Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A hybrid fuzzy COPRAS-base-criterion method for multi-criteria decision making

  • Methodologies and Application
  • Published:
Soft Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Multiple criteria decision making is a mathematical tool for dealing with complex problems like best or optimal selection from various choices. Fuzzy set theory provides a soft computing framework for precise and rigorous study of vague conceptual environment. In this paper, a new hybrid multi-criteria decision-making method consists of group fuzzy COPRAS, and fuzzy BCM is proposed. The aim of the proposed method is to enhance the practical approach of soft computing in selection of stocks for portfolio construction and better return. This method has been executed in two phases. First, using a novel base-criterion method with triangular fuzzy number, the relative optimal weights of specified criteria are extracted from group decision-making process. Then, an approach based on the combination of fuzzy set theory and the complex proportional assessment (COPRAS) is applied to rank the alternatives in uncertain and ambiguous environment. A practical implementation of proposed method in stock selection is another realistic approach of our study. Portfolio is constructed by using the ranking obtained by proposed model. The weight allocation of the stocks is calculated using the ranked assets algorithm. Execution of the proposed model is found to be dominant when compared with the previous studies. The result ensures that the portfolio is capable of giving better returns based on the proposed ranking.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alinezhad A, Khalili Z (2019) New methods and applications in multi-attribute decision making (MADM). In: International series in operational research and management science

  • Benayoun R, Roy B, Sussman N (1996) Manual de, du programme ELECTRE. Note Synth Form 25:79

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson C, Fuller R (2001) On possibilistic mean value and variance of fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Sets Syst 122(2):315–326

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Chen CT, Hung WZ (2009) A New Decision-Making Method for Stock portfolio Selection Based on Computing with Linguistic Assessment. J Appl Math Decis Sci 2009:1–20

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Chen N, Xu Z (2015) Hesitant fuzzy ELECTRE II approach: a new way to handle multi-criteria decision-making problems. Inf Sci 292:175–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Degdeviren M, Yavuz S, Kilinc N (2009) Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 36:8143–8151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duckstein L, Opricovic S (1980) Multiobjective optimization in river basin development. Water Resour Res 16(1):14–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo S, Zhao H (2015) Optimal site selection of electric vehicle charging station by using fuzzy TOPSIS based on sustainability perspective. Appl Energy 158:390–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo S, Zhao H (2017) Fuzzy best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method and its applications. Knowl-Based Syst 121:23–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haseli G, Sheikh R, Sana SS (2019) Base-criteria on multi-criteria decision-making method and its applications. Int J Manag Sci Eng Manag 15(2):79–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Haseli G, Sheikh R, Sana SS (2020) Extension of base-criteria method based on fuzzy set theory. Int J Appl Comput Math 6(2):1–24

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making, methods and applications. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Janis IL, Mann L (1977) Decision making: a psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Keršuliene V, Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z (2010) Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). J Bus Econ Manag 11(2):243–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kou G, Lu Y, Peng Y, Shi Y (2012) Evaluation of classification algorithms using MCDM and rank correlation. Int J Inf Technol Decis Making 11(1):197–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu J, Zhang G, Ruan D (2008) Intelligent multi-criteria fuzzy group decision-making for situation assessments. Soft Comput 12(3):289–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahdiraji HA, Arzhagi S, Stauskis G, Zavadskas EK (2018) A hybrid fuzzy BWM-COPRAS method for analysing key factors of sustainable architecture. Sustainability 10(5):1626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naveenan RV (2019) Risk and return analysis of portfolio management services of Reliance Nippon Asset Management limited (RNAM). Global J Manag Bus 6(1):108–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Nourianfar K, Montazer GA (2013) A fuzzy MCDM approach based on COPRAS method to solve supplier selection problem. In: 5th conference on information and knowledge technology. IEEE

  • Plous S (1993) The psychology of judgment and decision making. Mcgraw-Hill Book Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao C, Goh M, Zheng J (2017) Decision mechanism for supplier selection under sustainability. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 16(01):87–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rezaei J (2015) Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53:49–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rezaei J (2016) Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: some properties and a linear model. Omega 64:126–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty L (1980) The analytical hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (2005) Theory and applications of the analytic network process: decision making with benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL, Ergu D (2015) When is a decision-making method trustworthy? Criteria for evaluating multi-criteria decision-making methods. Int J Inf Technol Decis Making 14(06):1171–1187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15(3):234–281

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Satty TL (1996) Decision making with dependence and feedback: the analytic network process. RWS Publication, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamiz M, Azmi RA (2016) An investigation of various weighting schemes for portfolios. J Bus Financ Aff 5(3):1–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Thakur GSM, Bhattacharyya R, Sarkar S (2018) Stock portfolio selection using Dempster–Shafer evidence theory. J King Saud Univ-Comput Inf Sci 30:223–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triantaphyllou E (2013) Multi-criteria decision-making methods: a comparative study. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon K (1987) A reconciliation among discrete compromise solutions. J Oper Res Soc 38(3):277–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zavadskas EK, Kaklauskas A, Sarka V (1994) The new method of multi-criteria complex proportional assessment of projects. Technol Econ Dev Econ 1(3):131–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Zavadskas EK, Kaklauskas A, Kvederytė N (2001) Multivariant design and multiple criteria analysis of building life cycle. Informatica 12(1):169–188

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Zeleny M, Cochrane JL (1973) Multiple-criteria decision making. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang X, Xu Z (2015) Soft computing based on maximizing consensus and fuzzy TOPSIS approach to interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making. Appl Soft Comput 26:42–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao H, Guo S (2014) Selecting green supplier of thermal power equipment by using a hybrid MCDM method for sustainability. Sustainability 6(1):217–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics, D.S.B. Campus, Kumaun University, Nainital, India

    Monika Narang & M. C. Joshi

  2. Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science, College of Basic Sciences & Humanities, Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar, India

    A. K. Pal

Authors
  1. Monika Narang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. C. Joshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. K. Pal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monika Narang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Monika Narang, Prof. Mahesh C Joshi, and Prof. Arun K Pal declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Narang, M., Joshi, M.C. & Pal, A.K. A hybrid fuzzy COPRAS-base-criterion method for multi-criteria decision making. Soft Comput 25, 8391–8399 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-021-05762-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-021-05762-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation