sensitivity analysis tool to investigate how uncertainty affects the final rankings.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study investigates the possibilities of applying classical MCDM methods to grey numbers by leveraging operator overloading and multiple dispatch features of Julia programming language.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It is shown that the sorted grey scores can yield the same rankings as the existing methods in some cases.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Switching the whitening parameter from zero to one also provides a sensitivity analysis tool to investigate how uncertainty affects the final rankings.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:multi-criteria decision making · grey numbers · operator overloading

Abstract

This study investigates the possibilities of applying classical MCDM methods to grey numbers by leveraging operator overloading and multiple dispatch features of Julia programming language. Grey versions of the classical MCDM methods differ in some of their computational steps. In this paper, it is shown that a set of MCDM methods, including TOPSIS, ARAS, WASPAS, and EDAS are directly applicable to grey numbers through operator overloading without changing their core algorithms. These processes are implemented by re-defining arithmetic and comparison operators for grey numbers. We also compared our methodology with two existing Grey TOPSIS methods. It is shown that the sorted grey scores can yield the same rankings as the existing methods in some cases. When the results are not the same, we show that an appropriate whitening parameter can be found to obtain the same rankings. This approach preserves the uncertainty from the very beginning to the end of the process and provides a clear distinction between objective computational steps and subjective ranking steps. Switching the whitening parameter from zero to one also provides a sensitivity analysis tool to investigate how uncertainty affects the final rankings.

🔖

Cite This Article

Satman, M. H., Geyik, S. K. (2026). Classical MCDM Methods and Their Operators on Grey Numbers Through Operator Overloading. Acta Infologica, Volume: 10 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.26650/acin.1714210

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (68)

