Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 123 (2023) 106255

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engappai

Improved assessment model for health-care waste management based on

dual 2-tuple linguistic rough number clouds
Musavarah Sarwar
Department of Mathematics, GC Women University, Sialkot 51310, Pakistan

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The management of medical waste disposal is a major challenge faced by different cities in developing
2-tuple linguistic (2tL) rough numbers countries. The choice of optimal medical waste treatment technology is a complex multi-criteria group decision-
2tL cloud evaluations making problem that requires consideration of multiple alternatives against conflicting criteria. Decision
Dual 2tL rough number (D2tLRN) clouds
makers evaluating disposal municipalities may conduct random evaluations from different linguistic term sets
D2tLRN cloud TOPSIS
according to different preferences and contexts. Various fuzzy numbers based approaches have been studied
Hybrid weights
Health-care waste management
in HCWM (health-care waste management) process, however they have certain limitations such as lacking
manipulation tools of diverse information, additional adjustments and suppositions, ignoring randomness and
multi-granularity in experts’ judgements. In response, this research article proposes a novel mathematical
models by integrating 2-tuple linguistic setting into rough approximations and cloud theory. First, three novel
linguistic manipulation models, namely, 2-tuple linguistic clouds, 2-tuple linguistic rough numbers and dual
2-tuple linguistic rough number (D2tLRN) clouds are developed to handle uncertainty with randomness and
multi-granularity simultaneously. Secondly, a hybrid weighting scheme is utilized to evaluate the relative
importance of waste factors using both subjective and objective aspects of uncertainty. Thirdly, the proposed
D2tLRN cloud model is integrated with the technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution
(TOPSIS) method to design an evaluation approach for the selection of HCWM technologies. Finally, the
application of the proposed method is studied with an empirical case study of health care waste management
in the most crowded municipality. The sensitivity analysis of the proposed approach is also discussed in detail
to study the effect of various parameters on the results. The out-performance and significance of the proposed
D2tLRN cloud TOPSIS method is illustrated by comparing it with existing approaches.

1. Introduction MDCM approach for evaluating disposal alternatives is proposed using

In the last few decades, the general public concern regarding man-
agement of health care waste (HCW) is increasing day by day (Liu et al.,
2013; Dursun et al., 2011a). It is more significant as environmental
pollution and serious health hazards can cause due to poor management
and inappropriate practice of HCW disposal. Some studies have been
conducted to discuss the importance of appropriate methods for the
disposal of medicinal wastages by applying the AHP (analytical hier-
archy process) approach for the better evaluation of HCW treatment
alternatives (Hsu et al., 2008; Karagiannidis et al., 2010). Due to
the limitations and complexity in HCWM problems, exact data are
sometimes inadequate to structure the daily life situations. To cope
with inadequacy and uncertainty, fuzzy set theory is utilized in HCWM
problems to evaluate waste disposal alternatives. Dursun et al. (2011a)
incorporated fuzzy numbers in the HCWM approach (having data rep-
resented as linguistic variables) implying TOPSIS method using fuzzy
integrals and hierarchical distance-based operators to conduct a more
efficient HCW treatment analysis. In Dursun et al. (2011b), a fuzzy
OWA (ordered weighting averaging)operators, and the significance of
the method is described with an example of waste disposal in Istanbul,
Turkey. Liu et al. (2013) proposed fuzzy VIKOR to evaluate waste
disposal alternatives and the method is illustrated using a case study
of HCWM problem in Shanghai, China.
The literature survey depicts that most of the research in HCWM
domain involving linguistic data utilized fuzzy logic and fuzzy numbers
to cope with uncertainty in the assessment process. However, the
approaches based on fuzzy numbers and fuzzy sets also meet some
limitations of pre-defined membership function, large number of fuzzy
rules, data distribution and considering no randomness during risk
assessment. Rough set theory first studied by Pawlak (1982) has been
effectively and widely used in the DM (decision making) problems.
The concept of a rough number is a powerful mathematical technique
proposed by Zhai et al. (2008) to show the prevailing advantages
of fuzzy numbers based approaches to process subjective linguistic
assessments in QFD. Cloud theory introduced by Li et al. (1995b) is

E-mail address: musavarah656@gmail.com.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2023.106255
Received 9 December 2022; Received in revised form 20 March 2023; Accepted 30 March 2023
Available online 6 April 2023
0952-1976/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Sarwar
another approach to study randomness in experts’ evaluations based
on fuzzy sets and probability theory.
Due to the objectivity of rough numbers in information assessment,
most of the other models such as fuzzy numbers, interval numbers, 2tL
model and CM theory are integrated with rough numbers to handle
information aggregation in DM problems. Li et al. (2019b,a) converted
rough numbers into clouds as well as interval clouds and integrated
with TOPSIS method to study HCWM in different real-world applica-
tions. Jianxing et al. (2021) integrated CM theory with VIKOR approach
to minimize the linguistic uncertainties during the evaluation process
using both randomness and fuzziness, and analysed risk assessment
problem of submarine pipelines. Gong et al. (2021) proposed a CM
theory based multi-objective portfolio selection approach with vari-
able risk appetite, which consolidates objectives of skewness, variance,
mean, and liquidity restrained by several realistic constraints.
Zhu et al. (2020) introduced FR (fuzzy rough) numbers and pro-
posed and an integrated FR-AHP-TOPSIS method for design concept
analysis. Chen and Ming (2020) proposed RF (rough fuzzy) numbers
and integrated RF numbers with BWM and DEA (data envelopment
analysis) methods for smart product service module. Huang et al.
(2021a,b) and Xiao et al. (2021) introduced three different powerful
models IRI (interval rough integrated) clouds, dual IRI clouds and CR
(cloud rough) numbers for candidate design schemes, remanufacturing
system tools and assessment method of engineering characteristics. Rao
et al. (2022) used dual Z-numbers and converted then into dual clouds
for sustainable suppliers selection using grey relational degree and
weighted averaging operators. Huang et al. (2022) introduced Z-CR
numbers and integrated with BWM (best–worst method) and MABAC
(multi-attributive border approximation area comparison) for design
concept evaluation. Wu et al. (2017) studied CM theory with 2tL setting
for the assessment of wind farm location selection. Wan et al. (2017)
discussed the importance of 2tL information in supplier selection us-
ing ANP (analytic network process) and ELECTRE-II (Elimination and
Choice Translating Reality II).
The researchers of different domains are actively working in such
DM problems, for instance, decision analysis based on 2tL m-polar
fuzzy sets (Akram et al., 2023b), spherical fuzzy sets (Akram et al.,
2022b), overcoming biomass energy barriers (Irfan et al., 2022), green
low-carbon port evaluation based on weighted distances and TOPSIS
method (Yang et al., 2022), 2tL t-spherical fuzzy model (Akram et al.,
2022a), cubic Fermatean fuzzy sets based MARCOS approach (Rong
et al., 2022), Fermatean hesitant fuzzy sets based VIKOR method (Mishra
et al., 2022), automatic manufacturing process based rough ELECTRE-II
approach (Sarwar et al., 2021), decision making based on 2-tuple spher-
ical fuzzy linguistic sets (Khan et al., 2023) and Hamacher aggregation
operators integrated with 2-tuple linguistic Fermatean fuzzy informa-
tion (Akram et al., 2022c), integrated SWARA-WASPAS based on spher-
ical fuzzy sets for site selection of medical wastage (Ghoushchi et al.,
2021), spherical fuzzy BCM for waste management problems (Haseli
and Ghoushchi, 2022), extended MACBETH method based on rough
numbers for traffic management (Gokasar et al., 2023), interval 2-
tuple linguistic information (Wang et al., 2015), LAAW (Logarithmic
Additive Assessment of the Weight coefficients) and RAFSI (Ranking
of Alternatives through Functional mapping of criterion subintervals
into a Single Interval) model based on rough number for site selec-
tion problems (Deveci et al., 2022b), rough macbeth and rafsi based
decision support system for flight base selection (Akyurt et al., 2021),
ordinal priority approach for sustainable development (Deveci et al.,
2022a), WASPAS method based on 2tL Fermatean fuzzy information
for solid waste disposal management (Akram et al., 2023a), extended
PROMETHEE approach based on 2tL m-polar fuzzy information in
biosciences (Akram et al., 2022d), generalized divergence based de-
cision making (Xiao et al., 2022b), hybrid models based on type-2
soft information (Sarwar and Akram, 2023), generalized evidential
divergence measure (Xiao, 2022a), generalized quantum evidence the-
ory (Xiao, 2022c), integrated behavioural decision analysis based large
2
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 123 (2023) 106255
scale QFD and extended TODIM (Liu et al., 2022), extended MARCOS
for decision analysis under 2tL q-rung picture fuzzy (Akram et al.,
2023c), decision making based on CRITIC-EDAS under Pythagorean
fuzzy information (Akram et al., 2023d), decision making based 2tL
Fermatean fuzzy sets (Akram et al., 2023e), the perception of complex
fuzzy sets under rough approximations to introduce the novel concept
of rough complex fuzzy sets (Sarwar et al., 2023a), risk assessment
based on the novel notion of rough fuzzy integrated clouds (Sarwar
et al., 2023b), decision making based on rough approximations and
cloud theory (Sarwar, 2020, 2022).
Knowledge gaps and motives of the proposed study: The existing
researches in literature based on various hybrid mathematical models
including integration of fuzziness and rough approximations, fuzziness
and 2tL information, roughness and cloud models and fuzziness and
cloud models to handle different types of uncertainties. However, these
integrated cannot be utilized to handle multi-granular information with
roughness in the presence of randomness. To overcome the shortcom-
ings in existing fuzzy based and rough set theory based methods, this
research article proposes a hybrid CM theory, 2tL setting and rough
approximations based HCWM method. The novel model proposed is
known as dual 2-tuple linguistic rough number (D2tLRN) clouds or dual
2-tuple linguistic rough integrated (D2tLRN) clouds, and integrated
with TOPSIS method for the selection of medical disposal technologies.
This method deals with randomness, uncertainty and multi-granularity
simultaneously for assessment aggregation in HCWM problems. The
main characteristics of proposed method are as follows:
1. Most of the existing HCWM approaches based on fuzzy numbers
are used to deal with vagueness and uncertain evaluations of ex-
perts. But, in these methods, much of the vagueness such that the
selection of pre-defined functions and the rational bias between
experts is ignored. Rough number is an objective mathematical
model which is computed on the given assessment data-set with-
out any additional information, suppositions and pre-defined
parameters. Due to objective benefits of rough numbers, upper
and lower approximations of fuzzy numbers are computed to
determine RF numbers for aggregating experts’ evaluations in
DM problems.
2. Rough numbers have been successfully implemented to manip-
ulate and study interpersonal uncertainty due to its strength for
information aggregation in experts’ evaluations into intervals.
However, it cannot deal with multi-granularity in experts’ judge-
ments, while the initial data is mostly given by a team of DMs
who use linguistic sets for the evaluation. To manipulate the
concepts of multi-granularity and interpersonal uncertainties,
simultaneously, 2tL variables are integrated with upper and
lower approximation limits to compute a hybrid technique called
2-tuple linguistic rough (2tLR) numbers.
3. Due to different experience and knowledge of DMrs, the random-
ness in evaluations or judgements of experts is not considered
in fuzzy based and rough number based HCWM approaches.
Cloud theory based on probability theory and fuzzy sets is an
AI approach to reflect both randomness and fuzziness in hu-
man knowledge concepts. It handles the issue that degrees of
membership in fuzzy sets are accurate by allowing a stochastic
disturbance of membership values. In the proposed method, 2tLR
numbers are converted into 2tL clouds and the new hybrid model
is known as dual 2-tuple linguistic rough number (D2tLRN) clouds.
4. The disposal of medical wastes (causing environmental distur-
bance and pollution) has always been an active domain of
research using different mathematical models. Different types
of disposal alternatives including Landfill, microwaves, steam
sterilization and incineration are used to dispose the medical
waste. One disposal technology cannot be used in each area, lo-
cality and environment. Therefore, different HCWM approaches
have been proposed to select a suitable treatment technology.
M. Sarwar Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 123 (2023) 106255

The proposed method can be effectively used to identify the Table 1

Set of notations used in this research paper.
most beneficial treatment technology for the disposal of medical
waste. Abbreviation Description
2tL 2-tuple linguistic
L2t Linguistic 2-tuple
Innovative contributions: The proposed approach is based on the
DMrs Decision makers
integration of different theories to deal with subjective and multi- DM decision making
granular uncertainties, and randomness in experts’ judgements. The 2tLR 2-tuple linguistic rough
main contributions of the present approach are described as follows: D2tLRN Dual 2-tuple linguistic rough number
HCWM Health care waste management
1. The hybridization of rough approximations, 2tL variables and PI solution Positive ideal solution
CM theory is creatively proposed to obtain a novel 2tLR numbers NI solution Negative ideal solution

and D2tLRN cloud models to effectively upgrade the perfor-

mance of rough numbers, CM theory and 2tL setting based Table 2
methods. The new D2tLRN cloud model overcomes the limi- Linguistic term set of ten variables.
tations of CM theory in dealing with intrapersonal and multi- Linguistic term Abbreviation Linguistic variable
granular uncertainties and the classical calculation method of Extremely low EL 𝑥𝑜
cloud values. It also improves the performance of rough numbers Strongly low SL 𝑥1
and 2tL values in coping and reflecting with randomness in Very low VL 𝑥2
Low L 𝑥3
initial assessment information of experts. Somewhat moderate SM 𝑥4
2. The theory of 2tL variables, rough approximation and cloud Moderate M 𝑥5
evaluations is combined with TOPSIS approach to identify the Somewhat high SH 𝑥6
suitable disposal technologies in HCWM problems. To discuss High H 𝑥7
Very high VH 𝑥8
uncertainty in experts’ assessments, the 2tL information is con-
Extremely high EH 𝑥9
verted into 2tLR numbers to handle both multi-granular and
subjective uncertainties. The randomness in the data is then
studied by computing 2tL cloud evaluations using statistical
dispersion and mathematical expectation. 2.1. 2-Tuple linguistic variables
3. The significance and importance of the proposed approach is
studied with a case study of selection of suitable treatment tech- The 2-tuple linguistic information or a linguistic variable is rep-
nologies for disposing medical wastage. The proposed method is resented by a pair (𝑥, 𝜉), where 𝑥 is the central linguistic term and
then compared with existing approaches to show its reliability 𝜉 is a numerical value representing symbolic translation from 𝑥. Let
and effectiveness. 𝑋 = {𝑥𝑜 , 𝑥1 , 𝑥2 , … , 𝑥𝑚 } be a linguistic term set with granularity 𝑚 + 1.
The 2tL (2-tuple linguistic) representation model expresses linguistic
Framework of the paper: The paper is organized as follows: data by a pair known as L2t (linguistic 2-tuple) (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉), where 𝑥𝑗 ∈ 𝑋
describes the central value of the 𝑗th linguistic term and 𝜉 ∈ [−0.5, 0.5)
1. The preliminaries and basic concepts of 2tL variables, rough represents the deviation of the 𝑗th linguistic term from the central
numbers and CM theory are described in Section 2. value.
2. In Section 3, the novel concept of D2tLRN clouds is illustrated
in detail. Some algebraic operations on D2tLRN clouds, formulae Example 1. Let 𝑋 = {𝑥𝑜 , 𝑥1 , 𝑥2 , … , 𝑥9 } be a linguistic term set
of Hamming distance and hybrid aggregation (HA) operator for described in Table 2.
D2tLRN clouds are discussed in this section. The L2t (𝑥7 , 0.4) shows that the original linguistic term is better than
3. In Section 4, the proposed D2tLRN cloud TOPSIS approach is the term ‘‘high’’. The degree to which the original linguistic value is
developed by integrating D2tLRN cloud model with TOPSIS favoured upon the term ‘‘high (𝑥7 )’’ is 0.4.
method. The objective and subjective weights of 2tL cloud eval-
With each L2t (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉), a numerical value 𝜂 is associated to represent
uations are computed for determining the PI (positive ideal)
the outcomes of aggregation of the indices in the linguistic term set
solution, NI (negative ideal) solution and closeness degree of
𝑋. Moreover, 𝜂 ∈ [0, 𝑚] which is relevant to the granularity of set
each treatment alternative corresponding to given waste criteria.
𝑋. If there exist linguistic term sets with multiple granularity, the
4. In Section 5, the proposed D2tLRN cloud TOPSIS method is range of 𝜂 varies with each granularity (Zhang, 2012). To tackle this
then applied to a problem of evaluation and selection of waste difficulty, Chen et al. (2005) and Tai and Chen (2009) proposed a
disposal technologies for the disposal of medical wastage. generalized 2tL model, translation function and reverse function as
5. In Section 7, theoretical and numerical comparison analysis of given in Definitions 1 and 2.
proposed D2tLRN cloud HCWM approach with fuzzy OWA, fuzzy
VIKOR, modified fuzzy TOPSIS and interval 2tL MULTIMOORA Definition 1 (Chen et al., 2005; Tai and Chen, 2009). Let 𝑋 = {𝑥𝑜 , 𝑥1 , 𝑥2 ,
is given to show the effectiveness and feasibility of the proposed … , 𝑥𝑚 } be a linguistic term set with granularity 𝑚 + 1 and 𝜂 ∈ [0, 1]
method. In Section 6.1, a sensitivity analysis of the proposed represents the outcome of symbolic aggregation operation of the indices
method is given to show the effects of different parameters. of a set of labels in 𝑋. The generalized translation function 𝛥 ∶ [0, 1] →
6. Section 7 contains conclusion, detailed summary of the paper 1 1
𝑋 × [− 2𝑚 , 2𝑚 ) used to obtain 2tL variable (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉) equivalent to 𝜂 is
and future directions.
defined in Eq. (1).
The list of abbreviations used in this research paper are explained in {
𝑥𝑗 𝑗 = round(𝜂.𝑚)
Table 1. 𝛥(𝜂) = (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉) with 𝑗 1 1 , (1)
𝜉=𝜂− 𝑚
𝜉 ∈ [− 2𝑚 , 2𝑚 )
2. Preliminaries where 𝜉 ∈ [−0.5, 0.5) represents the deviation of the 𝑗th linguistic term
from the central value.
In this section, some basic concepts and properties related to rough
approximations, 2-tuple linguistic variables and cloud model theory are Definition 2 (Chen et al., 2005; Tai and Chen, 2009). Let 𝑋 = {𝑥𝑜 , 𝑥1 , 𝑥2 ,
briefly reviewed. … , 𝑥𝑚 } be a linguistic term set with granularity 𝑚 + 1 and (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉) be a

