# Spherical Cubic Fuzzy Extended TOPSIS Method and Its Application in Multicriteria Decision-Making

Authors: Tehreem; Amjad Hussain; Ahmed Alsanad; Mogeeb A. A. Mosleh
Journal: Mathematical Problems in Engineering
 (2021)

---

## Abstract

This paper aims to propose a new methodology for spherical cubic fuzzy (SCF) multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) utilizing the TOPSIS method that uses incomplete weight information. At first, the maximum deviation model is suggested to determine the criteria of weight values. An MCDM methodology is introduced using SCF information, based on the proposed method. Also, to validate the effectiveness of the proposed information, a numerical example is given. Finally, a comprehensive and structured analysis of existing work in comparison with previous work is given.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

MCGDM (multicriteria group decision-making) is a useful tool for selecting the most important option from a collection of alternatives in the evaluation and selection process. It has been used extensively in several real-life circumstances. Zhang and Guo [1] developed uncertain preference ordinals and incomplete weight information to solve group decision-making (GDM) problems in the VIKOR-based process. Zhang et al. established in [2] a new computational model based on comprehensive linguistic hierarchies that not only can be used to execute multigranular linguistic distribution evaluations but also can provide decision-makers with interpretable linguistic results. Yu et al. [3] provided an extensive analysis of the various approaches to consensus-building processes (CRP) and set out a variety of CRPs. When production methods and specifications become more complex, it can be difficult for decision-makers (DMs) or experts to consider all relevant factors during the evaluation and selection process. To solve a problem of real decision-making that characterizes membership, Zadeh [4] proposed fuzzy sets. After the introduction of fuzzy sets, many authors have extended the concept and applied it to MCGDM problems. Zhang et al. proposed a method for obtaining a priority weight vector from an incomplete HFPR (hesitant fuzzy preference relations) and the sum of the membership and nonmembership degrees using the least-squares logarithmic method in [5].We assumed that participants in failure mode and effect analysis linguistically provide their preferences, using possibly hesitant fuzzy linguistic information, to classify failure modes into several ordinary risk groups. Zhang et al. [6] developed a consensus-based group decision-making process for failure mode and effect analysis. On the condition that the number of membership and nonmembership degrees is less than or equal to one, fuzzy sets were generalized into intuitionistic fuzzy sets (IFS) [7] defined by membership and nonmembership degrees. Zeshui Xu [8] developed intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators. Zhang and Guo [9] proposed group decisions based on intuitionistic choice multiplication relationships. Yager et al. [10–13] extended the Pythagorean fuzzy set (PFS) by allowing it to be determined by membership degrees and nonmembership degrees, and the sum of the square of the membership and nonmembership degrees is less than or equal to one. PFS, as shown by Yager and Abbasov [13], can model forms of inaccuracy in decision-making problems that IFS cannot.Garg [14] presented exponential operational law and its aggregation operators for interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy set and has further generalized PFS by modifying terms of membership and degrees of nonmembership to the point that their number of squares is less than or equal to one. Researchers have created many extensions to those techniques and models to deal with the difficulty in MCDM problems.To generalize the concepts of PFS and IVPFS, Mahmood et al. [15] introduced the idea of a spherical fuzzy set, in which the sum of squares of membership, neutral, and nonmembership degrees is less than or equal to one.Gündoğdu and Kahraman [16] presented the application of decision-making by using the idea of spherical fuzzy sets. Kutlu Gündoğdu and Kahraman [17] introduced the new idea by combining the spherical fuzzy sets with the TOPSIS method and discussed their applications. In [18–21], many researchers presented the applications of spherical fuzzy sets in decision-making.TOPSIS is also an essential aspect of the decision-making process. iTOPSIS collects and compares data from the groups by assigning a weight to each criterion and applying a distance calculation formula to find the best solution to a decision-making problem. The TOPSIS method assumes that the criterion function is monotonic. When the TOPSIS method parameters are not as important as normalization in MCDM problems, the advantage of TOPSIS is that it allows the substitution of unnecessary parameters in situations where other models are insufficient to solve a variety of decision-making problems. Gündoğdu and Kahraman [22] have given a novel fuzzy TOPSIS method using interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets. Garg et al. [23] presented an algorithm for T-spherical fuzzy multiattribute decision-making by utilizing improved interactive aggregation operators. Sajjad Ali Khan et al. [24, 25] used an integral Choquet TOPSIS technology with IVPFNs to solve MCGDM problems and the IVPF GRA MCDM method. In addition, many authors discussed the TOPSIS method for dealing with MADM in spherical fuzzy environments.The definition of IFS was generalized in June 2012 and the notion of the cubic set was initiated. Many researchers presented the idea of an intuitionistic cubic fuzzy set (ICFS) [26] and its applications in decision-making. Naeem et al. [27] developed the new idea of Pythagorean m-polar fuzzy sets with the TOPSIS method and their applications in the selection of advertisement mode. After that, Ayaz et al. [28] introduced the generalized idea of SCFS, which is the generalization of ICFS and PCFS, and discussed its application in the selection of enterprise performance. The maximum deviation methodology of weighted aggregation operator for multiple criteria group decision analysis is presented in [29]. The flowchart represents the generalization of SCFS in Figure 1.Figure 1
Flowchart.Section2 reviews essential SFS and SCFS properties. Section 3 presents a new SCFS approach to extending the TOPSIS handling process. In Section 4, we will discuss an example of practical application of MCGDM. Section 5 compares the suggested technique to other well-known decision-making approaches to demonstrate the approach’s reliability.