  1. A. A. Supçiller and S. Bayramoğlu. Aralıklı gri sayı tabanlı a-gia ve gri edas yöntemleriyle rüzgar santrali yer seçimi. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 35(4):1847–1860, 2020. google scholar
  2. A. Chalekaee, Z. Turskis, M. Khanzadi, G. Ghodrati Amiri, and V. Keršulien˙e. A new hybrid mcdm model with grey numbers for the construction delay change response problem. Sustainability, 11(3):776, 2019. google scholar
  3. A. K. Bhunia and S. S. Samanta. A study of interval metric and its application in multi-objective optimization with interval objectives. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 74:169–178, 2014. google scholar
  4. A. Mardani, A. Jusoh, E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Khalifah, and K. M. Nor. Application of multiple-criteria decision-making techniques and approaches to evaluating of service quality: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 16(5):1034–1068,2015. google scholar
  5. A. Puška, Ž. Stević, and D. Pamučar. Evaluation and selection of healthcare waste incinerators using extended sustainability criteria and multi-criteria analysis methods. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(9):11195–11225, 2022. google scholar
  6. A. Tversky and D. Kahneman. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. science, 185(4157):1124–1131, 1974. google scholar
  7. B. F. Yıldırım and M. Timor. Bulanık ve gri copras yöntemleri kullanılarak tedarikçi seçim modeli geliştirilmesi. Optimum Ekonomi ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 6(2):283–310, 2019. google scholar
  8. B. Oztaysi. A decision model for information technology selection using ahp integrated topsis-grey: The case of content management systems. Knowledge-Based Systems, 70:44–54, 2014. google scholar
  9. B. Q. Hu and S. A. Wang. A novel approach in uncertain programming part i: new arithmetic and order relation for interval numbers. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2(4):351–371, 2006. google scholar
  10. B. Roy. Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples. Revue française d’informatique et de recherche opérationnelle, 2(8):57–75,1968. google scholar
  11. B. Stroustrup. Operator overloading in c++. In Conference on System Implementation Languages: Experience & Assessment (’84 Proceedings),1984. google scholar
  12. C.-L. Hwang and K. Yoon. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, volume 186 of Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1981. ISBN 978-3-540-10558-5. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9. google scholar
  13. C.-N. Wang, T.-T. Dang, J.-W. Wang, et al. A combined data envelopment analysis (dea) and grey based multiple criteria decision making (g-mcdm) for solar pv power plants site selection: A case study in vietnam. Energy Reports, 8:1124–1142, 2022. google scholar
  14. D. Darvishi, J. Forrest, and S. Liu. A comparative analysis of grey ranking approaches. Grey Systems: Theory and Application, 9(4):472–487, 2019. doi:10.1108/GS-05-2019-0014. google scholar
  15. D. Kahneman and A. Tversky. Choices, values, and frames. American psychologist, 39(4):341, 1984. google scholar
  16. D. Stanujkic, E. K. Zavadskas, M. K. Ghorabaee, and Z. Turskis. An extension of the edas method based on the use of interval grey numbers.Studies in Informatics and Control, 26(1):5–12, 2017. google scholar
  17. D. Wang. Extension of topsis method for r&d personnel selection problem with interval grey number. In 2009 International Conference on Management and Service Science, pages 1–4. IEEE, 2009. google scholar
  18. D. Yang. Operator overloading. In C++ and Object-Oriented Numeric Computing for Scientists and Engineers, pages 203–230. Springer, 2001. google scholar
  19. E. A. Adali, G. Z. Öztaş, T. Öztaş, and A. Tuş. Assessment of european cities from a smartness perspective: An integrated grey mcdm approach. Sustainable cities and society, 84:104021, 2022. google scholar
  20. E. Hansen and G. W. Walster. Global Optimization Using Interval Analysis. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, 2004. google scholar
  21. E. K. Zavadskas and Z. Turskis. A new additive ratio assessment (aras) method in multicriteria decision-making. Technological and economic development of economy, 16(2):159–172, 2010. google scholar
  22. E. K. Zavadskas and Z. Turskis. Multiple criteria decision making (mcdm) methods in economics: an overview. Technological and economic development of economy, 17(2):397–427, 2011. google scholar
  23. E. K. Zavadskas, T. Vilutiene, Z. Turskis, and J. Tamosaitiene. Contractor selection for construction works by applying saw-g and topsis grey techniques. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11(1):34–55, 2010. google scholar
  24. E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, and J. Antucheviciene. Selecting a contractor by using a novel method for multiple attribute analysis: Weighted aggregated sum product assessment with grey values (waspas-g). Studies in informatics and Control, 24(2):141–150, 2015. google scholar
  25. E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, J. Antucheviciene, and A. Zakarevicius. Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektronika ir elektrotechnika, 122(6):3–6, 2012. google scholar
  26. E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, J. Tamosaitiene, and V. Marina. Selection of construction project managers by applying copras-g method. Computer Modelling and New Technologies, 12(3):22–28, 2008. google scholar
  27. E. Triantaphyllou. Multi-criteria decision making methods: A comparative study. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2000. G. H. Huang. Grey Mathematical Programming and its Application to Municipal Solid Waste Management Planning. PhD thesis, Departmentof Civil Engineering, 1994. google scholar
  28. G.-D. Li, D. Yamaguchi, and M. Nagai. A grey-based decision-making approach to the supplier selection problem. Mathematical and computer modelling, 46(3-4):573–581, 2007. google scholar
  29. H. A. Simon. The New Science of Management Decision. Prentice-Hall, 1977. google scholar
  30. H. Nasseri, A. Yazdani Cherati, and D. Darvishi. A primal simplex algorithm for solving linear programming problem with grey cost coefficients. Journal of New Researches in Mathematics, 1(4):121–141, 2016. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.2645.8002. google scholar
  31. H. Razavi Hajiagha S, H. Amoozad Mahdiraji H, and S. Sadat Hashemi S. Multi-objective linear programming with interval coefficients: A fuzzy set based approach. Kybernetes, 42(3):482–496, 2013. doi:10.1108/03684921311323707. google scholar
  32. I. Badi and E. Elghoul. Using grey-aras approach to investigate the role of social media platforms in spreading fake news during covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Intelligent Management Decision, 2(2):66–73, 2023. google scholar
  33. J. Bezanson, A. Edelman, S. Karpinski, and V. B. Shah. Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing. SIAM Review, 59(1):65–98, jan 2017. doi:10.1137/141000671. google scholar