3
M. Sarwar
1 1
2tL variable. There exists a reverse function 𝛥−1 ∶ 𝑋 ×[− 2𝑚 , 2𝑚
) → [0, 1]
used to covert a 2tL term (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉) into an equivalent numerical value 𝜂
as defined in Eq. (2).
𝑗 This concept was first initiated by Li et al. (1995a) based on probability
𝛥−1 (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉) = 𝜉 + = 𝜂.
𝑚 theory and fuzzy set theory. In a fuzzy set, each object is given a
Example 2. Consider a linguistic term set 𝑋 = {𝑥𝑜 , 𝑥1 , 𝑥2 , 𝑥3 , 𝑥4 , 𝑥5 , 𝑥6 },
1 1
then clearly 𝑚 = 6 and 𝜉 ∈ [− 12 , 12 ). By Eq. (2), 𝛥−1 (𝑥𝑜 , 0) = 0 + 06 ,
𝛥 (𝑥3 , 0.03) = 0.405, 𝛥 (𝑥1 , 0.02) = 0.145, 𝛥−1 (𝑥5 , −0.01) = 0.615 and
−1 −1
𝛥−1 (𝑥2 , 0.04) = 0.290.
Similarly, if the outcome of aggregation operation is 𝜂 = 0.175, the
representation of this information as 2tL term is 𝛥(0.175) = (𝑥1 , 0.05)
and 𝛥(0.480) = (𝑥4 , −0.02).
Definition 3 (Herrera and Martínez, 2000). Let (𝑥𝑎 , 𝜉1 ) and (𝑥𝑏 , 𝜉2 ) be
2tL terms, then
1. If 𝑎 < 𝑏, then (𝑥𝑎 , 𝜉1 ) < (𝑥𝑏 , 𝜉2 );
2. If 𝑎 > 𝑏, then (𝑥𝑎 , 𝜉1 ) > (𝑥𝑏 , 𝜉2 );
3. If 𝑎 = 𝑏, then
(a) if 𝜉1 = 𝜉2 , then (𝑥𝑎 , 𝜉1 ) = (𝑥𝑏 , 𝜉2 );
(b) if 𝜉1 < 𝜉2 , then (𝑥𝑎 , 𝜉1 ) < (𝑥𝑏 , 𝜉2 );
(c) if 𝜉1 > 𝜉2 , then (𝑥𝑎 , 𝜉1 ) > (𝑥𝑏 , 𝜉2 ).
2.2. Rough numbers
The theory of rough sets, first introduced by Pawlak (1982), is a
machine learning and artificial intelligence approach to handle uncer-
tainty in decision support models. Its most significant features is to cope
with uncertainty from original data, without any additional parameters
and suppositions. It determines the roughness in the decision data using
dual concepts known as upper and lower approximations. The data to
be studied and analysed is usually represented by an information table
with columns containing attributes of the objects given in rows. This
information table is generally represented by a quadruple (𝑌 , 𝑄, 𝑍, 𝑔),
where 𝑌 denotes the collection of objects, 𝑄 the set of attributes, 𝑍 the
domain of attributes and 𝑔 ∶ 𝑌 × 𝑄 represents the information function.
However, the MCDM and HCWM approaches based on evaluations by
DMrs cannot be studied with traditional rough sets. The evaluations
given by the experts are not structured in terms of information table
containing objects and attributes. To overcome this issue, Zhai et al.
(2008) extended this concept to rough numbers to handle DMrs crisp
ratings. Let 𝑌 be the universe of objects included in an information
table. These objects belong to 𝑛 classes in the set 𝑅 = {𝜉1 , 𝜉2 , … , 𝜉𝑛 },
ordered as 𝜉1 < 𝜉2 < ⋯ < 𝜉𝑛 . The upper and lower approximations of
the 𝑗th assessment 𝜉𝑗 in the set 𝑅 are computed in Eqs. (3) and (4).
{ }
𝑎𝑝𝑟(𝜉𝑗 ) = ∪ 𝜉 ∣ 𝜉 ≥ 𝜉𝑗 , 𝜉 ∈ 𝑅
{ }
𝑎𝑝𝑟(𝜉𝑗 ) = ∪ 𝜉 ∣ 𝜉 ≤ 𝜉𝑗 , 𝜉 ∈ 𝑅
The upper and lower limits 𝜉 and 𝜉 𝑗 of 𝜉𝑗 are obtained in Eqs. (5) and
𝑗
(6).
1 ∑
𝜉𝑗 = 𝑢 𝜉 (5)
𝑛
𝜉∈𝑎𝑝𝑟(𝜉𝑗 )
1 ∑
𝜉 = 𝜉 (6)
𝑗 𝑛𝑙
𝜉∈𝑎𝑝𝑟(𝜉𝑗 )
where 𝑛𝑘𝑈 𝑙 and 𝑛𝑢 denotes the number of elements in the upper
approximations 𝑎𝑝𝑟(𝜉𝑗 ) and 𝑛𝑙 denotes the number of elements in the
lower approximation 𝑎𝑝𝑟(𝜉𝑗 ). The rough number of value 𝜉𝑗 is written
as 𝑅𝑁(𝜉𝑗 ) = [𝜉 , 𝜉 𝑗 ].
𝑗
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 123 (2023) 106255
2.3. Cloud model theory
Cloud theory is a machine learning approach that can analyse
uncertainties, that is, fuzziness and randomness, in human knowledge.
(2)
membership value to represent its degree of uncertainty. However, it is
against the spirit of fuzzy set theory, where the uncertainty of an object
in a given fuzzy set is precise and certain. CM theory deals with this
issue allowing a stochastic disturbance of membership degree around
a determined central value (Li et al., 2009).
Assume that 𝑄 is a qualitative concept defined over the universe 𝑌
and 𝑧 ∈ 𝑌 . 𝜇𝑄 (𝑧) ∈ [0, 1] is the membership degree of 𝑧 which is a
random number rather than a fixed number and follows a probability
distribution. The distribution on 𝑧 in 𝑌 is called a cloud and 𝑧 is known
as cloud drop. It is clear that the hybrid RF set theory can deal with
uncertainty and ambiguities in experts’ judgements but it cannot handle
the randomness in fuzzy values and evaluations of DMrs. CM theory can
efficiently deal with the randomness in judgement intervals. Generally,
a cloud is represented as (𝐸𝑥, 𝐸𝑛, 𝐻𝐸𝑛), where
(1) The expectation 𝐸𝑥 represents the qualitative concept of the
element in the domain.
(2) The entropy 𝐸𝑛 describes the randomness of the concept. It
measures the range and dispersion extent accepted by that qualitative
concept.
(3) The hyper entropy 𝐻𝐸𝑛, entropy of 𝐸𝑛, shows the uncertainty
of the membership degrees.
3. The proposed dual 2-tuple linguistic rough number clouds
The choice of a suitable disposal technology is group decision
problem and cannot be dealt appropriately on individual basis. Due to
different knowledge, experience and expertise of DMrs, different DMrs
use multigranular linguistic term sets to explicit their judgements. They
can give different types of evaluations for the same alternative, this
phenomenon is incomplete, uncertain and imprecise in nature. This
type of multigranularity is difficult to deal with classical and fuzzy
based HCWM approaches. The 2tL (2-tuple linguistic) representation
model for HCWM problems overcomes the limitations of multigranu-
larity in existing models. But, the DMrs can use fixed linguistic terms
to express their judgements which are further represented as 2tL values.
The interval 2tL (interval 2tL) model uses intervals instead of fixed
values to represent the rankings of experts with multiple granularities,
and then convert the interval linguistic data into interval 2tL values
using pre-defined linguistic term sets (Liu et al., 2015; Zhang, 2013).
So, the interval 2tL model is more efficient and precise to solve HCWM
problems for the selection of waste disposal alternatives. Rough number
combined with cloud theory can effectively deal with vagueness and
randomness in data to manipulate the limitations of existing fuzzy
based techniques. Cloud model (CM) theory and rough set theory can
be used to overcome the limitations entailed in fuzzy sets and their
extensions. In this subsection, we propose the concept of dual 2-tuple
(3) linguistic rough number (D2tLRN) clouds also known as dual 2-tuple
linguistic rough integrated clouds. The novel mathematical D2tLRN
(4)
cloud model can obtained by integrating the concept of upper and
lower approximations with 2tL values and then transforming the data
into cloud values.
Definition 4. Let 𝛺 be the universe containing all 2tL assessment
values given by DMrs. The assessment values can be classified into
𝑚 classes 𝛿1 , 𝛿2 , … , 𝛿𝑚 in ascending order 𝛿1 ≤ 𝛿2 ≤ ⋯ ≤ 𝛿𝑚 , where
𝛿𝑗 = (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ) is the 𝑗th assessment value from DMrs, 𝑥𝑗 ∈ 𝑋 describes
the central value of the 𝑗th linguistic term and 𝜉𝑗 ∈ [−0.5, 0.5) represents
the deviation of the 𝑗th linguistic term from the central value. The
upper and lower approximations of 𝛿𝑗 = (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ) can be computed using
Eqs. (7) and (8).
{ }
𝑎𝑝𝑟(𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ) = ∪ (𝑥, 𝜉) ∣ (𝑥, 𝜉) ≥ (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ), (𝑥, 𝜉) ∈ 𝛺 (7)
4
M. Sarwar Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 123 (2023) 106255

{ }
𝑎𝑝𝑟(𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ) = ∪ (𝑥, 𝜉) ∣ (𝑥, 𝜉) ≤ (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ), (𝑥, 𝜉) ∈ 𝛺 (8) Table 3
Algebraic operations on 2tL cloud model.
The upper and lower limits 𝛿 𝑗 = (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ) and 𝛿 𝑗 = (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ) of 𝛿𝑗 = (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ) Operation Expectation Entropy Hyper entropy
( ) √ √
are obtained in Eqs. (9) and (10). 𝐶1 + 𝐶2 𝛥 𝛥−1 𝛼1 + 𝛥−1 𝛼2 𝐸𝑛21 + 𝐸𝑛22 𝐻𝐸𝑛21 + 𝐻𝐸𝑛22
( )
⎛ ⎞ 𝐶1 × 𝐶2 𝛥 𝛥−1 𝛼1 × 𝛥−1 𝛼2 |(𝛥−1 𝛼1 )(𝛥−1 𝛼2 )| |(𝛥−1 𝛼1 )(𝛥−1 𝛼2 )|
1 ∑ √( √(
𝛿𝑗 = 𝛥 ⎜ 𝑢 𝛥−1 (𝑥, 𝜉)⎟ (9) )2 ( )2 ) 2 ( )2
⎜𝑛 ⎟ ×
𝐸𝑛1 𝐸𝑛
+ 𝛥−1 𝛼2 ×
𝐻𝐸𝑛1
+
𝐻𝐸𝑛2

⎝ (𝑥,𝜉)∈𝑎𝑝𝑟(𝑥𝑗 ,𝜉𝑗 ) ⎠ ( )
𝛥−1 𝛼
1 2 𝛥−1 𝛼1 𝛥−1 𝛼2

𝐶1 ∕𝐶2 𝛥 𝛥−1 𝛼1 ∕𝛥−1 𝛼2 |𝛥−1 𝛼1 ∕𝛥−1 𝛼2 | |𝛥−1 𝛼1 ∕𝛥−1 𝛼2 |

⎛ ∑ ⎞ √( √(
1 )2 ( )2 )2 ( )2
𝛿𝑗 = 𝛥 ⎜ 𝑙 𝛥−1 (𝑥, 𝜉)⎟ (10) 𝐸𝑛1 𝐸𝑛 𝐻𝐸𝑛1 𝐻𝐸𝑛
⎜𝑛 ⎟ × 𝛥−1 𝛼1
+ 𝛥−1 𝛼2 × 𝛥−1 𝛼1
+ 𝛥−1 𝛼 2
⎝ (𝑥,𝜉)∈𝑎𝑝𝑟(𝑥𝑗 ,𝜉𝑗 ) ⎠ √
2
√
2

𝜇𝐶1 𝛥(𝛥−1 𝛼1 ) 𝜇𝐸𝑛1 𝜇𝐻𝐸𝑛1

where 𝑛𝑢 denotes the number of elements in the upper approximations ( ) √ ( −1 𝜇−1 ) √ ( −1 𝜇−1 )
𝐶1𝜇 𝛥 (𝛥−1 𝛼1 )𝜇 𝜇𝛥 (𝛥 𝛼1 ) 𝐸𝑛1 𝜇𝛥 (𝛥 𝛼1 ) 𝐻𝐸𝑛1
𝑎𝑝𝑟(𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ) and 𝑛𝑙 denotes the number of elements in the lower approx-
imation 𝑎𝑝𝑟(𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ). Note that the upper and lower limits (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ) and
(𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ) are also 2tL terms. The 2tL rough number (2tLRN) of 2tL value ( ) (
[ ] Definition 5. Let 𝐶1 = (ℎ𝐸𝑥1 , 𝐸𝑥 ̃ 1 ), 𝐸𝑛1 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛1 and 𝐶2 = (ℎ𝐸𝑥 ,
(𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ) is written as 2𝑡𝐿𝑅𝑁(𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ) = [𝛿 𝑗 , 𝛿 𝑗 ] = (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ), (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ) . ) 2
̃ 2 ), 𝐸𝑛2 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛2 be two 2tL clouds. Taking 𝛼1 = (ℎ𝐸𝑥 , 𝐸𝑥
𝐸𝑥 ̃ 1 ) and
{ } 1
Let 𝑋 = (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ) ∣ 𝑗 = 1, 2, … , 𝑚 = 2𝑠 + 1 be a 2tL collection from 𝑠 𝛼2 = (ℎ𝐸𝑥 , 𝐸𝑥 ̃ 2 ), the algebraic operations on 2tL cloud model are
2
DMrs. If the DMrs are confident about their evaluation, then 2tL term defined in Table 3.
(𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ) can be transformed into crisp linguistic value 𝑥𝑗 with 𝜉𝑗 = 0.
( ) (
1. Convert the qualitative linguistic terms into linguistic variables Definition 6. Let 𝐶1 = (ℎ𝐸𝑥1 , 𝐸𝑥 ̃ 1 ), 𝐸𝑛1 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛1 and 𝐶2 = (ℎ𝐸𝑥 ,
) 2
using Table 2. ̃ 2 ), 𝐸𝑛2 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛2 be two 2tL clouds. Taking 𝛼1 = (ℎ𝐸𝑥 , 𝐸𝑥
𝐸𝑥 ̃ 1 ) and
1
2. Compute 2tL rough numbers (2tLRNs) from [ 2tL data using ] Def- 𝛼2 = (ℎ𝐸𝑥 , 𝐸𝑥 ̃ 2 ), the Hamming distance is used to measure the similarity
2
inition 4. The 2tLRN is represented as (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ), (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ) , where between 2tL clouds using the Formula given in Eqs. (13)–(15).
(𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ) and (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ) represent the upper and lower limits of (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ) (√ √ )
𝑑(𝐶1 , 𝐶2 ) = 𝛥 (𝛥−1 𝑑(𝐶1 , 𝐶2 ))2 + (𝛥−1 𝑑(𝐶1 , 𝐶2 ))2 ∕ 2 (13)
which are also 2tL terms.
√ √
3. Convert the 2tLRNs into dual 2tL clouds known as D2tLRN ⎛||⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ |⎞
|
( ⎜||⎜ 3 𝐸𝑛21 + 𝐻𝐸𝑛21 ⎟ ⎜ 3 𝐸𝑛22 + 𝐻𝐸𝑛22 ⎟ |
̃ 𝐸𝑛, −1 −1 |⎟
clouds. A 2tL cloud can be represented as 𝐶 = (ℎ𝐸𝑥 , 𝐸𝑥), 𝑑(𝐶1 , 𝐶2 ) = 𝛥 ⎜|⎜1 − ⎟ 𝛥 𝛼 − ⎜1 − ⎟ 𝛥 𝛼 |⎟
) | 𝛥 −1 𝛼 1
𝛥 −1 𝛼 2
|⎟
̃ is a 2tL value, 𝐸𝑛 is
𝐻𝐸𝑛 , where the expectation (𝑥𝐸𝑥 , 𝐸𝑥) ⎜|⎜ 1 ⎟ ⎜ 2 ⎟ |⎠
⎝|⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ |
entropy and 𝐻𝐸𝑛 is hyper entropy. The( 𝑗th 2tL cloud of 𝑗th ) (14)
̃ 𝑗 ), 𝐸𝑛𝑗 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑗 .
assessment can be represented as 𝐶𝑗 = (ℎ𝐸𝑥𝑗 , 𝐸𝑥 √ √
⎛||⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ |⎞
|
⎜||⎜ 3 𝐸𝑛21 + 𝐻𝐸𝑛21 ⎟ ⎜ 3 𝐸𝑛22 + 𝐻𝐸𝑛22 ⎟ |
−1 −1 |⎟
̃ 𝑗 );
(a) Compute 2tL expectation (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑗 , 𝐸𝑥 𝑑(𝐶1 , 𝐶2 ) = 𝛥 ⎜|⎜1 + ⎟ 𝛥 𝛼1 − ⎜1 + ⎟ 𝛥 𝛼2 |⎟
[ ] |
⎜|⎜ 𝛥 −1 𝛼 ⎟ ⎜ 𝛥 −1 𝛼 ⎟ |⎟
⎝|⎝
1
⎠ ⎝
2
⎠ |⎠
The 2tL expectation of 2tLRN (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ), (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ) is the trans- |
lation function value of the average of reverse function (15)
values of upper and lower limits as illustrated in Eq. (11). where 𝑑(𝐶1 , 𝐶2 ) denotes the horizontal distance between the minimum
⎛ 𝛥−1 (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ) + 𝛥−1 (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ) ⎞ boundaries of 𝐶1 and 𝐶2 and 𝑑(𝐶1 , 𝐶2 ) is for maximum boundaries.
̃ 𝑗) = 𝛥 ⎜
(𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑗 , 𝐸𝑥 ⎟ (11)
⎜ 2 ⎟ Definition 7. To obtain comprehensive assessment results, the multi-
⎝ ⎠
ple 2tL( values needed to be aggregated.
) For a set normal 2tL clouds
(b) Compute entropy 𝐸𝑛𝑗 ; 𝐶𝑗 = (ℎ𝐸𝑥𝑗 , 𝐸𝑥 ̃ 𝑗 ), 𝐸𝑛𝑗 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑗 , 𝑗 = 1, 2, … , 𝑟, the hybrid aggregation
Based on the research by Cui et al. (2019) and Zhang et al.
(HA) operator of dimension 𝑟 is defined in Eq. (16).
(2020), 𝐸𝑛 depicts the scope of the alternative acceptable
for given linguistic scale. The 99% of cloud
[ droplets rep- ∑
𝑟

̃ 𝑗 )− 𝐻𝐴(𝐶1 , 𝐶2 , … , 𝐶𝑟 ) = 𝛾𝑗 𝐶𝑗 (16)
resenting a scale belong to the interval 𝛥−1 (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑗 , 𝐸𝑥
] 𝑗=1
−1 ̃ −1
3𝐸𝑛𝑗 , 𝛥 (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑗 , 𝐸𝑥𝑗 ) + 3𝐸𝑛𝑗 . Then 3𝐸𝑛𝑗 = (𝛥 (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ) − Here [𝛾1 , 𝛾2 , … , 𝛾𝑟 ] is the weight vector satisfying 𝛾𝑗 ∈ [0, 1] and
∑𝑟
𝛥−1 (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ))∕2 can be computed, where (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ) and (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ) 𝑗=1 𝛾𝑗 = 1. The weight vector can be computed using Eqs. (17) and
(18).
are the upper and lower boundaries of the determined ( ) ( )
2tLRN. Thus, the entropy value of 2tL cloud can be com- 𝑗 𝑗−1
𝛾𝑗 = ℎ −ℎ (17)
puted using Eq. (12). 𝑟 𝑟
⎧0, 𝑥<𝛼
𝛥−1 (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ) − 𝛥−1 (𝑥𝑗 , 𝜉𝑗 ) ⎪ 𝑥−𝛼
𝐸𝑛𝑗 = (12) ℎ(𝑥) = ⎨ 𝛽−𝛼 , 𝛼≤𝑥≤𝛽 (18)
6 ⎪0, 𝑥>𝛽
⎩
• Compute hyper entropy 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑗
The parameters 𝛼 and 𝛽 are evaluated by DMrs and can be varied with
Hyper entropy 𝐻𝐸𝑛 represents the uncertainty of entropy the situation. In this research study, we will consider 𝛼 = 0.15 and
𝐸𝑛, computed from 𝐸𝑛. According to the theory presented 𝛽 = 0.9.
by Zhang et al. (2020)( about cloud droplets,) we can say
̃
that a 2tL cloud 𝐶 = (𝑥𝐸𝑥 , 𝐸𝑥)𝐸𝑥, 𝐸𝑛, 𝐻𝐸𝑛 also follows 4. The proposed D2tLRN cloud HCWM methodology
a non-strict normal distribution if 3𝐻𝐸𝑛 < 𝐸𝑛, otherwise it
is fogged if 3𝐻𝐸𝑛 > 𝐸𝑛. Hence, for any 2tL cloud 𝐶𝑗 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑗 In this section, an improved HCWM methodology for waste man-
can be computed using the relation 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑗 = 𝛼 × 𝐸𝑛𝑗 (0 < agement based on D2tLRN cloud model and extended TOPSIS method
𝛼 < 1∕3). is illustrated in detail.