## 2. Preliminaries

In this section, we present some basic definitions and important properties.Definition 1.
(see [7]). Let X^≠∅ be a universal set, and an intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS) I˜ on X^ is given as follows: (1)I˜=x^,α˙I˜x^,β˙I˜x^|x^∈X^,where α˙I˜x^:X^⟶0,1 represents the membership degree and β˙I˜x^:X^⟶0,1 represents the nonmembership degree with the specified condition 0≤α˙I˜x^+β˙I˜x^≤1 for all x^∈X^.Definition 2.
(see [28]). Let X^≠∅ be a universal set, and a cubic set C˜ on X^ is given as follows:(2)C˜=x^,α˙I˜︷x^,β˙I˜x^|x^∈X^,where α˙︷I˜x^ represents an interval fuzzy set and β˙I˜x^ represents the simple fuzzy set in X^.Definition 3.
(see [10]). Let X^≠∅ be a universal set, and a Pythagorean fuzzy set (PFS) P˜ on X^ is given as follows:(3)P˜=x^,α˙I˜x^,β˙I˜x^|x^∈X^,where α˙I˜x^:X^⟶0,1 represents the membership degree and β˙I˜x^:X^⟶0,1 represents the nonmembership degree with the specified condition 0≤α˙I˜x^2+β˙I˜x^2≤1 for all x^∈X^.Definition 4.
(see [26]). Let X^≠∅ be a universal set, and an intuitionistic cubic fuzzy set (ICFS) I˜c on X^ is given as follows:(4)I˜c=x^,α˙I˜x^,β˙I˜x^|x^∈X^,where α˙I˜x^=a˜−,a˜+,λ˜andβ˙I˜x^=b˜−,b˜+,μ˜ represent the membership and nonmembership degrees, respectively, with the specified conditions 0≤λ˜+μ˜≤1 and 0≤supa˜−,a˜++supb˜−,b˜+≤1. The ICFS’s degree of indeterminacy can be described as (5)π˜I˜c=1−supa˜−,a˜++supb˜−,b˜+,1−λ˜+μ˜.Definition 5.
(see [24]). Let X^≠∅ be a universal set, and a Pythagorean cubic fuzzy set (PCFS) P˜c on X^ is given as follows:(6)P˜c=x^,α˙I˜x^,β˙I˜x^|x^∈X^,where α˙I˜x^=a˜−,a˜+,λ˜andβ˙I˜x^=b˜−,b˜+,μ˜ represent the membership and nonmembership degrees, respectively, with the specified conditions 0≤λ˜2+μ˜2≤1 and 0≤supa˜−,a˜+2+supb˜−,b˜+2≤1. The PCFS’s degree of indeterminacy can be described as(7)π˜P˜c=1−supa˜−,a˜+2+supb˜−,b˜+2,1−λ˜2+μ˜2.Definition 6.
(see [28]). Let X^≠∅ be a universal set, and a spherical cubic fuzzy set (SCFS) S˜c on X^ is given as follows:(8)S˜c=x^,α˙S˜cx^,η˙S˜c,β˙S˜cx^|x^∈X^,where α˙S˜cx^=a˜−,a˜+,λ˜,η˙S˜c=n˜−,n˜+,μ˜,andβ˙S˜cx^=b˜−,b˜+,ϑ˜ represent the membership neutral and nonmembership degrees, respectively, with the specified conditions 0≤λ˜2+μ˜2+ϑ˜2≤1 and 0≤supa˜−,a˜+2+supn˜−,n˜+2+supb˜−,b˜+2≤1.
The SCFSs degree of indeterminacy can be described as(9)π˜S˜c=1−supa˜−,a˜+2+supn˜−,n˜+2+supb˜−,b˜+2,1−λ˜2+ϑ˜+μ˜2.
For our convenience, we write SCFS asS˜c=a˜−,a˜+,λ˜,n˜−,n˜+,μ˜,b˜−,b˜+,ϑ˜.Definition 7.
(see [28]). Let S˜c1=a˜1−,a˜1+,λ˜1,n˜1−,n˜1+,μ˜1,b˜1−,b˜1+,ϑ˜1 and S˜c2=a˜2−,a˜2+,λ˜2,n˜2−,n˜2+,μ˜2,b˜2−,b˜2+,ϑ˜2 be two spherical cubic fuzzy sets (SCFSs) and τ>0, then the following operation holds:(1)
(10)S˜c1⊕S˜c2=a˜1−2+a˜2−2−a˜1−2a˜2−2,a˜1+2+a˜2+2−a˜1+2a˜2+2λ˜12+λ˜22−λ˜12λ˜22n˜1−n˜2−,n˜2+n˜2+,μ˜1μ˜2,b˜1−b˜2−,b˜1+b˜2+,ϑ˜1ϑ˜2.(2)
(11)S˜c1⊗S˜c2=a˜1−a˜2−,a˜1+a˜2+,λ˜1λ˜2,n˜1−n˜2−,n˜2+n˜2+,μ˜1μ˜2,b˜1−2+b˜2−2−b˜1−2b˜2−2,b˜1+2+b˜2+2−b˜1+2b˜2+2ϑ˜12+ϑ˜22−ϑ˜12ϑ˜22.(3)
(12)τ.S˜c1=1−1−a˜1−2τ,1−1−a˜1+2τ,1−1−λ˜12τ,n˜1−τ,n˜1+τ,μ˜1τ,b˜1−τ,b˜1+τ,ϑ˜1τ.(4)
(13)S˜c1τ=a˜1−τ,a˜1+τ,λ˜1τ,b˜1−τ,b˜1+τ,ϑ˜1τ,1−1−b˜1−2τ,1−1−b˜1+2τ,1−1−ϑ˜12τ.Definition 8.
(see [28]). Let S˜c1=a˜1−,a˜1+,λ˜1,n˜1−,n˜1+,μ˜1,b˜1−,b˜1+,ϑ˜1 and S˜c2=a˜2−,a˜2+,λ˜2,n˜2−,n˜2+,μ˜2,b˜2−,b˜2+,ϑ˜2 be two spherical cubic fuzzy sets (SCFSs) and τ1,τ2>0, then the following will hold:(1)
S˜c1⊕S˜c2=S˜c2⊕S˜c1(2)
S˜c1⊗S˜c2=S˜c2⊗S˜c1(3)
τS˜c1⊕S˜c2=τS˜c1⊕τS˜c1(4)
τ1+τ2S˜c1=τ1S˜c1⊕τ2S˜c1(5)
S˜c1⊗S˜c2τ=S˜c1τ⊗S˜c2τ(6)
S˜c1τ1+τ2=S˜c1τ1⊗S˜c2τ2
We defined score and accuracy function and its basic properties in order to compare two SCFNs.Definition 9.
(see [28]). Let S˜c=a˜−,a˜+,λ˜,n˜−,n˜+,μ˜,b˜−,b˜+,ϑ˜ be an SCFN. The score function of S˜c is defined as (14)scoreS˜c=19a˜−+a˜++λ˜2+n˜−+n˜++μ˜2−b˜−+b˜++ϑ˜2,where scoreS˜c∈−1,1.Definition 10.
(see [28]). Let S˜c=a˜−,a˜+,λ˜,n˜−,n˜+,μ˜,b˜−,b˜+,ϑ˜ be an SCFN. The accuracy function of S˜c is defined as(15)accuracyS˜c=19a˜−+a˜++λ˜2+n˜−+n˜++μ˜2+b˜−+b˜++ϑ˜2,where accuracyS˜c∈0,1.Definition 11.
(see [28]). Let S˜c1=a˜1−,a˜1+,λ˜1,n˜1−,n˜1+,μ˜1,b˜1−,b˜1+,ϑ˜1 and S˜c2=a˜2−,a˜2+,λ˜2,n˜2−,n˜2+,μ˜2,b˜2−,b˜2+,ϑ˜2 be two spherical cubic fuzzy sets (SCFSs), then the comparison of S˜c1 and S˜c2 is defined as follows: (1)
IfscoreS˜c1<scoreS˜c2, then S˜c1<S˜c2(2)
IfscoreS˜c1>scoreS˜c2, then S˜c1>S˜c2(3)
IfscoreS˜c1=scoreS˜c2, then(a)
IfHS˜c1<HS˜c2, then S˜c1<S˜c2(b)
IfHS˜c1>HS˜c2, then S˜c1>S˜c2(c)
IfHS˜c1=HS˜c2, then S˜c1=S˜c2Definition 12.
(see [28]). Let S˜c1 and S˜c2 be two SCFNs, then the distance function of S˜c1 and S˜c2 is denoted by d˜S˜c1,S˜c2 and defined as follows:(16)d˜S˜c1,S˜c2=19|a˜1−2−a˜2−2|+|a˜1+2−a˜2+2|+|λ˜12−λ˜22|+|n˜1−2−n˜2−2|+|n˜1+2−n˜2+2|+|μ˜12−μ˜22|+|b˜1−2−b˜2−2|+|b˜1+2−b˜2+2|+|ϑ˜12−ϑ˜22|+.Definition 13.
(see [28]). Let S˜cij=a˜ij−,a˜ij+,λ˜1,n˜ij−,n˜ij+,μ˜ij,b˜ij−,b˜ij+,ϑ˜ij be a collection of SCFNs and let ω=ω1,ω2,…,ωnT be the weight vector of S˜ci with the specified condition that ωi∈0,1 and ∑i=1nωi=1. Then SCFWA operator is a function SCFWA:SCFNn⟶SCFN, defined as(17)SCFWAS˜c1,S˜c2,…,S˜cn=ω1S˜c1⊕ω2S˜c2⊕,…,⊕ωnS˜cn.SCFWAS˜c1,S˜c2,…,S˜cn=1−∏i=1n1−a˜i−2ωi,1−∏i=1n1−a˜i+2ωi1−∏i=1n1−λ˜i2ωi,∏i=1nn˜i−ωi,∏i=1nn˜i+ωi,∏i=1nμ˜iωi,∏i=1nb˜i−ωi,∏i=1nb˜i+ωi,∏i=1nϑ˜iωi,and the SCFWA operator is known as a spherical cubic fuzzy weighted averaging operator, which is also an SCFN.Definition 14.
(see [28]). Let S˜cij=a˜ij−,a˜ij+,λ˜1,n˜ij−,n˜ij+,μ˜ij,b˜ij−,b˜ij+,ϑ˜ij be a collection of SCFNs and let ω=ω1,ω2,…,ωnT be the weight vector of S˜ci with the specified condition that ωi∈0,1 and ∑i=1nωi=1. Then SCFWG operator is a function SCFWA:SCFNn⟶SCFN, defined as(18)SCFWGS˜c1,S˜c2,…,S˜cn=S˜c1ω1⊗S˜c2ω2⊗,…,⊗S˜cnωn,SCFWGS˜c1,S˜c2,…,S˜cn=∏i=1na˜i−ωi,∏i=1na˜i+ωi,∏i=1nλ˜iωi,∏i=1nn˜i−ωi,∏i=1nn˜i+ωi,∏i=1nμ˜iωi,1−∏i=1n1−b˜i−2ωi,1−∏i=1n1−b˜i+2ωi1−∏i=1n1−ϑ˜i2ωi,and the SCFWG operator is known as a spherical cubic fuzzy weighted geometric operator, which is also an SCFN.