  34. J. Bezanson, J. Chen, B. Chung, S. Karpinski, V. B. Shah, J. Vitek, and L. Zoubritzky. Julia: Dynamism and performance reconciled by design. Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages, 2(OOPSLA):1–23, 2018. google scholar
  35. J. Deng. Control problems of grey systems. Systems & control letters, 1(5):288–294, 1982. J. Deng. Grey control system. Press of Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan (in Chinese), 1985. google scholar
  36. J. Heidary Dahooie, E. Beheshti Jazan Abadi, A. S. Vanaki, and H. R. Firoozfar. Competency-based it personnel selection using a hybrid swara and aras-g methodology. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 28(1):5–16, 2018. google scholar
  37. J.-P. Brans, P. Vincke, and B. Mareschal. How to select and how to rank projects: The promethee method. European journal of operational research, 24(2):228–238, 1986. google scholar
  38. K. Deb. Multi-objective optimisation using evolutionary algorithms: an introduction. In Multi-objective evolutionary optimisation for product design and manufacturing, pages 3–34. Springer, 2011. google scholar
  39. K. P. Yoon and C.-L. Hwang. Multiple attribute decision making: an introduction. Sage publications, 1995. google scholar
  40. L. Sahoo, A. K. Bhunia, and P. K. Kapur. Genetic algorithm based multiobjective reliability optimization in interval environment. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 62:152–160, 2012. google scholar
  41. M. H. Satman, B. F. Yıldırım, and E. Kuruca. JMcDM: A Julia package for multiple-criteria decision-making tools. Journal of Open Source Software, 6(65):3430, 2021. doi:10.21105/joss.03430. google scholar
  42. M. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, E. K. Zavadskas, L. Olfat, and Z. Turskis. Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluationbased on distance from average solution (edas). Informatica, 26(3):435–451, 2015. google scholar
  43. M. Radovanović, D. Božanić, D. Tešić, A. Puška, I. M. Hezam, and C. Jana. Application of hybrid dibr-fucom-lmaw-bonferroni-grey-edas model in multicriteria decision-making. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, 21(3):387–403, 2023. google scholar
  44. M. Radovanović, S. Jovčić, A. Petrovski, and E. Cirkin. Evaluation of university professors using the spherical fuzzy ahp and grey marcosmulti-criteria decision-making model: A case study. Spectrum of decision making and applications, 2(1):198–218, 2025. google scholar
  45. M. Yazdani and F. R. Graeml. Vikor and its applications: A state-of-the-art survey. International Journal of Strategic Decision Sciences (IJSDS), 5(2):56–83, 2014. google scholar
  46. M. Yazdani, P. Zarate, E. Kazimieras Zavadskas, and Z. Turskis. A combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems. Management decision, 57(9):2501–2519, 2019b. google scholar
  47. M. Yazdani, Z. Wen, H. Liao, A. Banaitis, and Z. Turskis. A grey combined compromise solution (CoCoSo-G) method for supplier selection in construction management. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 25(8):858–874, 2019a. google scholar
  48. P.-C. Lin, T.-J. Wu, and J.-C. Huang. Construction of industrial economic management decision model based on three parameter interval greynumbers. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 18(1):185, 2025. google scholar
  49. R. Bakhat and M. Rajaa. Developing a novel grey integrated multi-criteria approach for enhancing the supplier selection procedure: A real-world case of textile company. Decision Science Letters, 8:211–224, 2019. google scholar
  50. R. Baki. The evaluation of target markets for hazelnut exports with the classification approach of potential market alternatives. British Food Journal, 125(10):3540–3552, 2023. google scholar
  51. R. E. Moore, R. B. Kearfott, and M. J. Cloud. Introduction to Interval Analysis. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2009.doi:10.1137/1.9780898717716. URL https://epubs.siam.org/doi/abs/10.1137/1.9780898717716. google scholar
  52. R. Moore. Method and Application of Interval Analysis. SIAM, Philadelphia, 1979.R. E. Moore. Interval Analysis. Prentice-Hall, 1966. google scholar
  53. R. Nyaoga, P. Magutu, and M.Wang. Application of grey-topsis approach to evaluate value chain performance of tea processing chains. Decision Science Letters, 5:431–446, 2016. google scholar
  54. S. Chakraborty, R. D. Raut, T. Rofin, and S. Chakraborty. A grey-cocoso-based approach for service quality evaluation of health-care units. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, 19(4):1021–1045, 2025. doi:10.1108/IJPHM-07-2024-0064. google scholar
  55. S. Gowda, Y. Ma, A. Cheli, M. Gwóźzdź, V. B. Shah, A. Edelman, and C. Rackauckas. High-performance symbolic-numerics via multiple dispatch. ACM Communications in Computer Algebra, 55(3):92–96, 2022. google scholar
  56. S. H. Zolfani, N. Rezaeiniya, M. H. Aghdaie, and E. K. Zavadskas. Quality control manager selection based on ahp-copras-g methods: a case in iran. Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja, 25(1):72–86, 2012. google scholar
  57. S. K. Mahato and A. K. Bhunia. Interval-arithmetic-oriented interval computing technique for global optimization. Applied Mathematics Research eXpress, pages 1–19, 2006. google scholar
  58. S. Karmakar and A. K. Bhunia. A comparative study of different order relations of intervals. Reliab. Comput., 16:38–72, 2012. google scholar
  59. S. Liu and Y. Lin. Grey information: theory and practical applications. Springer-Verlag, London, 2006. google scholar
  60. S. Liu. Grey Systems Analysis: Methods, Models and Applications. Series on Grey System. Springer, Singapore, 2025. doi:10.1007/978-981-97-8727-2_3. google scholar
  61. S. Zhang and M. O. Esangbedo. Urban scenic spot activity center investment: Strategic construction company selection using the grey system-ii thinking compromise ranking of alternatives from distance to ideal solution ulti-criteria decision-making method. Systems, 13(1):67,2025. google scholar
  62. Ş. Halil. R&d project selection with gray-waspas method. The European Journal of Research and Development, 3(1):37–45, 2023. google scholar
  63. T. L. Saaty. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International journal of services sciences, 1(1):83–98, 2008. google scholar
  64. T. L. Saaty. The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, 1980. google scholar
  65. Y.-H. Lin, P.-C. Lee, and H.-I. Ting. Dynamic multi-attribute decision making model with grey number evaluations. Expert systems with applications, 35(4):1638–1644, 2008. google scholar
  66. Z. Chourabi, F. Khedher, A. Babay, and M. Cheikhrouhou. Multi-criteria decision making in workforce choice using ahp, wsm and wpm. The Journal of The Textile Institute, 110(7):1092–1101, 2019. google scholar
  67. Ž. Stević, D. Pamučar, A. Puška, and P. Chatterjee. Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a newmcdm method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (marcos). Computers & industrial engineering, 140:106231, 2020. google scholar
  68. Z. Turskis and E. K. Zavadskas. A novel method for multiple criteria analysis: grey additive ratio assessment (aras-g) method. Informatica, 21:597–610, 2010. google scholar