## 6 Results and Discussion
### Reliability Assessment
The aforesaid indicators are given in Table 2. In the next step, a ranking methodology should be proposed that can be applied to the information provided in Table 2. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Converters** & \(T_{jmax}\) (\({}^{\circ}\)C) & \(T_{jmin}\) (\({}^{\circ}\)C) & \(T_{jm}\) (\({}^{\circ}\)C) & \(\Delta T_{j}\) (\({}^{\circ}\)C) & \(N_{f}\) (No. Cycles) \\ \hline Conventional Boost & 113.60 & 34.47 & 74.04 & 79.13 & 174,568 \\ Interleaved Boost & 65.41 & 29.44 & 47.43 & 35.97 & 6,350,411 \\ Floating Interleaved Boost & 58.72 & 29.20 & 43.96 & 29.52 & 15,325,855 \\ Multi-switch Boost & 65.87 & 28.89 & 47.38 & 36.98 & 5,635,353 \\ Cuk & 99.87 & 31.52 & 65.70 & 68.35 & 347,316 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: The obtained results from the power cycling test for all five converters. The Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method [59], which is one of the most popular approaches for decision making, has been used to allocate a rank for each topology. In the TOPSIS method, the ideal (positive) solution is the one that maximizes the benefit of the criteria/attributes and minimizes the cost of the criteria (attributes), while the negative ideal solution is the one that maximizes the cost of criteria/attributes and maximizes profit criteria (attributes). The closest alternative to the ideal solution and, at the same time, the farthest from the negative ideal is the best alternative. In the TOPSIS method, the following procedure must be followed [60]:  
1. Calculate the normalized decision matrix \(\overline{X}_{ij}=\left[x_{ij}\right]_{m\times n}\) based on the normalized values as follows: \[\overline{X}_{ij}=\frac{x_{ij}}{\sqrt{\sum_{j=1}^{n}x_{ij}^{2}}}\] (25)
2. Calculate the weighted normalized decision matrix by multiplying the selected weights by the normalized values as follows: \[V_{ij}=\overline{X}_{ij}\times W_{j}\] (26)  
In this step, a weight should be considered for each criterion. A greater weight of the criterion shows that it is more important in the overall utility compared with criteria with lower weights. The weights are usually normalized so that their summation would be equal to 1 [61]. 3. Determine the positive and negative ideal solutions: \[ \begin{array}{l}V^{+}=\left(V_{1}^{+},V_{2}^{+},\ldots,V_{n}^{+}\right)\\ V^{-}=\left(V_{1}^{-},V_{2}^{-},\ldots,V_{n}^{-}\right)\end{array} \] (27) where, \[ \begin{array}{l}V_{j}^{+}=\begin{cases}\max_{i}\big{(}V_{ij}\big{)}&\text{ if criterion $j$ is benefit}\\ \min_{i}\big{(}V_{ij}\big{)}&\text{if criterion $j$ is cost}\\ V_{j}^{-}=\begin{cases}\min_{i}\big{(}V_{ij}\big{)}&\text{if criterion $j$ is benefit}\\ \max_{i}\big{(}V_{ij}\big{)}&\text{if criterion $j$ is cost}\end{cases}\end{array} \] (28)  
In this analysis, the Norris-Landzberg parameter (\(N_{j}\)) is only considered as a benefit, while all other indicators are non-beneficial criteria (cost). 4. Calculate the distance of each alternative from the ideal solution by using the Euclidean distance formula as follows: \[S_{i}^{+}=\sqrt{\sum_{j=1}^{m}\big{(}V_{ij}-V_{j}^{+}\big{)}^{2}}\] (29) \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Converters** & **\(N_{f}\)(No. Cycles)** & \(\begin{array}{c}T_{jmax\ (Q)}\\ (^{\circ}\mathbf{C})\end{array}\) & \(\begin{array}{c}T_{jmax\ (D)}\\ (^{\circ}\mathbf{C})\end{array}\) & **No. Components** & **Cost** \\ \hline Conventional Boost & 174,568 & 111.00 & 112.10 & 5 & Very Low \\ Interleaved Boost & 6,350,411 & 69.94 & 91.66 & 9 & High \\ Floating Interleaved Boost & 15,325,855 & 62.25 & 56.65 & 10 & High \\ Multi-switch Boost & 5,635,353 & 71.12 & 97.76 & 7 & Average \\ Cuk & 347,316 & 106.50 & 94.94 & 10 & High \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: The selected criteria and information for the ranking procedure.