## 3. Multicriteria Decision-Making Based on Spherical Cubic Fuzzy Numbers

This section discusses a multicriteria decision-making strategy based on the spherical cubic fuzzy TOPSIS system with unknown weight.


### 3.1. Formulation of the Problem

The MCDM problems are described as a decision-making mechanism that provides the attributes with ranking information in relation to the criteria. We suggest a spherical cubic fuzzy decision-making mechanism that not only describes the data on theZi alternatives that fulfill the Aj criterion, the data on the Zi alternatives that keep the Aj criterion unchanged, and the extent to which Zi fails to meet Aj criterion. Suppose that we have an MCDM function with an Z=Z1,Z2,…,Zm set of m alternatives. Let Z be a set of alternatives and let A=A1,A2,…,An be the set of criteria. In order to measure the efficiency of the ith alternative Zi in the jth criterion Aj, the decision-maker must use knowledge of the fulfillment of criteria Aj by alternative Zi's but of its nonfulfillment of Aj and keep Aj unchanged. α˙S˜cij,η˙S˜cij,andβ˙cij represent the membership, neutral, and nonmembership degrees, respectively. The alternative efficiency based on criteria Aj is represented by S˜cij=α˙S˜cij,η˙S˜cij,β˙cij=a˜ij−,a˜ij+,λ˜ij,n˜ij−,n˜ij+,μ˜ij,b˜ij−,b˜ij+,ϑ˜ij with the specified conditions 0≤λ˜ij2+μ˜ij2+ϑ˜ij2≤1 and 0≤supa˜ij−,a˜ij+2+supn˜ij−,n˜ij+2+supb˜ij−,b˜ij+2≤1. The decision matrix D˜ of SCF is shown as follows:(19)D˜=S˜c11S˜c12…S˜c1nS˜c21S˜c22…S˜c2n⋮⋮⋱⋮S˜cm1S˜cm2…S˜cmn.Taking the different degrees attributes, the weight vector given in decision matrix satisfied the conditionωi∈0,1 and ∑i=1nωi=1. The weight attribute is unknown due to uncertainty in practical decision-making problems and inherent human thinking nature. For simplicity, let Δ˜ represent the weight information [38], where the construction of Δ˜ for i≠j is shown below:(1)
Weak ranking criteriaωi≥ωj(2)
Strict ranking criteriaωi−ωj≥λˇi>0(3)
Ranking criteria with scalingωi≥λˇiωj,λˇi∈0,1(4)
Interval formationλˇi≤ωi≤λˇi+σiˇ,0≤λˇi≤λˇi+σiˇ≤1


### 3.2. Maximum Deviation Methodology for Optimal Weight

The optimal weight is critical in a multicriteria decision-making process. To illustrate the MCDM problem with numerical information, we present a technique of maximizing deviation to define the criteria weights. A higher weight must be allocated to the criteria with a higher deviation value compared to the alternatives. Hence, by using the method of maximizing deviation, we construct an optimization model for the determination of optimal attribute weight in cubic spherical fuzzy environment. The distance betweenZi’s options can be defined as follows for the criteria Aj∈A:(20)D˜ijω=∑z=1mωid˜S˜cij,S˜czj,i=1,2,3,…,m,j=1,2,3,…,n,where(21)d˜S˜cij,S˜czj=19|a˜ij−2−a˜zj−2|+|a˜ij+2−a˜zj+2|+|λ˜ij2−λ˜zj2|+|n˜ij−2−n˜zj−2|+|n˜ij+2−n˜zj+2|+|μ˜ij2−μ˜zj2|+|b˜ij−2−b˜zj−2|+|b˜ij+2−b˜zj+2|+|ϑ˜ij2−ϑ˜zj2|+represent the spherical cubic fuzzy distance measure between S˜cijandS˜czj.Definition 15.
LetD˜jω=∑i=1mD˜ijω.(22)∑i=1m∑z=1mωj19|a˜ij−2−a˜zj−2|+|a˜ij+2−a˜zj+2|+|λ˜ij2−λ˜zj2|+|n˜ij−2−n˜zj−2|+|n˜ij+2−n˜zj+2|+|μ˜ij2−μ˜zj2|+|b˜ij−2−b˜zj−2|+|b˜ij+2−b˜zj+2|+|ϑ˜ij2−ϑ˜zj2|+,where j=1,2,…,n.D˜jω then denotes the distance for the parameters Aj∈A, from the alternatives. The choice of the weight vector ω, which maximizes the deviation, is based on the proposed model to describe a nonlinear model.


#### 3.2.1. First Model

(23)maxD˜jω=∑j=1n∑i=1m∑z=1mωjd˜S˜cij,S˜czj,s.that∑j=1nωj=1.We have this model to clarify(24)L˜ω,ϱ=∑j=1n∑i=1m∑z=1mωjd˜S˜cij,S˜czj+ϱ2∑j=1nωj2−1=0,which shows the Lagrange function of the problem of restricted optimization of first model, where ϱ is a real number, denoting the variable of Lagrange multiplier. Now L˜′s partial derivatives are determined as follows: (25)∂L˜ω,ϱ∂ωj=∑i=1m∑z=1mωjd˜S˜cij,S˜czj+ϱ∑j=1nωj=1=0,∂L˜ω,ϱ∂ϱ=12∑j=1nωj2−1=0.We get(26)ωj=∑i=1m∑z=1mωjd˜S˜cij,S˜czjϱ.Using the above equations, we get(27)ϱ=∑j=1n∑i=1m∑z=1md˜S˜cij,S˜czj2,where ∑j=1n∑i=1m∑z=1md˜S˜cij,S˜czj2 means the sum of deviations of all the alternatives with respect to all the criteria.From equations (26) and (27), we get(28)ωj=∑j=1n∑i=1m∑z=1mω˘jd˜S˜cij,S˜czj∑j=1n∑i=1m∑z=1md˜S˜cij,S˜czj2.By normalization ofωj, we make sum into unity, and we get(29)ωj=∑i=1m∑z=1m1/9a˜ij−2−a˜zj−2+a˜ij+2−a˜zj+2+λ˜ij2−λ˜zj2+n˜ij−2−n˜zj−2+n˜ij+2−n˜zj+2+μ˜ij2−μ˜zj2+b˜ij−2−b˜zj−2+b˜ij+2−b˜zj+2+ϑ˜ij2−ϑ˜zj2+∑j=1n∑i=1m∑z=1m1/9a˜ij−2−a˜zj−2+a˜ij+2−a˜zj+2+λ˜ij2−λ˜zj2+n˜ij−2−n˜zj−2+n˜ij+2−n˜zj+2+μ˜ij2−μ˜zj2+b˜ij−2−b˜zj−2+b˜ij+2−b˜zj+2+ϑ˜ij2−ϑ˜zj2+.There are, however, real cases where the weight vector information is not totally unknown but is slightly modified. For partially known weight information, we construct the following constrained optimization model.


#### 3.2.2. Second Model

(30)maxD˜jω=∑j=1n∑i=1m∑z=1m1/9a˜ij−2−a˜zj−2+a˜ij+2−a˜zj+2+λ˜ij2−λ˜zj2+n˜ij−2−n˜zj−2+n˜ij+2−n˜zj+2+μ˜ij2−μ˜zj2+b˜ij−2−b˜zj−2+b˜ij+2−b˜zj+2+ϑ˜ij2−ϑ˜zj2+,s.that∑j=1nωj=1.The weight valueωj is also a set of restricted conditions where Δ˜ is the criteria that should be satisfied. The second model given in equation (29) is a linear programming model that can be implemented using the software LINGO 11.0. We get the optimal solution ω=ω1,ω2,…,ωnT, which can be used as the weight vector of criteria by solving this model.


