An Application of Soft Multisets to a Decision-Making Problem Concerning Side Effects of COVID-19 Vaccines

Abstract

Soft multi-criteria decision-making, a developing area, is among the most prevalent problems handled by researchers. This study aims to introduce a soft decision-making method and apply it to rank the side effects of COVID-19 vaccines. Based on the literature, the present study features the advantages and disadvantages of previously observed multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods are summarized. This paper achieves to utilize multisets simultaneously with the known soft decision-making methods. The primary concern hereof is to offer an insightful everyday-life example. Finally, the authors discuss the need for further research.

Keywords

• Soft sets
• multisets
• soft multisets
• soft decision-making
• MCDM

References

1. N. Chauhan, P. Mohapatra, K. Pandey, Improving Energy Productivity in Paddy Production Through Benchmarking-An Application of Data Envelopment Analysis, Energy Conversion and Management 47(9-10) (2006) 1063-1085.
2. E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, S. Kildienė, State of Art Surveys of Overviews on MCDM/MADM Methods, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 20(1) (2014) 165-179.
3. M. M. Köksalan, J. Wallenius, S. Zionts, Multiple Criteria Decision Making: From Early History to the 21st Century, World Scientific (2011) https://doi.org/10.1142/8042
4. R. Keeney, The Art of Assessing Multiattribute Utility Functions, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 19(2) (1977) 267-310.
5. C. L. Hwang, K. Yoon, Methods for Multiple Attribute Decision Making, In Multiple Attribute Decision Making (1981) Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 58-191.
6. G. H. Tzeng, C. H. Chiang, C. W. Li, Evaluating Intertwined Effects in E-Learning Programs: A Novel Hybrid MCDM Model Based on Factor Analysis and DEMATEL, Expert Systems with Applications 32(4) (2007) 1028-1044.
7. X. S. Qin, G. H. Huang, A. Chakma, X. H. Nie, Q. G. Lin, A MCDM-Based Expert System for Climate-Change Impact Assessment and Adaptation Planning–A Case Study for The Georgia Basin, Canada, Expert Systems with Applications 34(3) (2008) 2164-2179.
8. B. Roy, ELECTRE III: A Ranking Algorithm Based on A Fuzzy Representation of Preferences in the Presence of Multiple Criteria (In French) 20(1) (1978) 3-4.

