Type of the Paper (Article.

) 1

Neutrosophic Autocratic Multi-Attribute Decision-Making 2

Strategies for Building Material Supplier Selection 3

Amirhossein Nafei 1, Chien-Yi Huang 1, and Shu-Chuan Chen 1, *, Kuang-Zong Huo2, Yi-Ching Lin3, Hadi Nasseri4 4

1 Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, 5
Taiwan; t110379402@ntut.edu.tw, jayhuang@mail.ntut.edu.tw, t106379001@ntut.org.tw 6
2 Department of Business Administration, China University of Technology; fire405@gm.cute.edu.tw 7
3 Department of Food Science and Technology, Taipei University of Marine Technology; 8
chinglin@mail.tumt.edu.tw 9
4 Department of Mathematics, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran; nasseri@umz.ac.ir 10
* Correspondence: t106379001@ntut.org.tw; +886-0926453385 11

Abstract: Because of the intricate nature of real-world scenarios, experts could encounter many am- 12
biguities throughout the decision-making process. Neutrosophic conception, an extension of fuzzy 13
sets and intuitionistic fuzzy set theory, is a convenient technique for handling inconsistent, ambig- 14
uous, and uncertain values. This research presents an autocratic decision-making strategy based on 15
neutrosophic sets to address the ambiguity in the decision-making system. The essential component 16
of the suggested decision-making technique is the conversion of diverse management decision and 17
weight matrices into a unified aggregated evaluation matrix. Supplier selection is multiple-criterion 18
decision-making (MCDM) problem where a limited number of alternative suppliers are evaluated 19
concerning a limited set of criteria. Accordingly, supplier selection problems are associated with 20
uncertainty as they are highly dependent on the subjective judgments of decision-makers (DMs). 21
Selecting advantageous suppliers is a crucial aspect of the development of the building process. 22
Incorporating several scoring functions in the decision-making process and measuring their impact 23
on the final response is one of the most significant objectives of this study. The suggested method- 24
ology is applied to supplier selection issues involving construction materials. The sensitivity analy- 25
sis is performed to analyze the impact of score functions on the complexity of the decision-making 26
process. 27

Keywords: Decision making; Construction supply chain; Neutrosophic sets; Building management; 28
Score function; Autocratic strategy 29
30

Citation: To be added by editorial

staff during production.
1. Introduction 31
Academic Editor: First name Last
Decision-making focusing on multiple factors is an essential aspect of daily life ac- 32
name
tivities. Making decisions may not always be simple, mainly when several decision indi- 33
Received: date cators exist. 34
Revised: date Authorities may be attentive when deciding on permissible limits for assessing alter- 35
Accepted: date native characteristics based on time and location. Because of the complicated nature of 36
Published: date natural phenomena, experts could encounter many ambiguities throughout the decision- 37
making process. 38
Supplier selection is one of the most crucial decision-making difficulties in Supply 39
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. chain management (SCM), requiring executives to identify the most effective and suitable 40
Submitted for possible open access source for the source element, moderate, or final goods. Supplier selection has been a 41
publication under the terms and highly challenging, intricate, and multifunctional judgment call process in which several 42
conditions of the Creative Commons choice factors must be considered. In addition to the difficulties of supplier selection prob- 43
Attribution (CC BY) license lems, administrators often encounter major data accessing various when evaluating ser- 44
(https://creativecommons.org/license
vice quality against subjective evaluation. To overcome such challenges, judgment call 45
s/by/4.0/).

