Using the PARIS Method for Multiple Criteria Decision Making in Unmanned Combat Aircraft Evaluation and Selection

Authors: C. Ardil

Abstract:

Unmanned combat aircraft (UCA) are expanding significantly in several defense industries, along with artificial intelligence improvements in highly precise technology. UCA is crucial in military settings for targeting enemy elements, and objects. UCA is also utilized for highly precise reconnaissance and surveillance tasks. To select the best alternative for critical missions, a methodical and effective strategy for UCA selection is required. Multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) methodologies are ideally equipped to handle the complexity of alternative aircraft selection. To analyze UCA alternatives for the selection process, an integrated methodology built on the objective criteria weights and preference analysis for reference ideal solution (PARIS). First, the weights of essential elements are determined using the average weight (AW), standard deviation (SW) and entropy weight (EW) approach. The weights of the evaluation criteria affect the decision-making process. The aircraft choices in the decision problem are then ranked using objective criteria weights along with the PARIS technique. The validation and sensitivity analysis of the proposed MCDM approach are discussed.

Keywords: unmanned combat aircraft (UCA), multiple criteria decision making, MCDM, PARIS

References:

[1] Ardil, C., Bilgen, S. (2017). Online Performance Tracking. SocioEconomic Challenges, 1(3), 58-72. ISSN (print) – 2520-6621.
[2] Ardil, C. (2021). Airline Quality Rating Using PARIS and TOPSIS in Multiple Criteria Decision Making Analysis. International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 15(12), 516 - 523.
[3] Burney, S. , Jilani, T. , Ardil, C. (2007). A Comparison of First and Second Order Training Algorithms for Artificial Neural Networks. International Journal of Computer and Information Engineering, 1(1), 145 - 151.
[4] Dyer, J.S. (2016). Multiattribute Utility Theory (MAUT). In: Greco, S., Ehrgott, M., Figueira, J. (eds) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 233. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3094-4_8.
[5] Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9-26. doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I
[6] Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83-98. doi: 10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590
[7] Saaty, T.L. (1980). Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York.
[8] Buckley,J.J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17, 233–247.
[9] Hwang, C.L.; Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. New York: Springer-Verlag.
[10] Chu, T.C. (2002. Facility location selection using fuzzy TOPSIS under group decisions, International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 687-701.
[11] Opricovic, S. (2007). A fuzzy compromise solution for multicriteria problems. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 15(3), 363–380.
[12] Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.-H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 445–455.
[13] Brans JP., Mareschal B. (2005). Promethee Methods. In: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 78, pp 163-186. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-23081-5_5.
[14] Brans, J., Ph. Vincke. (1985). A Preference Ranking Organisation Method: (The PROMETHEE Method for Multiple Criteria Decision-Making). Management Science, 31(6), 647-656.
[15] Brans, J.P., Macharis, C., Kunsch, P.L., Chevalier, A., Schwaninger, M., (1998). Combining multicriteria decision aid and system dynamics for the control of socio-economic processes. An iterative real-time procedure. European Journal of Operational Research 109, 428-441.
[16] Brans, J.P., Vincke, Ph., Mareschal, B., (1986). How to select and how to rank projects: the PROMETHEE method. European Journal of Operational Research, 24, 228-238.
[17] Roy, B. (1991). The outranking approach and the foundation of ELECTRE methods. Theory and Decision, 31(1), 49–73.
[18] Fei, L., Xia, J., Feng, Y., Liu, L. (2019) An ELECTRE-Based Multiple Criteria Decision Making Method for Supplier Selection Using Dempster-Shafer Theory. IEEE Access, 7, 84701-84716.
[19] Zadeh L.A., (1965). Fuzzy Sets. Information and Control, 8, 338-353.
