Proceedings of International Conference on Applied Innovation in IT
2025/12/22, Volume 13, Issue 5, pp.1043-1052

Neutrosophic Multi-Criteria Assignment Models for Industrial Decision-Making


Rasheed Al-Salih, Watheq Laith and Dheargham Ali Abdulsada


Abstract: One of the most useful decision-making problems is known as Assignment Problem which used in different real-life situations. Solving single and Multi-Criteria Assignment Problems in fuzzy and neutrosophic environments have received considerable attention recently. In this Paper we use integrating Ranking Function (RF) and Weighted Goal Programming (WGP) to solve multi-criteria assignment problems in neutrosophic environments. Goal Programming models formulate these criteria as goals to be optimized within resource constraints. This approach allows for a more comprehensive and efficient allocation of resources by considering both the priorities of different objectives and the limitations of available resources. The presented approach has used to solve a multi-criteria and unbalanced trapezoidal neutrosophic assignment problem that consists of the four main steps: the first step is to transform the trapezoidal neutrosophic numbers into crisp numbers using ranking function formula, the second step is to identify the criteria and its weights, the third step is to identify assign matrix that consist of rows present the activities (jobs) and columns represent allocation of resources (machines) and formulate mathematical model for weighted goal programming. Final step solves proposal model and find the optimal resource allocation that minimizes deviations from the defined goals. This work has presented example of multi-criteria and unbalanced trapezoidal neutrosophic assignment problem which represents data for the Heavy Engineering Equipment State, which allows us to verify its effectiveness in a real industrial environment that has three criteria (rolling time, rolling cost, and number of rolling passes), three machines (allocation of resources) and eight job (activities). The results show that the presented approach is an efficient and easy to implement and can extend to other related problems.

Keywords: Assignment Problem, Weighted Goal Programming, Ranking Function, Trapezoidal Neutrosophic Numbers.

DOI: Under indexing

Download: PDF

References:

  1. H. Taherdoost and M. Madanchian, “Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Methods and Concepts,” Encyclopedia, vol. 3, pp. 77-87, 2023, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia3010006.
  2. A. K. Abraheim, A. K. Jaber, and R. Al-Salih, “Flow optimization in dynamic networks on time scales,” J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., vol. 1804, no. 1, p. 012025, 2021.
  3. R. Al-Salih, “Dynamic network flows in quantum calculus,” J. Anal. Appl., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 53-66, 2020.
  4. M. Yazdani, P. Zarate, E. K. Zavadskas, and Z. Turskis, “A combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems,” Manage. Decis., 2018, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2017-0458.
  5. G. Odu, “Weighting methods for multi-criteria decision making technique,” J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manag., vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 1449-1457, 2019, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.4314/jasem.v23i8.7.
  6. P. Wang, H. Zhu, M. Wilamowska-Korsak, Z. Bi, and L. Li, “Determination of Weights for Multiobjective Decision Making or Machine Learning,” IEEE Syst. J., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 63-72, Mar. 2014, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2013.2265663.
  7. J. Rezaei, “Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model,” Omega, vol. 64, pp. 126-130, 2016.
  8. K. H. J., S. Mushtak, and D. H. A., “A New Technique for Finding the Optimal Solution to Assignment Problems with Maximization Objective Function,” J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., vol. 1963, no. 1, p. 012104, Jul. 2021, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1963/1/012104.
  9. F. A. Sadiq, M. N. Mohammedali, and R. I. Sabri, “A New Application of Assignment Problems Using Three Techniques with Its Comparison,” J. Al Qadisiyah Comput. Sci. Math., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 19-28, 2022.
  10. T. A. F., A. E. N., and W. E. C., “Profit Analysis and Assignment Use Simplex and Hungarian Methods (Case Study: Assorted Crackers MSMEs Agree),” J. Serambi Eng. (JSE), vol. VIII, no. 2, pp. 5711-5719, 2023.
  11. J. P. Vásconez, et al., “Smart Delivery Assignment Through Machine Learning and the Hungarian Algorithm,” Smart Cities, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1109-1125, May 2024, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities7030047.
  12. E. Jain, K. Dahiya, and V. Verma, “A Priority Based Unbalanced Time Minimization Assignment Problem,” OPSEARCH, vol. 57, no. 1, 2020, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-019-00399-8.
  13. N. Anandhi and T. Geetha, “Maximum Average with Minimum Cost Method for Solving Assignment Problem and Comparative Analysis of Traditional Method,” Malaya J. Matem., vol. S, no. 1, pp. 259-263, 2020, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.26637/MJM0S20/0049.
  14. E. R. Wulan, A. Pratiwi, Q. Y. Zaqiah, and Mahmud, “The Analysis of Unbalanced Assignment Problems Using the Kotwal Dhope Method to Develop a Massive Open Online Course,” in 2020 6th Int. Conf. Wireless Telematics (ICWT), IEEE, Sep. 2020, pp. 1-5, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICWT50448.2020.9243644.
  15. Q. Rabbani, A. Khan, and A. Quddoos, “Assignment of Multiple Jobs Scheduling to a Single Machine,” Adv. Math. Sci. J., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1003-1011, Feb. 2020, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.37418/AMSJ.10.2.29.
  16. R. K. A. Rezaul, “An Efficient Alternative Approach to Solve an Assignment Problem,” J. Math. Comput. Sci., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 4810-4840, 2021, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.28919/JMCS/5695.
  17. A. A. Sheela, “Divergent Assignment and Multi Objective Assignment Problem,” Proteus J., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 19-27, 2022, [Online]. Available: http://www.proteusresearch.org/.
  18. L. Liu and S. Yong, “Optimization of Digital Management Path for Human Resource Performance Evaluation Based on Multiobjective Decision Making Mathematical Model,” Mobile Inf. Syst., vol. 2022, pp. 1-9, Jul. 2022, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2604761.
  19. T. B. T. Tran and H. H. P. Nguyen, “Optimizing Labor Allocation Based on Multiobjective Decision Making Using Improved Hungarian Algorithm,” J. Econ. Stat., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 37-48, Dec. 2023, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.58567/Jes01030002.
  20. F. F. Fouad, A. Kassam, and S. S. Al-Zubaidi, “A new heuristic method for solving unbalanced multi-objective assignment problem,” Eng. Res. Express, vol. 6, 2024, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1088/2631-8695/ad9888.
  21. W. Abdelfattah, “A parametric approach to solve neutrosophic linear programming models,” J. Inf. Optim. Sci., vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 631-654, 2021.
  22. F. Smarandache, “A unifying field in logics. Neutrosophy: Neutrosophic probability, set and logic,” 1999.
  23. I. Deli and Y. Şubaş, “A ranking method of single valued neutrosophic numbers and its applications to multi-attribute decision making problems,” Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1309-1322, 2017.
  24. E. M. Badr, M. A. Salam, and F. Smarandache, “Solving neutrosophic linear programming problems with two-phase approach,” in Neutrosophic Sets in Decision Analysis and Operations Research, IGI Global, 2020, pp. 391-412.
  25. M. Gunasekaran, M. Mai, and F. Smarandache, “A novel method for solving the fully neutrosophic linear programming problems,” 2018.
  26. M. Mohamed, M. Abdel-Basset, A. N. Zaied, and F. Smarandache, “Neutrosophic integer programming problem,” Neutrosophic Set Syst., vol. 15, pp. 3-7, 2017.
  27. M. H. Lafta, A. A. Sulaiman, and R. Al-Salih, “A Computational Procedure Using Robust Ranking Method to Formulate and Solve Fuzzy DEA Models,” J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., vol. 1879, no. 3, p. 032006, 2021.