### 3.3. Proposed Technique

In the spherical cubic fuzzy aggregation operator process [28], too much information is lost due to the difficulty of the spherical cubic fuzzy aggregating process, which means a lack of consistency in the final results. We have therefore expanded the TOPSIS approach to take into account spherical cubic information in order to address this limitation and have used the distance measurements of SCFNs to obtain the final ranking of the alternatives. TOPSIS is a kind of method for solving MCDM problems with the shortest distance from the positive ideal solution PˇIS to select the alternative. The farthest distance from the negative ideal solution NˇIS is commonly used in actual situations to deal with the ranking problems. Under the notation of SCF, the spherical cubic fuzzy positive ideal solution SCFPˇIS is expressed by pˇ+, and it is possible to write the spherical negative ideal solution with SCFNˇIS expressed by pˇ−.LetS˜c1=a˜1−,a˜1+,λ˜1,n˜1−,n˜1+,μ˜1,b˜1−,b˜1+,ϑ˜1 and S˜c2=a˜2−,a˜2+,λ˜2,n˜2−,n˜2+,μ˜2,b˜2−,b˜2+,ϑ˜2 be two spherical cubic fuzzy sets (SCFSs), then(31)pˇ+=maxia˜1−,a˜1+,a˜2−,a˜2+,maxin˜1−,n˜1+,n˜2−,n˜2+,maxib˜1−,b˜1+,b˜2−,b˜2+,miniλ˜1,λ˜2,miniμ˜1,μ˜2,miniϑ˜1,ϑ˜2,(32)pˇ−=minia˜1−,a˜1+,a˜2−,a˜2+,minin˜1−,n˜1+,n˜2−,n˜2+,minib˜1−,b˜1+,b˜2−,b˜2+,maxiλ˜1,λ˜2,maxiμ˜1,μ˜2,maxiϑ˜1,ϑ˜2.The separated distance measuresdˇ+ and dˇ− for alternatives of SCFPˇISpˇ+ and SCFNˇISpˇ− are formulated as(33)dˇ+=∑j=1nωjd˜S˜cij,S˜cj+,=19∑j=1nωj|a˜ij−2−a˜j−︷+2|+|a˜ij+2−a˜j+︷+2|+|λ˜ij2−λ˜j︷+2|+|n˜ij−2−n˜j−︷+2|+|n˜ij+2−n˜j+︷+2|+|μ˜ij2−μ˜j︷+2|+|b˜ij−2−b˜j−︷+2|+|b˜ij+2−b˜j+︷+2|+|ϑ˜ij2−ϑ˜j︷+2|+,(34)dˇ−=∑j=1nωjd˜S˜cij,S˜cj−,=19∑j=1nωj|a˜ij−2−a˜j−︷−2|+|a˜ij+2−a˜j+︷−2|+|λ˜ij2−λ˜j︷−2|+|n˜ij−2−n˜j−︷−2|+|n˜ij+2−n˜j+︷−2|+|μ˜ij2−μ˜j︷−2|+|b˜ij−2−b˜j−︷−2|+|b˜ij+2−b˜j+︷−2|+|ϑ˜ij2−ϑ˜j︷−2|+.Relative coefficient of closeness ofZi to SCFPˇISpˇ+ is(35)C¯i=dˇi−dˇi++dˇi−,where C¯i∈0,1. Alternative Zi is clearly similar to SCFPˇISpˇ+ and further from SCFNˇISpˇ− as C¯i approaches 1. Therefore, we decide the ranking orders of all alternatives according to the closeness coefficient C¯i and choose the best one from a set of feasible alternatives. We will develop an effective approach to solving MCDM problems based on the above models in which the attribute weight information is incomplete or entirely unknown, and the attribute values take the form of SCFNs.The following are the steps of our proposed technique:Step 1: first of all, we will construct the decision matricesD˜=S˜cijm×n=a˜ij−,a˜ij+,λ˜1,n˜ij−,n˜ij+,μ˜ij,b˜ij−,b˜ij+,ϑ˜ijm×n, where i=1,2,3,…,m,j=1,2,3,…,n are SCFNs, for the alternative Zi and the criteria AjStep 2: we use the SCFWG operator to aggregate all the spherical cubic fuzzy decision matricesStep 3: if the knowledge of the criteria weights is absolutely unknown, the first model can be used to obtain them; and if the knowledge of the criteria weights is not completely known but is partially known, then the criteria weights can be determined using the second modelStep 4: using equations (30) and (31), we will find SCFPˇISpˇ+ and SCFNˇISpˇ−Step 5: using equations (33) and (34), we will find dˇ+and dˇ−Step 6: we rank all the alternativesZi and select the best one


## 3.1. Formulation of the Problem

The MCDM problems are described as a decision-making mechanism that provides the attributes with ranking information in relation to the criteria. We suggest a spherical cubic fuzzy decision-making mechanism that not only describes the data on theZi alternatives that fulfill the Aj criterion, the data on the Zi alternatives that keep the Aj criterion unchanged, and the extent to which Zi fails to meet Aj criterion. Suppose that we have an MCDM function with an Z=Z1,Z2,…,Zm set of m alternatives. Let Z be a set of alternatives and let A=A1,A2,…,An be the set of criteria. In order to measure the efficiency of the ith alternative Zi in the jth criterion Aj, the decision-maker must use knowledge of the fulfillment of criteria Aj by alternative Zi's but of its nonfulfillment of Aj and keep Aj unchanged. α˙S˜cij,η˙S˜cij,andβ˙cij represent the membership, neutral, and nonmembership degrees, respectively. The alternative efficiency based on criteria Aj is represented by S˜cij=α˙S˜cij,η˙S˜cij,β˙cij=a˜ij−,a˜ij+,λ˜ij,n˜ij−,n˜ij+,μ˜ij,b˜ij−,b˜ij+,ϑ˜ij with the specified conditions 0≤λ˜ij2+μ˜ij2+ϑ˜ij2≤1 and 0≤supa˜ij−,a˜ij+2+supn˜ij−,n˜ij+2+supb˜ij−,b˜ij+2≤1. The decision matrix D˜ of SCF is shown as follows:(19)D˜=S˜c11S˜c12…S˜c1nS˜c21S˜c22…S˜c2n⋮⋮⋱⋮S˜cm1S˜cm2…S˜cmn.Taking the different degrees attributes, the weight vector given in decision matrix satisfied the conditionωi∈0,1 and ∑i=1nωi=1. The weight attribute is unknown due to uncertainty in practical decision-making problems and inherent human thinking nature. For simplicity, let Δ˜ represent the weight information [38], where the construction of Δ˜ for i≠j is shown below:(1)
Weak ranking criteriaωi≥ωj(2)
Strict ranking criteriaωi−ωj≥λˇi>0(3)
Ranking criteria with scalingωi≥λˇiωj,λˇi∈0,1(4)
Interval formationλˇi≤ωi≤λˇi+σiˇ,0≤λˇi≤λˇi+σiˇ≤1


## 3.2. Maximum Deviation Methodology for Optimal Weight

The optimal weight is critical in a multicriteria decision-making process. To illustrate the MCDM problem with numerical information, we present a technique of maximizing deviation to define the criteria weights. A higher weight must be allocated to the criteria with a higher deviation value compared to the alternatives. Hence, by using the method of maximizing deviation, we construct an optimization model for the determination of optimal attribute weight in cubic spherical fuzzy environment. The distance betweenZi’s options can be defined as follows for the criteria Aj∈A:(20)D˜ijω=∑z=1mωid˜S˜cij,S˜czj,i=1,2,3,…,m,j=1,2,3,…,n,where(21)d˜S˜cij,S˜czj=19|a˜ij−2−a˜zj−2|+|a˜ij+2−a˜zj+2|+|λ˜ij2−λ˜zj2|+|n˜ij−2−n˜zj−2|+|n˜ij+2−n˜zj+2|+|μ˜ij2−μ˜zj2|+|b˜ij−2−b˜zj−2|+|b˜ij+2−b˜zj+2|+|ϑ˜ij2−ϑ˜zj2|+represent the spherical cubic fuzzy distance measure between S˜cijandS˜czj.Definition 15.
LetD˜jω=∑i=1mD˜ijω.(22)∑i=1m∑z=1mωj19|a˜ij−2−a˜zj−2|+|a˜ij+2−a˜zj+2|+|λ˜ij2−λ˜zj2|+|n˜ij−2−n˜zj−2|+|n˜ij+2−n˜zj+2|+|μ˜ij2−μ˜zj2|+|b˜ij−2−b˜zj−2|+|b˜ij+2−b˜zj+2|+|ϑ˜ij2−ϑ˜zj2|+,where j=1,2,…,n.D˜jω then denotes the distance for the parameters Aj∈A, from the alternatives. The choice of the weight vector ω, which maximizes the deviation, is based on the proposed model to describe a nonlinear model.


