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 Fuzzy Linguistic TOPSIS for MCGDM (Adeel, Akram & Koam 2019, Symmetry 11(6):735) — multi-criteria group decision-making via m-polar fuzzy linguistic variables (mFLV), expert-aggregated m-PF linguistic decision matrix, aggregated linguistic-term-set weights, m-PF linguistic positive/negative ideal solutions (mPIS / mNIS), m-PF linguistic Euclidean distances, relative closeness coefficient E'_j descending ranking
MCDMRankingM polar

m-Polar Fuzzy Linguistic TOPSIS for MCGDM (Adeel, Akram & Koam 2019, Symmetry 11(6):735) — multi-criteria group decision-making via m-polar fuzzy linguistic variables (mFLV), expert-aggregated m-PF linguistic decision matrix, aggregated linguistic-term-set weights, m-PF linguistic positive/negative ideal solutions (mPIS / mNIS), m-PF linguistic Euclidean distances, relative closeness coefficient E'_j descending ranking

MPF-TOPSIS-LING (m-Polar Fuzzy Linguistic TOPSIS for MCGDM (Adeel, Akram & Koam 2019, Symmetry 11(6):735) — multi-criteria group decision-making via m-polar fuzzy linguistic variables (mFLV), expert-aggregated m-PF linguistic decision matrix, aggregated linguistic-term-set weights, m-PF linguistic positive/negative ideal solutions (mPIS / mNIS), m-PF linguistic Euclidean distances, relative closeness coefficient E'_j descending ranking) is a ranking multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method introduced by Adeel, A., Akram, M., Koam, A. N. A. in 2019. It turns a decision matrix of alternative

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-TOPSIS-LING
AHPANPBWMBWM-BAYESIANCCSDCILOSCIMASCRITIC

When to use it

Read the result as a complete descending ranking of alternatives a_j by the relative m-PF linguistic closeness coefficient E'_j = D_e(a_j, mNIS) / (D_e(a_j, mPIS) + D_e(a_j, mNIS)) ∈ [0,1]. A value close to 1 means the alternative is simultaneously close to the m-PF linguistic positive ideal solution mPIS and far from the m-PF linguistic negative ideal solution mNIS, so higher E'_j is strictly better. The mPIS / mNIS are computed per-column per-pole over the weighted aggregated matrix E, so they always sit on the boundary of the alternative set and depend on which alternatives are present — re

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
  • May exhibit rank reversal when alternatives are added to or removed from the set.
  • Assumes full compensation — a strong score on one criterion can offset a weak score on another.

Sources

  1. Adeel, A., Akram, M., Koam, A. N. A. (2019). Group Decision-Making Based on m-Polar Fuzzy Linguistic TOPSIS Method. Symmetry (MDPI) DOI: 10.3390/sym11060735 ↗

How to cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 2). m-Polar Fuzzy Linguistic TOPSIS for MCGDM (Adeel, Akram & Koam 2019, Symmetry 11(6):735) — multi-criteria group decision-making via m-polar fuzzy linguistic variables (mFLV), expert-aggregated m-PF linguistic decision matrix, aggregated linguistic-term-set weights, m-PF linguistic positive/negative ideal solutions (mPIS / mNIS), m-PF linguistic Euclidean distances, relative closeness coefficient E'_j descending ranking. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/decision-making/mpf-topsis-ling

Related methods

AHPANPBWMBWM-BAYESIANCCSDCILOSCIMASCRITIC

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
  • ANPDecision-making↔ compare
  • BWMDecision-making↔ compare
  • BWM-BAYESIANDecision-making↔ compare
  • CCSDDecision-making↔ compare
  • CILOSDecision-making↔ compare
  • CIMASDecision-making↔ compare
  • CRITICDecision-making↔ compare
Compare side by side →

Similar methods

MPF-HF-TOPSISMHF-TOPSISMPF-ELECTRE-IIMPF-ELECTRE-IMPF-PROMETHEEMPF-DOMBI-WAMPF-ELECTRE-IIIQR-TOPSIS

Related reference concepts

Decision MakingDecision Support SystemsMultidimensional ScalingParticipative Decision MakingQ MethodologyDecision Making Skills

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

ScholarGate — MPF-TOPSIS-LING (m-Polar Fuzzy Linguistic TOPSIS for MCGDM (Adeel, Akram & Koam 2019, Symmetry 11(6):735) — multi-criteria group decision-making via m-polar fuzzy linguistic variables (mFLV), expert-aggregated m-PF linguistic decision matrix, aggregated linguistic-term-set weights, m-PF linguistic positive/negative ideal solutions (mPIS / mNIS), m-PF linguistic Euclidean distances, relative closeness coefficient E'_j descending ranking). Retrieved 2026-07-21 from https://scholargate.app/en/decision-making/mpf-topsis-ling · Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026
Quick facts
Originator
Adeel, A., Akram, M., Koam, A. N. A.
Subfamily
Ranking
Year
2019
Type
Distance-based group-decision MCDM under m-polar fuzzy linguistic information — aggregated m-PF linguistic decision matrix d'^i jk = (1/r) Σ l d^l,i jk, weighted matrix e^i jk = w' k d^i jk, m-PF linguistic Euclidean distances (Eqs. 3–4) to mPIS / mNIS (Eqs. 1–2), closeness coefficient E' j (Eq. 5) descending ranking
Value Space
M polar
Uncertainty
epistemic
Compensation
full
Rank Reversal
Yes
Related methods
AHPANPBWMBWM-BAYESIANCCSDCILOSCIMASCRITIC
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