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›Rough-MABAC — Rough extension of MABAC
MCDMRankingIf rough

Rough-MABAC — Rough extension of MABAC

ROUGH-MABAC (Rough-MABAC — Rough extension of MABAC) is a ranking multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method introduced by Jia, F., Liu, Y., Wang, X. 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.

ROUGH-MABAC
AHPANPBWMBWM-BAYESIANCCSDCILOSCIMASCRITIC

When to use it

ROUGH-MABAC (Jia et al. 2019) uses Intuitionistic Fuzzy Rough Numbers (IFRN=[(μ_l,ν_l),(μ_u,ν_u)]), NOT plain rough intervals. Pipeline: (1) for cost criteria swap μ↔ν (normalization); (2) IFWA scalar power w_j⊗β_ij=(1-(1-μ)^{w_j}, ν^{w_j}) applied to each IFN component; (3) IFRG geometric mean gives IFRBAA [g_j] per criterion; (4) signed Euclidean distance d_ij from IFRBAA: positive if [γ_ij]>[g_j] (via Definition 5 Sum-based comparison), negative if below; (5) Q_i=Σ_j d_ij, rank descending. No midpoint defuzzification — ranking is purely score-based via Euclidean distances.

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. Jia, F., Liu, Y., Wang, X. (2019). An extended MABAC method for multi-criteria group decision making based on intuitionistic fuzzy rough numbers. Expert Systems with Applications DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2019.03.016 ↗

How to cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 2). Rough-MABAC — Rough extension of MABAC. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/decision-making/rough-mabac

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

QR-MABACIF-MABACIVIF-MABACROUGH-COPRASROUGH-VIKORROUGH-MOORAROUGH-TOPSISROUGH-WASPAS

Related reference concepts

Decision Support SystemsDecision MakingCriteria for Decision-Making under Risk and UncertaintyMultidimensional ScalingEvaluation CriteriaWeighted Scores

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

ScholarGate — ROUGH-MABAC (Rough-MABAC — Rough extension of MABAC). Retrieved 2026-07-21 from https://scholargate.app/en/decision-making/rough-mabac · Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026
Quick facts
Originator
Jia, F., Liu, Y., Wang, X.
Subfamily
Ranking
Year
2019
Type
IF-Rough outranking/ranking — Intuitionistic Fuzzy Rough Number (membership μ, non-membership ν)
Value Space
If rough
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