Buildings 2023, 13, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

 2 of 18

and administrators create linguistic opinion expression sets that enable users to convey 46
their views about the effectiveness of vendors concerning decision criteria with more ac- 47
curacy and dependability. Numerous analyses are performed in the literature to tackle 48
supplier selection problems in various applications and situations where information and 49
judgment call perspectives are ambiguous. The primary objectives of supply chain man- 50
agement (SCM) are to increase substantially, optimize company activities, rotation, and 51
inventory status, enhance profits and revenue, minimize production costs, enhance cus- 52
tomer happiness, and satisfy customer requirements. Some criteria must be established 53
for the supply chain management decision-making process, particularly in complicated 54
sectors. Selecting the most advantageous supplier slightly earlier in the supply chain is 55
one of the most crucial duties. Science and industry have devoted considerable attention 56
to supply chain management in recent decades. A suitable procurement system is one of 57
the prerequisites for a productive supply chain. The acquiring agency is significant in en- 58
suring the firm selects the most cost-effective suppliers. 59
Identifying the ideal supplier for building projects can be considered the most crucial vi- 60
able strategy in the building process since it may have hard impacts not just over the pro- 61
ject's duration but also throughout its operation. 62
Several methods of supplier selection are proposed for discussion. Supplier selection in 63
systematic analysis, including the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) [1], the supplier per- 64
formance matrix approach [2], vendor profile analysis [3], the matrix approach [4], the 65
weighted point method, and taxonomy [5]. The supplier selection problem is diversified 66
and contains the characteristics of multi-indicator standards, complexity, and non-struc- 67
ture. 68
69
1.1 The motivation for using Neutrosophic sets in decision-making 70
71
Due to the complexity of living systems, judgment calls may experience various chal- 72
lenges while making decisions using incomplete, ambiguous, and inaccurate data. The 73
fuzzy set (FS) theory, as well as its implementations, also include interval-valued fuzzy 74
sets (IVFS), intuitionistic fuzzy sets (IFS), interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets (IVIFS), 75
type n-fuzzy sets, etc., that have been established in the past years provide important 76
mechanisms for handling incomplete information. But so far, conventional frameworks 77
are still incapable of dealing with inaccurate and inconsistent data in natural phenomena. 78
Smarandache [6] developed the notion of neutrosophic sets (NSs) to remedy this con- 79
straint. NS theory, an implementation of the FS concept, is a helpful tool for coping with 80
inconsistent, ambiguous, and insufficient data. Wang et al. [7] established Single-Valued 81
Neutrosophic Sets (SVNSs) as an instance of a Neutrosophic Set used to tackle real chal- 82
lenges in engineering and science. Lately, SVNS has emerged as a significant research 83
area, attracting considerable interest in Decision-Making challenges. NS and its imple- 84
mentation have garnered substantial interest in recent years. Hence, we can deal with in- 85
complete data by employing neutrosophic sets, an integral part of decision-making. 86
87
In recent years, several decision-making methods have been presented. Yazdani et 88
al. [8] suggested a green product assessment framework with multiple criteria and a fuzzy 89
neutrosophic (IVFN) framework. The structural model employs CRiteria Importance 90
Through Inter-criteria Correlation (CRITIC) and combination compromised solution (Co- 91
CoSo) in an IVFN system to analyze and choose dairy firm providers. Nabeeh et al. [9] 92
provided a neutrosophic AHP of the IoT in businesses to assist decision-makers in esti- 93
mating the influencing aspects. The estimate of essential elements may impact the 94
startup's IoT-related performance. Their approach integrates AHP and neutrosophic 95
methodologies to accurately display the criteria associated with basic features. The pro- 96
posed possibilities are offered based on neutrosophic procedures that fulfill the predicted 97
significant criteria for a successful firm. Abdel-Basset et al. [10] introduced a novel neu- 98
 3 of 18

trosophic multi-criterion decision-making (MCDM) methodology that combines a collec- 99

tion of neutrosophic analytical network process (ANP) and order preference by similarity 100
to ideal solution (TOPSIS) under bipolar neutrosophic values. In a practical example of 101
the Elsewedy Electric Group in Egypt, the suggested MCDM approach is used to identify 102
the chief executive officer (CEO). The recommended method enables administrators to 103
compile individual assessments of decision-makers and, as a result, to conduct precise 104
individual considers. Liu [11] suggested an extended TOPSIS method for multiattribute 105
group decision-making (MAGDM) problems where the weight of criteria is given by de- 106
cision-makers based on interval‐valued fuzzy sets. Cheng [12] offered an autocratic deci- 107
sion-making method for hotel location selection based on interval-valued intuitionistic 108
fuzzy sets. To select an effective adequate security mechanism in e‐business processes, 109
Mohammadi et al. [13] introduced a TOPSIS method under an ambiguous environment. 110
Verma et al. [14] presented an interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS technique for 111
resolving the issue of facility location. Wei and Liu [15] suggested an expanded TOPSIS 112
method to handle significant technical risks under uncertainty. 113
To have a comparative understanding of the proposed methods, a summary of some 114
studies done in supplier management is presented in Table 1. Haeri and Rezaei [16] sug- 115
gested a complete grey-based sustainable supplier selection methodology combining fi- 116
nancial and ecological factors. They proposed a unique weight attribution approach by 117
merging the best-worst technique with fuzzy grey cognitive maps to represent the inter- 118
connections between the parameters. Memari et al. [17] suggested an intuitive fuzzy TOP- 119
SIS method for selecting the greenest automobile spare contract manufacturer based on 120
indicators and thirty sub-criteria. Their technique offers a precise rating of reliable ven- 121
dors and a dependable methodology for creating sustainable procurement choices, 122
proven by a specific circumstance. Yazdani et al. [19] suggested a two-phase sustainable 123
multi-tier supplier evaluation approach for food supply chains focused on an aggregated 124
expert judgment with multi-criteria views that consider ecological sustainability, vendors, 125
and sub-suppliers. The method computes supplier selection criterion weights during the 126
initial phase by combining step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) and 127
level-based weight assessment (LBWA) with D-numbers. The Characterization of Options 128
and Pricing based on the Workable Compromise (MARCOS)-D approach is used in the 129
second phase to get a scoring sequence of various tier providers. Pamucar et al. [20] cre- 130
ated a unique decision-making strategy employing Assessing acceptability via a causal 131
analysis method (MACBETH) and a special complimentary distance-based evaluation 132
tool to handle the supplier selection issue during the COVID-19 outbreak. Owing to sig- 133
nificant ambiguity and ambiguous and partial evidence for decision-making issues dur- 134
ing the COVID-19 episode, the created decision-making technique is applied under fuzzy 135
rough numbers as a preferable ambiguity factor to the conventional fuzzy set and rough 136
numbers. Percin [21] recommended a group decision framework based on an integrated 137
Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and Complex proportional assessment (COPRAS) 138
methods under an Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy-sets (IVIFS) environment for ad- 139
dressing ambiguity that influences the evaluations of decision-makers when tackling the 140
linear supplier selection problem. Asadabadi et al. [22] established a unique criterion de- 141
cision framework to aid in assessing suppliers in businesses, considering future potential 142
occurrences. The structure includes the graded multi-criteria decision-making approach, 143
the best-worst approach, and the strategy for ranking choices by approximation to the 144
optimal answer. Implementing an expanded Technique for Order Preferences by Similar- 145
ity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) under an interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy environment, 146
Yu et al. [18] created a unique group decision-making green supplier selection approach. 147
148
149
150
151
 4 of 18