### 3.2.1. First Model

(23)maxD˜jω=∑j=1n∑i=1m∑z=1mωjd˜S˜cij,S˜czj,s.that∑j=1nωj=1.We have this model to clarify(24)L˜ω,ϱ=∑j=1n∑i=1m∑z=1mωjd˜S˜cij,S˜czj+ϱ2∑j=1nωj2−1=0,which shows the Lagrange function of the problem of restricted optimization of first model, where ϱ is a real number, denoting the variable of Lagrange multiplier. Now L˜′s partial derivatives are determined as follows: (25)∂L˜ω,ϱ∂ωj=∑i=1m∑z=1mωjd˜S˜cij,S˜czj+ϱ∑j=1nωj=1=0,∂L˜ω,ϱ∂ϱ=12∑j=1nωj2−1=0.We get(26)ωj=∑i=1m∑z=1mωjd˜S˜cij,S˜czjϱ.Using the above equations, we get(27)ϱ=∑j=1n∑i=1m∑z=1md˜S˜cij,S˜czj2,where ∑j=1n∑i=1m∑z=1md˜S˜cij,S˜czj2 means the sum of deviations of all the alternatives with respect to all the criteria.From equations (26) and (27), we get(28)ωj=∑j=1n∑i=1m∑z=1mω˘jd˜S˜cij,S˜czj∑j=1n∑i=1m∑z=1md˜S˜cij,S˜czj2.By normalization ofωj, we make sum into unity, and we get(29)ωj=∑i=1m∑z=1m1/9a˜ij−2−a˜zj−2+a˜ij+2−a˜zj+2+λ˜ij2−λ˜zj2+n˜ij−2−n˜zj−2+n˜ij+2−n˜zj+2+μ˜ij2−μ˜zj2+b˜ij−2−b˜zj−2+b˜ij+2−b˜zj+2+ϑ˜ij2−ϑ˜zj2+∑j=1n∑i=1m∑z=1m1/9a˜ij−2−a˜zj−2+a˜ij+2−a˜zj+2+λ˜ij2−λ˜zj2+n˜ij−2−n˜zj−2+n˜ij+2−n˜zj+2+μ˜ij2−μ˜zj2+b˜ij−2−b˜zj−2+b˜ij+2−b˜zj+2+ϑ˜ij2−ϑ˜zj2+.There are, however, real cases where the weight vector information is not totally unknown but is slightly modified. For partially known weight information, we construct the following constrained optimization model.


### 3.2.2. Second Model

(30)maxD˜jω=∑j=1n∑i=1m∑z=1m1/9a˜ij−2−a˜zj−2+a˜ij+2−a˜zj+2+λ˜ij2−λ˜zj2+n˜ij−2−n˜zj−2+n˜ij+2−n˜zj+2+μ˜ij2−μ˜zj2+b˜ij−2−b˜zj−2+b˜ij+2−b˜zj+2+ϑ˜ij2−ϑ˜zj2+,s.that∑j=1nωj=1.The weight valueωj is also a set of restricted conditions where Δ˜ is the criteria that should be satisfied. The second model given in equation (29) is a linear programming model that can be implemented using the software LINGO 11.0. We get the optimal solution ω=ω1,ω2,…,ωnT, which can be used as the weight vector of criteria by solving this model.


## 3.2.1. First Model

(23)maxD˜jω=∑j=1n∑i=1m∑z=1mωjd˜S˜cij,S˜czj,s.that∑j=1nωj=1.We have this model to clarify(24)L˜ω,ϱ=∑j=1n∑i=1m∑z=1mωjd˜S˜cij,S˜czj+ϱ2∑j=1nωj2−1=0,which shows the Lagrange function of the problem of restricted optimization of first model, where ϱ is a real number, denoting the variable of Lagrange multiplier. Now L˜′s partial derivatives are determined as follows: (25)∂L˜ω,ϱ∂ωj=∑i=1m∑z=1mωjd˜S˜cij,S˜czj+ϱ∑j=1nωj=1=0,∂L˜ω,ϱ∂ϱ=12∑j=1nωj2−1=0.We get(26)ωj=∑i=1m∑z=1mωjd˜S˜cij,S˜czjϱ.Using the above equations, we get(27)ϱ=∑j=1n∑i=1m∑z=1md˜S˜cij,S˜czj2,where ∑j=1n∑i=1m∑z=1md˜S˜cij,S˜czj2 means the sum of deviations of all the alternatives with respect to all the criteria.From equations (26) and (27), we get(28)ωj=∑j=1n∑i=1m∑z=1mω˘jd˜S˜cij,S˜czj∑j=1n∑i=1m∑z=1md˜S˜cij,S˜czj2.By normalization ofωj, we make sum into unity, and we get(29)ωj=∑i=1m∑z=1m1/9a˜ij−2−a˜zj−2+a˜ij+2−a˜zj+2+λ˜ij2−λ˜zj2+n˜ij−2−n˜zj−2+n˜ij+2−n˜zj+2+μ˜ij2−μ˜zj2+b˜ij−2−b˜zj−2+b˜ij+2−b˜zj+2+ϑ˜ij2−ϑ˜zj2+∑j=1n∑i=1m∑z=1m1/9a˜ij−2−a˜zj−2+a˜ij+2−a˜zj+2+λ˜ij2−λ˜zj2+n˜ij−2−n˜zj−2+n˜ij+2−n˜zj+2+μ˜ij2−μ˜zj2+b˜ij−2−b˜zj−2+b˜ij+2−b˜zj+2+ϑ˜ij2−ϑ˜zj2+.There are, however, real cases where the weight vector information is not totally unknown but is slightly modified. For partially known weight information, we construct the following constrained optimization model.


## 3.2.2. Second Model

(30)maxD˜jω=∑j=1n∑i=1m∑z=1m1/9a˜ij−2−a˜zj−2+a˜ij+2−a˜zj+2+λ˜ij2−λ˜zj2+n˜ij−2−n˜zj−2+n˜ij+2−n˜zj+2+μ˜ij2−μ˜zj2+b˜ij−2−b˜zj−2+b˜ij+2−b˜zj+2+ϑ˜ij2−ϑ˜zj2+,s.that∑j=1nωj=1.The weight valueωj is also a set of restricted conditions where Δ˜ is the criteria that should be satisfied. The second model given in equation (29) is a linear programming model that can be implemented using the software LINGO 11.0. We get the optimal solution ω=ω1,ω2,…,ωnT, which can be used as the weight vector of criteria by solving this model.