5
M. Sarwar
1. Firstly, the possible waste factors and treatment technologies are
determined by the DMrs. An improved twofold waste factor system is
designed at this stage.
2. Secondly, the 2tL evaluations from DMrs are collected and then
transformed into D2tLRN clouds. Cloud model has the ability to de-
scribe the relation between qualitative concept and qualitative values
considering both randomness and fuzziness in the data. Meanwhile, the
2tL variables are utilized to express uncertain knowledge DMrs have
about the problem. Considering the advantages of both theories along
with rough set theory, this research study proposes rough integrated
clouds under 2tL information.
3. Thirdly, an improved dynamic weighting scheme is adopted
considering the confidence level of DMrs to compute the evaluation
weights using HA operator. The importance of waste factors is calcu-
lated by integrated approach considering both objective and subjective
aspects of uncertainty. The 2tL values converted from DMrs’ evalu-
ations corresponding to each waste factor from multiple assessment
matrix is exactly where the TOPSIS method can utilize its superiority
into full play. Finally, the proposed D2tLRN cloud TOPSIS approach is
implemented to compute the benefit level of treatment technology. The
procedure of the proposed approach is illustrated in this section.
The proposed D2tLRN cloud HCWM approach is explained in five
different stages as shown in Fig. 1.
Defining waste factors and treatment technologies
The first step of HCWM method is to determine form the team of
experts (DMrs) whose practical experience, knowledge is relevant to
the target problem. Then the development of D2tLRN cloud TOPSIS
method begins with the determination of important waste factor and
treatment or disposal technologies.
Make the team of DMrs: Due to the uncertainty of the problem and
limited knowledge and experience of single DM, a team of experienced
experts is needed to fully capture the problem and improve the accu-
racy and objectivity of the results. The team of DMrs can be established
based on three main principles.
1. Experience and capability of DMrs: The members of the team
should have at least five years experience of working in scientific re-
search projects, testing, design, maintenance, installation and construc-
tion in the relevant field. They must be capable of current operations
and design of target system to make reasonable judgements (Cai et al.,
2013).
2. Number of DMrs: The numbers of DMrs in the team should not be
very small to ensure the rationality and reliability of the results. Usu-
ally, three to ten members are selected to provide credible judgements
in the waste management problem (Yazdi et al., 2020; Zarei et al.,
2021).
3. Diversity of composition structure: To avoid extreme convergence
of opinions, a diverse team must be organized considering the het-
erogeneous expert composition. The DMrs with different knowledge,
experience, position and medical waste disposal analysis hold different
point of views on the same issue which is beneficial to improve the
efficacy of the evaluations.
Identify the possible treatment technologies: The purpose HCWM
team is to identify the currently used HCWM treatment technologies
based on target area, practical experiences, data from environmental
protection bureau and the company responsible for collecting and
cleaning the waste. In this step, the potential treatment technologies
in the waste management system are determined using HCWM team
analysis results.
Analysis and identification of waste factors: Usually, various quali-
tative and quantitative criteria are considered in analysing the suitable
HCW disposal technology. Based on HCWM team reviews, system-
atic literature review, social, technical, environmental and economic
dimensions, the relevant waste criteria are determined to evaluate
6
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 123 (2023) 106255
the HCW treatment alternatives. The classical HCWM schemes utilizes
four main waste factors: Eco (economic), Envi (environmental), Tech
(technical) and Soc (social). This approach is not rational as it cannot
comprehensively and systematically examine the waste treatments and
ignores various sub-levels that effect the waste factors. This study uses
a twofold waste factor hierarchical system based on four waste factors
Eco, Envi, Tech and Soc as shown in Fig. 2.
In this hierarchical system, Eco, Envi, Tech and Soc are level-
1 waste factors and level-2 contains eight waste factors. The waste
factor Eco considers net cost per heap (𝑊 𝑓1 ) as its level-2 factor,
while factor Envi is about the effects of the target HCW treatment
technology on the atmosphere and contains three level-2 factors: waste
residuals (𝑊 𝑓2 ), noise (𝑊 𝑓3 ) and health effects (𝑊 𝑓4 ). The factor Tech
is sub-divided into three level-2 factors: reliability (𝑊 𝑓5 ), treatment
effectiveness (𝑊 𝑓6 ) and occupational hazard (𝑊 𝑓7 ). The treatment
level of the waste is reduced if the disposal technologies and waste
factors are easily identified. The level-1 factor Soc relates and refers
to the hardship of maintenance or repair of public property after the
management and treatment of waste. This is the reason Soc takes
one sub-factor: public acceptance (𝑊 𝑓8 ). This twofold hierarchy can
be successfully applied to various HCWM methods. It also provides a
criteria for the decision analysis of machines for the disposal of medical
wastes which is the main focus of this research study.
Collection and transformation of 2tL information into D2tLRN clouds
In this step, the given 2tL evaluation data is converted into 2tL
rough numbers (2tLRNs) and then further transformed into 2tL clouds.
Then the 𝑠 matrices containing 2tL cloud values, corresponding to 𝑠
DMrs, are aggregated into a single matrices using HA operator.
Collection of 2tL information: The DMrs express their judgements of
evaluation objects using 2tL terms to provide effective and reasonable
assessment data. During this process, the DMrs evaluate the disposal
technologies for each waste factor based on a questionnaire survey.
For a certain assessment problem, assume that there are 𝑝 treatment
technologies 𝑇 𝑇1 , 𝑇 𝑇2 , … , 𝑇 𝑇𝑝 , 𝑟 twofold waste factors 𝑊 𝑓1 , 𝑊 𝑓2 , … ,
𝑊 𝑓𝑟 and 𝑠 DMrs 𝑑1 , 𝑑2 , … , 𝑑𝑠 . Convert the 2tL terms into 2tL variables
using given criteria like Table 2. For 𝑗th treatment technology and 𝑘th
waste factor, the 2tL assessment value given by 𝑖th DMr can be denoted
𝑖 = (𝑥𝑖 , 𝜉 𝑖 ), where 𝑥𝑖 refers to central linguistic term of the
as 𝛿𝑗𝑘 𝑗𝑘 𝑗𝑘 𝑗𝑘
assessment value, 𝜉𝑗𝑘 𝑖 ∈ [−0.5, 0.5] represents the deviation from the
central value 𝑥𝑖𝑗𝑘 . The DMrs can use more than one linguistic sets to
express their evaluations, it will effect in the aggregation process to
reflect the efficacy of assessment by the DMrs. The 2tL initial relation
matrix by 𝑖th DM, for 𝑖 = 1, 2, … , 𝑠, is given in Eq. (19).
𝑖 𝑖 (𝑥𝑖12 , 𝜉12
𝑖 ) (𝑥𝑖1𝑟 , 𝜉1𝑟
𝑖 )
⎡(𝑥11 , 𝜉11 ) … ⎤
⎢ 𝑖 𝑖 𝑖 )⎥
(𝑥 , 𝜉 ) (𝑥𝑖22 , 𝜉22
𝑖 ) … (𝑥𝑖2𝑟 , 𝜉2𝑟
2𝑡𝐿𝑖 = ⎢ 21 21 ⎥ (19)
⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎥
⎢ 𝑖 𝑖 𝑖 )⎥
⎣(𝑥𝑝1 , 𝜉𝑝1 ) (𝑥𝑖𝑝2 , 𝜉𝑝2
𝑖 ) … (𝑥𝑖𝑝𝑟 , 𝜉𝑝𝑟 ⎦
Obtain 2tLRN relation matrix by converting 2tL variables into 2tL
rough numbers: The data collected by DMrs judgements contain un-
certain and ambiguous information due to diversity of knowledge and
experience. Rough approximations can extract{and cope with uncer-
𝑖 = (𝑥𝑖 , 𝜉 𝑖 ) ∣ 𝑖 = 1,
tainty without additional parameters. Let 𝛺𝑗𝑘 = 𝛿𝑗𝑘
} 𝑗𝑘 𝑗𝑘
2, … , 𝑠 be the universal set consisting of all 2tL assessment values
for 𝑗th treatment technology under 𝑘th level-2 waste factor, where 𝑥𝑖𝑗𝑘
and 𝜉𝑗𝑘 𝑖 are the central linguistic variable and deviation number of
2tL assessment value. The upper and lower approximations of 𝛿𝑗𝑘 𝑖 =
𝑖 𝑖
(𝑥𝑗𝑘 , 𝜉𝑗𝑘 ) can be computed using Eqs. (20) and (21).
{ }
𝑎𝑝𝑟(𝑥𝑖𝑗𝑘 , 𝜉𝑗𝑘
𝑖
) = ∪ (𝑥, 𝜉) ∣ (𝑥, 𝜉) ≥ (𝑥𝑖𝑗𝑘 , 𝜉𝑗𝑘
𝑖
), (𝑥, 𝜉) ∈ 𝛺𝑗𝑘 (20)
{ }
𝑎𝑝𝑟(𝑥𝑖𝑗𝑘 , 𝜉𝑗𝑘
𝑖
) = ∪ (𝑥, 𝜉) ∣ (𝑥, 𝜉) ≤ (𝑥𝑖𝑗𝑘 , 𝜉𝑗𝑘
𝑖
), (𝑥, 𝜉) ∈ 𝛺𝑗𝑘 (21)
M. Sarwar Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 123 (2023) 106255

Fig. 1. Framework of the proposed D2tLRN cloud HCWM approach.

𝑖
[ ]
𝑖 ) and 𝛿 𝑖
The upper and lower limits 𝛿 𝑗𝑘 = (𝑥𝑖𝑗𝑘 , 𝜉𝑗𝑘 = (𝑥𝑖𝑗𝑘 , 𝜉𝑗𝑘
𝑖 ) of
𝑗𝑘
𝑖 ), (𝑥𝑖 , 𝜉 𝑖 ) . The 2tLR (2tL rough) relation matrix for 𝑖th DMr
(𝑥𝑖𝑗𝑘 , 𝜉𝑗𝑘 𝑗𝑘 𝑗𝑘
𝑖 = (𝑥𝑖 , 𝜉 𝑖 ) are obtained in Eqs. (22) and (23).
𝛿𝑗𝑘 𝑗𝑘 𝑗𝑘 is written in Eq. (24).
⎛ ⎞
𝑖 ⎜1 ∑ ⎟ ⎡[(𝑥𝑖 , 𝜉 𝑖 ), (𝑥𝑖 , 𝜉 𝑖 )] [(𝑥𝑖12 , 𝜉12
𝑖
), (𝑥𝑖12 , 𝜉12
𝑖
)] … [(𝑥𝑖1𝑟 , 𝜉1𝑟
𝑖
), (𝑥𝑖1𝑟 , 𝜉1𝑟
𝑖
)]⎤
−1
𝛿 𝑗𝑘 = 𝛥⎜ 𝑢 𝛥 (𝑥, 𝜉)⎟ (22) ⎢ 11 11 11 11 ⎥
⎜𝑛 (𝑥,𝜉)∈𝑎𝑝𝑟(𝑥𝑖𝑗𝑘 ,𝜉𝑗𝑘
𝑖 ) ⎟ ⎢ [(𝑥𝑖 , 𝜉 𝑖 ), (𝑥𝑖 , 𝜉 𝑖 )] [(𝑥𝑖22 , 𝜉22
𝑖
), (𝑥𝑖1𝑟 , 𝜉1𝑟
𝑖
)] … [(𝑥2𝑟 , 𝜉2𝑟 ), (𝑥1𝑟 , 𝜉1𝑟 )]⎥
𝑖 𝑖 𝑖 𝑖
⎝ ⎠ 2𝑡𝐿𝑅𝑖 = ⎢ 21 21 1𝑟 1𝑟 ⎥
⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎥
⎛ ⎞ ⎢ ⎥
⎜1 ∑ ⎟ ⎢ [(𝑥𝑖𝑝1 , 𝜉𝑝1
𝑖
), (𝑥𝑖1𝑟 , 𝜉1𝑟
𝑖
)] [(𝑥𝑖𝑝2 , 𝜉𝑝2
𝑖
), (𝑥𝑖1𝑟 , 𝜉1𝑟
𝑖
)] … 𝑖 ), (𝑥𝑖 , 𝜉 𝑖 )]⎥
[(𝑥𝑖𝑝𝑟 , 𝜉𝑝𝑟
𝛿 𝑖𝑗𝑘 = 𝛥⎜ 𝑙 −1
𝛥 (𝑥, 𝜉)⎟ (23) ⎣ 𝑝𝑟 𝑝𝑟 ⎦

⎜𝑛 (𝑥,𝜉)∈𝑎𝑝𝑟(𝑥𝑖𝑗𝑘 ,𝜉𝑗𝑘
𝑖 ) ⎟ (24)
⎝ ⎠
where 𝑛𝑢 denotes the number of elements in the upper approximation
𝑎𝑝𝑟(𝑥𝑖𝑗𝑘 , 𝜉𝑗𝑘
𝑖 ) and 𝑛𝑙 denotes the number of elements in the lower ap- Compute 2tL cloud evaluations of 2tLR relation matrix: For detailed
analysis, the obtained 2tLR evaluations are further converted into 2tL
proximation 𝑎𝑝𝑟(𝑥𝑖𝑗𝑘 , 𝜉𝑗𝑘
𝑖 ). Note that the upper and lower limits (𝑥𝑖 , 𝜉 𝑖 )
𝑗𝑘 𝑗𝑘 clouds to discuss randomness and fuzziness effectively in the assess-
and (𝑥𝑖𝑗𝑘 , 𝜉𝑗𝑘
𝑖 ) are also 2tL terms. The 2tL rough number (2tLRN)
ment values. The obtained 2tL clouds are known as D2tLRN( clouds.
𝑖 ̃ 𝑖 ),
𝑖 ) is written as 2𝑡𝐿𝑅𝑁(𝑥𝑖 , 𝜉 𝑖 ) = [𝛿 𝑖 , 𝛿 ] =
of 2tL value (𝑥𝑖𝑗𝑘 , 𝜉𝑗𝑘 A 2tL cloud of 2𝑡𝐿𝑅𝑁(𝑥𝑖𝑗𝑘 , 𝜉𝑗𝑘
𝑖 ) is represented as  𝑖 = (ℎ
𝑗𝑘 𝐸𝑥 𝑖 , 𝐸𝑥 𝑗𝑘
𝑗𝑘 𝑗𝑘 𝑗𝑘 𝑗𝑘 𝑗𝑘

7
M. Sarwar Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 123 (2023) 106255

Fig. 2. Hierarchical structure of two-fold waste factors.