152

Table 1. Some studies have been done on supplier selection management. 153

Group Unidentical Deal with Deal with Weighted Nondeterministic

Authors (years) decision DMs uncertainty Indeterminacy attributes Attributes

making

Haeri and Rezaei (2019) [16] √ × √ × √ √

Memari et al. (2018) [17] √ √ √ × √ ×
Yu et al. (2019) [18] √ √ √ √ √ √
Yazdani et al. (2022) [19] × × √ × √ ×
Pamucar et al. (2022) [20] × × √ × √ ×
Perçin (2022) [21] √ × √ × × ×
Asadabadi et al. [22] √ × √ √ √ √
Proposed Research √ √ √ √ √ √
154
155
1.2. The motivation for using autocratic strategy in decision-making 156
157
Considering the problem's context and choosing an acceptable decision-making 158
strategy is essential. While the final judgment may be determined using various decision- 159
making strategies, the incorrect application of specific procedures, independent of the is- 160
sue circumstances, enhances computing complexity and negatively impacts the final re- 161
sults. The main concern, however, is the best way to address financial and organizational 162
challenges determined by a solitary person or a small group of people. In recent years, the 163
autocratic technique for handling collective decision-making difficulties has garnered sig- 164
nificant attention as one of the most successful solutions. Furthermore, this methodology 165
has been used to solve other significant decision-making problems based on fuzzy sets 166
and their expansions. According to the research conducted in the literature and the results 167
of this analysis, the following are the advantages of the autocratic procedure: 168
169
1. Running time reduction in the decision-making procedure; The lack of opposition 170
allows administrators to make decisions faster, rapidly, and comprehensively. This ability 171
might be helpful when immediate decisions are required. Some situations are perilous or 172
very unpleasant and demand a manager in leadership. 173
2. Efficient Object Setup; When a particular entity or a small group of supportive 174
social people establishes goals, it is straightforward to concentrate and offer suggestions. 175
In this environment, the chance for clear structures and strategies is considerable. 176
3. Realism in authoritative position; Authoritarian rule defines who is in charge and 177
reduces confusion or receiving orders from multiple authorities. This ability allows those 178
in authoritative positions to convey direction and issue orders without facing different 179
perspectives regarding the same topic. 180
4. A rational explanation for an individual's conduct. 181
182
1.3. The objectives of this research 183
184
This research presents an autocratic decision-making method for selecting the best 185
supplier for a construction project using single-valued neutrosophic numbers. Incorporat- 186
ing multiple score functions in the autocratic algorithm and analyzing their impact on the 187
final result is one of the main aims of this research. 188
 5 of 18

Even though we deal with an extensive class of problems in employing neutrosophic sets, 189
the suggested solution is less complicated and much more adaptable for real-world appli- 190
cations. The main objectives of this study are to: 191
• Analyzing the existing score functions and checking their impact on the decision- 192
making process. 193
• Providing a suitable strategy in decision-making to set goals more quickly. 194
• Utilize SVNSs to handle uncertainty in a genuinely autonomous strategy. 195
196
1.4. The contributions of this research 197
198
This research offers the following contributions by presenting an autocratic group multi- 199

attribute decision-making method based on single-valued neutrosophic numbers. 200

(1) Presenting a practical framework for recognizing the best supplier in construction 201

industries. 202
(2) Developing an autocratic neutrosophic decision‐making method under group recom‐ 203
mendation. 204
(3) Investigating the effect of different score functions on decision-making procedure. 205
206
The remainder of this research is presented as follows. Section 2 outlines the fundamental 207
concepts and properties of NSs. Section 3 describes an autocratic decision-making process 208
based on SVNSs. Section 4 explains the implementation of the suggested algorithm for 209
selecting the most suitable construction supplier and then examines the sensitivity of the 210
suggested method. The conclusion is provided in the last section of this work, Section 6. 211
212

2. Preliminaries 213
214
This section briefly describes the essential concepts, including neutrosophic sets the- 215
ory and which are applied throughout this research. 216
Definition 1 [23]: Let O be as set of objectives. A NS A in O is defined by three 217
independent components such as truth, indeterminacy, and falsity membership functions 218

that they are represented by  A : O →  0− ,1+  ,  A : O →  0− ,1+  and 219

 A : O →  0− ,1+  , respectively. Where 0−   A (o ) + A (o ) +  A (o )  3+ , o O . 220

Definition 2 [24]: A SVNS A in O can be demonstrated by 221

A = {o ,  A (o ), A (o ),  A (o );o O }, where  A : O →  0− ,1+  ,  A : O →  0− ,1+  , 222