[20] Atanassov. KT. (1986). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 20(1):87–96.
[21] Yager, RR. (2013. Pythagorean fuzzy subsets. Joint IFSA World Congress and NAFIPS Annual Meeting (IFSA/NAFIPS) 57–61 6.
[22] Yager, R. R. (2013). Pythagorean membership grades in multi-criteria decision making. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 22(4):958–965.
[23] Yager, R. R. (2017). Generalized orthopair fuzzy sets. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 25(5), 1222– 1230.
[24] Tian, X., Niu, M., Zhang, W., Li, L., Herrera-Viedma, E. (2021). A novel TODIM based on prospect theory to select green supplier with q-rung orthopair fuzzy set. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 27(2), 284-310.
[25] Cuong, B. C., Kreinovich, V. (2013). Picture Fuzzy Sets - a new concept for computational intelligence problems. Departmental Technical Reports (CS). 809. In Proceedings of the Third World Congress on Information and Communication Technologies WICT'2013, Hanoi, Vietnam, December 15-18, 2013, pp. 1-6.
[26] Cuong, B. C. (2014). Picture Fuzzy Sets. Journal of Computer Science and Cybernetics, V.30, N.4 (2014), 409–420.
[27] Gündogdu, FK, Kahraman, C. (2019). Spherical fuzzy sets and spherical fuzzy TOPSIS method. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 36(1):337–352.
[28] Mahmood, T.; Ullah, K.; Khan, Q.; Jan, N. An approach toward decision-making and medical diagnosis problems using the concept of spherical fuzzy sets. Neural Comput Appl. 2018, 1–13.
[29] Ullah, K., Mahmood, T., Jan, N. (2018). Similarity Measures for T-Spherical Fuzzy Sets with Applications in Pattern Recognition. Symmetry, 10(6), 193.
[30] Smarandache, F. (2003). A unifying field in logics neutrosophic logic. Neutrosophy, neutrosophic set, neutrosophic probability. (3rd ed.). Xiquan, Phoenix: American Research Press.
[31] Smarandache, F. (2003).Neutrosophic Logic - Generalization of the Intuitionistic Fuzzy Logic. https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0303009
[32] Ardil, C. (2023). Unmanned Combat Aircraft Selection using Fuzzy Proximity Measure Method in Multiple Criteria Group Decision Making. International Journal of Computer and Systems Engineering, 17(3), 238 - 245.
[33] Ardil, C. (2023). Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision Making for Unmanned Combat Aircraft Selection Using Proximity Measure Method. International Journal of Computer and Information Engineering, 17(3), 193 - 200.
[34] Ardil, C. (2022). Multiple Criteria Decision Making for Turkish Air Force Stealth Fighter Aircraft Selection. International Journal of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, 16(12), 369 - 374.
[35] Ardil, C. (2022).Fuzzy Uncertainty Theory for Stealth Fighter Aircraft Selection in Entropic Fuzzy TOPSIS Decision Analysis Process. International Journal of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, 16(4), 93 - 102.
[36] Ardil, C. (2022). Vague Multiple Criteria Decision Making Analysis Method for Fighter Aircraft Selection. International Journal of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, 16(5),133-142.
[37] Ardil, C. (2022). Military Attack Helicopter Selection Using Distance Function Measures in Multiple Criteria Decision Making Analysis. International Journal of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, 16(2), 20 - 27.
[38] Ardil, C. (2022). Fighter Aircraft Selection Using Neutrosophic Multiple Criteria Decision Making Analysis. International Journal of Computer and Systems Engineering, 16(1), 5 - 9.
[39] Ardil, C. (2022). Fighter Aircraft Selection Using Fuzzy Preference Optimization Programming (POP). International Journal of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, 16(10), 279 - 290.
[40] Ardil, C. (2022). Aircraft Selection Using Preference Optimization Programming (POP).International Journal of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, 16(11), 292 - 297.
[41] Ardil, C. (2022). Aircraft Selection Problem Using Decision Uncertainty Distance in Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision Making Analysis. International Journal of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, 16(3), 62 - 69.
[42] Ardil, C. (2021). Neutrosophic Multiple Criteria Decision Making Analysis Method for Selecting Stealth Fighter Aircraft. International Journal of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, 15(10), 459 - 463.