( ) ( ) ( )
⎡ (𝑥 𝑖 , 𝜉 𝑖 ), 𝐸𝑛𝑖 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑖 (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑖 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑖 ), 𝐸𝑛𝑖12 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑖12 … (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑖 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑖 ), 𝐸𝑛𝑖1𝑟 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑖1𝑟 ⎤
⎢( 𝐸𝑥11 𝐸𝑥11 11 11
) ( 12 12
) ( 1𝑟 1𝑟
)⎥⎥
⎢
(𝑥 ,𝜉 ), 𝐸𝑛𝑖21 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑖21 (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑖 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑖 ), 𝐸𝑛𝑖22 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑖22 … (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑖 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑖 ), 𝐸𝑛𝑖2𝑛 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑖2𝑛 ⎥
𝐷2𝑡𝐿𝑅𝑁𝐶 = ⎢ 𝐸𝑥𝑖21 𝐸𝑥𝑖21
𝑖
22 22 2𝑟 2𝑟 (27)
⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎥
⎢( ) ( ) ( )⎥
⎢ (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑖 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑖 ), 𝐸𝑛𝑖 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑖 (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑖 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑖 ), 𝐸𝑛𝑖𝑝2 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑖𝑝2 … (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑖 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑖 ), 𝐸𝑛𝑝𝑟 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑝𝑟 ⎥
𝑖 𝑖
⎣ 𝑝1 𝑝1 𝑝1 𝑝1 𝑝2 𝑝2 𝑝𝑟 𝑝𝑟 ⎦

Box I.
) ( )
̃ 𝑖 ), 𝐸𝑛𝑖 and 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑖 are the 2tL expec-
𝐸𝑛𝑖𝑗𝑘 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑖𝑗𝑘 , where (ℎ𝐸𝑥𝑖 , 𝐸𝑥 (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑖 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑖 ), 𝐸𝑛𝑖𝑗𝑘 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑖𝑗𝑘 , 1 ≤ 𝑖 ≤ 𝑠 are aggregated using For-
𝑗𝑘
𝑗𝑘 𝑗𝑘 𝑗𝑘 𝑗𝑘 𝑗𝑘
tation, entropy and hyper entropy of 2tL cloud 𝐶𝑗𝑘 𝑖 . Based on Section 3,
[ ] mula (28).
𝑖 ), (𝑥𝑖 , 𝜉 𝑖 ) is the translation
the 2tL expectation of 2tLRN (𝑥𝑖𝑗𝑘 , 𝜉𝑗𝑘 𝑗𝑘 𝑗𝑘 ∑
𝑠
1 2 𝑠 𝑠
𝑗𝑘 = 𝐻𝐴(𝑗𝑘 , 𝑗𝑘 , … , 𝑗𝑘 )= 𝛾𝑖 𝑗𝑘 (28)
function value of the average of reverse function values of upper and 𝑖=1
lower limits as illustrated in Eq. (25). Here [𝛾1 , 𝛾2 , … , 𝛾𝑠 ] is the weight vector satisfying 𝛾𝑖 ∈ [0, 1] and
∑𝑠
𝑖=1 𝛾𝑖 = 1. The weight vector can be computed using Eqs. (17)
⎛ 𝛥−1 (𝑥𝑖 , 𝜉 𝑖 ) + 𝛥−1 (𝑥𝑖 , 𝜉 𝑖 ) ⎞ and (18). These weight vectors are unique and can be determined
̃ 𝑖 ⎜ 𝑗𝑘 𝑗𝑘 𝑗𝑘 𝑗𝑘 ⎟
(𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑖 , 𝐸𝑥𝑗𝑘 ) = 𝛥 ⎜ ⎟ (25) by different methods. The aggregated(D2tLRN cloud relation matrix )
𝑗𝑘
⎜ 2 ⎟ [ ]
⎝ ⎠ 𝐷2𝑡𝐿𝑅𝑁𝐶 = 𝑗𝑘 𝑝×𝑟 , where 𝑗𝑘 = (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑗𝑘 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑗𝑘 ), 𝐸𝑛𝑗𝑘 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑗𝑘 , is
written as Eq. (29) given in Box II.
The entropy value of 2tL cloud can be computed using Eq. (26).

𝑖 ) − 𝛥−1 (𝑥𝑖 , 𝜉 𝑖 )
𝛥−1 (𝑥𝑖𝑗𝑘 , 𝜉𝑗𝑘 𝑗𝑘 𝑗𝑘
Compute hybrid weights of waste factors
𝐸𝑛𝑖𝑗𝑘 = (26)
6
To compute the hybrid importance coefficients of waste factors,
Hyper entropy 𝐻𝐸𝑛 reflects the vagueness of entropy value 𝐸𝑛, so the objective, subjective and hybrid importance coefficients of weight
it can be computed from 𝐸𝑛. As described in Section 3, for any 2tL factors are computed based on the importance of factors evaluated by
𝑖 , hyper entropy 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑖 can be obtained using the relation
cloud 𝑗𝑘 𝑗𝑘 DMrs. The team of DMrs give importance to waste factors in the form of
𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑖𝑗𝑘 = 𝛼 × 𝐸𝑛𝑖𝑗𝑘 (0 < 𝛼 < 1∕3). The D2tLRN cloud relation matrix 2tL values described in Table 2. The 2tL relative importance of 𝑟 waste
[ ] ( )
𝐷2𝑡𝐿𝑅𝑁𝐶 𝑖 = 𝑗𝑘 𝑖 𝑖 = (𝑥
, where 𝑗𝑘 𝑖 𝑖 factors provided by the DMrs is given in Eq. (30).
𝐸𝑥𝑖 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑖 ), 𝐸𝑛𝑗𝑘 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑗𝑘 , for
𝑝×𝑟 𝑗𝑘 𝑗𝑘
( )
𝑖th DMr is written as Eq. (27) given in Box I. (𝑥𝑘 , 𝜉𝑘 ) = (𝑥1𝑘 , 𝜉𝑘1 ), (𝑥2𝑘 , 𝜉𝑘2 ), … , (𝑥𝑖𝑘 , 𝜉𝑘𝑖 ), … , (𝑥𝑠𝑘 , 𝜉𝑘𝑠 ) (30)

where (𝑥𝑘 , 𝜉𝑘 ) is the 2tL importance of 𝑘th criteria given by 𝑠 experts.

Construct the aggregated D2tLR cloud relation matrix: The 2tL
The 2tLRN (2tL rough number) evaluations of waste factors are given
cloud evaluations of different DMrs need to be aggregated to form
in Eq. (31).
a collective or group relation matrix. The 𝑠 D2tLRN cloud matrices
𝐷2𝑡𝐿𝑅𝑁 1 , 𝐷2𝑡𝐿𝑅𝑁 2 , … , 𝐷2𝑡𝐿𝑅𝑁 𝑠 are transformed into a single group (
2𝑡𝐿𝑅𝑁(𝑥𝑘 , 𝜉𝑘 ) = 2𝑡𝐿𝑅𝑁(𝑥1𝑘 , 𝜉𝑘1 ), 2𝑡𝐿𝑅𝑁(𝑥2𝑘 , 𝜉𝑘2 ), … , 2𝑡𝐿𝑅𝑁(𝑥𝑖𝑘 , 𝜉𝑘𝑖 ), … ,
matrix using HA operator given in Eq. (16). Let (𝛾1 , 𝛾 = 2, … , 𝛾𝑠 ) )
be the weights of DMrs, then the 𝑠 2tL cloud evaluations 𝐶𝑗𝑘 𝑖 = 2𝑡𝐿𝑅𝑁(𝑥𝑠𝑘 , 𝜉𝑘𝑠 ) (31)

8
M. Sarwar Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 123 (2023) 106255

( ) ( ) ( )
⎡ (𝑥 ,𝜉 ), 𝐸𝑛11 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛11 (𝑥𝐸𝑥12 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥12 ), 𝐸𝑛12 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛12 … (𝑥𝐸𝑥1𝑟 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥1𝑟 ), 𝐸𝑛1𝑟 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛1𝑟 ⎤
⎢( 𝐸𝑥11 𝐸𝑥11 ) ( ) ( )⎥⎥
⎢
𝐷2𝑡𝐿𝑅𝑁𝐶 = ⎢ (𝑥𝐸𝑥21
, 𝜉𝐸𝑥21
), 𝐸𝑛21 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛21 (𝑥𝐸𝑥22 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥22 ), 𝐸𝑛22 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛22 … (𝑥𝐸𝑥2𝑟 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥2𝑟 ), 𝐸𝑛2𝑛 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛2𝑛 ⎥ (29)
⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎥
⎢( ) ( ) ( )⎥
⎢ (𝑥𝐸𝑥 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥 ), 𝐸𝑛𝑝1 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑝1 (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑝2 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑝2 ), 𝐸𝑛𝑝2 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑝2 … (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑟 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑟 ), 𝐸𝑛𝑝𝑟 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑝𝑟 ⎥⎦
⎣ 𝑝1 𝑝1

Box II.
[ ]
where the 2tLRN 2𝑡𝐿𝑅𝑁(𝑥𝑖𝑘 , 𝜉𝑘𝑖 ) = (𝑥𝑖𝑘 , 𝜉𝑘𝑖 ), (𝑥𝑖𝑘 , 𝜉𝑘𝑖 ) is a 2tLRN of The objective importance coefficient 𝛿𝑘𝑜 of 𝑘th weight factor can be
determined using Eq. (39).
𝑘th waste factor given by 𝑖th DM. The 2tLRNs in Eq. (31) are then
transformed into 2tL cloud evaluations as given in Eq. (32). 𝜎2
𝛿𝑘𝑜 = ∑𝑟 𝑘 . (39)
( ) 𝜎𝑘2
2𝑡𝐿𝐶(2𝑡𝐿𝑅𝑁(𝑥𝑘 , 𝜉𝑘 )) = 𝑘 = 𝑘1 , 𝑘2 , … , 𝑘𝑠 𝑘=1
(( )
= (𝑥𝐸𝑥1 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥1 ), 𝐸𝑛1𝑘 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛1𝑘 , Here 𝜎𝑘2 is the variance of aggregated 2tL cloud evaluation 𝑘 for
( 𝑘 𝑘
) each 1 ≤ 𝑘 ≤ 𝑟. The hybrid importance coefficient of 𝑘th weight
(𝑥𝐸𝑥2 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥2 ), 𝐸𝑛2𝑘 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛2𝑘 , … , factor computed using subjective and objective importance coefficients
( 𝑘 𝑘
)) is given in Formula (40).
(𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑠 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑠 ), 𝐸𝑛𝑠𝑘 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑠𝑘 (32) ( )
𝑘 𝑘
𝛿𝑘𝑜 × 𝛥−1 𝛿𝑘𝑠
( ) 𝛿𝑘 = 𝛥 ∑𝑟 𝑜 −1 𝑠
. (40)
where 𝑘𝑖 = (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑖 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑖 ), 𝐸𝑛𝑖𝑘 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑖𝑘 is the 2tL cloud importance 𝑘=1 𝛿𝑘 × 𝛥 𝛿𝑘
𝑘 𝑘

of 𝑘th waste factor corresponding to 𝑖th DMr. The 2tL expectation

(𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑖 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑖 ), entropy 𝐸𝑛𝑖𝑘 and hyper entropy 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑖𝑘 are illustrated in
𝑘 𝑘
Eqs. (33)–(35). Computing weighted normalized D2tLR relation matrix

⎛ 𝛥−1 (𝑥𝑖 , 𝜉 𝑖 ) + 𝛥−1 (𝑥𝑖 , 𝜉 𝑖 ) ⎞

⎜ 𝑘 𝑘 𝑘 𝑘 ⎟ The objective, subjective and hybrid weights of disposal technolo-
(𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑖 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑖 ) = 𝛥 ⎜ ⎟ (33) gies are computed based on the criteria importance given by experts.
𝑘 𝑘
⎜ 2 ⎟
⎝ ⎠ Determine normalized cloud decision matrix: Due to different mag-
𝛥−1 (𝑥𝑖𝑘 , 𝜉𝑘𝑖 ) − 𝛥−1 (𝑥𝑖𝑘 , 𝜉𝑘𝑖 ) nitudes and dimensions of treatment technologies and weight factors,
𝐸𝑛𝑖𝑘 = (34) the aggregated D2tLR cloud relation matrix can be remoulded into
6
1 comparable one by normalizing the 2tL cloud values of the matrix.
𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑖𝑘 =𝛼 × 𝐸𝑛𝑖𝑘 , 𝛼 ∈ (0, ). (35) The normalized value 𝑗𝑘 of aggregated D2tLR cloud relation matrix
3 [ ]
𝐷2𝑡𝐿𝑅𝑁𝐶 = 𝑗𝑘 𝑝×𝑟 for 𝑗th treatment technology and 𝑘th weight
To compute the hybrid weights of waste factors, aggregate the D2tLRN factor can be computed based on Eq. (41).
clouds of criteria importance of 𝑠 DMrs
( given in Eq. (31) into) single ( )
′
aggregated 2tL assessment value 𝑘 = (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑘 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑘 ), 𝐸𝑛𝑘 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑘 using 𝑗𝑘 = (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑗𝑘 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑗𝑘 )′ , 𝐸𝑛′𝑗𝑘 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛′𝑗𝑘
( )
HA operator (Eq. (16)) as given in Eq. (36). (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑗𝑘 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑗𝑘 ), 𝐸𝑛𝑗𝑘 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑗𝑘
= ( ) (41)
∑
𝑠
(𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑘 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑘 )max , 𝐸𝑛min , 𝐻𝐸𝑛min
𝑘 = 𝐻𝐴(𝑘1 , 𝑘2 , … , 𝑘𝑠 ) = 𝛾𝑖 𝑘𝑠 (36) 𝑘 𝑘
𝑖=1
where (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑘 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑘 )max = 𝛥(max𝑗 𝛥−1 (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑗𝑘 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑗𝑘 )), 𝐸𝑛min
𝑘
= min𝑗 𝐸𝑛𝑗𝑘 and
The 𝛾𝑖 values can be computed using Eqs. (17) and (18). 𝐻𝐸𝑛min
𝑘
= min 𝑗 𝐻𝐸𝑛 𝑗𝑘 . The division of two 2tL clouds (in Eq. (41)) is
defined
[ ] in Table 3. The normalized D2tLR relation matrix of 𝐷2𝑡𝐿𝑅𝑁𝐶
Compute subjective importance of weight factors: ( Based on the ′
= 𝑗𝑘 in Eq. (29) is written as Eq. (42) given in Box III.
aggregated importance 2tL cloud coefficients 𝑘 = (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑘 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑘 ), 𝐸𝑛𝑘 , 𝑝×𝑟
)
𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑘 , 1 ≤ 𝑘 ≤ 𝑟, the subjective importance coefficients of 𝑘th weight Determine weighted normalized D2tLR relation matrix: The im-
factor can be determined using Formula (37). portance of treatment technologies against different waste factors can
( ) be observed by multiplying 2tL normalized cloud evaluations by the
𝛥−1 (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑘 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑘 ) importance coefficients of waste factors. The weighted value of nor-
𝛿𝑘𝑠 = 𝛥 ∑𝑟 , 𝑘 = 1, 2, … , 𝑟 (37) malized 2tL cloud evaluation 𝑗𝑘 ′ of 𝑗th treatment technology for 𝑘th
−1
𝑘=1 𝛥 (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑘 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑘 )
waste factor can be computed using Eq. (43).
( √ √ )
∗ ′
Determine objective importance of waste factors: The idea of sta- 𝑗𝑘 = 𝛿𝑘 𝑗𝑘 = 𝛥(𝛿𝑘 𝛥−1 (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑗𝑘 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑗𝑘 )′ ), 𝛿𝑘 𝐸𝑛′𝑗𝑘 , 𝛿𝑘 𝐻𝐸𝑛′𝑗𝑘 (43)
tistical variance is implemented to determine the objective importance
coefficients of weight factors as it has simpler process and less cal- ( )
∗ = 𝛿 ′ =
where 𝑗𝑘 (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑗𝑘 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑗𝑘 )∗ , 𝐸𝑛∗𝑗𝑘 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛∗𝑗𝑘 is the weighted
culation complexity as compared to Shannon entropy weights. The 𝑘 𝑗𝑘
′ . The weighted normalized D2tLR relation
2tL cloud evaluation of 𝑗𝑘
objective importance of weight factors can be computed from aggre-
gated 2tL cloud evaluations given in Eq. (36). According to Li and Du matrix is written in Eq. (44).
(2017), the statistical variance 𝜎𝑖2 of 𝑘th weight factor can be taken
as the sum of squares of entropy and hyper entropy values as given ⎡𝛿1 11
′ ′
𝛿2 12 … ′ ⎤
𝛿𝑚 1𝑟
⎢𝛿  ′ ′
𝛿2 22 … 𝛿𝑚 2𝑟 ⎥⎥
′
in Eq. (38). ∗
[𝑗𝑘 =]𝑝×𝑟 = ⎢ 1 21 (44)
⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎥
⎢𝛿  ′ ′ ′ ⎥
𝜎𝑘2 = 𝐸𝑛2𝑘 + 𝐻𝐸𝑛2𝑘 , 𝑘 = 1, 2, … , 𝑟 (38) ⎣ 1 𝑝1 𝛿2 𝑝2 … 𝛿𝑚 𝑝𝑟 ⎦

9
M. Sarwar Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 123 (2023) 106255

( ) ( ) ( )
⎡ (𝑥 ,𝜉 )′ , 𝐸𝑛′11 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛′11 (𝑥𝐸𝑥12 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥12 )′ , 𝐸𝑛′12 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛′12 … (𝑥𝐸𝑥1𝑟 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥1𝑟 )′ , 𝐸𝑛′1𝑟 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛′1𝑟 ⎤
⎢( 𝐸𝑥11 𝐸𝑥11 ) ( ) ( )⎥⎥
⎢ ′ , 𝐸𝑛′ , 𝐻𝐸𝑛′
′
[𝑗𝑘 ]𝑝×𝑟 = ⎢ (𝑥𝐸𝑥21
, 𝜉𝐸𝑥21
) 21 21
(𝑥𝐸𝑥22 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥22 )′ , 𝐸𝑛′22 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛′22 … ′ ′ ′
(𝑥𝐸𝑥2𝑟 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥2𝑟 ) , 𝐸𝑛2𝑛 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛2𝑛 ⎥ (42)
⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎥
⎢( ) ( ) ( )⎥
⎢ (𝑥𝐸𝑥 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥 )′ , 𝐸𝑛′ , 𝐻𝐸𝑛′ (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑝2 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑝2 )′ , 𝐸𝑛′𝑝2 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛′𝑝2 … (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑟 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑟 ) , 𝐸𝑛𝑝𝑟 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑝𝑟 ⎥⎦
′ ′ ′
⎣ 𝑝1 𝑝1 𝑝1 𝑝1

Box III.