 A : O →  0− ,1+  , and 0   A (o ) + A (o ) +  A (o )  3, o O .  A (o ), A (o ) 223

and  A (o ) represent the degree of truth, falsity, and indeterminacy membership of o to 224

A , respectively. 225
 6 of 18

Definition 3 [25]: For a SVNS A , the trinary ( A (o ), A (o ),  A (o )) can be assumed 226

as a Neutrosophic Triplets Number (NTN). For convenience, the triplet 227

( A (o ), A (o ),  A (o )) is often denoted by ( ,  ,  ). 228

Definition 4 [26]: The mathematical operators between two NTNs A = ( ,  ,  ) and 229

A  = ( ,  ,  ) can be defined as follows: 230

I. A  A  = ( +   −  ,  ,   ) , (1) 231

II. A  A  = ( ,  +   −  ,  +   −   ) , (2) 232

III.  A = (1 − (1 −  ) ,   ,   ) ,   0, (3) 233

IV. A =

( 
,1 − (1 −  ) ,1 − (1 −  )  ) ,   0. (4) 234

Definition 5: The complement of a SVNS A can be shown by A c and is defined by 235

 Ac (o ) =  A (o ),  Ac (o ) = 1 −  (o ) ,  Ac (o ) =  A (o ) for all o O . Therefore, 236

A c = {o ,  A (o ),1 − A (o ),  A (o );o O }. 237

Definition 6 [27]: Let A = ( ,  ,  ) be a neutrosophic triplet. The score function S for 238

ranking the triplet A is defined by: 239

240

1 +  − 2 − 
S (A ) = . (5) 241
2
Definition 7 [28]: Let A = ( ,  ,  ) be a neutrosophic triplet. The improved score 242

function N for ranking the triplet A is defined by: 243

1 + ( − 2 −  )(2 −  −  )
N (A ) = . (6) 244
2
Definition 8 [29]: Let A = ( ,  ,  ) be a neutrosophic triplet. The optimized score 245

function AZ for ranking the triplet A is defined by: 246

(4 +  − 2 −  )(2 −  )(2 −  )
AZ (A ) = . (7) 247
5

Definition 9 [30]: For a neutrosophic triplet A = ( A (o ), A (o ),  A (o )) , one has 248

1. The triplet A is empty if  A (o ) = 1, A (o ) = 0, and  A (o ) = 0 for all o O . 249

 7 of 18

2. The triplet A is absolute if  A (o ) = 0, A (o ) = 1, and  A (o ) = 1 for all o O . 250

Definition 10: For two neutrosophic triplets A = ( A (o ), A (o ),  A (o )) and 251

B = ( B (o ), B (o ),  B (o )), one has: 252

A = B if and only if A  B , and B  A . 253

3. The proposed strategy for autocratic decision making 254

255

Owing to the complexity of living systems, managers may encounter a variety of ambigu- 256

ities while considering the application with insufficient information. The fuzzy set (FS) 257

theory and several extensions have been offered in recent decades for dealing with incom- 258

plete data. However, real-world systems produce inaccurate and inconsistent data that ex- 259

isting frameworks cannot accommodate. Motivated to cope with such shortcomings, 260

Smarandache [6] proposed the concept of neutrosophic sets. NSs are effective for dealing 261

with inconsistent, imprecise, and vague values. Evaluation and ranking the numbers struc- 262

tured based on such sets requires a precise tool and mechanism. The score functions are 263

often used to rank the neutrosophic numbers in multiattribute decision-making (MADM) 264

procedures. 265

By analyzing the score functions presented in the literature and highlighting their 266

shortcomings, Nafei et al. [29] introduced an optimized score function. Subsequently, they 267

offered an extension of the TOPSIS approach that is structured based on neutrosophic 268

values. However, the performance of this function in other decision-making methods has 269

not been investigated. Understanding the conditions of the problem and choosing a 270

suitable solution method are always considered essential. Using an incorrect strategy to 271

address selection challenges leads to enhanced computing complexity and negatively 272

impacts the ideal answer. Logically, the way of solving a problem formulated based on a 273

public survey differs from the process of solving a problem whose decision is made by a 274

small group of individualsIn recent years, autocratic leadership as a resolution for joint 275

decision-making problems has garnered a great deal of attention as one of the most 276

successful approaches. One of the essential advantages of this method is its high 277

computational speed in announcing the final result. Using different score functions in the 278

autocratic algorithm and analyzing their effect on the definitive answer is one of our most 279

important goals in this research. 280

281

This section presents our strategy based on an autocratic idea in group decision- 282

making using single-valued neutrosophic numbers. This is even though the decision- 283

makers in the first stage are not prioritized over each other. In other words, they have the 284

same weights. In this regard, suppose that group decision problems consist of 285

{al | l = 1, 2,..., L } alternatives that are evaluated based on {c m | m = 1, 2,..., M } 286

