DEVELOPMENT OF MULTI CRITERIA DECISION MAKING METHOD WITH THE HELP OF LAGUERRE POLYNOMIALS

Öz

Polynomials and polynomial approximations are frequently used in mathematics due to their wide domains of definition, ease of differentiation, and integrability. This study was conducted to demonstrate that Laguerre polynomials, a type of orthogonal polynomial commonly used in physics and engineering, can be utilized as a method for Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM). In the study, an alternative ranking method based on Laguerre polynomials was developed for solving MCDM problems. To demonstrate the applicability of the method, a simulated case study was conducted in which five candidates applying for a job at a company were evaluated based on four criteria: “communication”, “work experience”, “exam performance”, and “appearance.” The data used in the application were obtained through data simulation. The criteria weights were determined using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), and the candidates’ performance rankings were calculated using the Simple Additive Weighting (SAW), Weighted Product Method (WPM), TOPSIS, WISP, and ARLON methods. The results showed that all methods produced the same alternative ranking. Furthermore, the results revealed that the Laguerre-based MCDM method (LMCDM) produced identical rankings when second-, third-, and fourth-degree Laguerre polynomials were applied. Since the results obtained from the SAW, WPM, TOPSIS, WISP, and ARLON methods were similar to those from the developed LMCDM method, it was concluded that LMCDM could be used as an alternative ranking method for solving MCDM problems. Therefore, it is recommended that researchers working on MCDM in future studies consider using the LMCDM method. It is expected that the proposed method will contribute to the MCDM literature.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• MCDM
• Laguerre Polynomials
• LMCDM
• WISP
• ARLON

LAGUERRE POLİNOMLARI YARDIMIYLA ÇOK KRİTERLİ KARAR VERME YÖNTEMİ GELİŞTİRİLMESİ

Öz

Polinom ve polinom yaklaşımları tanım aralıklarının geniş olması, kolay türevlenebilir ve integrallenebilir olmaları nedeniyle matematik alanında sık kullanılmaktadır. Bu polinomlardan biri olan genellikle fizik ve mühendislikte kullanılan ortogonal polinom olan Laguerre polinomlarının Çok Kriterli Karar Verme (ÇKKV) yöntemi olarak kullanılabileceğini göstermek amacıyla bu araştırma ele alınmıştır. Çalışmada ÇKKV problemlerinin çözümleri için Laguerre polinomlarına dayalı alternatif sıralama yöntemi geliştirilmiştir. Yöntemin uygulanabilirliğini göstermek amacıyla örnek olarak bir şirkete işe alınmak için başvuran beş kişinin “iletişim”, “iş deneyimi”, “sınav” ve “dış görünüş” olmak üzere dört kritere göre uygulaması ele alınmıştır. Uygulanan örneğin verileri veri simülasyonu yapılarak elde edilmiştir. Kriter ağırlıkları Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi (AHP) ile belirlenerek, kişilerin performans sıralaması Ağırlıklı Toplam Model (SAW), Ağırlıklı Çarpım Yöntemi (WPM), TOPSIS Yöntemi, WISP Yöntemi, ARLON Yöntemi ile yapıldığında aynı alternatif sıralama sonucunu verdiği belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca, Laguerre Polinomları yardımıyla geliştirilen yöntemin (LÇKKV) ikinci, üçüncü ve dördüncü dereceden polinomu uygulamasının alternatif sıralama sonuçlarının aynı olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. SAW, WPM, TOPSIS, WISP, ARLON yöntemi alternatif sıralama sonuçları ile geliştirilen LÇKKV yöntemi uygulama sonuçlarının birbirlerine benzer olduğu ortaya çıktığından, çalışma sonucunda LÇKKV yönteminin ÇKKV problemlerinin çözümlerinde alternatif sıralama yöntemi olarak kullanabileceği sonucuna varılmıştır. Bu nedenle araştırma sonucunda ÇKKV yöntemleri konusunda gelecekte araştırma yapacak araştırmacılara LÇKKV yöntemini uygulayabilecekleri önerisinde bulunulmuştur. LÇKKV yönteminin literatüre katkı sağlayacağı beklenilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ÇKKV
• Laguerre Polinomları
• LÇKKV
• WISP
• ARLON