Ranking of treatment technologies: The treatment technologies are Table 4

Linguistic term set of five, seven and nine variables.
ranked from most suitable to less suitable for the waste management. Linguistic term 𝐿5 𝐿7 𝐿9
For this purpose, the PI and NI solutions, distances and closeness Extremely low – – – – EL 𝑧𝑜
degrees are computed from weighted normalized D2tLR relation matrix Very low VL 𝑥𝑜 VL 𝑦𝑜 VL 𝑧1
given in Eq. (44). Low L 𝑥1 L 𝑦1 L 𝑧2
Moderate low – – ML 𝑦2 ML 𝑧3
Identifying PI and NI solutions: Based on the weighted normalized Moderate M 𝑥2 M 𝑦3 M 𝑧4
D2tLR relation matrix, the PI and NI solutions of waste factors 𝑊 𝑓𝑘 , Moderate high – – MH 𝑦4 MH 𝑧5
1 ≤ 𝑘 ≤ 𝑟, are computed as given in Eqs. (45) and (46). High H 𝑥3 H 𝑦5 H 𝑧6
Very high VH 𝑥4 VH 𝑦6 VH 𝑧7
𝑆 + (𝑊 𝑓𝑘 ) Extremely high – – – – EH 𝑧8
( )
⎧ −1 ∗ ∗ ∗
⎪ 𝛥(max𝑗 𝛥 (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑗𝑘 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑗𝑘 ) ), min𝑗 𝐸𝑛𝑗𝑘 , min𝑗 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑗𝑘 , 𝑘∈𝐵
= ⎨( )
⎪ 𝛥(min𝑗 𝛥−1 (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑗𝑘 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑗𝑘 )∗ ), max𝑗 𝐸𝑛∗𝑗𝑘 , max𝑗 𝐻𝐸𝑛∗𝑗𝑘 , 𝑘∈𝐶 The method of the proposed D2tLRN cloud HCWM approach is
⎩ explained using a step by step procedure in Algorithm 1.
(45)

𝑆 − (𝑊 𝑓𝑘 ) 5. Case study: Evaluation and selection of treatment technologies

for the disposal of incinerator wastage
⎧( −1 ∗ ∗ ∗
)
⎪ 𝛥(min𝑗 𝛥 (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑗𝑘 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑗𝑘 ) ), max𝑗 𝐸𝑛𝑗𝑘 , max𝑗 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑗𝑘 , 𝑘∈𝐵
= ⎨( ) In this section, an application example is presented to validate
−1 ∗ ∗ ∗
⎪ 𝛥(max𝑗 𝛥 (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑗𝑘 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑗𝑘 ) ), min𝑗 𝐸𝑛𝑗𝑘 , min𝑗 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑗𝑘 , 𝑘∈𝐶
and demonstrate the proposed D2tLRN cloud TOPSIS method for the
⎩
(46) selection and evaluation of HCW treatment technologies. On account
of medical training and outcomes of regulation, it is observed that
where 𝑊 𝑓𝑘 is the 𝑘th waste factor, 𝐵 and 𝐶 are the benefit and cost the waste of incinerator is increasing with the passage of time (Liu
criteria. The benefit criteria means the greater the value, the higher et al., 2013). Liu et al. (2014) discussed the selection and evaluation
benefit of the treatment technology; the cost criteria means that the of HCWM technologies for waste disposal in Shanghai, China. The
greater the value, the lower the benefit of the treatment technology. In capacity of incinerators to burn all the medical training waste is suf-
PI solution 𝑆 + (𝑊 𝑓𝑘 ) of the waste factor 𝑊 𝑓𝑘 , the 2tL cloud evaluations ficient. So, after discussion with hospitals, environmental protection
corresponding to benefit criteria are maximized and to cost criteria are bureau and the waste collecting companies, there is a need to carefully
minimized. In NI solution 𝑆 − (𝑊 𝑓𝑘 ) of the waste factor 𝑊 𝑓𝑘 , the 2tL choose the HCW treatment technologies. After careful selection, four
cloud evaluations corresponding to benefit criteria are minimized and treatment alternatives to dispose the medical wastes are considered
to cost criteria are maximized. in this case: incineration (𝑇 𝑇1 ), microwave (𝑇 𝑇3 ), steam sterilization
(𝑇 𝑇2 ) and landfill (𝑇 𝑇4 ).
Computing the Hamming distance of treatment technologies from
An HCW team of five DMrs 𝑑1 , 𝑑2 , 𝑑3 , 𝑑4 , 𝑑5 is formed for the assess-
PI and NI solutions: The Hamming distance (using Eqs. (13)–(15) of
ment of treatment alternatives. To access the importance of treatment
each treatment technology from PI and NI solutions are computed in
alternatives against two-fold waste factors, the DMrs give evaluations
Eqs. (47) and (48).
√ according to a questionnaire using different linguistic sets. The DMrs
⎛√
√∑ 𝑟 [ ]2 ⎞ 𝑑1 and 𝑑5 give their judgements in the set 𝐿5 containing five values; 𝑑2
𝐷𝑗 = 𝛥 ⎜√
+ ∗ , 𝑆 + (𝑊 𝑓 )) ⎟
𝛥−1 𝑑(𝐶𝑗𝑘 𝑘 (47) and 𝑑4 provide evaluations from the set 𝐿7 of seven linguistic values;
⎜ 𝑘=1 ⎟
⎝ ⎠ however, 𝑑3 give judgements from the set 𝐿9 of nine linguistic labels.
√
⎛√
√∑ 𝑟 [ ]2 ⎞ The DMrs provide relative importance of waste factors from 𝐿7 . The
𝐷𝑗− = 𝛥 ⎜√ ∗ , 𝑆 − (𝑊 𝑓 )) ⎟ ,
𝛥−1 𝑑(𝐶𝑗𝑘 𝑘 (48) sets 𝐿5 and 𝐿7 are illustrated in Table 4.
⎜ 𝑘=1 ⎟
⎝ ⎠ The evaluations of treatment alternatives against eight two-fold
waste factors in the form of 2tL values are given in Table 5.
where 𝐷𝑗+ is the distance of 𝑗th treatment technology from PI solution
The 2tL values are given in Table 5. The 2tL evaluations of treatment
and 𝐷𝑗− is the distance of 𝑘th treatment technology from NI solution.
technology 𝑇 𝑇1 corresponding to waste factor 𝑊 𝑓1 by five DMrs are
{ }
Obtaining the closeness degree of treatment technologies: The (𝑥1 , 0), (𝑦1 , 0), (𝑧2.5 , 0), (𝑦1 , 0), (𝑥𝑜 , 0) . The equivalent numerical values
closeness degree of 𝑗th treatment technology is computed in Eq. (49). after applying reverse function are {0.25, 0.1667, 0.3125, 0.1667, 0}. The
( ) upper and lower approximations of (𝑧2.5 , 0) are 𝑎𝑝𝑟(𝑧2.5 , 0) = {𝛥(0.3125)}
𝛥−1 𝐷𝑗+ 𝑎𝑝𝑟(𝑧2.5 , 0) = {𝛥(0.25), 𝛥(0.1667), 𝛥(0.1667), 𝛥(0.3125), 𝛥(0)}. The upper
𝑐𝑑𝑗 = 𝛥 , (49)
𝛥−1 𝐷𝑗+ + 𝛥−1 𝐷𝑗− are lower limits are (𝑧2.5 , 0) = 𝛥(0.3125) and (𝑧2.5 , 0) = 𝛥(0.1792). The
where 𝑐𝑑𝑗 is the closeness degree which represents the strength of 2tLR number corresponding to 2tL value (𝑧2.5 , 0) is 2𝑡𝐿𝑅𝑁(𝑧2.5 , 0) =
waste management priority. The greater the value of 𝑐𝑑𝑗 means the 𝑗th [𝛥(0.1792), 𝛥(0.3125)]. The 2tLR numbers of 2tL values given in Table 5
treatment technology is more beneficial. corresponding to DMrs 𝑑1 and 𝑑5 are computed in Tables 6–9.

10
M. Sarwar Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 123 (2023) 106255

Table 5
2tL evaluations of treatment alternatives by five DMrs.
DMrs Alternatives Waste factors
𝑊 𝑓1 𝑊 𝑓2 𝑊 𝑓3 𝑊 𝑓4 𝑊 𝑓5 𝑊 𝑓6 𝑊 𝑓7 𝑊 𝑓8
𝑇 𝑇1 (𝑥1 , 0) (𝑥2.5 , 0) (𝑥1.5 , 0) (𝑥𝑜 , 0) (𝑥3 , 0) (𝑥4 , 0) (𝑥2.5 , 0) (𝑥1 , 0)
𝑇 𝑇2 (𝑥2.5 , 0) (𝑥4 , 0) – (𝑥2.5 , 0) (𝑥3 , 0) (𝑥2.5 , 0) (𝑥4 , 0) (𝑥2.5 , 0)
𝑑1
𝑇 𝑇3 (𝑥1.5 , 0) (𝑥3 , 0) (𝑥2.5 , 0) (𝑥3 , 0) (𝑥2 , 0) (𝑥3 , 0) (𝑥3 , 0) (𝑥2 , 0)
𝑇 𝑇4 (𝑥2 , 0) (𝑥1 , 0) (𝑥𝑜 , 0) (𝑥1.5 , 0) (𝑥1 , 0) (𝑥𝑜 , 0) (𝑥1.5 , 0) (𝑥𝑜 , 0)
𝑇 𝑇1 (𝑦1 , 0) (𝑦4 , 0) (𝑦1 , 0) (𝑦1 , 0) (𝑦6 , 0) (𝑦5 , 0) (𝑦5 , 0) (𝑦2.5 , 0)
𝑇 𝑇2 (𝑦4.5 , 0) (𝑦5 , 0) (𝑦4.5 , 0) (𝑦5.5 , 0) (𝑦6 , 0) (𝑦4 , 0) (𝑦5 , 0) (𝑦5 , 0)
𝑑2
𝑇 𝑇3 (𝑦3 , 0) (𝑦5 , 0) (𝑦4 , 0) (𝑦5 , 0) (𝑦3 , 0) – (𝑦4 , 0) (𝑦4 , 0)
𝑇 𝑇4 (𝑦5 , 0) (𝑦1 , 0) (𝑦6 , 0) (𝑦1 , 0) (𝑦2 , 0) (𝑦1 , 0) (𝑦1 , 0) (𝑦1 , 0)
𝑇 𝑇1 (𝑧2.5 , 0) (𝑧6 , 0) (𝑧3 , 0) (𝑧5.5 , 0) (𝑧7 , 0) (𝑧6.5 , 0) (𝑧5 , 0) (𝑧3 , 0)
𝑇 𝑇2 (𝑧5 , 0) (𝑧5 , 0) (𝑧6 , 0) (𝑧5.5 , 0) (𝑧7 , 0) (𝑧6.5 , 0) (𝑧5 , 0) (𝑧3 , 0)
𝑑3
𝑇 𝑇3 (𝑧5 , 0) (𝑧7 , 0) (𝑧7 , 0) (𝑧6 , 0) (𝑧5 , 0) (𝑧5 , 0) (𝑧5.5 , 0) (𝑧6 , 0)
𝑇 𝑇4 (𝑧6 , 0) (𝑧1 , 0) (𝑧5 , 0) (𝑧3 , 0) (𝑧3 , 0) (𝑧7 , 0) (𝑧6 , 0) (𝑧2 , 0)
𝑇 𝑇1 (𝑦1 , 0) (𝑦4 , 0) (𝑦1 , 0) (𝑦1 , 0) (𝑦5 , 0) (𝑦4 , 0) (𝑦3 , 0) (𝑦1 , 0)
𝑇 𝑇2 (𝑦4.5 , 0) (𝑦5 , 0) (𝑦5.5 , 0) (𝑦4 , 0) (𝑦4 , 0) (𝑦3 , 0) (𝑦2.5 , 0) (𝑦3.5 , 0)
𝑑2
𝑇 𝑇3 – (𝑦5 , 0) (𝑦3 , 0) (𝑦5 , 0) (𝑦4 , 0) (𝑦4.5 , 0) (𝑦2 , 0) (𝑦1 , 0)
𝑇 𝑇4 (𝑦5 , 0) (𝑦1 , 0) (𝑦3 , −0.5) (𝑦2 , 0) (𝑦5 , 0) (𝑦1 , 0) (𝑦3 , 0) (𝑦1 , 0)
𝑇 𝑇1 (𝑥𝑜 , 0) (𝑥2 , 0) (𝑥2 , 0) (𝑥1.5 , 0) (𝑥4 , 0) (𝑥3 , 0) (𝑥1.5 , 0) (𝑥𝑜 , 0)
𝑇 𝑇2 (𝑥2.5 , 0) (𝑥3 , 0) (𝑥3 , 0) (𝑥2.5 , 0) (𝑥2.5 , 0) (𝑥2.5 , 0) (𝑥4 , 0) (𝑥3 , 0)
𝑑5
𝑇 𝑇3 (𝑥1 , 0) (𝑥3 , 0) (𝑥2 , 0) (𝑥3 , 0) (𝑥2 , 0) (𝑥2 , 0) – (𝑥2.5 , 0)
𝑇 𝑇4 (𝑥2.5 , 0) (𝑥1.5 , 0) (𝑥2.5 , 0) (𝑥1 , 0) (𝑥2 , 0) (𝑥1 , 0) (𝑥1.5 , 0) (𝑥1 , 0)

Table 6
2tLR numbers of treatment technologies for DMr 𝑑1 .
TTs Waste factors
𝑊 𝑓1 𝑊 𝑓2 𝑊 𝑓3 𝑊 𝑓4
𝑇 𝑇1 [𝛥(0.1458), 𝛥(0.2813)] [𝛥(0.5625), 𝛥(0.6771)] [𝛥(0.2708), 𝛥(0.4167)] [𝛥(0), 𝛥(0.2792)]
𝑇 𝑇2 [𝛥(0.6250), 𝛥(0.6750)] [𝛥(0.8083), 𝛥(1)] [𝛥(0), 𝛥(0.6333)] [𝛥(0.5833), 𝛥(0.6510)]
𝑇 𝑇3 [𝛥(0.2083), 𝛥(0.5)] [𝛥(0.75), 𝛥(0.8083)] [𝛥(0.5417), 𝛥(0.7222)] [𝛥(0.75), 𝛥(0.7833)]
𝑇 𝑇4 [𝛥(0.5), 𝛥(0.7083)] [𝛥(0.1771), 𝛥(0.3125)] [𝛥(0), 𝛥(0.5333)] [𝛥(0.3), 𝛥(0.3750)]

Table 7
2tLR numbers of treatment technologies for DMr 𝑑1 .
TTs Waste factors
𝑊 𝑓5 𝑊 𝑓6 𝑊 𝑓7 𝑊 𝑓8
𝑇 𝑇1 [𝛥(0.75), 𝛥(0.8917)] [𝛥(0.8125), 𝛥(1)] [𝛥(0.5313), 𝛥(0.6944)] [𝛥(0.1389), 𝛥(0.3472)]
𝑇 𝑇2 [𝛥(0.6806), 𝛥(0.8750)] [𝛥(0.5833), 𝛥(0.6823)] [𝛥(0.6917), 𝛥(1)] [𝛥(0.5278), 𝛥(0.7361)]
𝑇 𝑇3 [𝛥(0.5), 𝛥(0.5583)] [𝛥(0.5250), 𝛥(0.75)] [𝛥(0.4875), 𝛥(0.75)] [𝛥(0.3333), 𝛥(0.6354)]
𝑇 𝑇4 [𝛥(0.25), 𝛥(0.4583)] [𝛥(0), 𝛥(0.2917)] [𝛥(0.3056), 𝛥(0.5)] [𝛥(0), 𝛥(0.1667)]

Table 8
2tLR numbers of treatment technologies for DMr 𝑑2 .
TTs Waste factors
𝑊 𝑓1 𝑊 𝑓2 𝑊 𝑓3 𝑊 𝑓4
𝑇 𝑇1 [𝛥(0), 𝛥(0.1792)] [𝛥(0.5), 𝛥(0.6417)] [𝛥(0.3167), 𝛥(0.5)] [𝛥(0.1771), 𝛥(0.5313)]
𝑇 𝑇2 [𝛥(0.6250), 𝛥(0.6750)] [𝛥(0.6875), 𝛥(0.8542)] [𝛥(0.5625), 𝛥(0.7917)] [𝛥(0.5833), 𝛥(0.6510)]
𝑇 𝑇3 [𝛥(0.1250), 𝛥(0.4375)] [𝛥(0.75), 𝛥(0.8083)] [𝛥(0.5), 𝛥(0.6333)] [𝛥(0.75), 𝛥(0.7833)]
𝑇 𝑇4 [𝛥(0.5625), 𝛥(0.7604)] [𝛥(0.2167), 𝛥(0.3750)] [𝛥(0.4167), 𝛥(0.75)] [𝛥(0.2083), 𝛥(0.3333)]

Table 9
2tLR numbers of treatment technologies for DMr 𝑑2 .
TTs Waste factors
𝑊 𝑓5 𝑊 𝑓6 𝑊 𝑓7 𝑊 𝑓8
𝑇 𝑇1 [𝛥(0.8917), 𝛥(1)] [𝛥(0.7083), 𝛥(0.8490)] [𝛥(0.3750), 𝛥(0.5917)] [𝛥(0), 𝛥(0.2417)]
𝑇 𝑇2 [𝛥(0.6250), 𝛥(0.7833)] [𝛥(0.5833), 𝛥(0.6823)] [𝛥(0.6917), 𝛥(1)] [𝛥(0.5833), 𝛥(0.7917)]
𝑇 𝑇3 [𝛥(0.5), 𝛥(0.5583)] [𝛥(0.25), 𝛥(0.6563)] [𝛥(0), 𝛥(0.4875)] [𝛥(0.4306), 𝛥(0.6806)]
𝑇 𝑇4 [𝛥(0.3646), 𝛥(0.6667)] [𝛥(0.1458), 𝛥(0.5625)] [𝛥(0.3056), 𝛥(0.5000)] [𝛥(0.1667), 𝛥(0.2500)]

Using Eqs. (25), (26), the 2tL cloud evaluations of 2tLR num- Based on the calculations of Liu et al. (2014), the weights of five
bers, known as D2tLRN clouds, for DMrs 𝑑1 and 𝑑5 are computed in DMrs are given based on their different expertise and domain as 𝛾1 =
Tables 10–13. 0.15, 𝛾2 = 0.2, 𝛾3 = 0.3, 𝛾4 = 0.2 and 𝛾5 = 0.15. Using Eq. (28), the

11
M. Sarwar Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 123 (2023) 106255

Table 10
D2tLRN clouds of treatment technologies for DMr 𝑑1 .
TTs Waste factors
𝑊 𝑓1 𝑊 𝑓2 𝑊 𝑓3 𝑊 𝑓4
𝑇 𝑇1 (𝛥(0.2135), 0.0226, 0.0068) (𝛥(0.6198), 0.0191, 0.0057) (𝛥(0.3438), 0.0243, 0.0073) (𝛥(0.1396), 0.0465, 0.0140)
𝑇 𝑇2 (𝛥(0.65), 0.0083, 0.0025) (𝛥(0.9042), 0.0319, 0.0096) (𝛥(0.3167), 0.1056, 0.0317) (𝛥(0.6172), 0.0113, 0.0034)
𝑇 𝑇3 (𝛥(0.3542), 0.0486, 0.0146) (𝛥(0.7792), 0.0097, 0.0029) (𝛥(0.6319), 0.0301, 0.0090) (0.7667, 0.0056, 0.0017)
𝑇 𝑇4 (𝛥(0.6042), 0.0347, 0.0104) (𝛥(0.2448), 0.0226, 0.0068) (𝛥(0.2667), 0.0889, 0.0267) (𝛥(0.3375), 0.0125, 0.0038)