[43] Ardil, C. (2021). Military Combat Aircraft Selection Using Trapezoidal Fuzzy Numbers with the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). International Journal of Computer and Information Engineering, 15(12), 630 - 635.
[44] Ardil, C. (2021). Freighter Aircraft Selection Using Entropic Programming for Multiple Criteria Decision Making Analysis. International Journal of Mathematical and Computational Sciences, 15(12), 125 - 132.
[45] Ardil, C. (2021). Fighter Aircraft Evaluation and Selection Process Based on Triangular Fuzzy Numbers in Multiple Criteria Decision Making Analysis Using the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). International Journal of Computer and Systems Engineering, 15(12), 402 - 408.
[46] Ardil, C. (2021). Comparison of Composite Programming and Compromise Programming for Aircraft Selection Problem Using Multiple Criteria Decision Making Analysis Method. International Journal of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, 15(11), 479 - 485.
[47] Ardil, C. (2021). Advanced Jet Trainer and Light Attack Aircraft Selection Using Composite Programming in Multiple Criteria Decision Making Analysis Method. International Journal of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, 15(12), 486 - 491.
[48] Ardil, C. (2020). Trainer Aircraft Selection Using Preference Analysis for Reference Ideal Solution (PARIS). International Journal of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, 14(5), 195 - 209.
[49] Ardil, C. (2020). Regional Aircraft Selection Using Preference Analysis for Reference Ideal Solution (PARIS). International Journal of Transport and Vehicle Engineering, 14(9), 378 – 388.
[50] Ardil, C. (2020). Aircraft Selection Process Using Preference Analysis for Reference Ideal Solution (PARIS). International Journal of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, 14(3), 80 - 93.
[51] Ardil, C. (2020). A Comparative Analysis of Multiple Criteria Decision Making Analysis Methods for Strategic, Tactical, and Operational Decisions in Military Fighter Aircraft Selection. International Journal of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, 14(7), 275 - 288.
[52] Ardil, C. (2019). Military Fighter Aircraft Selection Using Multiplicative Multiple Criteria Decision Making Analysis Method. International Journal of Mathematical and Computational Sciences, 13(9), 184 - 193.
[53] Ardil, C. (2019). Fighter Aircraft Selection Using Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution with Multiple Criteria Decision Making Analysis. International Journal of Transport and Vehicle Engineering, 13(10), 649 - 657.
[54] Ardil, C. (2019). Aircraft Selection Using Multiple Criteria Decision Making Analysis Method with Different Data Normalization Techniques. International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 13(12), 744 - 756.
[55] Ardil, C. , Pashaev, A. , Sadiqov, R. , Abdullayev, P. (2019). Multiple Criteria Decision Making Analysis for Selecting and Evaluating Fighter Aircraft. International Journal of Transport and Vehicle Engineering, 13(11), 683 - 694.
[56] Ardil, C. (2020). Aircraft Selection Process Using Preference Analysis for Reference Ideal Solution (PARIS). International Journal of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, 14(3), 80 - 93.
[57] Ardil, C. (2020). Trainer Aircraft Selection Using Preference Analysis for Reference Ideal Solution (PARIS). International Journal of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, 14(5), 195 - 209.
[58] Ardil, C. (2020). A Comparative Analysis of Multiple Criteria Decision Making Analysis Methods for Strategic, Tactical, and Operational Decisions in Military Fighter Aircraft Selection. International Journal of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, 14(7), 275 - 288.
[59] Ardil, C. (2020). Regional Aircraft Selection Using Preference Analysis for Reference Ideal Solution (PARIS). International Journal of Transport and Vehicle Engineering, 14(9), 378 - 388.
[60] Ardil, C. (2021). Airline Quality Rating Using PARIS and TOPSIS in Multiple Criteria Decision Making Analysis. International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 15(12), 516 - 523.
[61] Le, H. K. (2022). Multi-Criteria Decision Making in the Milling Process Using the PARIS Method. Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res., vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 9208–9216.