## 3.3. Proposed Technique

In the spherical cubic fuzzy aggregation operator process [28], too much information is lost due to the difficulty of the spherical cubic fuzzy aggregating process, which means a lack of consistency in the final results. We have therefore expanded the TOPSIS approach to take into account spherical cubic information in order to address this limitation and have used the distance measurements of SCFNs to obtain the final ranking of the alternatives. TOPSIS is a kind of method for solving MCDM problems with the shortest distance from the positive ideal solution PˇIS to select the alternative. The farthest distance from the negative ideal solution NˇIS is commonly used in actual situations to deal with the ranking problems. Under the notation of SCF, the spherical cubic fuzzy positive ideal solution SCFPˇIS is expressed by pˇ+, and it is possible to write the spherical negative ideal solution with SCFNˇIS expressed by pˇ−.LetS˜c1=a˜1−,a˜1+,λ˜1,n˜1−,n˜1+,μ˜1,b˜1−,b˜1+,ϑ˜1 and S˜c2=a˜2−,a˜2+,λ˜2,n˜2−,n˜2+,μ˜2,b˜2−,b˜2+,ϑ˜2 be two spherical cubic fuzzy sets (SCFSs), then(31)pˇ+=maxia˜1−,a˜1+,a˜2−,a˜2+,maxin˜1−,n˜1+,n˜2−,n˜2+,maxib˜1−,b˜1+,b˜2−,b˜2+,miniλ˜1,λ˜2,miniμ˜1,μ˜2,miniϑ˜1,ϑ˜2,(32)pˇ−=minia˜1−,a˜1+,a˜2−,a˜2+,minin˜1−,n˜1+,n˜2−,n˜2+,minib˜1−,b˜1+,b˜2−,b˜2+,maxiλ˜1,λ˜2,maxiμ˜1,μ˜2,maxiϑ˜1,ϑ˜2.The separated distance measuresdˇ+ and dˇ− for alternatives of SCFPˇISpˇ+ and SCFNˇISpˇ− are formulated as(33)dˇ+=∑j=1nωjd˜S˜cij,S˜cj+,=19∑j=1nωj|a˜ij−2−a˜j−︷+2|+|a˜ij+2−a˜j+︷+2|+|λ˜ij2−λ˜j︷+2|+|n˜ij−2−n˜j−︷+2|+|n˜ij+2−n˜j+︷+2|+|μ˜ij2−μ˜j︷+2|+|b˜ij−2−b˜j−︷+2|+|b˜ij+2−b˜j+︷+2|+|ϑ˜ij2−ϑ˜j︷+2|+,(34)dˇ−=∑j=1nωjd˜S˜cij,S˜cj−,=19∑j=1nωj|a˜ij−2−a˜j−︷−2|+|a˜ij+2−a˜j+︷−2|+|λ˜ij2−λ˜j︷−2|+|n˜ij−2−n˜j−︷−2|+|n˜ij+2−n˜j+︷−2|+|μ˜ij2−μ˜j︷−2|+|b˜ij−2−b˜j−︷−2|+|b˜ij+2−b˜j+︷−2|+|ϑ˜ij2−ϑ˜j︷−2|+.Relative coefficient of closeness ofZi to SCFPˇISpˇ+ is(35)C¯i=dˇi−dˇi++dˇi−,where C¯i∈0,1. Alternative Zi is clearly similar to SCFPˇISpˇ+ and further from SCFNˇISpˇ− as C¯i approaches 1. Therefore, we decide the ranking orders of all alternatives according to the closeness coefficient C¯i and choose the best one from a set of feasible alternatives. We will develop an effective approach to solving MCDM problems based on the above models in which the attribute weight information is incomplete or entirely unknown, and the attribute values take the form of SCFNs.The following are the steps of our proposed technique:Step 1: first of all, we will construct the decision matricesD˜=S˜cijm×n=a˜ij−,a˜ij+,λ˜1,n˜ij−,n˜ij+,μ˜ij,b˜ij−,b˜ij+,ϑ˜ijm×n, where i=1,2,3,…,m,j=1,2,3,…,n are SCFNs, for the alternative Zi and the criteria AjStep 2: we use the SCFWG operator to aggregate all the spherical cubic fuzzy decision matricesStep 3: if the knowledge of the criteria weights is absolutely unknown, the first model can be used to obtain them; and if the knowledge of the criteria weights is not completely known but is partially known, then the criteria weights can be determined using the second modelStep 4: using equations (30) and (31), we will find SCFPˇISpˇ+ and SCFNˇISpˇ−Step 5: using equations (33) and (34), we will find dˇ+and dˇ−Step 6: we rank all the alternativesZi and select the best one


## 4. Illustrative Description

In this section, we will present a numerical example to demonstrate the potential assessment of the commercialization of emerging technology with spherical cubic fuzzy information to illustrate the approach proposed in this paper. There is a panel with four potentialZii=1,2,3,4 new technology companies to select. To assess the three potential emerging technology enterprises, the experts select four attributes: (1) A1 is the technological advance; (2) A2 is the potential demand and market risk; (3) A3 is the infrastructure for industrialization; and (4) A4 represents the human economic and financial conditions. Three decision-makers whose weighted vector is 0.25,0.30,0.45T and the spherical cubic fuzzy decision matrices are provided in Tables 1–3. The four potential emerging technology companies should be evaluated using the spherical cubic fuzzy information.Table 1
1st spherical cubic fuzzy decision-making.
A1A2A3A4Z10.6,0.7,0.6,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.2,0.4,0.4.0.6,0.7,0.6,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.2,0.4,0.4.0.6,0.7,0.6,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.2,0.4,0.4.0.6,0.7,0.6,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.2,0.4,0.4.Z20.6,0.7,0.6,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.2,0.4,0.4.0.6,0.7,0.6,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.2,0.4,0.4.0.6,0.7,0.6,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.2,0.4,0.4.0.6,0.7,0.6,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.2,0.4,0.4.Z30.6,0.7,0.6,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.2,0.4,0.4.0.6,0.7,0.6,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.2,0.4,0.4.0.6,0.7,0.6,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.2,0.4,0.4.0.6,0.7,0.6,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.2,0.4,0.4.Z40.6,0.7,0.6,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.2,0.4,0.4.0.6,0.7,0.6,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.2,0.4,0.4.0.6,0.7,0.6,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.2,0.4,0.4.0.6,0.7,0.6,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.2,0.4,0.4.Table 2
2nd spherical cubic fuzzy decision-making.
A1A2A3A4Z10.3,0.4,0.4,0.2,0.3,0.5,0.6,0.7,0.6.0.2,0.4,0.4,0.5,0.6,0.3,0.5,0.6,0.3.0.7,0.8,0.5,0.6,0.4,0.2,0.2,0.3,0.6.0.5,0.6,0.5,0.5,0.3,0.1,0.2,0.3,0.2.Z20.3,0.4,0.7,0.5,0.7,0.2,0.6,0.7,0.4.0.1,0.2,0.6,0.5,0.4,0.2,0.5,0.6,0.3.0.4,0.7,0.6,0.8,0.5,0.2,0.5,0.6,0.6.0.2,0.3,0.1,0.4,0.5,0.4,0.3,0.4,0.3.Z30.6,0.7,0.3,0.2,0.4,0.1,0.3,0.4,0.6.0.2,0.3,0.5,0.6,0.2,0.1,0.5,0.6,0.3.0.4,0.7,0.6,0.2,0.4,0.6,0.5,0.6,0.3.0.2,0.3,0.7,0.4,0.5,0.4,0.3,0.4,0.2.Z40.6,0.7,0.6,0.2,0.8,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5.0.4,0.6,0.3,0.1,0.2,0.8,0.3,0.4,0.4.0.5,0.7,0.7,0.1,0.6,0.2,0.4,0.6,0.3.0.2,0.3,0.6,0.3,0.6,0.2,0.5,0.6,0.1.Table 3
3rd spherical cubic fuzzy decision-making.
A1A2A3A4Z10.6,0.7,0.6,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.2,0.4,0.4.0.4,0.5,0.4,0.2,0.5,0.1,0.3,0.4,0.3.0.5,0.7,0.6,0.2,0.1,0.6,0.4,0.5,0.4.0.4,0.5,0.6,0.2,0.5,0.3,0.3,0.5,0.2.Z20.4,0.7,0.1,0.5,0.2,0.2,0.4,0.5,0.8.0.5,0.6,0.2,0.2,0.5,0.4,0.2,0.3,0.6.0.5,0.6,0.7,0.5,0.3,0.2,0.4,0.5,0.3.0.4,0.5,0.7,0.5,0.2,0.1,0.3,0.4,0.1.Z30.6,0.7,0.4,0.2,0.4,0.3,0.3,0.4,0.6.0.4,0.5,0.6,0.2,0.1,0.5,0.3,0.4,0.3.0.6,0.7,0.7,0.2,0.1,0.4,0.3,0.5,0.3.0.4,0.5,0.2,0.2,0.1,0.4,0.2,0.4,0.6.Z40.6,0.7,0.6,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.3,0.4,0.5.0.5,0.6,0.4,0.5,0.6,0.4,0.2,0.3,0.5.0.6,0.7,0.6,0.2,0.4,0.1,0.3,0.4,0.3.0.5,0.6,0.7,0.2,0.5,0.6,0.2,0.3,0.1.Assume that the information about the attribute weights is completely unknown; according to the following steps, we get the most suitable alternatives.Step 1: In Tables1–3, the decision-makers have decision.Step 2: The SCFWG operator is used to aggregate all the spherical cubic fuzzy decision matrices.Step 3: We obtain the weight vector by using equation (29) with the matrix in Table 4: (36)ω=0.2110,0.2884,0.2670,0.2336T.Step 4: The SCFPˇIS pˇ+ and SCF NˇIS pˇ− are given by equation (31) and equation (32):(37)p+=0.6000,0.7000,0.6000,0.2000,0.4026,0.3249,0.3000,0.4000,0.5000.,0.4676,0.6000,0.3669,0.3085,0.4315,0.4925,0.2351,0.3341,0.4734.0.5681,0.7000,0.6284,0.1625,0.4517,0.1231,0.3341,0.4752,0.3000.,0.4277,0.5281,0.5681,0.2633,0.4290,0.2158,0.2744,0.4530,0.2000.,p−=0.3669,0.5918,0.1793,0.5000,0.2912,0.2000,0.4752,0.5761,0.7320.,0.3085,0.4315,0.2781,0.2633,0.4676,0.3249,0.3294,0.4275,0.5373.0.4676,0.6284,0.6684,0.5757,0.3497,0.2000,0.4337,0.5337,0.4257.,0.3249,0.4290,0.2912,0.2624,0.1621,0.4000,0.2351,0.4000,0.5265..Step 5: for calculatingdi+ and di−, equation (33) and equation (34) are used:(38)d1+=0.0818,d2+=0.0987,d3+=0.0925,d4+=0.1108,d1−=0.1273,d2−=0.0799,d3−=0.1074,d4−=0.1326.Step 6: calculateC˜i by using equation (35):(39)C˜1=0.6090,C˜2=0.4473,C˜3=0.5372,C˜4=0.5448.Step 7: rank all the alternativesZii=1,2,3,4 according to C˜i:(40)Z1>Z4>Z3>Z2.