Table 11
D2tLRN clouds of treatment technologies for DMr 𝑑1 .
TTs Waste factors
𝑊 𝑓5 𝑊 𝑓6 𝑊 𝑓7 𝑊 𝑓8
𝑇 𝑇1 (𝛥(0.8208), 0.0236, 0.0071) (𝛥(0.9063), 0.0313, 0.0094) (𝛥(0.6128), 0.0272, 0.0082) (𝛥(0.2431), 0.0347, 0.010)
𝑇 𝑇2 (𝛥(0.7778), 0.0324, 0.0097) (𝛥(0.6328), 0.0165, 0.0049) (𝛥(0.8458), 0.0514, 0.0154) (𝛥(0.6319), 0.0347, 0.0104)
𝑇 𝑇3 (𝛥(0.5292), 0.0097, 0.0029) (𝛥(0.6375), 0.0375, 0.0113) (𝛥(0.6188), 0.0438, 0.0131) (𝛥(0.4844), 0.0503, 0.0151)
𝑇 𝑇4 (𝛥(0.3542), 0.0347, 0.0104) (𝛥(0.1458), 0.0486, 0.0146) (𝛥(0.4028), 0.0324, 0.0097) (𝛥(0.0833), 0.0278, 0.0083)

Table 12
2tLR numbers of treatment technologies for DMr 𝑑5 .
TTs Waste factors
𝑊 𝑓1 𝑊 𝑓2 𝑊 𝑓3 𝑊 𝑓4
𝑇 𝑇1 (𝛥(0.0896), 0.0299, 0.0090) (𝛥(0.5708), 0.0236, 0.0071) (𝛥(0.4083), 0.0306, 0.0092) (𝛥(0.3542), 0.0590, 0.0177)
𝑇 𝑇2 (𝛥(0.65), 0.0083, 0.0025) (𝛥(0.7708), 0.0278, 0.0083) (𝛥(0.6771), 0.0382, 0.0115) (𝛥(0.6172), 0.0113, 0.0034)
𝑇 𝑇3 (𝛥(0.2813), 0.0521, 0.0156) (𝛥(0.7792), 0.0097, 0.0029) (𝛥(0.5667), 0.0222, 0.0067) (𝛥(0.7667), 0.0056, 0.0017)
𝑇 𝑇4 (𝛥(0.6615), 0.0330, 0.0099) (𝛥(0.2958), 0.0264, 0.0079) (𝛥(0.5833), 0.0556, 0.0167) (𝛥(0.2708), 0.0208, 0.0063)

Table 13
D2tLRN clouds of treatment technologies for DMr 𝑑5 .
TTs Waste factors
𝑊 𝑓5 𝑊 𝑓6 𝑊 𝑓7 𝑊 𝑓8
𝑇 𝑇1 (𝛥(0.9458), 0.0181, 0.0054) (𝛥(0.7786), 0.0234, 0.0070) (𝛥(0.4833), 0.0361, 0.0108) (𝛥(0.1208), 0.0403, 0.0121)
𝑇 𝑇2 (𝛥(0.7042), 0.0264, 0.0079) (𝛥(0.6328), 0.0165, 0.0049) (𝛥(0.8458), 0.0514, 0.0154) (𝛥(0.6875), 0.0347, 0.0104)
𝑇 𝑇3 (𝛥(0.5292), 0.0097, 0.0029) (𝛥(0.4531), 0.0677, 0.0203) (𝛥(0.2438), 0.0813, 0.0244) (𝛥(0.5556), 0.0417, 0.0125)
𝑇 𝑇4 (𝛥(0.5156), 0.0503, 0.0151) (𝛥(0.3542), 0.0694, 0.0208) (𝛥(0.4028), 0.0324, 0.0097) (𝛥(0.2083), 0.0139, 0.0042)

Table 14
Aggregated D2tLR cloud relation matrix of treatment technologies for 𝑊 𝑓1 to 𝑊 𝑓4 .
TTs Waste factors
𝑊 𝑓1 𝑊 𝑓2 𝑊 𝑓3 𝑊 𝑓4
𝑇 𝑇1 (𝛥(0.1862),0.0493,0.0148) (𝛥(0.6491),0.0383,0.0115) (𝛥(0.3126),0.0569,0.0171) (𝛥(0.3111),0.1136,0.0341)
𝑇 𝑇2 (𝛥(0.6750),0.0222,0.0067) (𝛥(0.7961),0.0590,0.0177) (𝛥(0.6426),0.1148,0.0344) (𝛥(0.6216),0.0293,0.0088)
𝑇 𝑇3 (𝛥(0.3609),0.1112,0.0333) (𝛥(0.8140),0.0219,0.0066) (𝛥(0.6538),0.0670,0.0201) (𝛥(0.7833),0.0148,0.0044)
𝑇 𝑇4 (𝛥(0.7128),0.0613,0.0184) (𝛥(0.2108),0.0403,0.0121) (𝛥(0.5433),0.1553,0.0466) (𝛥(0.3003),0.0380,0.0114)

Table 15
Aggregated D2tLR cloud relation matrix of treatment technologies for 𝑊 𝑓5 to 𝑊 𝑓8 .
TTs Waste factors
𝑊 𝑓5 𝑊 𝑓6 𝑊 𝑓7 𝑊 𝑓8
𝑇 𝑇1 (𝛥(0.8927), 0.0470, 0.0141) (𝛥(0.8126), 0.0560, 0.0168) (𝛥(0.5991), 0.0730, 0.0219) (𝛥(0.2480), 0.0765, 0.0229)
𝑇 𝑇2 (𝛥(0.7975), 0.0711, 0.0213) (𝛥(0.6576), 0.0490, 0.0147) (𝛥(0.6425), 0.1759, 0.0528) (𝛥(0.6135), 0.0817, 0.0245)
𝑇 𝑇3 (𝛥(0.5636), 0.0304, 0.0091) (𝛥(0.5061), 0.1271, 0.0381) (𝛥(0.4815), 0.1359, 0.0408) (𝛥(0.5404), 0.0989, 0.0297)
𝑇 𝑇4 (𝛥(0.4732), 0.1, 0.03) (𝛥(0.3451), 0.1368, 0.0410) (𝛥(0.4563), 0.0941, 0.0282) (𝛥(0.1701), 0.0382, 0.0115)

aggregated D2tLR cloud relation matrix is computed in Tables 14 and

15. Table 16
2tL evaluations of waste factors by five DMrs.
The relative importance of waste factors by five DMrs is given as
DMrs Waste factors
2tL values in Table 16.
𝑊 𝑓1 𝑊 𝑓2 𝑊 𝑓3 𝑊 𝑓4 𝑊 𝑓5 𝑊 𝑓6 𝑊 𝑓7 𝑊 𝑓8
The 2tL values in Table 16 are converted into 2tLR numbers and
𝑑1 (𝑦5 , 0) (𝑦5 , 0) (𝑦4 , 0) (𝑦5 , 0) (𝑦5 , 0) (𝑦6 , 0) (𝑦5 , 0) (𝑦5 , 0)
then D2tLRN clouds. The D2tLRN cloud values corresponding to 2tL
𝑑2 (𝑦4 , 0) (𝑦5 , 0) (𝑦3 , 0) (𝑦5 , 0) (𝑦5 , 0) (𝑦6 , 0) (𝑦5 , 0) (𝑦6 , 0)
values in Table 16 are given in Tables 17 and 18. Using Eqs. (36)–(40), 𝑑3 (𝑦5 , 0) (𝑦5 , 0) (𝑦4 , 0) (𝑦5 , 0) (𝑦5 , 0) (𝑦6 , 0) (𝑦4 , 0) (𝑦5 , 0)
the aggregated D2tLRN cloud values, subjective weights, variance and 𝑑4 (𝑦5 , 0) (𝑦6 , 0) (𝑦3 , 0) (𝑦4 , 0) (𝑦5 , 0) (𝑦6 , 0) (𝑦6 , 0) (𝑦6 , 0)
objective weights are also given in Tables 17 and 18. Table 17 contains 𝑑5 (𝑦4 , 0) (𝑦5 , 0) (𝑦4 , 0) (𝑦5 , 0) (𝑦4 , 0) (𝑦6 , 0) (𝑦5 , 0) (𝑦5 , 0)
the relative importance of DMrs for waste factors 𝑊 𝑓1 , 𝑊 𝑓2 , 𝑊 𝑓3 , 𝑊 𝑓4
in the form of D2tLRN clouds. These 2tL cloud values are aggregated
and then converted into subjective weights. The variance of all waste

12
M. Sarwar Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 123 (2023) 106255

Algorithm The proposed D2tLRN cloud HCWM method. methodology is considered ‘‘very good’’ in terms of cost, it shows that
the cost of this HCWM methodology is very low. Based on Eqs. (41)
1. Identify 𝑝 treatment technologies 𝑇 𝑇1 , 𝑇 𝑇2 , … 𝑇 𝑇𝑝 against and (43), the normalized cloud decision matrix of Tables 14 and 15
𝑟 waste factors 𝑊 𝑓1 , 𝑊 𝑓2 , … , 𝑊 𝑓𝑟 provided by 𝑠 experts are computed in Tables 19 and 20. Table 19 contains the weighted
𝑑1 , 𝑑2 , … , 𝑑𝑠 . normalized 2tL cloud values by multiplying weight values (Table 17)
[ 𝑖 ( )] with normalized D2tLRN clouds of treatment technologies for waste
2. Construct the initial decision matrix 2𝑡𝐿𝑖 = 𝛿𝑗𝑘 = 𝑥𝑖𝑗𝑘 , 𝜉𝑗𝑘
𝑖
𝑝×𝑟 factors 𝑊 𝑓1 , 𝑊 𝑓2 , 𝑊 𝑓3 , 𝑊 𝑓4 using operations of 2tL clouds given in
of treatment technologies given in Eq. (19) based on the scales
Table 3. Table 20 contains the weighted normalized 2tL cloud values
described in Table 2, evaluated by ith expert, 1 ≤ 𝑖 ≤ 𝑠.
for waste factors 𝑊 𝑓5 , 𝑊 𝑓6 , 𝑊 𝑓7 , 𝑊 𝑓8 using the same multiplication
3. For each 1 ≤ 𝑖 ≤ 𝑠, convert each [initial decision matrix] 2𝑡𝐿𝑖 into operations of 2tL clouds. The PI and NI solutions of waste factors also
[( 𝑖 𝑖 ) ( 𝑖 𝑖 )]
2tLR relation matrix 2𝑡𝐿𝑅𝑖 = 𝑥𝑗𝑘 , 𝜉𝑗𝑘 , 𝑥𝑗𝑘 , 𝜉𝑗𝑘 using computed in Tables 19 and 20 from weighted normalized 2tL cloud
𝑟×𝑛
Eqs. (20), (21), (22), (23). values.
4. For each 1 ≤ 𝑖 ≤ 𝑖, transform the 2tLR relation ma- Using Eqs. (45), (46), the distances of weighted normalized D2tLRN
[
trix into D2tlRN relation matrix 𝐷2𝑡𝐿𝑅𝑁𝐶 𝑖 = 𝑖
𝑗𝑘 = cloud evaluations of treatment technologies for each waste factor from
( 𝑖 )] PI and NI solutions are computed in Tables 21 and 22. Table 21 con-
̃ 𝑖 𝑖
(ℎ𝐸𝑥𝑖 , 𝐸𝑥𝑗𝑘 ), 𝐸𝑛𝑗𝑘 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑗𝑘 using Eqs. (25), (26) as ex- tains the distances of weighted normalized 2tL cloud values (Table 19)
𝑗𝑘 𝑟×𝑛
plained in Section 3. from PI and NI solutions for waste factors 𝑊 𝑓1 , 𝑊 𝑓2 , 𝑊 𝑓3 and 𝑊 𝑓4 .
5. Aggregate the D2tLRN cloud evaluations of different experts to The resulting distance values are 2tL values which are given in the
compute aggregated D2tLRN cloud]relation matrix 𝐷2𝑡𝐿𝑅𝑁𝐶 = form of 𝛥(𝛼), 𝛼 ∈ [0, 1]. Table 22 contains the distances of weighted
[ ( )
𝑗𝑘 = (ℎ𝐸𝑥 , 𝐸𝑥̃ 𝑗𝑘 ), 𝐸𝑛𝑗𝑘 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑗𝑘 using averaging operator normalized 2tL cloud values (Table 20) from PI and NI solutions for
𝑗𝑘 𝑟×𝑛 waste factors 𝑊 𝑓5 , 𝑊 𝑓6 , 𝑊 𝑓7 and 𝑊 𝑓8 .
given in Eq. (28) and Definition 7.
Using Eqs. (47)–(49), the distances of treatment technologies from
6. Convert[ the relative
] importance of waste factors given
[ by
PI and NI solutions and closeness degrees are computed in Table 23.
𝑖
DMrs (𝑥𝑘 , 𝜉𝑘 ) 𝑖 into D2tLRN cloud evaluations 𝑘 = 𝑖 In Table 23, the distance of each treatment technology from PI and
𝑟×𝑠 ] NI solutions. These positive and negative distances are combined to
( )
(𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑖 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑖 ), 𝐸𝑛𝑖𝑘 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑖𝑘 using Eqs. (31), (32), (33), (34), compute closeness degree in order to rank the treatment technologies.
𝑘 𝑘
𝑟×𝑠 The treatment technologies are ranked as 𝑇 𝑇3 ≻ 𝑇 𝑇2 ≻ 𝑇 𝑇1 ≻ 𝑇 𝑇4
(35), (36).
[ 𝑖] which shows that 𝑇 𝑇3 is the best and 𝑇 𝑇4 is the lowest waste disposal
7. Aggregate the D2tLRN cloud evaluations 𝑘 𝑟×𝑠 =
[( )] technology among all the alternatives.
(𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑖 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑖 ), 𝐸𝑛𝑖𝑘 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑖𝑘 of relative importance of waste
𝑘 𝑘 𝑟×𝑠
factors of different experts into single aggregated 2tL assessment 6. Comparison analysis
[ ] [( )]
values 𝑘 = (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑘 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑘 ), 𝐸𝑛𝑘 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛𝑘 using averaging
𝑟×1 𝑟×1
operator given in Eq. (36) and Definition 7. This section is devoted to the comparison analysis of treatment al-
8. Compute subjective weights 𝛿𝑘𝑠 , objective weights 𝛿𝑘𝑜 and hybrid ternatives for HCWM using different multi-criteria decision approaches
weights 𝛿𝑘 , for each 1 ≤ 𝑘 ≤ 𝑟, using Eqs. (37), (38), (39), with the proposed D2tLRN cloud TOPSIS method to verify its ratio-
[ (40).
] nality and reliability. It integrates the benefits of 2tL information with
9. Normalize the aggregated D2tLRN cloud relation matrix 𝑗𝑘
[ ] [( )] 𝑟×𝑛 rough approximations and cloud model theory to cope with objective
into 𝑗𝑘′ = (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑗𝑘 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑗𝑘 )′ , 𝐸𝑛′𝑗𝑘 , 𝐻𝐸𝑛′𝑗𝑘 using Eq. (41). uncertainty and randomness in DMrs evaluations and the merits of
[ ] TOPSIS method to compute the rankings of HCWM technologies. The
10. Convert the normalized matrix 𝑗𝑘 ′ into weighted normalized
[ ] [ ] rankings of HCWM technologies by four different approaches are given
matrix 𝑗𝑘 ∗ = 𝛿𝑘 𝑗𝑘′ = in Table 24.
[( 𝑟×𝑛 𝑟×𝑛
√ √ )] In Table 24, the rankings of treatment alternatives by five different
𝛥(𝛿𝑘 𝛥 (𝑥𝐸𝑥𝑗𝑘 , 𝜉𝐸𝑥𝑗𝑘 ) ), 𝛿𝑘 𝐸𝑛′𝑗𝑘 , 𝛿𝑘 𝐻𝐸𝑛′𝑗𝑘
−1 ′ using Eq.
𝑟×𝑛 methods are given. It can be seen that there are similarities and differ-
(43). ences between the results of all the methods. 𝑇 𝑇2 and 𝑇 𝑇3 are ranked as
11. Compute PI (positive ideal) and NI (negative ideal) solutions of first and second in all the methods, however, in the proposed methods,
the PI and NI solutions of waste factors 𝑊 𝑓𝑘 , 1 ≤ 𝑘 ≤ 𝑟, are 𝑇 𝑇3 is ranked first and 𝑇 𝑇2 is ranked second. 𝑇 𝑇1 is ranked third and
computed as given in Eqs. (45) and (46). 𝑇 𝑇4 is ranked fourth in fuzzy VIKOR (Liu et al., 2013), interval 2tL
12. Computing the Hamming distance of treatment technologies MULTIMOORA (Liu et al., 2014) and the proposed HCWM method.
from PI and NI solutions using Eqs. (13), (14), (15), (47), (48). However, these are ranked fourth and third, respectively, in fuzzy
13. Determine the closeness degree 𝑐𝑑𝑗 , 1 ≤ 𝑗 ≤ 𝑟, of each treatment OWA (Dursun et al., 2011b) and modified fuzzy TOPSIS (Dursun et al.,
technology using Eq. (49) which represents the strength of waste 2011a). In fuzzy OWA (Dursun et al., 2011b), fuzzy VIKOR (Liu et al.,
management priority. The greater the value of 𝑐𝑑𝑗 means the jth 2013) and modified fuzzy TOPSIS (Dursun et al., 2011a) methods, the
treatment technology is more beneficial. uncertainty is discussed using fuzzy numbers. The comparison of results
by different approaches is also illustrated in Fig. 3.
To discuss and illustrate the significance and out-performance of
the proposed D2tLRN cloud TOPSIS method, a detailed comparison
factor is computed from these 2tL cloud evaluations and then further analysis, statistical analysis and sensitivity analysis is performed in
used for determining objective weights. The hybrid weights using the this section. The comparison is done with four different approaches
product of subjective and objective weights. Table 18 contains the based on two main theories including fuzzy numbers based methods
relative importance of DMrs for waste factors 𝑊 𝑓5 , 𝑊 𝑓6 , 𝑊 𝑓7 , 𝑊 𝑓8 in and interval 2tL information.
the form of D2tLRN clouds. These 2tL clouds are utilized similarly to The first comparison is made with fuzzy number based approaches
compute hybrid weights of DMrs for waste factors 𝑊 𝑓5 , 𝑊 𝑓6 , 𝑊 𝑓7 and including fuzzy OWA (Dursun et al., 2011b), fuzzy VIKOR (Liu et al.,
𝑊 𝑓8 . 2013) and modified fuzzy TOPSIS (Dursun et al., 2011a). In these
HCWM methods, the initial decision matrix containing linguistic or
Based on the evaluations by DMrs in Liu et al. (2014), it is as- numeric data is converted into fuzzy numbers using pre-defined mea-
sumed that all criteria are benefit criteria. For instance, if an HCWM surement scales. These measurement scales are usually the suppositions