Kaynakça

1. Adriyendi, M. (2019). Multi-attribute decision making using simple additive weighting and weighted product in food choice. International Journal of Information Engineering and Electronic Business, 6, 8-14. https://doi.org/10.5815/ijieeb.2015.06.02
2. Afshari, A., Mojahed, M., & Yusuff, R. M. (2010). Simple additive weighting approach to personnel selection problem. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 1(5), 511.
3. Aktaş, R., Doğanay, M. M., Gökmen, Y., Gazibey, Y., & Türen, U. (2015). Sayısal karar verme yöntemleri. Beta Basım A.Ş., İstanbul.
4. Al Saleh, M., Hamdi, T., & Jmali, M. (2025). Fabric pattern recognition using image processing and AHP method. AUTEX Research Journal, 25(1), 20250028. https://doi.org/10.1515/aut-2025-0028
5. Altıntaş, F. F. (2023). Barış Performanslarının LOPCOW Tabanlı WISP Yöntemi ile Analizi: G7 Ülkeleri Örneği. Fenerbahçe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3(2), 215-241. https://doi.org/10.58620/fbujoss.1313949
6. Atan, M., & Altan, Ş. (2020). Örnek uygulamalarla çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri. Ankara: Gazi Kitapevi.
7. Azar, Fred S. (2000), Multiattribute decision-making: Use of three scoring methods to compare the performance of imaging techniques for breast cancer detection, Department of Computer & Information Science Technical Reports, 1(10), 1-24.
8. Bian, H. L., Lv, B. W., Liu, S. Y., Chu, Y., & Zhang, J. (2025). Research on a method for the evaluation of the pollution status of light petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated sites via AHP-PSO. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-025-02920-6