9. V. Srinivasan, A. D. Shocker, Linear Programming Techniques for Multidimensional Analysis of Preferences, Psychometrika 38(3) (1973) 337-369.
10. T. L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), The Journal of the Operational Research Society 41(11) (1980) 1073-1076.
11. M. Zeleny, J. L. Cochrane, Multiple Criteria Decision Making, University of South Carolina Press (1973) Columbia.
12. V. Belton, T. Stewart, Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach, Springer Science & Business Media (2002) 372.
13. M. Velasquez, P. T. Hester, An Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods, International Journal of Operations Research 10(2) (2013) 56-66.
14. C. Kahraman, S. C. Onar, B. Oztaysi, Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision-Making: A Literature Review, International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems 8(4) (2015) 637-666.
15. D. Tokat, İ. Osmanoğlu, Soft Multi Set and Soft Multi Topology, Journal of Nevsehir University Institue of Science 2 (2011) 109-118.
16. M. Riaz, N. Çağman, N. Wali, A. Mushtaq, Certain Properties of Soft Multi-Set Topology with Applications in Multi-Criteria Decision Making, Applications in Management and Engineering 3(2) (2020) 70-96.
17. P. C. Fishburn, Conjoint Measurement in Utility Theory with Incomplete Product Sets, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 4(1) (1967) 104-119.
18. P. C. Fishburn, R. L. Keeney, Seven Independence Concepts and Continuous Multiattribute Utility Functions, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 11(3) (1974) 294-327.
19. R. L. Keeney, The Art of Assessing Multiattribute Utility Functions, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 19(2) (1977) 267-310.
20. E. Loken, Use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Methods for Energy Planning Problems, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 11(7) (2007) 1584-1595.
21. L. Zadeh, Fuzzy Sets, Information and Control 8(3) (1965) 338-353.
22. I. M. Khadam, J. J. Kaluarachchi, Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis with Probabilistic Risk Assessment for the Management of Contaminated Ground Water, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 23(6) (2003) 683-721.
23. J. F. Balmat, F. Lafont, R. Maifret, N. Pessel, A Decision-Making System to Maritime Risk Assessment, Ocean Engineering 38(1) (2011) 171-176.
24. H. Li, J. Sun, Ranking-Order Case-Based Reasoning for Financial Distress Prediction, Knowledge-Based Systems 21(8) (2008) 868-878.
25. E. Thanassoulis, M. Kortelainen, R. Allen, Improving Envelopment in Data Envelopment Analysis Under Variable Returns to Scale, European Journal of Operational Research 218(1) (2012) 175-185.
26. Y. Chen, G. Okudan, D. Riley, Decision Support for Construction Method Selection in Concrete Buildings: Prefabrication Adoption and Optimization, Automation in Construction 19(6) (2010) 665-675.
27. J. P. Brans, P. Vincke, B. Mareschal, How to Select and How to Rank Projects: The PROMETHEE Method, European Journal of Operational Research 24(2) (1986) 228-238.
28. D. Molodtsov, Soft Set Theory-First Results, Computers & Mathematics with Applications 37(4-5) (1999) 19-31.
29. N. Çağman, S. Enginoğlu, Soft Sets Theory and Uni-Int Decision-Making, Computers & Mathematics with Applications 207 (2010) 847-855.
30. S. Apostolos, Mathematics of Multisets. Multiset Processing (2001) LNCS, 2235, 347-358.
31. K.V. Babitha, S.J. John, On Soft Multiset, Annals of Fuzzy Mathematics and Informatics 5(1) (2013) 35-44
32. P. K. Maji, A. R. Roy, R. Biswas, Fuzzy Soft Sets, Journal of Fuzzy Mathematics 9(3) (2001) 589-602.
33. N. Çağman, S. Enginoğlu, F. Çıtak, Fuzzy Soft Set Theory and Its Applications, Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems 8(3) (2017) 137-147.
34. N. Çağman, S. Enginoğlu, Fuzzy Soft Matrix Theory and Its Application in Decision-Making, Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems 9(1) (2012) 109-119.
35. S. Enginoğlu, M. Ay, N. Çağman, V. Tolun, Classification of the Monolithic Columns Produced in Troad and Mysia Region Ancient Granite Quarries in Northwestern Anatolia via Soft Decision-Making, Bilge International Journal of Science and Technology Research 3(Special Issue) (2019) 21-34.
36. Ş. Şenol, E. Eser, S. Akçalı, B. C. Özyurt, P. E. Dündar, T. Ecemiş, …, Interim Results of the “CoronaVac Vaccine Protection Study” (In Turkish), https://www.mcbu.edu.tr/Haber/MCBUTipFakultesiHastanesiSaglikCalisanlarininYuruttuguCoronovaVacAsiKoruyuculuguCalismasiAraSonuclariniYayimladi_19_35_35 Access Date: 09.04.2021
37. K. Michaud, K. Wipfler, Y. Shaw, T. A. Simon, A. Cornish, B. R. England, …, Experiences of Patients with Rheumatic Diseases in the United States During Early Days of the COVID-19 Pandemic, American College of Rheumatology 2(6) (2020) 335-343.
38. E. B. Batur, M. K. Korez, I. A. Gezer, F. Levendoğlu, O. Ural, Musculoskeletal symptoms and relationship with laboratory findings in patients with COVID-19, International Journal of Clinical Practice 75(6) (2021) 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.14135
39. A. Riad, A. Pokorná, S. Attia, J. Klugarová, M. Košcík, M. Klugar, Prevalence of COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects among Healthcare Workers in the Czech Republic, Journal of Clinical Medicine 10 (2021) 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10071428
40. Y. Demirbilek, G. Pehlivantürk, Z. Ö. Özgüler, E. A. Meşe, COVID-19 Outbreak Control, Example of Ministry of Health of Turkey, Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences 50(SI-1) (2014) 489-494.
41. S. Çağlar, What Does It Really Mean When the COVID-19 Vaccine is 95% Effective? (In Turkish) https://www.matematiksel.org/COVID-19-asisi-95-etkili-demek-gercekte-ne-anlama-geliyor/ Access Date: 09.04.2021.
42. B. Meral, How Do Vaccines Work? How Does it Strengthen the Immune System? (In Turkish) https://www.matematiksel.org/asilar-nasil-calisir-bagisiklik-sistemini-nasil-guclendirir/ Access Date: 09.04.2021
43. S, Enginoğlu, S, Memiş, Comment on Fuzzy Soft Sets [The Journal of Fuzzy Mathematics, 9(3), 2001, 589 602], International Journal of Latest Engineering Research and Applications 3(9) (2018) 1-9.
44. S. Enginoğlu, S. Memiş, A Configuration of Some Soft Decision-Making Algorithms via fpfs-matrices, Cumhuriyet Science Journal 39(4) (2018) 871-881.
45. S. Enginoğlu, T. Aydın, S. Memiş, B. Arslan, Operability-Oriented Configurations of the Soft Decision-Making Methods Proposed between 2013 and 2016 and Their Comparisons, Journal of New Theory (34) (2021) 82-114.
46. S. Enginoğlu, S. Memiş, T. Öngel, Comment on Soft Set Theory and Uni-Int Decision Making [European Journal of Operational Research, (2010) 207, 848-855], Journal of New Results in Science 7(3) (2018) 28-43.
47. S. Enginoğlu, S. Memiş, B. Arslan, Comment (2) on Soft Set Theory and uni-int Decision Making [European Journal of Operational Research, (2010) 207, 848-855], Journal of New Theory (25) (2018) 84-102.
48. S. Enginoğlu, S. Memiş, N. Çağman, A Generalisation of Fuzzy Soft Max-Min Decision-Making Method and Its Application to A Performance-Based Value Assignment in Image Denoising, El-Cezerî Journal of Science and Engineering 6(3) (2019) 466-481.
49. S. Enginoğlu, S. Memiş, F. Karaaslan, A New Approach to Group Decision-Making Method Based on TOPSIS under Fuzzy Soft Environment, Journal of New Results in Science 8(2) (2019) 42-52.
50. S. Enginoğlu, T. Öngel, Configurations of Several Soft Decision-Making Methods to Operate in Fuzzy Parameterized Fuzzy Soft Matrices Space, Eskişehir Technical University Journal of Science and Technology Applied Sciences and Engineering 21(1) (2020) 58-71.
51. S. Enginoğlu, S. Memiş, A New Approach to the Criteria-Weighted Fuzzy Soft Max-Min Decision-Making Method and Its Application to a Performance-Based Value Assignment Problem, Journal of New Results in Science 9(1) (2020) 19-36.
52. S. Enginoğlu, T. Aydın, S. Memiş, B. Arslan, SDM Methods’ Configurations (2017-2019) and Their Application to a Performance-Based Value Assignment Problem: A Follow up Study, Annals of Optimization Theory and Practice (In Press)