13
M. Sarwar Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 123 (2023) 106255

Table 17
Objective and subjective weights of waste factors 𝑊 𝑓1 to 𝑊 𝑓4 .
TTs Waste factors
𝑊 𝑓1 𝑊 𝑓2 𝑊 𝑓3 𝑊 𝑓4
𝑑1 (𝛥(0.8), 0.0111, 0.0033) (𝛥(0.9833), 0.05, 0.0150) (𝛥(0.6333), 0.0111, 0.0033) (𝛥(0.8167), 0.0056, 0.0017)
𝑑2 (𝛥(0.7167), 0.0167, 0.0050) (𝛥(1.1875), 0.0486, 0.0146) (𝛥(0.55), 0.0167, 0.0050) (𝛥(0.8167), 0.0056, 0.0017)
𝑑3 (𝛥(0.8), 0.0111, 0.0033) (𝛥(1.1875), 0.0486, 0.0146) (𝛥(0.6333), 0.0111, 0.0033) (𝛥(0.8167), 0.0056, 0.0017)
𝑑4 (𝛥(0.8), 0.0111, 0.0033) (𝛥(1.3167), 0.0611, 0.0183) (𝛥(0.55), 0.0167, 0.0050) (𝛥(0.7333), 0.0222, 0.0067)
𝑑5 (𝛥(0.7167), 0.0167, 0.0050) (𝛥(0.9833), 0.0500, 0.0150) (𝛥(0.6333), 0.0111, 0.0033) (𝛥(0.8167), 0.0056, 0.0017)
Aggregated (𝛥(0.7708), 0.0293, 0.0088) (𝛥(1.1521), 0.1144, 0.0343) (𝛥(0.6), 0.0296, 0.0089) (𝛥(0.8), 0.0198, 0.0059)
𝛿𝑘𝑠 (𝛥(0.1125), 0.0048, 0.0014) (𝛥(0.1681), 0.0170, 0.0051) (𝛥(0.0876), 0.0047, 0.0014) (𝛥(0.1168), 0.0037, 0.0011)
𝜎𝑘2 0.0009 0.0143 0.0010 0.0004
𝛿𝑘𝑜 0.0465 0.7102 0.0475 0.0212
𝛿𝑘𝑠 × 𝛿𝑘𝑜 𝛥(0.0052) 𝛥(0.1194) 𝛥(0.0042) 𝛥(0.0025)
𝛿𝑘 𝛥(0.0342) 𝛥(0.7817) 𝛥(0.0272) 𝛥(0.0162)

Table 18
Objective and subjective weights of waste factors 𝑊 𝑓5 to 𝑊 𝑓8 .
TTs Waste factors
𝑊 𝑓5 𝑊 𝑓6 𝑊 𝑓7 𝑊 𝑓8
𝑑1 (𝛥(0.8167),0.0056,0.0017) (𝛥(1),0,0) (𝛥(0.8333),0.0139,0.0042) (𝛥(0.8667),0.0111,0.0033)
𝑑2 (𝛥(0.8167),0.0056,0.0017) (𝛥(1),0,0) (𝛥(0.8333),0.0139,0.0042) (𝛥(0.95),0.0167,0.0050)
𝑑3 (𝛥(0.8167),0.0056,0.0017) (𝛥(1),0,0) (𝛥(0.75),0.0278,0.0083) (𝛥(0.8667),0.0111,0.0033)
𝑑4 (𝛥(0.8167),0.0056,0.0017) (𝛥(1),0,0) (𝛥(0.9167),0.0278,0.0083) (𝛥(0.95),0.0167,0.0050)
𝑑5 (𝛥(0.7333),0.0222,0.0067) (𝛥(1),0,0) (𝛥(0.8333),0.0139,0.0042) (𝛥(0.8667),0.0111,0.0033)
Aggregated (𝛥(0.8042),0.0188,0.0056) (𝛥(1),0,0) (𝛥(0.8250),0.0446,0.0134) (𝛥(0.9),0.0296,0.0089)
𝛿𝑘𝑠 (𝛥(0.1174),0.0036,0.0011) (𝛥(0.1459),0.0029,0.0009) (𝛥(0.1204),0.0069,0.0021) (𝛥(0.1313),0.0050,0.0015)
𝜎𝑘2 0.0004 0 0.0022 0.0010
𝛿𝑘𝑜 0.0191 0 0.1079 0.0475
𝛿𝑘𝑠 × 𝛿𝑘𝑜 𝛥(0.0022) 𝛥(0) 𝛥(0.0130) 𝛥(0.0062)
𝛿𝑘 𝛥(0.0147) 𝛥(0) 𝛥(0.0851) 𝛥(0.0409)

Table 19
Weighted normalized D2tLRN cloud decision matrix for 𝑊 𝑓1 to 𝑊 𝑓4 .
TTs Waste factors
𝑊 𝑓1 𝑊 𝑓2 𝑊 𝑓3 𝑊 𝑓4
𝑇 𝑇1 (𝛥(0.0089),0.0129,0.0003) (𝛥(0.6234),0.0458,0.0002) (𝛥(0.0130),0.0159,0.0003) (𝛥(0.0064),0.0185,0.0006)
𝑇 𝑇2 (𝛥(0.0324),0.0079,0) (𝛥(0.7645),0.0682,0.0005) (𝛥(0.0268),0.0322,0.0005) (𝛥(0.0129),0.0051,0)
𝑇 𝑇3 (𝛥(0.0173),0.0290,0.0008) (𝛥(0.7817),0.0336,0.0001) (𝛥(0.0272),0.0222,0.0002) (𝛥(0.0162),0.0034,0)
𝑇 𝑇4 (𝛥(0.0342),0.0169,0.0001) (𝛥(0.2024),0.0442,0.0008) (𝛥(0.0226),0.0410,0.0011) (𝛥(0.0062),0.0062,0.0001)
𝑆+ (𝛥(0.0342),0.0079,0) (𝛥(0.7817),0.0336,0.0001) (𝛥(0.0272),0.0159,0.0002) (𝛥(0.0162),0.0034,0)
𝑆− (𝛥(0.0089),0.0290,0.0008) (𝛥(0.2024),0.0682,0.0008) (𝛥(0.0130),0.0410,0.0011) (𝛥(0.0062),0.0185,0.0006)

Table 20
Weighted normalized D2tLRN cloud decision matrix for 𝑊 𝑓5 to 𝑊 𝑓8 .
TTs Waste factors
𝑊 𝑓5 𝑊 𝑓6 𝑊 𝑓7 𝑊 𝑓8
𝑇 𝑇1 (𝛥(0.0147),0.0076,0) (𝛥(0),0,0) (𝛥(0.0793),0.0453,0.0005) (𝛥(0.0165),0.0257,0.0007)
𝑇 𝑇2 (𝛥(0.0131),0.0103,0.0001) (𝛥(0),0,0) (𝛥(0.0851),0.0865,0.0021) (𝛥(0.0409),0.0297,0.0004)
𝑇 𝑇3 (𝛥(0.0093),0.0049,0) (𝛥(0),0,0) (𝛥(0.0638),0.0665,0.0017) (𝛥(0.0360),0.0344,0.0006)
𝑇 𝑇4 (𝛥(0.0078),0.0138,0.0003) (𝛥(0),0,0) (𝛥(0.0604),0.0488,0.0009) (𝛥(0.0113),0.0131,0.0003)
𝑆+ (𝛥(0.0147),0.0049,0) (𝛥(0),0,0) (𝛥(0.0851),0.0453,0.0005) (𝛥(0.0409),0.0131,0.0003)
𝑆− (𝛥(0.0078),0.0138,0.0003) (𝛥(0),0,0) (𝛥(0.0604),0.0865,0.0021) (𝛥(0.0113),0.0344,0.0007)

Table 21
Distances of weighted normalized 2tL cloud evaluations from PI and NI solutions for 𝑊 𝑓1 to 𝑊 𝑓4 .
Treatment 𝑊 𝑓1 𝑊 𝑓2 𝑊 𝑓3 𝑊 𝑓4
technologies Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative
𝑇 𝑇1 𝛥(0.0258) 𝛥(0.0161) 𝛥(0.1588) 𝛥(0.4215) 𝛥(0.0142) 𝛥(0.0251) 𝛥(0.0180) 𝛥(0.0002)
𝑇 𝑇2 𝛥(0.0018) 𝛥(0.0315) 𝛥(0.0386) 𝛥(0.5621) 𝛥(0.0163) 𝛥(0.0163) 𝛥(0.0038) 𝛥(0.0149)
𝑇 𝑇3 𝛥(0.0270) 𝛥(0.0084) 𝛥(0) 𝛥(0.5803) 𝛥(0.0063) 𝛥(0.0236) 𝛥(0) 𝛥(0.0181)
𝑇 𝑇4 𝛥(0.0090) 𝛥(0.0280) 𝛥(0.5794) 𝛥(0.0240) 𝛥(0.0255) 𝛥(0.0096) 𝛥(0.0104) 𝛥(0.0123)

and has no link with the given data. The fuzzy number scales are discuss uncertainty from initial data without pre-defined assumptions.
usually the same against each type of data. This way of inserting Rough approximations play an important part to overcome the limita-
assumed measurement scales in linguistic data ignores the original tions of fuzzy-based approaches and cope with uncertainty using initial
nature of the data and can increase uncertainty. The best way is to data. However, rough numbers cannot deal with randomness in DMrs

14
M. Sarwar Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 123 (2023) 106255

Table 22
Distances of weighted normalized 2tL cloud evaluations from PI and NI solutions for 𝑊 𝑓5 to 𝑊 𝑓8 .
Treatment 𝑊 𝑓1 𝑊 𝑓2 𝑊 𝑓3 𝑊 𝑓4
technologies Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative
𝑇 𝑇1 𝛥(0.0027) 𝛥(0.0092) 𝛥(0) 𝛥(0) 𝛥(0.0057) 𝛥(0.0453) 𝛥(0.0274) 𝛥(0.0101)
𝑇 𝑇2 𝛥(0.0057) 𝛥(0.0063) 𝛥(0) 𝛥(0) 𝛥(0.0412) 𝛥(0.0247) 𝛥(0.0166) 𝛥(0.0299)
𝑇 𝑇3 𝛥(0.0054) 𝛥(0.0090) 𝛥(0) 𝛥(0) 𝛥(0.0301) 𝛥(0.0202) 𝛥(0.0219) 𝛥(0.0247)
𝑇 𝑇4 𝛥(0.0112) 𝛥(0) 𝛥(0) 𝛥(0) 𝛥(0.0249) 𝛥(0.0377) 𝛥(0.0295) 𝛥(0.0214)

Table 23 in Eq. (50).

Ranking of treatment technologies. ( )
Treatment technologies 𝐷+ 𝐷− Closeness degree Ranking 𝜙𝛥−1 𝐷𝑗+
𝑐𝑑𝑗 = 𝛥 (50)
𝑇 𝑇1 𝛥(0.1649) 𝛥(0.4252) 𝛥(0.2795) 3 𝜙𝛥−1 𝐷𝑗+ + (1 − 𝜙)𝛥−1 𝐷𝑗−
𝑇 𝑇2 𝛥(0.0615) 𝛥(0.5648) 𝛥(0.0982) 2
𝑇 𝑇3 𝛥(0.0467) 𝛥(0.5821) 𝛥(0.0743) 1 Setting 𝜙 = 0.5, 0.6, 0.9, the closeness degree and ranking results of
𝑇 𝑇4 𝛥(0.5815) 𝛥(0.0590) 𝛥(0.9079) 4 treatment alternatives are given in Table 25.
It can be observed from Table 25 that with the variation in pa-
rameter 𝜙, the closeness degree changes but the ranking results do
not fluctuate. The ranking is all the three cases 𝜙 = 0.5, 0.6, 0.9 is
same. The ranking results do not vary with the parameter 𝜙 for the
given assessment data, therefore the stability of the results is high and
sensitivity of the parameter is low. The insertion of a parameter in the
closeness degree does not effect the consistency of results in the given
data. But, with the change of initial data given experts, inconsistencies
can occur. In this case, 𝜙 can play a vital role in balancing the closeness
coefficient.

6.1.2. Change in DMrs weights 𝛾1 , 𝛾2 , 𝛾3 , 𝛾4 , 𝛾5

Fig. 3. Comparison of proposed D2tLRN cloud HCWM model with existing approaches.
evaluations which can further be studied using cloud model theory.
Therefore, to handle randomness and subjective uncertainty in DMrs
evaluations, this research study proposed a hybrid model by integrating
three powerful theories, that is, rough approximations, cloud model
theory and interval 2tL variables.
The second comparison is made with interval 2tL MULTIMOORA
(Liu et al., 2014) method in which the uncertainty is discussed using in-
terval 2tL values, translation and reverse functions. The initial interval
linguistic data is converted into interval 2tL variables and the further
computations are mostly performed using the subscripts of variables if
the deviations are zero. Most part of the uncertainty and randomness
in DMrs evaluations are ignored in 2tL models and their extensions.
The proposed method is a powerful extension of interval 2tL models
and overcome the shortcomings of existing approaches by discussing
different types of uncertainties along with randomness with a single
mathematical approach.
6.1. Sensitivity analysis
The sensitivity analysis of the proposed D2tLRN cloud HCWM
method is subdivided into three parts (1) control parameter in close-
ness degree of treatment alternatives (2) change in DMrs weights
𝛾1 , 𝛾2 , 𝛾3 , 𝛾4 , 𝛾5 (3) change or disturbance in the weights of waste factors.
The selection of control parameters and DMrs weights is significant
in the reliability and accuracy of results. To analyse the change and
accuracy of the ranking results and effect of control parameter and
DMrs weights, a sensitivity analysis is performed in detail in this
section.
6.1.1. Control parameter 𝜙
The effect of PI and NI solutions in the closeness degree of treat-
ment alternatives can be controlled by a control parameter 𝜙 ∈ [0, 1]
The DMrs weights in the given case study are taken as 𝛾1 = 0.15,
𝛾2 = 0.2, 𝛾3 = 0.3, 𝛾4 = 0.2 and 𝛾5 = 0.15 to aggregate evaluation
values. These weight values can also be computed using Formulae
(17), (18) and (28). Let 𝑆 = {𝛾1 , 𝛾2 , 𝛾3 , 𝛾4 , 𝛾5 } denotes the set of DMrs’
weights, then the closeness coefficients and ranking results for different
variations of DMrs’ weights are given in Table 26 (see Fig. 4).
From Table 26 and Fig. 4, it can be seen that for different variations
of DMrs, weights that are used in aggregating the D2tLRN cloud values,
we have two ranking sets if sum of weights belongs to [0, 1]. The two
ranking sets for treatment alternatives are {3, 2, 1, 4} and {3, 1, 2, 4}. 𝑇 𝑇1
and 𝑇 𝑇4 have the same ranking in each case, however, 𝑇 𝑇2 and 𝑇 𝑇3
alternate their first and second positions. In these case, the sensitivity
of DMrs weights is not very high. The sensitivity can be increased if the
sum of 𝛾𝑘 , 𝑘 ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, values is greater than one which is a rare
case. It can be concluded that the sensitivity of the proposed approach
for different parameters is not so high which show the stability of the
given D2tLRN cloud TOPSIS method.
7. Discussion and results
Based on the study given in Sections 3 and 5, the proposed D2tLRN
cloud TOPSIS provide significant and considerable findings. According
to the subjective and objective weighting method, waste residuals
(𝑊 𝑓2 ) is the most important factor with weight 0.7817, whereas re-
liability (𝑊 𝑓5 ) is the less important waste factor with hybrid weight
0.0147. In the environmental aspects, health effects (𝑊 𝑓4 ) due to
waste management technologies is considered as an important criterion
based on the evaluations of experts. In technical aspects, based on the
objective evaluations and subjective importance of experts, treatment
effectiveness is determined as the important waste factor. The objective
evaluations and findings of DMrs reveal that technical and environmen-
tal factors must not be ignored while selecting the suitable treatment
technology for HCWM. There is clearly a difference between subjective
importance and objective evaluations of waste factors by DMrs, so
unilateral methods for computing weights are definitely inaccurate and
incomplete. The hybrid weighting scheme containing objective and
subjective aspects of uncertainty is adopted to compete the weights of
waste factors.

15
M. Sarwar Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 123 (2023) 106255

Table 24
Comparison of proposed HCWM mode with existing approaches.
Treatment Fuzzy OWA Fuzzy VIKOR Modified fuzzy TOPSIS Interval 2tL MULTIMOORA Proposed D2tLRN
alternatives (Dursun et al., 2011b) (Liu et al., 2013) (Dursun et al., 2011a) (Liu et al., 2014) cloud TOPSIS
FI values Ranking 𝑄 values Ranking Closeness degree Ranking 𝑑𝑖 values Ranking Closeness degree Ranking
𝑇 𝑇1 0.694 4 0.806 3 0.433 4 𝛥(0.0776) 3 𝛥(0.2795) 3
𝑇 𝑇2 0.717 1 0 1 0.706 1 𝛥(0.0141) 1 𝛥(0.0982) 2
𝑇 𝑇3 0.711 2 0.411 2 0.681 2 𝛥(0.0381) 2 𝛥(0.0743) 1
𝑇 𝑇4 0.698 3 0.841 4 0.485 3 𝛥(0.0827) 4 𝛥(0.9079) 4

Fig. 4. Sensitivity analysis of treatment alternatives for different variations of DMrs weights.

Table 25 values; the integration of CM theory and rough approximations can

Ranking results of treatment alternatives under different control parameters.
study subjective uncertainty and randomness simultaneously etc. But
Treatment 𝜙 = 0.5 𝜙 = 0.6 𝜙 = 0.9 there some situations in which multi-granulation, randomness and
technology 𝑐𝑑 Ranking 𝑐𝑑 Ranking 𝑐𝑑 Ranking uncertainty exist simultaneously which cannot be described with any
𝑇 𝑇1 𝛥(0.2794) 3 𝛥(0.3677) 3 𝛥(0.7772) 3 of the existing mathematical approaches. The proposed D2tLRN cloud
𝑇 𝑇2 𝛥(0.0982) 1 𝛥(0.1404) 1 𝛥(0.4949) 1 model overcomes this limitation and handle multi-granulation and
𝑇 𝑇3 𝛥(0.0743) 2 𝛥(0.1075) 2 𝛥(0.4195) 2
randomness in DMrs choices along with subjective uncertainty. It can
𝑇 𝑇4 𝛥(0.9079) 4 𝛥(0.9366) 4 𝛥(0.9888) 4
be used to solve medical waste management problems. However, it can
also implied in risk assessment problems and decision support systems.