9. Chabuk, A. J., Al-Ansari, N., Hussain, H. M., Knutsson, S., & Pusch, R. (2017). GIS-based assessment of combined AHP and SAW methods for selecting suitable sites for landfill in Al-Musayiab Qadhaa, Babylon, Iraq. Environmental Earth Sciences, 76, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-6524-x
10. Chang, K. H., Lai, H. H., & Hung, B. J. (2024). Combining the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process method with the weighted aggregated sum product assessment method to address internet platform selection problems in an environment with incomplete information. Applied Sciences, 14(11), 4390. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14114390
11. Chang, Y. H., & Yeh, C. H. (2001). Evaluating airline competitiveness using multiattribute decision making. Omega, 29(5), 405-415. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(01)00032-9
12. Churchman, C. W., & Ackoff, R. L. (1954). An approximate measure of value. Journal of the Operations Research Society of America, 2(2), 172-187. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.2.2.172
13. Çakır, S., & Perçin, S. (2013). Çok kriterli karar verme teknikleriyle lojistik firmalarinda performans ölçümü/Performance measurement of logistics firms with multi-criteria decision making methods. Ege Akademik Bakış, 13(4), 449-459
14. Doğan, A., & Önder, E. (2014). İnsan kaynaklari temin ve seçiminde çok kriterli karar verme tekniklerinin kullanilmasi ve bir uygulama. Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi, 9(34), 5796-5819. https://doi.org/10.19168/jyu.90784
15. Domizio, F., & Noce, C. (2024). A purely algebraic derivation of associated Laguerre polynomials. Journal of Geometry and Physics, 203, 105270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomphys.2024.105270
16. Duxbury, D. J., Paton, N. W., & Keane, J. A. (2024). Dynamic decision making for situational awareness using drones: Requirements, identification and comparison of decision support methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 252, 124057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124057
17. Erdoğan, A. (2024). Analitik hiyerarşi sürecinin (AHP) matematiksel yapısı. The Journal of Academic Social Science, (104), 18-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/ASOS.42730
18. Ersoy, N. (2022). Kriter ağırlıklandırma yöntemlerinin ÇKKV sonuçları üzerindeki etkisine yönelik gerçek bir hayat uygulaması. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 11(4), 1449-1463. https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.1026666
19. Gallo, A. L. (2025). Structural formulas for a family of matrix valued Laguerre polynomials and applications. Advances in Applied Mathematics, 165, 102851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aam.2025.102851
20. Grybaitė, V., & Burinskienė, A. (2024). Assessment of circular economy development in the EU countries based on SAW method. Sustainability, 16(21), 9582. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219582
21. Gülsu, M., Gürbüz, B., Öztürk, Y., & Sezer, M. (2011). Laguerre polynomial approach for solving linear delay difference equations. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 217(15), 6765-6776.
22. Güzel, D., & Çelik, S. (2021). Basit toplamlı ağırlıklandırma ve ağırlıklı çarpım yöntemi kullanılarak bir mobilya üretim işletmesinde matkap seçimi. İşletme Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 261-276. https://doi.org/10.33416/baybem.885085
23. Hesami, F. (2025). A Hybrid ANP-TOPSIS Method for Strategic Supplier Selection in Reverse Logistics under Rough Uncertainty: A Case Study in the Electronics Industry. Decision Making Advances, 3(1), 70-95. https://doi.org/10.31181/dma312025
24. Hoşgör, H., Söyük, S., & Önder, E. (2016). İdari ve akademik personelin iş yaşam kalitesine etki eden faktörlerin öncelik sırasının belirlenmesi: Bir analitik hiyerarşi prosesi uygulaması. The Journal of Academic Social Science, 31(31), 302-323. http://dx.doi.org/10.16992/ASOS.1389
25. Hussain, S. A., Panchal, M., Meshram, K., Srinivas, R., Rajak, U., Kumar, R., & Gupta, M. (2025). Turning GFRP composites with multi-response optimisation using TOPSIS method. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 19(2), 1327-1339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-024-01762-w
26. Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Methods for multiple attribute decision making. Methods and Applications, Springer-Verlag, New York.
27. Jahanshahloo, G. R., Lotfi, F. H., & Izadikhah, M. (2006). An algorithmic method to extend TOPSIS for decision-making problems with interval data. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 175(2), 1375-1384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2005.08.048
28. Jain, V., & Raj, T. (2013). Evaluation of flexibility in FMS using SAW and WPM. Decision Science Letters, 2(4), 223-230.
29. Kahreman, Y. (2024). Toplumsal mutluluğun kaynağı ekonomik performans mı? Yönetişim performansı mı?. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, 14(3), 1620-1644. https://doi.org/10.30783/nevsosbilen.1511390
30. Kara, K., Yalçın, G. C., Simic, V., Baysal, Z., & Pamucar, D. (2024a). The alternative ranking using two-step logarithmic normalization method for benchmarking the supply chain performance of countries. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 92, 101822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2024.101822
31. Kara, K., Yalçın, G. C., Ergin, E. A., Simic, V., & Pamucar, D. (2024b). A neutrosophic WENSLO-ARLON model for measuring sustainable brand equity performance. Socio-economic Planning Sciences, 94, 101918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2024.101918
32. Keleş, M. K., Özdağoğlu, A., & Eren, F. Y. (2019). Bir laboratuvarda tam kan sayım cihazı alternatiflerinin SWARA, WPM, TODİM VE AHS yöntemleri ile değerlendirilmesi. İzmir İktisat Dergisi, 34(4), 511-526. https://doi.org/10.24988/ije.2019344881
33. Kumar, R., & Pamucar, D. (2025). A comprehensive and systematic review of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods to solve decision-making problems: Two decades from 2004 to 2024. Spectrum of Decision Making and Applications, 2(1), 178-197. https://doi.org/10.31181/sdmap21202524
34. Laudadio, T., Mastronardi, N., Marcellán Español, F. J., Van Buggenhout, N., & Van Dooren, P. (2025). On computing the zeros of Laguerre–Sobolev polynomials. Numerical Algorithms, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11075-025-02021-z
35. Li, S., Yang, L., & Fang, J. (2025). Comprehensive evaluation of urban river ecological bank protection based on AHP-TOPSIS method. Environmental Technology, 46(8), 1201-1214. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2024.2380395
36. Mahmoudi, Z., Khalsaraei, M. M., Sahlan, M. N., & Shokri, A. (2025). Laguerre wavelets spectral method for solving a class of fractional order PDEs arising in viscoelastic column modeling. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 192, 116010.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2025.116010
37. Martínez-Finkelshtein, A., Morales, R., & Perales, D. (2025). Zeros of Generalized Hypergeometric Polynomials via Finite Free Convolution: Applications to Multiple Orthogonality. Constructive Approximation, 1-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00365-025-09703-w