 8 of 18

attributes. Also, assume that there exist a set of decision-makers such as 287

{D n | n = 1, 2,..., N } that are considered experts in the decision process. Let 288

w n = (w nj )1M be a vector of weights given by D n for existing attributes. Assume that 289

n is a valuation matrix provided by D n as follows: 290

c1 c2 cM
a1  g 11n g 12n g 1nM 
 
a2  g 21n g 22n g 2nM .
n = (8) 291
 
 
aL  g Ln1 g Ln 2 n
g LM 
292

g lm = ( lm , lm ,  lm ) is defined as a neutrosophic triplet. Also, W c(

r)
Where, repre- 293

C
sent the weight of DM Dc at the rth row, where W c
(r )
 0,1 and W
c =1
c = 1. 294

The recommended autocratic algorithm for tackling the aforementioned challenge in deci- 295

sion-making consists of the following steps: 296

297

Step1. Based on the valuation matrix, the vector of weights given by experts, and also the 298

multiplication operator, create the weighted evaluating matrix as follows: 299

300

c1 c2 ... cM
a1  I 11 I 12n ... I 1nM 
n

 n n

a2  I 21 I 22 ... I 2nM  (9)
301
WEn =  .
 
aL  I Ln1 I Ln 2 ... I LM
n

302

c
Where I lm = g lm
c
w mc . 303

304

Step 2. Create the aggregated grading matrix AG of all experts by using the addition op- 305

erator defined in equation (1) as follows: 306

 9 of 18

D1 D2 DN
a1 T11 T12 T1N 
a2 T 21 T 22 T 2 N  (10) 307
AG = .
 
 
aL T L 1  L 2 T LN 

Where, T ln =  ln1   ln2    lYn . 308

Step 3. Generate the aggregated grading score matrix using a desired score function as 309

described in the following: 310

D1 D2 DN
a1  R (T11 ) R (T12 ) R (T1N ) 
a2  R (T 21 ) R (T 22 ) R (T 2 N )  (11) 311
R (AG ) = .
 
 
aL  R (T L 1 ) R (T L 2 ) R (T LN ) 
312

Step 4. Classify the alternatives according to the opinion of each decision-maker and also 313

the obtained score values as follows: 314

akn akn -1 ... akn - L

(12) 315
 n = 1n  2n ...  Ln  .

( )
N
Step 5. Obtain the aggregated score value l =  W n ( r )  R (T ln ) , of all alternatives 316
n =1

and establish the group prioritization vector in the following manner: 317

a1 a2 aL
(13)
 = 1 2 ... L .
318

Step 6. Determine the weighted degree of similarities between the values of  n and  319

based on the following structure: 320

321


 S  n , = 0, ( ) l  ln ,

( ) ( )
S  , = S  , − ( L − ( k − 1) ) ,
l = ln = k .
(14) 322

n n

323

Step 7. Compute the degree of communal majority consensus (( r ) ) of all DMs at the 324

r th row as follows: 325

326
 10 of 18

( )
N
( r ) =   n W n( r ) . (15) 327
n =1

Where, 328

n =
(
S  n , ) .
( ) ( ) ( )
(16) 329
S  , + S  , + ... + S  N ,
1 2

By considering a crisp value H  [0,1] as a group agreement threshold value, consider 330

the evaluation method so that if ( r )  H then go to the next step. Otherwise, the larg- 331

est l of alternative al concerning all decision-makers in step 5, has the best prefer- 332

ence order of alternative al . 333

Step 8. Update the weight of the experts using the following formula: 334

( r +1) n r +1
Wn = N
. (17) 335


n =1
n
r +1

Where,  r +1 =W n( r )  (1 + n ) . Then, let (r = r + 1) , and return to step 5. 336

337

4. Numerical Execution Example 338

339

A building industry investment firm seeks to choose the most appropriate supplier as its 340

investment objective. In this context, four suppliers were selected as alternatives for further 341

examination. A specialized group of experts was arranged for this task in the construction 342

organization. The expert panel determined the characteristics to be incorporated into the 343

foundation. Consider that the specialized team is comprised of three professionals. "score 344

of qualified products," "delivery speed," and "cost of the product" are considered as the 345

attributes of this comparison. The evaluating values given by various experts are demon- 346

strated in the following tables. 347

Table 1. Evaluating values given by Expert 1. 348

Criteria Score of products Delivery speed Cost of the product

Alternatives
A1 [0.7,0.9,0.9] [0.7,0.9,0.2] [0.3,0.4,0.8]
A2 [0.2,0.2,0.1] [0.3,0.8,0.2] [0.1,0.7,0.2]
A3 [0.6,0.4,0.5] [0.2,0.7,0.8] [0.9,0.7,0.5]
A4 [0.5,0.6,0.1] [0.1,1.0,0.6] [0.1,0.0,0.8]
349

350
 11 of 18

Table 3. Evaluating values given by Expert 2. 351

Criteria Score of products Delivery speed Cost of the product

Alternatives
A1 [0.5,0.4,0.9] [0.4,0.2,0.4] [0.6,0.6,0.8]
A2 [0.6,0.6,0.4] [0.2,0.7,0.4] [0.7,0.3,0.1]
A3 [0.0,0.4,0.7] [0.8,0.2,0.7] [0.9,0.2,0.1]
A4 [0.8,0.0,0.4] [0.7,0.8,0.4] [0.1,0.1,0.7]
352
Table 4. Evaluating values given by Expert 3. 353
Criteria Score of products Delivery speed Cost of the product