## 5. Comparison

The proposed method is compared and shown to be more general while achieving the same results as existing technique. We convert the more general SCFN to IVSFN to do this. In order to achieve these nonmembership values, spherical fuzzy numbers (SFNs) are omitted. Examples of this are given in the following sections .Table 4
4th spherical cubic fuzzy decision-making.
A1A2A3A4Z10.4874,0.5918,0.5313,0.2000,0.3000,0.4277,0.3872,0.5261,0.4752.0.3249,0.4676,0.4000,0.2633,0.5281,0.1390,0.3776,0.4752,0.3000.0.5531,0.7286,0.5681,0.2781,0.1516,0.4315,0.3545,0.4530,0.4752.0.4277,0.5281,0.5681,0.2633,0.4290,0.2158,0.2744,0.4530,0.2000.Z20.3669,0.5918,0.1793,0.5000,0.2912,0.2000,0.4752,0.5761,0.7320.0.3085,0.4315,0.2781,0.2633,0.4676,0.3249,0.3294,0.4275,0.5373.0.4676,0.6284,0.6684,0.5757,0.3497,0.2000,0.4337,0.5337,0.4257.0.3249,0.4290,0.3905,0.4676,0.2633,0.1516,0.3000,0.4000,0.1863.Z30.6000,0.7000,0.3669,0.2000,0.4000,0.2158,0.3000,0.4000,0.60000.3249,0.4290,0.5681,0.2781,0.1231,0.3085,0.3759,0.4752,0.3000.0.5313,0.7000,0.6684,0.2000,0.1516,0.4517,0.3759,0.5337,0.3000.0.3249,0.4290,0.2912,0.2624,0.1621,0.4000,0.2351,0.4000,0.5265.Z40.6000,0.7000,0.6000,0.2000,0.4026,0.3249,0.3000,0.4000,0.5000.0.4676,0.6000,0.3669,0.3085,0.4315,0.4925,0.2351,0.3341,0.4734.0.5681,0.7000,0.6284,0.1625,0.4517,0.1231,0.3341,0.4752,0.3000.0.3789,0.4874,0.6684,0.2259,0.5281,0.4315,0.3294,0.4257,0.1000.


### 5.1. Comparison with Interval-Valued Spherical Fuzzy Sets

By removing the nonmembership degree, SCFNs can be converted to IVSFNs. Table5 presents the interval-valued spherical fuzzy information.Table 5
IVSFD matrix.
A1A2A3A4Z10.4874,0.5918,0.2000,0.3000,0.3872,0.5261.0.3249,0.4676,0.2633,0.5281,0.3776,0.4752.0.5531,0.7286,0.2781,0.1516,0.3545,0.4530.0.4277,0.5281,0.2633,0.4290,0.2744,0.4530.Z20.3669,0.5918,0.5000,0.2912,0.4752,0.5761.0.3085,0.4315,0.2633,0.4676,0.3294,0.4275.0.4676,0.6284,0.5757,0.3497,0.4337,0.5337.0.3249,0.4290,0.4676,0.2633,0.3000,0.4000.Z30.6000,0.7000,0.2000,0.4000,0.3000,0.4000.0.3249,0.42900.2781,0.1231,0.3759,0.4752.0.5313,0.7000,0.2000,0.1516,0.3759,0.5337.0.3249,0.4290,0.2624,0.1621,0.2351,0.4000.Z40.6000,0.7000,0.2000,0.4026,0.3000,0.4000.0.4676,0.6000,0.3085,0.4315,0.2351,0.3341.0.5681,0.7000,0.1625,0.4517,0.3341,0.4752.0.3789,0.4874,0.2259,0.5281,0.3294,0.4257.By using IVSF TOPSIS methodology, IVSFPˇIS pˇ+ and IVSFNˇIS pˇ− for IVSF are as follows.The IVSFPˇIS pˇ+ and IVSFNˇIS pˇ− are given by equations (31) and (32):(41)p+=0.6000,0.7000,0.2000,0.4026,0.3000,0.4000,,0.4676,0.6000,0.3085,0.4315,0.2351,0.3341,0.5681,0.7000,0.1625,0.4517,0.3341,0.4752,,0.4277,0.5281,0.2633,0.4290,0.2744,0.4530,,p−=0.3669,0.5918,0.5000,0.2912,0.4752,0.5761,,0.3085,0.4315,0.2633,0.4676,0.3294,0.42750.4676,0.6284,0.5757,0.3497,0.4337,0.5337.,0.3249,0.4290,0.2624,0.1621,0.2351,0.4000.,The distance measuresdi+ and di− IVSFPˇIS pˇ+ and the IVSFNˇIS pˇ− are as follows:(42)d1+=0.0411,d2+=0.0703,d3+=0.0489,d4+=0.0633,d1−=0.0693,d2−=0.0464,d3−=0.0666,d4−=0.0649.CalculateC˜i by using equation (35):(43)C˜1=0.6277,C˜2=0.3974,C˜3=0.5768,C˜4=0.5065.Rank all the alternativesZii=1,2,3,4 according to C˜i:(44)Z1>Z3>Z4>Z2.Hence,Z1 is the best option.This paper applied the TOPSIS approach to spherical cubic fuzzy sets. This approach has also been shown to provide more general knowledge than previous techniques. If several contradictory and/or unknown variables characterize the information needed for decision-making, this approach is able to decide the best decision and handle some uncertainty which other methods cannot, thus enabling decision-makers to take more informed decisions.


### 5.2. Comparative Study with Spherical Fuzzy Sets

SFNs are special types of SCFNs in which decision-makers only determine the roles of membership, neutral, and nonmembership. Table6 demonstrates the membership, neutral, and nonmembership of an SCFN converted to SFN by removing the interval portion of SCFN.Table 6
Spherical cubic fuzzy decision-making.
A1A2A3A4Z10.5313,0.4277,0.47520.4000,0.1390,0.30000.5681,0.4315,0.47520.5681,0.2158,0.2000Z20.1793,0.2000,0.73200.2781,0.3249,0.53730.6684,0.2000,0.42570.3905,0.1516,0.1863Z30.3669,0.2158,0.60000.5681,0.3085,0.30000.6684,0.4517,0.30000.2912,0.4000,0.5265Z40.6000,0.3249,0.50000.3669,0.4925,0.47340.6284,0.1231,0.30000.6684,0.4315,0.1000Based on Table6, spherical fuzzy TOPSIS is utilized to calculate SF PISp+ and SF PISp− as follows: (45)p+=0.6000,0.3249,0.5000,0.3669,0.4925,0.47340.6284,0.1231,0.3000,0.5681,0.2158,0.2000,p−=0.1793,0.2000,0.7320,0.2781,0.3249,0.53730.6684,0.2000,0.4257,0.2912,0.4000,0.5265.The distance measuresdi− and di+ SF p+ and the SF p− are as follows:(46)d1+=0.3657,d2+=0.0284,d3+=0.0532,d4+=0.0426,d1−=0.0545,d2−=0.0336,d3−=0.0425,d4−=0.0659.CalculateC˜i by using equation (35):(47)C˜1=0.1298,C˜2=0.5413,C˜3=0.4437,C˜4=0.6075.Rank all the alternativesZii=1,2,3,4 according to C˜i:(48)Z4>Z2>Z3>Z1.Hence,Z4 is the best option.This approach varies from the previous method in this paper in the order of the list of decisions. In particular, all alternatives have switched positions. Since SFN does not contain as much details as just membership, neutral, and nonmembership that can result in loss of data, this results in a different result.We have the following benefits from the above analysis:(1)
SCFNs can convey uncertainty in the MCDM more accurately than IVSFNs. In other words, SCFNs are the IVSFN extension. We should, therefore, know that the SCFNs have a greater prospect of application than the IVSFNs.(2)
The proposed approach combines decision-maker expectations and intuition, decreasing the possibility of MCDM problems.(3)
The method presented in this paper is a modern extension of an existing technique that can solve a greater variety of MCDM problems compared to previously defined TOPSIS methods.