38. Memariani, A., Amini, A., & Alinezhad, A. (2009). Sensitivity analysis of simple additive weighting method (SAW): the results of change in the weight of one attribute on the final ranking of alternatives. Journal of Optimization in Industrial Engineering, 2(4), 13-18.
39. Mojaver, M., Hasanzadeh, R., Azdast, T., & Park, C. B. (2022). Comparative study on air gasification of plastic waste and conventional biomass based on coupling of AHP/TOPSIS multi-criteria decision analysis. Chemosphere, 286, 131867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.131867
40. Ömürbek, N., Karaatlı, M., & Balcı, H. F. (2016). Entropi temelli MAUT ve SAW yöntemleri ile otomotiv firmalarının performans değerlemesi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(1), 227-255. https://doi.org/10.24988/deuiibf.2016311446
41. Özbek, A. (2015). Gönüllü kuruluşlarda çalışanların electre yöntemine göre değerlendirilmesi. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 14(54), 219.
42. Pala, O. (2023). SD ve WISP yaklaşımları ile gıda sektöründe finansal performans analizi. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 24(1), 59-79.
43. Pinheiro, B. C., & de Mello Sant́Ana, P. H. (2025). AHP-based decision making to selecting energy-efficient air conditioning equipaments in a commercial building. Energy and Buildings, 329, 115281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2025.115281
44. Qu, H., Duan, C., & Yu, J. (2025). Effective Approach to Shock Absorption Performance Evaluation of Mechanical Component Springs Using the Single Valued Trapezoidal Neutrosophic Numbers for Structural Stability. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 81, 560-574.
45. Rajak, M., & Shaw, K. (2019). Evaluation and selection of mobile health (mHealth) applications using AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Technology in Society, 59, 101186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101186
46. Saaty, T. L. (1994). Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 74(3), 426-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(94)90222-4
47. Saaty, T. L. (2003). Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary. European Journal of Operational Research, 145(1), 85-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00227-8
48. Saaty, T. L., & Niemira, M. P. (2006). A framework for making a better decisionhow to make more effective site selection, store closing and other real estate decisions. Research Review, 13(1), 44-48.
49. Savitha, K., & Chandrasekar, C. (2011). Vertical Handover decision schemes using SAW and WPM for Network selection in Heterogeneous Wireless Networks. Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 11(9), 18-24. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1109.4490
50. Stanujkic, D., Karabasevic, D., Popovic, G., Smarandache, F., Stanimirović, P. S., Saračević, M., & Katsikis, V. N. (2022). A single valued neutrosophic extension of the simple WISP method. Informatica, 33(3), 635-651. https://doi.org/10.15388/22-INFOR483
51. Stanujkic, D., Popovic, G., Karabasevic, D., Meidute-Kavaliauskiene, I., & Ulutaş, A. (2021a). An integrated simple weighted sum product method—WISP. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 70(5), 1933-1944. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2021.3075783
52. Stanujkić, D., Karabašević, D., Popović, G., Zavadskas, E. K., Saračević, M., Stanimirović, P. S., ... & Meidute-Kavaliauskiene, I. (2021b). Comparative analysis of the simple WISP and some prominent MCDM methods: A Python approach. Axioms, 10(4), 347.
53. Süzülmüş, S., & Polat, Y. (2023). Kafe ve lokantalarda sıfır atık projesi uygulamasının çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ile değerlendirilmesi: Kilis ili örneği. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 32(1), 160-178. https://doi.org/10.35379/cusosbil.1167860
54. Taka, M., Raygor, S. P., Purohit, R., & Parashar, V. (2017). Selection of tool and work piece combination using Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods for Computer Numerical Control turning operation. Materials Today: Proceedings, 4(2), 1199-1208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2017.01.138
55. Tang, M., Xiao, Z. H., & Zulfiqar, U. (2025). Structure-Preserving Low-Rank Model Reduction for Second-Order Time-Delay Systems. Mathematics, 13(3), 474. https://doi.org/10.3390/math13030474
56. Trung, D. D., Giang N. T. P., Duc, D. V., Dua, T. V., & Thinh, H. X. (2024). The Use of SAW, RAM and PIV decision methods in determining the optimal choice of materials for the manufacture of screw gearbox acceleration boxes. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Robotics Research, 13(3), 338-347. https://doi.org//10.18178/ijmerr.13.3.338-347
57. Unay, E., Ozkaya, B., & Yoruklu, H. C. (2021). A multicriteria decision analysis for the evaluation of microalgal growth and harvesting. Chemosphere, 279, 130561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130561
58. Van Iseghem, J. (1993). Generating function, recurrence relations, differential relations. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 49(1-3), 297-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-0427(93)90163-6
59. Wang, X., Xu, K., & Li, L. (2024). Model order reduction for discrete time-delay systems based on Laguerre function expansion. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 692, 160-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.laa.2024.04.004
60. Wang, Y. M., & Luo, Y. (2010). Integration of correlations with standard deviations for determining attribute weights in multiple attribute decision making. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 51(1-2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2009.07.016
61. Yeh, C. H. (2003). The selection of multiattribute decision making methods for scholarship student selection. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(4), 289-296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0965-075X.2003.00252.x
62. Yeh, C. H., & Willis, R. J. (2001). A validation procedure for multicriteria analysis: application to the selection of scholarship students. Asia Pacific Management Review, 6(1), 39-52. https://www.airitilibrary.com/Common/Click_DOI?DOI=10.6126%2fAPMR.2001.6.1.03
63. Yoon, K. (1987). A reconciliation among discrete compromise solutions. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 38(3), 277-286.
64. Yoon, K. P., & Hwang, C. L. (1995). Multiple attribute decision making: An introduction. Sage publications.
65. Yuan, S. (2025). Neutrosophic Hammer Operator for Assessment of Product Processing Quality Monitoring System in a Machining Line. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 83, 625-640.
66. Zaidi, D., Talib, I., Riaz, M. B., & Alam, M. N. (2025). Extending spectral methods to solve time fractional-order Bloch equations using generalized Laguerre polynomials. Partial Differential Equations in Applied Mathematics, 13, 101049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.padiff.2024.101049
67. Zavadskas, E. K., Stanujkic, D., Turskis, Z., & Karabasevic, D. (2022). An intuitionistic extension of the simple WISP method. Entropy, 24(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3390/e24020218