Alternatives
A1 [0.2,0.3,0.7] [0.1,0.6,0.1] [0.9,0.2,1.0]
A2 [0.8,0.4,0.3] [0.4,0.6,0.3] [0.9,0.9,0.0]
A3 [0.3,0.3,0.6] [0.1,0.2,0.9] [0.3,0.9,0.3]
A4 [0.2,0.2,0.1] [0.5,0.7,0.8] [0.3,0.7,0.9]
354
Also, the weights given by experts for different criteria are represented as follows: 355
356
Table 5. Weights of attributes that are given by various experts. 357
Criteria Score of products Delivery speed Cost of the product

Experts
E1 [0.4,0.8,0.7] [0.9,0.4,1.00] [0.9,0.2,0.7]
E2 [0.1,0.7,0.5] [0.4,0.4,0.6] [0.7,0.2,0.1]
E3 [0.2,0.4,0.8] [0.2,0.9,0.8] [0.7,1.0,0.8]
358
Based on the given information, the weighted evaluating matrices are obtained 359
as follows: 360
C1 C2 C3

A1  0.28, 0.99, 0.99 0.56, 0.94, 0.36 0.21,1.00, 0.94 

 
A 2  0.08, 0.92, 0.91 0.24, 0.88, 0.36 0.07,1.00, 0.76 361
W E1 =
A 3  0.24, 0.94, 0.95 0.63,1.00, 0.85
,
0.16, 0.82, 0.84
A 4  0.20, 0.96, 0.91 0.08,1.00, 0.68 0.07,1.00, 0.94

362
C1 C2 C3

A1  0.05, 0.64, 0.97  0.28, 0.52, 0.52 0.30, 0.84, 0.82

 
A 2  0.06, 0.76, 0.82 0.14, 0.82, 0.52 0.35, 0.72, 0.19 363
WE2 =
A 3  0.00, 0.64, 0.91 0.45, 0.68, 0.19
,
0.56, 0.52, 0.76
A 4  0.08, 0.40, 0.82 0.49, 0.88, 0.52 0.05, 0.64, 0.73

364
 12 of 18

C1 C2 C3

A1  0.04, 0.44, 0.91 0.04, 0.96,1.00 0.72, 0.84,1.00 

 
A 2  0.16, 0.52, 0.79 0.16, 0.96,1.00 0.72, 0.98, 0.80 365
WE3 =
A 3  0.06, 0.44, 0.88 0.24, 0.98, 0.86
.
0.04, 0.92,1.00
A 4  0.04, 0.36, 0.73 0.20, 0.97,1.00 0.24, 0.94, 0.98

366
In this regard, the aggregated grading matrix AG is obtained as follows: 367
E1 E2 E3

A1  0.75, 0.93, 0.34 0.52, 0.28, 0.41 0.74, 0.35, 0.91

 
A 2   0.35, 0.81, 0.25 0.47, 0.45, 0.08 0.80, 0.49, 0.63 368
AG =
A 3  0.76, 0.77, 0.68 0.31, 0.40, 0.76
.
0.76, 0.23, 0.13
A 4  0.32, 0.96, 0.58 0.55, 0.23, 0.31  0.42, 0.33, 0.72

369
370
Generate the aggregated grading score matrix using the score function AZ proposed 371
in (7) as follows: 372
373
A1  0.909 1.937 1.120 
A 1.035 2.082 1.320 
R (AG ) = 2  . 374
A3 0.827 2.767 1.102 
 
A 4  0.535 2.273 1.308 
375
Based on the obtained score values in the last step, the classification vectors 376

 , , and 
1 2 3
are generated as follows: 377
378

 = 2
1
1 3 4 ,
 2 = 3 4 2 1 , 379

 3 = 2 4 1 3 .
380
By calculating the aggregated score values l , the group prioritization vector  is 381
established as follows: 382
383
1 = 1.2387, 2 = 1.3771, 3 = 1.4362, 4 = 1.1338. 384
385
 = 3 2 1 4 . 386

387
Therefore, the weighted similarity degrees between  n
and  are obtained as 388
follows: 389

( )
S  , = ( 4 − ( 4 − 1) ) = 1,
1

S ( , ) = ( 4 − ( 3 − 1) ) = 2,
2
390

S ( , ) = ( 4 − (1 − 1) ) = 4.
3
 13 of 18

391
(r )
In this step, the degree of communal majority consensus ( ) can be obtained 392
as follows: 393
394
(1)
 = 0.2286. 395
396
Suppose that the value of the considered threshold is equal to TH = 0.5. Since 397

(1) = 0.2286  TH , we need to continue the algorithm and update the 398

weight of experts. Otherwise, the largest l of alternative Al concerning all de- 399

cision-makers in step 5, have the best preference order of alternatives Al . 400

401

In order to update the weight of the experts using (17), one has 402

W 1( 2) = 0.208, W 2( 2) = 0.667, W 3( 2) = 0.124. 403

404

Repeating this cycle, the proposed algorithm finally reached the final solution after 405

six iterations. Where, 406

1 = 1.62142292, 2 = 1.76877092,
407
3 = 2.15585304, 4 = 1.79118635.