## 5.1. Comparison with Interval-Valued Spherical Fuzzy Sets

By removing the nonmembership degree, SCFNs can be converted to IVSFNs. Table5 presents the interval-valued spherical fuzzy information.Table 5
IVSFD matrix.
A1A2A3A4Z10.4874,0.5918,0.2000,0.3000,0.3872,0.5261.0.3249,0.4676,0.2633,0.5281,0.3776,0.4752.0.5531,0.7286,0.2781,0.1516,0.3545,0.4530.0.4277,0.5281,0.2633,0.4290,0.2744,0.4530.Z20.3669,0.5918,0.5000,0.2912,0.4752,0.5761.0.3085,0.4315,0.2633,0.4676,0.3294,0.4275.0.4676,0.6284,0.5757,0.3497,0.4337,0.5337.0.3249,0.4290,0.4676,0.2633,0.3000,0.4000.Z30.6000,0.7000,0.2000,0.4000,0.3000,0.4000.0.3249,0.42900.2781,0.1231,0.3759,0.4752.0.5313,0.7000,0.2000,0.1516,0.3759,0.5337.0.3249,0.4290,0.2624,0.1621,0.2351,0.4000.Z40.6000,0.7000,0.2000,0.4026,0.3000,0.4000.0.4676,0.6000,0.3085,0.4315,0.2351,0.3341.0.5681,0.7000,0.1625,0.4517,0.3341,0.4752.0.3789,0.4874,0.2259,0.5281,0.3294,0.4257.By using IVSF TOPSIS methodology, IVSFPˇIS pˇ+ and IVSFNˇIS pˇ− for IVSF are as follows.The IVSFPˇIS pˇ+ and IVSFNˇIS pˇ− are given by equations (31) and (32):(41)p+=0.6000,0.7000,0.2000,0.4026,0.3000,0.4000,,0.4676,0.6000,0.3085,0.4315,0.2351,0.3341,0.5681,0.7000,0.1625,0.4517,0.3341,0.4752,,0.4277,0.5281,0.2633,0.4290,0.2744,0.4530,,p−=0.3669,0.5918,0.5000,0.2912,0.4752,0.5761,,0.3085,0.4315,0.2633,0.4676,0.3294,0.42750.4676,0.6284,0.5757,0.3497,0.4337,0.5337.,0.3249,0.4290,0.2624,0.1621,0.2351,0.4000.,The distance measuresdi+ and di− IVSFPˇIS pˇ+ and the IVSFNˇIS pˇ− are as follows:(42)d1+=0.0411,d2+=0.0703,d3+=0.0489,d4+=0.0633,d1−=0.0693,d2−=0.0464,d3−=0.0666,d4−=0.0649.CalculateC˜i by using equation (35):(43)C˜1=0.6277,C˜2=0.3974,C˜3=0.5768,C˜4=0.5065.Rank all the alternativesZii=1,2,3,4 according to C˜i:(44)Z1>Z3>Z4>Z2.Hence,Z1 is the best option.This paper applied the TOPSIS approach to spherical cubic fuzzy sets. This approach has also been shown to provide more general knowledge than previous techniques. If several contradictory and/or unknown variables characterize the information needed for decision-making, this approach is able to decide the best decision and handle some uncertainty which other methods cannot, thus enabling decision-makers to take more informed decisions.


## 5.2. Comparative Study with Spherical Fuzzy Sets

SFNs are special types of SCFNs in which decision-makers only determine the roles of membership, neutral, and nonmembership. Table6 demonstrates the membership, neutral, and nonmembership of an SCFN converted to SFN by removing the interval portion of SCFN.Table 6
Spherical cubic fuzzy decision-making.
A1A2A3A4Z10.5313,0.4277,0.47520.4000,0.1390,0.30000.5681,0.4315,0.47520.5681,0.2158,0.2000Z20.1793,0.2000,0.73200.2781,0.3249,0.53730.6684,0.2000,0.42570.3905,0.1516,0.1863Z30.3669,0.2158,0.60000.5681,0.3085,0.30000.6684,0.4517,0.30000.2912,0.4000,0.5265Z40.6000,0.3249,0.50000.3669,0.4925,0.47340.6284,0.1231,0.30000.6684,0.4315,0.1000Based on Table6, spherical fuzzy TOPSIS is utilized to calculate SF PISp+ and SF PISp− as follows: (45)p+=0.6000,0.3249,0.5000,0.3669,0.4925,0.47340.6284,0.1231,0.3000,0.5681,0.2158,0.2000,p−=0.1793,0.2000,0.7320,0.2781,0.3249,0.53730.6684,0.2000,0.4257,0.2912,0.4000,0.5265.The distance measuresdi− and di+ SF p+ and the SF p− are as follows:(46)d1+=0.3657,d2+=0.0284,d3+=0.0532,d4+=0.0426,d1−=0.0545,d2−=0.0336,d3−=0.0425,d4−=0.0659.CalculateC˜i by using equation (35):(47)C˜1=0.1298,C˜2=0.5413,C˜3=0.4437,C˜4=0.6075.Rank all the alternativesZii=1,2,3,4 according to C˜i:(48)Z4>Z2>Z3>Z1.Hence,Z4 is the best option.This approach varies from the previous method in this paper in the order of the list of decisions. In particular, all alternatives have switched positions. Since SFN does not contain as much details as just membership, neutral, and nonmembership that can result in loss of data, this results in a different result.We have the following benefits from the above analysis:(1)
SCFNs can convey uncertainty in the MCDM more accurately than IVSFNs. In other words, SCFNs are the IVSFN extension. We should, therefore, know that the SCFNs have a greater prospect of application than the IVSFNs.(2)
The proposed approach combines decision-maker expectations and intuition, decreasing the possibility of MCDM problems.(3)
The method presented in this paper is a modern extension of an existing technique that can solve a greater variety of MCDM problems compared to previously defined TOPSIS methods.


## 6. Conclusions

Many realistic MCGDM problems arise in a dynamic setting and frequently conform to incomplete data and ambiguity. The SCFS is a very powerful method to tackle the fuzziness of the experts’ decisions on alternative parameters. In this paper, we have first developed a method called the maximizing deviation method to determine the optimal relative weights of criteria based on a spherical cubic fuzzy setting. An important advantage of the proposed method is its ability to relieve the influence of subjectivity of the experts and at the same time keep the original decision information sufficiently. Then we suggested an expanded TOPSIS-based approach for solving the spherical cubic fuzzy knowledge MCGDM problems. The graphical representation of comparison analysis by using SCFS, IVSFS, and SFS is given in Figure2.Figure 2
Comparison of extended TOPSIS SCFS with IVSFS and SFS.The method is based on the relative similarity of each alternative for determining the ranking order of all alternatives, which avoids the loss of too much information in the process of aggregating information. Finally, an illustration shows the efficiency and applicability of the proposed process. Our solution tends to be straightforward and to have less knowledge loss and can easily be extended to other management decisions in a hesitant spherical environment. TOPSIS technique is useful in finding the unknown weights. For this method, we find the accurate weight vector.In the future, under spherical cubic fuzzy set, we will implement the principle of TODIM methods. We will also describe the spherical cubic fuzzy linguistic sets and propose the TOPSIS and TODIM MCGDM-based methods in a spherical cubic fuzzy linguistic environment. Furthermore, we can extend the TOPSIS for confidence interval using the spherical cubic fuzzy set for multicriteria group decision-making.



---

*Source: 2284051-2021-06-25.xml*