  28. M. Abdel-Basset, D. Mai, and F. Smarandache, “Comment on ‘A Novel Method for Solving the Fully Neutrosophic Linear Programming Problems: Suggested Modifications,’” Neutrosophic Sets Syst., vol. 31, 2020, p. 305.
  29. L. Rabiner, “Combinatorial Optimization: Algorithms and Complexity,” IEEE Trans. Acoust., vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1258-1259, Dec. 1984, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TASSP.1984.1164450.
  30. W. H. Laith, A. S. S. Abed Ali, and A. M. Mahmoud, “Determine the Optimal Sequence-Dependent Completion Times for Multiple Demand with Multi-Products Using Genetic Algorithm,” J. Inf. Eng. Appl., vol. 5, no. 8, 2015.
  31. D. W. Pentico, “Assignment Problems: A Golden Anniversary Survey,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 176, no. 2, pp. 774-793, Jan. 2007, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.09.014.
  32. H. Zhu, M. Zhou, and R. Alkins, “Group Role Assignment Via a Kuhn–Munkres Algorithm-Based Solution,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. Part A Syst. Humans, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 739-750, May 2012, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCA.2011.2170414.
  33. G. Ramesh, G. Sudha, and K. Ganesan, “Method of Finding an Optimal Solution for Interval Balanced and Unbalanced Assignment Problem,” IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 912, no. 6, p. 062031, Aug. 2020, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/912/6/062031.
  34. S. Alizamir and O. E. Kundakcioglu, “Generalized Assignment Problem,” in Encyclopedia of Optimization, Boston, MA: Springer US, 2008, pp. 1153-1162, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-74759-0_200.
  35. F. F. Al-Obaidia, H. K. Alla Eldin, and S. S. Al-Zubaidi, “Developing a novel heuristic method to solve the unbalanced allocation problem,” Eng. Technol. J., vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 425-433, 2025, [Online]. Available: http://doi.org/10.30684/etj.2025.156142.1871.
  36. E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, and S. Kildienė, “State of Art Surveys of Overviews on MCDM/MADM Methods,” Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 165-179, Mar. 2014, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2014.892037.
  37. A. Mardani, A. Jusoh, K. Md Nor, Z. Khalifah, N. Zakwan, and A. Valipour, “Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Techniques and Their Applications – A Review of the Literature From 2000 To 2014,” Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraživanja, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 516-571, Jan. 2015, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677x.2015.1075139.
  38. N. A. Azhar, N. A. M. Radzi, and W. S. H. M. Wan Ahmad, “Multi-Criteria Decision Making: A Systematic Review,” Recent Adv. Electr. Electron. Eng., vol. 14, no. 8, pp. 779-801, Dec. 2021, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.2174/2352096514666211029112443.
  39. S. S. Goswami and S. Mitra, “Selecting the Best Mobile Model by Applying AHP-COPRAS and AHP-ARAS Decision Making Methodology,” Int. J. Data Netw. Sci., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 27-42, 2020, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijdns.2019.8.004.
  40. M. R. Asadabadi, E. Chang, and M. Saberi, “Are MCDM Methods Useful? A Critical Review of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) And Analytic Network Process (ANP),” Cogent Eng., vol. 6, no. 1, Jan. 2019, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2019.1623153.
  41. S. S. Goswami, “Outranking Methods: PROMETHEE I And PROMETHEE II,” Found. Manag., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 93-110, Jan. 2020, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.2478/fman-2020-0008.
  42. S. A. S. A. Mary and G. Suganya, “Multi-Criteria Decision Making Using Electre,” Circuits Syst., vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 1008-1020, 2016, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.4236/cs.2016.76085.
  43. M. Yazdani and F. R. Graeml, “VIKOR And Its Applications,” Int. J. Strateg. Decis. Sci., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 56-83, Apr. 2014, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.4018/ijsds.2014040105.
  44. S. S. Goswami and D. K. Behera, “An Analysis for Selecting Best Smartphone Model By AHP-TOPSIS Decision-Making Methodology,” Int. J. Serv. Sci., Manag., Eng., Technol., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 116-137, May 2021, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.4018/ijssmet.2021050107.
  45. S. Kar, K. Basu, and S. Mukherjee, “Solution of multi-criteria assignment problem using neutrosophic set theory,” Neutrosophic Sets Syst., vol. 10, pp. 31-38, 2015.
  46. K. Radhika and K. Arun Prakash, “Ranking of pentagonal neutrosophic numbers and its applications to solve assignment problem,” Neutrosophic Sets Syst., vol. 35, pp. 464-477, 2020.
  47. A. Chakraborty, S. Maity, S. Jain, S. P. Mondal, and S. Alam, “Hexagonal fuzzy number and its distinctive representation, ranking, defuzzification technique and application in production inventory management problem,” Granular Comput., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 507-521, 2021.
  48. K. Selvakumari and S. Subasri, “Comparative analysis of fuzzy, intuitionistic and neutrosophic assignment problem using nonagonal fuzzy number,” Eur. J. Mol. Clin. Med., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 5099-5109, 2020.
  49. M. W. H. Laith, A. S. S. Abed Ali, and A. M. Mahmoud, “Determine the Optimal Sequence-Dependent Setup Cost and/or Setup Time for Single Demand with Multiple Products Using Modified Assignment Method,” Ind. Eng. Lett., vol. 5, no. 8, 2015.
  50. M. Dhahri, M. Mezghani, and I. Rekik, “A Weighted Goal Programming model for Storage Space Allocation problem in a container terminal,” J. Sustain. Dev. Transp. Logist., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 6-21, 2020, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.14254/jsdtl.2020.5-2.1.