Because 3  4  2  1 , it can be concluded that the order of priority for 408

the selected tourist sites is Supplier 3, Supplier 4, Supplier 2, and Supplier 1. 409

410

The order of changing the weights of experts is shown in Figure 1. The preference 411

of (expert) decision-makers compared to each other remains unchanged until the 412

fourth step. After that, the algorithm continues by shifting the weight prioritization 413

of the first decision maker with the second one. 414

415
 14 of 18

416

Figure 1. The order of changing the weights of experts in different iterations (the 417

first strategy) 418

419

In order to investigate the effect of different thresholds on the weight of decision- 420

makers, we ran the algorithm based on a sequence of thresholds and displayed the 421

results in Figure 2. 422

423

424
Figure 2. The order of changing the weights of experts based on different thresholds (the 425

first strategy). 426

427
In order to provide further analysis, the process of changing the ranking of alterna 428
tives based on different thresholds is demonstrated in Figure 3. 429
The third alternative always has the first rank for all thresholds. While the position 430
of fourth and first alternatives is changed in TH = 0.275. After that, the ranking 431
of the alternatives remains unchanged. 432
433
434
 15 of 18

435
Figure 3. The order of changing the rank of alternatives based on different thresholds (the 436
first strategy). 437
438
So far, the results have been based on implementing the autocratic algorithm based 439
on the score function AZ (First strategy). To analyze the impact of other score func- 440
tions, we reimplemented the autocratic algorithm based on score functions S (sec- 441
ond strategy) and N (third strategy). The obtained results are presented in Table 2. 442

Table 2. The results of implementing the autocratic method 443

The implemented strategy Order of alternatives Number of iterations

The autocratic method based on the score function AZ a3  a4  a2  a1 6

The autocratic method based on the score function S a1  a3  a2  a4 10

The autocratic method based on the score function N a3  a1  a2  a4 1

To provide a further review of the autocratic method implemented based on score 444
function S and score function N, the process of changing the weight of experts for 445
different iterations is presented in Figures 4 and 5. 446

447
Figure 4. The order of changing the weights of experts in different iterations (the second 448

strategy). 449
 16 of 18

450
Figure 5. The order of changing the weights of experts in different iterations (the third 451

strategy). 452
453
Furthermore, the process of changing the ranking of different alternatives based on 454
different thresholds in both strategies are demonstrated in Figures 6 and 7. 455

456
Figure 6. The order of changing the rank of alternatives based on different thresholds (the 457

second strategy). 458

459
Figure 7. The order of changing the rank of alternatives based on different thresholds (the 460

third strategy). 461

 17 of 18

Although the ranking of the first and the third alternatives has been changed 462
in TH = 0.375 in the method implemented based on the score function S, the 463
priority of the alternatives in the process implemented based on score function N 464
remains unchanged for all thresholds. This result indicates the stability of this strat- 465
egy compared to other techniques. 466

5. Conclusion 467

This study proposes a neutrosophic autocratic multiattribute decision-making ap- 468

proach for addressing construction material supplier selection challenges. Neutro- 469
sophic triplets are employed to indicate the evaluation values of alternatives over 470
characteristics. Designers can cope with inconsistent, imprecise, and vague values 471
with neutrosophic triplets. Considering the superiority of the autocratic method in 472
selection with a few decision-makers, this strategy excels at managing commercial 473
and administrative concerns when a few specialists display the decision-makers. 474
The suggested method recalculates the decision-maker weights until their group 475
consensus degree (GCD) is higher than or equal to a predetermined threshold value. 476
Incorporating a variety of score functions in the autocratic procedure and evalu- 477
ating their impact on the final result constitutes one of the essential objectives of this 478
research. The collected findings demonstrate that input data features significantly 479
impact decision-making. In this regard, it is crucial to use a practical scoring func- 480
tion if it is impossible to distinguish two pairs of numbers from each other owing to 481
factors such as chance or the proximity of the numbers. Maybe picking an ideal scor- 482
ing function increases computing complexity, but the primary objective of the deci- 483
sion-making process is to get an optimal conclusion. Even though, in certain circum- 484
stances, a simple scoring function may readily separate the data owing to the fea- 485
tures of the data, this is the case. These findings need the introduction of an intelli- 486
gent scoring mechanism based on artificial intelligence, which might be considered 487
for future research. So in the first stage, the data are studied. Then the best scoring 488
function can be chosen based on the properties of these data so that the decision 489
algorithm adopts the minor computing complexity by offering the best ranking. 490
491

