Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
On this page
IntuitionHow it worksWhen to use itStrengths & limitationsCommon pitfalls🔒 Read the full methodSourcesRelated methods
Cite this pageSpotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →
Home›Decision-making›m-Polar Hesitant Fuzzy TOPSIS (Akram, Adeel & Alcantud 2019, Symmetry 11(6):795) — multi-criteria group decision-making by extending TOPSIS to the m-polar hesitant fuzzy (mHF) set framework; pole-wise mHPIS/mHNIS extraction, mHF Euclidean distance and closeness coefficient ranking
MCDMRankingM polar

m-Polar Hesitant Fuzzy TOPSIS (Akram, Adeel & Alcantud 2019, Symmetry 11(6):795) — multi-criteria group decision-making by extending TOPSIS to the m-polar hesitant fuzzy (mHF) set framework; pole-wise mHPIS/mHNIS extraction, mHF Euclidean distance and closeness coefficient ranking

MPF-HF-TOPSIS (m-Polar Hesitant Fuzzy TOPSIS (Akram, Adeel & Alcantud 2019, Symmetry 11(6):795) — multi-criteria group decision-making by extending TOPSIS to the m-polar hesitant fuzzy (mHF) set framework; pole-wise mHPIS/mHNIS extraction, mHF Euclidean distance and closeness coefficient ranking) is a ranking multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method introduced by Akram, M., Adeel, A., Alcantud, J. C. R. in 2019. It turns a decision matrix of alternatives scored on multiple criteria into a structured, reproducible result.

ScholarGate
  1. MCDM
  2. v1
  3. 1 Sources
  4. PUBLISHED
Cite this page →
Tools & resources
Download slides
Learn & explore

Read the full method

Members only

Sign in with a free account to read this section.

Sign in

Method map

The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.

MPF-HF-TOPSIS
AHPBWMENTROPY

When to use it

Read the result as a complete descending ranking of alternatives a_j by the closeness coefficient E_j' ∈ [0,1] (Eq. 5). E_j' near 1 means the alternative is close to the m-polar hesitant fuzzy positive ideal (mHPIS) and far from the negative ideal (mHNIS); E_j' near 0 means the opposite. The §3.1 case study yields Bn_1 ≻ Bn_3 ≻ Bn_4 ≻ Bn_5 ≻ Bn_2 — Bn_1 is the perfect brand name. To interpret WHY one alternative dominates, inspect the pole-wise membership polygons (viz H4) and the mHPIS/mHNIS per criterion (viz H1).

Strengths & limitations

Strengths
  • Follows a transparent, reproducible computational procedure that can be audited step by step.
  • Handles multiple criteria of differing scales and units within a single decision matrix.
Limitations
  • Assumes full compensation — a strong score on one criterion can offset a weak score on another.

Sources

  1. Akram, M., Adeel, A., Alcantud, J. C. R. (2019). Multi-Criteria Group Decision-Making Using an m-Polar Hesitant Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach. Symmetry (MDPI) DOI: 10.3390/sym11060795 ↗

How to cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 2). m-Polar Hesitant Fuzzy TOPSIS (Akram, Adeel & Alcantud 2019, Symmetry 11(6):795) — multi-criteria group decision-making by extending TOPSIS to the m-polar hesitant fuzzy (mHF) set framework; pole-wise mHPIS/mHNIS extraction, mHF Euclidean distance and closeness coefficient ranking. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/decision-making/mpf-hf-topsis

Related methods

AHPBWMENTROPY

Which method?

Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.

  • AHPDecision-making↔ compare
  • BWMDecision-making↔ compare
  • ENTROPYDecision-making↔ compare
Compare side by side →

Similar methods

MHF-TOPSISMPF-TOPSIS-LINGMPF-ELECTRE-IIMPF-PROMETHEEMPF-ELECTRE-IMPF-ELECTRE-IIISNHF-TOPSISMPF-ELECTRE-IV

Related reference concepts

Decision MakingDecision Support SystemsDecision Making SkillsParticipative Decision MakingEvaluation CriteriaCriteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

Spotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →

ScholarGate — MPF-HF-TOPSIS (m-Polar Hesitant Fuzzy TOPSIS (Akram, Adeel & Alcantud 2019, Symmetry 11(6):795) — multi-criteria group decision-making by extending TOPSIS to the m-polar hesitant fuzzy (mHF) set framework; pole-wise mHPIS/mHNIS extraction, mHF Euclidean distance and closeness coefficient ranking). Retrieved 2026-07-21 from https://scholargate.app/en/decision-making/mpf-hf-topsis · Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026
Quick facts
Originator
Akram, M., Adeel, A., Alcantud, J. C. R.
Subfamily
Ranking
Year
2019
Type
Distance-based ranking — m-polar hesitant fuzzy TOPSIS — pole-wise max/min ideals on a weighted mHF decision matrix (Eqs. 1–2), mHF Euclidean distance (Eqs. 3–4), closeness coefficient E j' (Eq. 5)
Value Space
M polar
Uncertainty
epistemic
Compensation
full
Rank Reversal
No
Related methods
AHPBWMENTROPY
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account