    HOME

       - Conference
       - Journal
       - Paper Submission to Conference
       - Paper Submission to Journal
       - Fee Payment
       - For Authors
       - For Reviewers
       - Important Dates
       - Conference Committee
       - Editorial Board
       - Reviewers
       - Last Proceeding


    PROCEEDINGS

       - Volume 13, Issue 5 (ICAIIT 2025)
       - Volume 13, Issue 4 (ICAIIT 2025)
       - Volume 13, Issue 3 (ICAIIT 2025)
       - Volume 13, Issue 2 (ICAIIT 2025)
       - Volume 13, Issue 1 (ICAIIT 2025)
       - Volume 12, Issue 2 (ICAIIT 2024)
       - Volume 12, Issue 1 (ICAIIT 2024)
       - Volume 11, Issue 2 (ICAIIT 2023)
       - Volume 11, Issue 1 (ICAIIT 2023)
       - Volume 10, Issue 1 (ICAIIT 2022)
       - Volume 9, Issue 1 (ICAIIT 2021)
       - Volume 8, Issue 1 (ICAIIT 2020)
       - Volume 7, Issue 1 (ICAIIT 2019)
       - Volume 7, Issue 2 (ICAIIT 2019)
       - Volume 6, Issue 1 (ICAIIT 2018)
       - Volume 5, Issue 1 (ICAIIT 2017)
       - Volume 4, Issue 1 (ICAIIT 2016)
       - Volume 3, Issue 1 (ICAIIT 2015)
       - Volume 2, Issue 1 (ICAIIT 2014)
       - Volume 1, Issue 1 (ICAIIT 2013)


    LAST CONFERENCE

       ICAIIT 2026
         - Photos
         - Reports

    PAST CONFERENCES

    ETHICS IN PUBLICATIONS

    ACCOMODATION

    CONTACT US

 

        

         Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Innovations in IT by Anhalt University of Applied Sciences is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0


                                                   This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License


           ISSN 2199-8876
           Publisher: Edition Hochschule Anhalt
           Location: Anhalt University of Applied Sciences
           Email: leiterin.hsb@hs-anhalt.de
           Phone: +49 (0) 3496 67 5611
           Address: Building 01 - Red Building, Top floor, Room 425, Bernburger Str. 55, D-06366 Köthen, Germany

        site traffic counter

Creative Commons License
Except where otherwise noted, all works and proceedings on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.