Comparative analysis of fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methods for quality of service-based web service selection

Paul Aazagreyir, Peter Appiahene, Obed Appiah, Samuel Boateng
{"title":"Comparative analysis of fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methods for quality of service-based web service selection","authors":"Paul Aazagreyir, Peter Appiahene, Obed Appiah, Samuel Boateng","doi":"10.11591/ijai.v13.i2.pp1408-1419","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This research aims to compare and analyze the effectiveness of four popular fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methods (FMCDMMs) for quality of service (QoS)-based web service selection. These methods are fuzzy DEMATEL (FD), fuzzy TOPSIS (FT), fuzzy VIKOR (FV), and fuzzy PROMETHEE (FP), including three ranking versions of FV. We assess the ranking similarities among these methods using Spearman's relationship figure. We describe the algorithms of these six FMCDMs in the methods section. In a case study, we collected primary data from five experts who rated nine QoS factors of nine web services. We used modified online software for analysis. The results showed that S6 ranked first in all FMCDMs, except for FD and FP, where it was ranked 2nd and 8th, respectively. The highest association coefficient (Rs) was found between FT and FV ranking in S techniques (0.983), FV ranking in S and FV ranking in Q (0.883), and FT and FV ranking Q (0.833) when comparing the similarity measure of the FMCDMMs. This analysis helps decision-makers and researchers choose the most suitable methods for integrated FMCDMs studies and real-world problem-solving.","PeriodicalId":507934,"journal":{"name":"IAES International Journal of Artificial Intelligence (IJ-AI)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IAES International Journal of Artificial Intelligence (IJ-AI)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11591/ijai.v13.i2.pp1408-1419","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This research aims to compare and analyze the effectiveness of four popular fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methods (FMCDMMs) for quality of service (QoS)-based web service selection. These methods are fuzzy DEMATEL (FD), fuzzy TOPSIS (FT), fuzzy VIKOR (FV), and fuzzy PROMETHEE (FP), including three ranking versions of FV. We assess the ranking similarities among these methods using Spearman's relationship figure. We describe the algorithms of these six FMCDMs in the methods section. In a case study, we collected primary data from five experts who rated nine QoS factors of nine web services. We used modified online software for analysis. The results showed that S6 ranked first in all FMCDMs, except for FD and FP, where it was ranked 2nd and 8th, respectively. The highest association coefficient (Rs) was found between FT and FV ranking in S techniques (0.983), FV ranking in S and FV ranking in Q (0.883), and FT and FV ranking Q (0.833) when comparing the similarity measure of the FMCDMMs. This analysis helps decision-makers and researchers choose the most suitable methods for integrated FMCDMs studies and real-world problem-solving.
基于服务质量的网络服务选择的模糊多标准决策方法比较分析
本研究旨在比较和分析四种流行的模糊多标准决策方法(FMCDMM)在基于服务质量(QoS)的网络服务选择中的有效性。这些方法是模糊 DEMATEL(FD)、模糊 TOPSIS(FT)、模糊 VIKOR(FV)和模糊 PROMETHEE(FP),包括 FV 的三个排序版本。我们使用斯皮尔曼关系图评估了这些方法之间的排序相似性。我们在方法部分介绍了这六种 FMCDM 的算法。在一项案例研究中,我们收集了五位专家的原始数据,他们对九项网络服务的九个 QoS 因素进行了评分。我们使用修改后的在线软件进行分析。结果显示,S6 在所有 FMCDM 中均排名第一,但在 FD 和 FP 中分别排名第二和第八。在比较 FMCDMMs 的相似性度量时,发现 FT 和 FV 在 S 技术中的排名(0.983)、FV 在 S 技术中的排名和 FV 在 Q 技术中的排名(0.883)以及 FT 和 FV 在 Q 技术中的排名(0.833)之间的关联系数(Rs)最高。这项分析有助于决策者和研究人员选择最合适的方法进行 FMCDMs 综合研究和解决实际问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信