Based on the ranking obtained by D2tLRN cloud TOPSIS method,
microwave (𝑇 𝑇3 ) is ranked as the optimal HCWM technology, which
is then followed by steam sterilization (𝑇 𝑇2 ), incineration (𝑇 𝑇1 ) and
landfill (𝑇 𝑇4 ). Microwave is computed as a best treatment technology
for HCWM as it maintains public health and minimizes environmental
effect. The non-incineration alternatives, that is, microwave and steam
sterilization are ranked as first and second HCWM technologies due
to their fewer pollutants and non-hazardous leftovers (Dursun et al.,
2011b). Moreover, non-incineration technologies are ranked before
incineration alternatives because the leftover matters and chemical
compounds of incinerators have negative impacts on the environment
and public health (Diaz et al., 2005). However, land has low cost and is
most economical HCWM technology as compared to the others, but its
use is very limited due to its environmental and public effects are more
adverse (Liu et al., 2013). Conclusively, the construction of microwave
can be proved as the most cost effective as well as most suitable in
terms of environmental, technical and social aspects.
The existing approaches handle different types of uncertainties with
hybrid mathematical structures as the uncertainty existing in real-world
data cannot be dealt only with a single mathematical approach. The
concept of multi-granulation can be dealt with 2tL variables; rough
numbers can be utilized to extract uncertainty without pre-defined
parameters; fuzzy numbers, rough fuzzy numbers, fuzzy rough num-
bers are implemented to cope with intrapersonal and interpersonal
uncertainties; CM theory handles randomness in DMrs judgements;
interval rough numbers deal with interval data instead of single fixed
8. Conclusion and future directions
The selection of suitable disposal technology for HCWM is a re-
strained and difficult task for the civil authorities of developed coun-
tries. In this research article, a novel mathematical model is proposed
by integrating 2-tuple linguistic setting into rough set theory and cloud
theory. Two novel linguistic manipulation models, namely, 2-tuple
linguistic rough numbers and dual 2-tuple linguistic rough number
(D2tLRN) clouds are constructed to handle uncertainty with random-
ness and multi-granularity simultaneously. The idea of 2tL cloud model
with certain binary operations is also presented in this paper. A hybrid
weighting scheme is utilized to evaluate the relative importance of
waste factors using both subjective and objective aspects of uncertainty.
The novel D2tLRN cloud TOPSIS method is presented to design a
novel evaluation approach for the selection of HCWM technologies. The
initial 2tL data is converted into 2tLR numbers and then D2tLRN cloud
values to cope with multi-granularity using rough approximations and
normal 2tL clouds. Using statistical variance, distance formulae and
arithmetic operations of 2tL clouds, 2tL cloud positive and 2tL cloud
negative ideal solutions are computed to rank the treatment technolo-
gies. The importance and significance of the proposed method is studied
with an empirical case study of HCWM in a most crowded municipality.
The results of the proposed technique show an outstanding correlation
with the results obtained by previous approaches.
Although the proposed waste management model provides contri-
butions in theory an practice. It still has some shortcomings enhancing

16
M. Sarwar Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 123 (2023) 106255

Table 26
Ranking results of treatment alternatives under different variations of DMrs weights.
Treatment 𝑆1 = {0.5, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1} 𝑆2 = {0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.5} 𝑆3 = {0.3, 0.1, 0.2, 0.1, 0.3} 𝑆4 = {0.3, 0.1, 0.2, 0.1, 0.3}
technology 𝑐𝑑 Ranking 𝑐𝑑 Ranking 𝑐𝑑 Ranking 𝑐𝑑 Ranking
𝑇 𝑇1 𝛥(0.3595) 3 𝛥(0.3523) 3 𝛥(0.3254) 3 𝛥(0.2795) 3
𝑇 𝑇2 𝛥(0.0883) 1 𝛥(0.0911) 1 𝛥(0.0895) 2 𝛥(0.0982) 2
𝑇 𝑇3 𝛥(0.1173) 2 𝛥(0.1021) 2 𝛥(0.0877) 1 𝛥(0.0743) 1
𝑇 𝑇4 𝛥(0.9170) 4 𝛥(0.9053) 4 𝛥(0.9122) 4 𝛥(0.9079) 4

the need of future studies. The evaluations of only five DMrs are
considered in this research study. The increase in the team of DMrs can
enhance the accuracy and reliability of the results. Only four decision
factors are considered as performance indicator for treatment tech-
nologies. These decision factors can be increased including engineering
factors, legal factors or process factors etc, in the future studies for
a more comprehensive assessment criteria system. The future study
will be to analysing and discussing group decision making problems
for various real-world applications including risk assessment, factory
location problem, robot evaluation and wind farm selection in different
areas based on multi-granulation of Pythagorean fuzzy information,
roughness of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and q-rung orthopair fuzzy
environment.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants
or animals performed by the author.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Musavarah Sarwar: Modeling, Analysis, Application of proposed
improved assessment model for health-care waste management based
on dual 2-tuple linguistic rough number clouds, Applied it on a real-
world problem and proved its effectiveness with various tests, Proof
read the article and checked the validity of the method.
Declaration of competing interest
The author declares no known competing financial interests or
personal relationships that could have appeared toinfluence the work
reported in this paper.
Funding
There is no specific funding for this project.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
References
Liu, H.C., Wu, J., Li, P., 2013. Assessment of health-care waste disposal methods using
a VIKOR-based fuzzy multi-criteria decision making method. Waste Manage. 33
(12), 2744–2751.
Dursun, M., Karsak, E.E., Karadayi, M.A., 2011a. Assessment of health-care waste treat-
ment alternatives using fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approaches. Resour.
Conserv. Recy. 57, 98–107.
Hsu, P.F., Wu, C.R., Li, Y.T., 2008. Selection of infectious medical waste disposal firms
by using the analytic hierarchy process and sensitivity analysis. Waste Manage. 28
(8), 1386–1394.
Karagiannidis, A., Papageorgiou, A., Perkoulidis, G., Sanida, G., Samaras, P., 2010. A
multi-criteria assessment of scenarios on thermal processing of infectious hospital
wastes: A case study for central Macedonia. Waste Manage. 30 (2), 251–262.
Dursun, M., Karsak, E.E., Karadayi, M.A., 2011b. A fuzzy multi-criteria group decision
making framework for evaluating health-care waste disposal alternatives. Expert
Syst. Appl. 38 (9), 11453–11462.
Pawlak, Z., 1982. Rough sets. Int. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. 11 (5), 341–356.
Zhai, L.Y., Khoo, L.P., Zhong, Z.W., 2008. A rough set enhanced fuzzy approach to
quality function deployment. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 37 (5), 613–624.
Li, D., Haijun, M., Xuemei, S., 1995b. Membership clouds and membership cloud
generators. J. Comput. Res. Dev. 32 (6), 15–20.
Li, J., Fang, H., Song, W., 2019b. Sustainable supplier selection based on SSCM
practices: A rough cloud TOPSIS approach. J. Clean. Prod. 222, 606–621.
Li, J., Fang, H., Song, W., 2019a. Modified failure mode and effects analysis un-
der uncertainty: A rough cloud theory-based approach. Appl. Soft Comput. 78,
195–208.
Jianxing, Y., Shibo, W., Haicheng, C., Yang, Y., Haizhao, F., Jiahao, L., 2021. Risk
assessment of submarine pipelines using modified FMEA approach based on cloud
model and extended VIKOR method. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 155, 555–574.
Gong, X., Yu, C., Min, L., 2021. A cloud theory-based multi-objective portfolio selection
model with variable risk appetite. Expert Syst. Appl. 176, 114911.
Zhu, G.N., Hu, J., Ren, H., 2020. A fuzzy rough number-based AHP-TOPSIS for design
concept evaluation under uncertain environments. Appl. Soft Comput. 91, 106228.
Chen, Z., Ming, X., 2020. A rough-fuzzy approach integrating best-worst method and
data envelopment analysis to multi-criteria selection of smart product service
module. Appl. Soft Comput. 94, 106479. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.
106479.
Huang, G., Xiao, L., Zhang, G., 2021a. Assessment and prioritization method of key
engineering characteristics for complex products based on cloud rough numbers.
Adv. Eng. Inform. 49, 101309.
Huang, G., Xiao, L., Zhang, G., 2021b. Decision-making model of machine tool
remanufacturing alternatives based on dual interval rough number clouds. Eng.
Appl. Artif. Intell. 104, 104392.
Xiao, L., Huang, G., Zhang, G., 2021. Improved assessment model for candidate design
schemes with an interval rough integrated cloud model under uncertain group
environment. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 104, 104352.
Rao, C., Gao, M., Wen, J., Goh, M., 2022. Multi-attribute group decision making method
with dual comprehensive clouds under information environment of dual uncertain
Z-numbers. Inform. Sci. 602, 106–127.
Huang, G., Xiao, L., Pedrycz, W., Pamucar, D., Zhang, G., Martínez, L., 2022.
Design alternative assessment and selection: A novel Z-cloud rough number-based
BWM-MABAC model. Inform. Sci. 603, 149–189.
Wu, Y., Chen, K., Zeng, B., Yang, M., Li, L., Zhang, H., 2017. A cloud decision
framework in pure 2-tuple linguistic setting and its application for low-speed wind
farm site selection. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 2154–2165.
Wan, S.-P., Xu, G.-L., Dong, J.-Y., 2017. Supplier selection using ANP and ELECTRE II
in interval 2-tuple linguistic environment. Inform. Sci. 385, 19–38.
Akram, M., Noreen, U., Deveci, M., 2023b. Enhanced ELECTRE II method with 2-tuple
linguistic m-polar fuzzy sets for multi-criteria group decision making. Expert Syst.
Appl. 213, 119237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.119237.
Akram, M., Zahid, K., Kahraman, C., 2022b. A PROMETHEE based outranking approach
for the construction of fangcang shelter hospital using spherical fuzzy sets. Artif.
Intell. Med. 135, 102456. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.artmed.2022.102456.
Irfan, M., Elavarasan, R.M., Ahmad, M., Mohsin, M., Dagar, V., Hao, Y., 2022.
Prioritizing and overcoming biomass energy barriers: Application of AHP and
G-TOPSIS approaches. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 177, 121524.
Yang, S., Pan, Y., Zeng, S., 2022. Decision making framework based fermatean fuzzy
integrated weighted distance and TOPSIS for green low-carbon port evaluation.
Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 114, 105048.
Akram, M., Naz, S., Feng, F., Shafiq, A., 2022a. Assessment of hydropower plants in
Pakistan: Muirhead mean-based 2-tuple linguistic t-spherical fuzzy model combin-
ing SWARA with COPRAS. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13369-
022-07081-0.
Rong, Y., Yu, L., Niu, W., Liu, Y., Senapati, T., Mishra, A.R., 2022. MARCOS approach
based upon cubic Fermatean fuzzy set and its application in evaluation and
selecting cold chain logistics distribution center. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 116,
105401.
Mishra, A.R., Chen, S.M., Rani, P., 2022. Multiattribute decision making based on
Fermatean hesitant fuzzy sets and modified VIKOR method. Inform. Sci. 607,
1532–1549.
Sarwar, M., Akram, M., Liu, P., 2021. An integrated rough ELECTRE II approach for
risk evaluation and effects analysis in automatic manufacturing process. Artif. Intell.
Rev. 54 (6), 4449–4481.
Khan, A., Akram, M., Ahmad, U., Al-Shamiri, M.M.A., 2023. A new multi-objective
optimization ratio analysis plus full multiplication form method for the selection
of an appropriate mining method based on 2-tuple spherical fuzzy linguistic sets.
Math. Biosci. Eng. 20 (1), 456–488.

17
M. Sarwar
Akram, M., Niaz, Z., Feng, F., 2022c. Extended CODAS method for multi-attribute group
decision-making based on 2-tuple linguistic fermatean fuzzy hamacher aggregation
operators. Granul. Comput. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41066-022-00332-3.
Ghoushchi, S.J., Bonab, S.R., Ghiaci, A.M., Haseli, G., Tomaskova, H., Hajiaghaei-
Keshteli, M., 2021. Landfill site selection for medical waste using an integrated
SWARA-WASPAS framework based on spherical fuzzy set. Sustainability 13 (24),
13950. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su132413950.
Haseli, G., Ghoushchi, S.J., 2022. Extended base-criterion method based on the
spherical fuzzy sets to evaluate waste management. Soft Comput. 26 (19),
9979–9992.
Gokasar, I., Pamucar, D., Deveci, M., Ding, W., 2023. A novel rough numbers based
extended MACBETH method for the prioritization of the connected autonomous
vehicles in real-time traffic management. Expert Syst. Appl. 211, 118445.
Wang, J.Q., Wang, D.D., Zhang, H.Y., Chen, X.H., 2015. Multi-criteria group decision
making method based on interval 2-tuple linguistic information and choquet
integral aggregation operators. Soft Comput. 19 (2), 389–405.
Deveci, M., Pamucar, D., Oguz, E., 2022b. Floating photovoltaic site selection using
fuzzy rough numbers based LAAW and RAFSI model. Appl. Energy 324, 119597.
Akyurt, İ.Z., Pamucar, D., Deveci, M., Kalan, O., Kuvvetli, Y., 2021. A flight base
selection for flight academy using a rough macbeth and rafsi based decision-making
analysis. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2021.
3119659.
Deveci, M., Brito-Parada, P.R., Pamucar, D., Varouchakis, E.A., 2022a. Rough sets based
ordinal priority approach to evaluate sustainable development goals (SDGs) for
sustainable mining. Resour. Policy 79, 103049.
Akram, M., Ali, U., Santos-Garcıa, G., Niaz, Z., 2023a. 2-tuple linguistic fermatean
fuzzy MAGDM based on the WASPAS method for selection of solid waste disposal
location. Math. Biosci. Eng. 20 (2), 3811–3837.
Akram, M., Noreen, U., Pamucar, D., 2022d. Extended PROMETHEE approach with 2–
tuple linguistic m–polar fuzzy sets for selection of elliptical cardio machine. Expert
Syst. e13178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/exsy.13178.
Xiao, F., Wen, J., Pedrycz, W., 2022b. Generalized divergence-based decision making
method with an application to pattern classification. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2022.3177896.
Sarwar, M., Akram, M., 2023. Certain hybrid rough models with type-2 soft information.
J. Multiple-Valued Logic Soft Comput. 1–35, in press.
Xiao, F., 2022a. GEJS: A generalized evidential divergence measure for multisource
information fusion. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst. 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1109/TSMC.2022.3211498.
Xiao, F., 2022c. Generalized quantum evidence theory. Appl. Intell. 1–16. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1007/s10489-022-04181-0.
Liu, H.C., Shi, H., Li, Z., Duan, C.Y., 2022. An integrated behavior decision-making
approach for large group quality function deployment. Inform. Sci. 582, 334–348.
Akram, M., Khan, A., Luqman, A., Senapati, T., Pamucar, D., 2023c. An extended MAR-
COS method for MCGDM under 2-tuple linguistic q-rung picture fuzzy environment.
Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 120, 105892.
Akram, M., Ramzan, N., Deveci, M., 2023d. Linguistic pythagorean fuzzy CRITIC-EDAS
method for multiple-attribute group decision analysis. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 119,
105777.
Akram, M., Bibi, R., Deveci, M., 2023e. An outranking approach with 2-tuple linguistic
fermatean fuzzy sets for multi-attribute group decision-making. Eng. Appl. Artif.
Intell. 121, 105992.
18
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 123 (2023) 106255
Sarwar, M., Akram, M., Shahzadi, S., 2023a. Distance measures and 𝛿-approximations
with rough complex fuzzy models. Granul. Comput. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s41066-023-00371-4.
Sarwar, M., Ali, G., Chaudhry, R.N., 2023b. Decision-making model for failure modes
and effect analysis based on rough fuzzy integrated clouds. Appl. Soft Comput.
136, 110148.
Sarwar, M., 2020. Decision-making approaches based on color spectrum and D-TOPSIS
method under rough environment. Comput. Appl. Math. 39 (4), 1–32.
Sarwar, M., 2022. Decision making model for design concept evaluation based on
interval rough integrated cloud VIKOR. J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12652-022-04459-8.
Zhang, H., 2012. The multiattribute group decision making method based on aggrega-
tion operators with interval-valued 2-tuple linguistic information. Math. Comput.
Modelling 56 (1–2), 27–35.
Chen, C.T., Tai, W.S, 2005. Measuring the intellectual capital performance based on
2-tuple fuzzy linguistic information. In: Proceedings of the 10th Annual Meeting of
Asia, Vol. 20. Pacific Region of Deicision Sciences Institute, Taiwan.
Tai, W.S., Chen, C.T., 2009. A new evaluation model for intellectual capital based on
computing with linguistic variable. Expert Syst. Appl. 36 (2), 3483–3488.
Herrera, F., Martínez, L., 2000. A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for
computing with words. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 8 (6), 746–752.
Li, D., Haijun, M., Xuemei, S., 1995a. Membership clouds and membership cloud
generators. J. Comput. Res. Dev. 32 (6), 15–20.
Li, D., Liu, C., Gan, W., 2009. A new cognitive model: Cloud model. Int. J. Intell. Syst.
24 (3), 357–375.
Liu, H.C., Qin, J.T., Mao, L.X., Zhang, Z.Y., 2015. Personnel selection using interval
2-tuple linguistic VIKOR method. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 25 (3),
370–384.
Zhang, H., 2013. Some interval-valued 2-tuple linguistic aggregation operators and
application in multiattribute group decision making. Appl. Math. Model. 37 (6),
4269–4282.
Cui, C.Q., Wang, B., Zhao, Y.X., Wang, Q., Sun, Z.M., 2019. China’s regional sustainabil-
ity assessment on mineral resources: Results from an improved analytic hierarchy
process-based normal cloud model. J. Clean. Prod. 210, 105–120.
Zhang, S., Xiang, M., Xu, Z., Wang, L., Zhang, C., 2020. Evaluation of water cycle
health status based on a cloud model. J. Clean. Prod. 245, 118850.
Cai, B., Liu, Y., Zhang, Y., Fan, Q., Liu, Z., Tian, X., 2013. A dynamic Bayesian networks
modeling of human factors on offshore blowouts. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 26 (4),
639–649.
Yazdi, M., Khan, F., Abbassi, R., Rusli, R., 2020. Improved DEMATEL methodology for
effective safety management decision-making. Saf. Sci. 127, 104705.
Zarei, E., Khan, F., Yazdi, M., 2021. A dynamic risk model to analyze hydrogen
infrastructure. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 46 (5), 4626–4643.
Li, D., Du, Y., 2017. Artificial Intelligence with Uncertainty. CRC Press.
Liu, H.C., You, J.X., Lu, C., Shan, M.M., 2014. Application of interval 2-tuple linguistic
multimoora method for health-care waste treatment technology evaluation and
selection. Waste Manage. 34 (11), 2355–2364.
Diaz, L.F., Savage, G.M., Eggerth, L.L., 2005. Alternatives for the treatment and disposal
of healthcare wastes in developing countries. Waste Manage. 25 (6), 626–637.