References 492
493
1. Barbarosoglu, G.; Yazgac, T. An application of the analytic hierarchy process to the supplier selection problem. Production and 494
inventory management journal 1997, 38(1), 14-21. 495
2. Soukup, W.R. Supplier selection strategies. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 1987, 23(2), 7-12. 496
3. Thompson, K.N. Vendor profile analysis. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 1990, 26(1), 11-8. 497
4. Gregory, R.E. Source selection: a matrix approach. Journal of purchasing and materials management 1986, 22(2), 24-29. 498
5. Timmerman, E. An approach to vendor performance evaluation. Journal of purchasing and Materials Management 1986, 22(4), 2-8. 499
6. Smarandache, F. A unifying field in Logics: Neutrosophic Logic. InPhilosophy 1999 (pp. 1-141). American Research Press. 500
7. Wang, H.; Smarandache, F.; Zhang, Y.; Sunderraman, R. Single valued neutrosophic sets. Multispace and Multistructure 2010, 4, 501
410-413. 502
8. Yazdani, M.; Torkayesh, A.E.; Stević, Ž.; Chatterjee, P.; Ahari, S.A.; Hernandez, V.D. An interval valued neutrosophic decision- 503
making structure for sustainable supplier selection. Expert Systems with Applications 2021, 183,115354. 504
9. Nabeeh, N.A.; Abdel-Basset, M.; El-Ghareeb, H.A.; Aboelfetouh, A. Neutrosophic multi-criteria decision making approach for 505
iot-based enterprises. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 59559-59574. 506
10. Abdel-Basset, M.; Gamal, A.; Son, L.H.; Smarandache, F. A bipolar neutrosophic multi criteria decision making framework for 507
professional selection. Applied Sciences 2020, 10(4):1202. 508
11. Liu, P. An extended TOPSIS method for multiple attribute group decision making based on generalized interval-valued trape- 509
zoidal fuzzy numbers. Informatica 2011, 35(2), 185-196. 510
12. Cheng, S.H. Autocratic multiattribute group decision making for hotel location selection based on interval-valued intuitionistic 511
fuzzy sets. Information Sciences 2018, 427, 77-87. 512
13. Mohammadi, S.; Golara, S.; Mousavi, N. Selecting adequate security mechanisms in e-business processes using fuzzy TOPSIS. 513
International Journal of Fuzzy System Applications 2012, 2(1):35-53. 514
 18 of 18

14. Verma, A.K.; Verma, R.; Mahanti, N.C.; Facility location selection: an interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS approach. 515
Journal of Modern Mathematics and Statistics 2010, 4(2), 68-72. 516
15. Wei, Y.; Liu, P. Risk Evaluation Method of High-technology Based on Uncertain Linguistic Variable and TOPSIS Method. J. 517
Comput 2009, 4(3), 276-82. 518
16. Haeri, S.A.; Rezaei, J. A grey-based green supplier selection model for uncertain environments. Journal of cleaner production 2019, 519
221, 768-84. 520
17. Memari, A.; Dargi, A.; Jokar, M.R.; Ahmad. R.; Rahim, A.R.; Sustainable supplier selection: A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy 521
TOPSIS method. Journal of manufacturing systems 2019, 50, 9-24. 522
18. Yu, C.; Shao, Y.; Wang, K.; Zhang, L. A group decision making sustainable supplier selection approach using extended TOPSIS 523
under interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications 2019, 121,1-7. 524
19. Yazdani, M.; Pamucar, D.; Chatterjee, P.; Torkayesh, A.E. A multi-tier sustainable food supplier selection model under uncer- 525
tainty. Operations Management Research 2022, 15, 116-45. 526
20. Pamucar, D.; Torkayesh, A.E.; Biswas, S. Supplier selection in healthcare supply chain management during the COVID-19 pan- 527
demic: a novel fuzzy rough decision-making approach. Annals of Operations Research 2022, 1-43. 528
21. Perçin, S. Circular supplier selection using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Environment, Development and Sustainability 529
2022, 24(4), 5551-5581. 530
22. Asadabadi, M.R.; Ahmadi, H.B.; Gupta, H.; Liou, J.J. Supplier selection to support environmental sustainability: the stratified 531
BWM TOPSIS method. Annals of Operations Research 2022, 6, 1-24. 532
23. Nafei, A.; Huang, C.Y.; Azizi, S.P.; Chen, S.C. An Optimized Method for Solving Membership-based Neutrosophic Linear Pro- 533
gramming Problems. Studies in Informatics and Control 2022, 31(4), 45-52. 534
24. Nafei, A.; Wenjun, Y.U.; Nasseri, H. A new method for solving interval neutrosophic linear programming problems. Gazi Uni- 535
versity Journal of Science 2020, 33(4), 796-808. 536
25. Nafei, A.; Gu, Y. Yuan, W. An extension of the TOPSIS for multi-attribute group decision making under neutrosophic environ- 537
ment. Miskolc Mathematical Notes 2021, 22, 393-405. 538
26. Kaur, G.; Garg, H. A new method for image processing using generalized linguistic neutrosophic cubic aggregation opera- 539
tor. Complex & Intelligent Systems 2022, 8(6), 4911-4937. 540
27. Şahin, R. Multi-criteria neutrosophic decision making method based on score and accuracy functions under neutrosophic envi- 541
ronment. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.5202. 2014 Dec 17. 542
28. Garg, H. An improved score function for ranking neutrosophic sets and its application to decision-making process. Interna- 543
tional Journal for Uncertainty Quantification 2016, 6(5),377-385. 544
29. Nafei, A.; Javadpour, A.; Nasser,i H.; Yuan, W.; Optimized score function and its application in group multiattribute decision 545
making based on fuzzy neutrosophic sets. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 2021, 36(12), 7522-7543. 546
30. Garg, H. SVNMPR: A new single‐valued neutrosophic multiplicative preference relation and their application to decision‐mak- 547
ing process. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 2022, 37(3):2089-2130. 548
549

550

551

552