An M-Polar Fuzzy Five-Way Decision-Making Framework with Modified Hamacher Aggregation for Carbon Emission Reduction Assessment

Muhammad Imran Shahid; Muhammad Tahir

Authors

Muhammad Imran Shahid Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Southern Punjab, Multan 60000, Pakistan Author https://orcid.org/0009-0003-2758-3947
Muhammad Tahir Department of Mathematics, Institute of Numerical Sciences, Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan, 29050, KPK, Pakistan Author https://orcid.org/0009-0003-6542-6264

Keywords:

M-Polar Fuzzy Numbers, Modified Hamacher Operator, Five-Way Decision Model, Carbon Emission Reduction, Uncertainty Management, Multi-Criteria Decision-Making

Abstract

The paper presents a new Five-Way Decision Model (5WDM) that is founded on M-Polar Fuzzy Numbers (MPFNs) and a revised version of the Hamacher aggregation operator to improve decision-making in case of uncertainty in carbon emission reduction. The suggested framework appraises major mitigation options such as carbon capture, renewable energy, energy efficiency improvement, green transportation, and waste-to-energy conversion systematically through the use of probabilistic criteria to address uncertainty and interdependence between attributes. It generates a reformulated Hamacher operator that enhances the aggregation behavior by having a more adaptable representation of the truth, indeterminacy, and falsity elements in the MPFN setting and leads to a more stable and discriminative ranking result. The model also breaks down alternatives into five regions of decision-making, which are fully accepted, partially accepted, boundary, partially rejected, and fully rejected, offering a more efficient and understandable classification scheme than traditional methods. The superiority of the proposed method compared to the current fuzzy and neutrosophic frameworks is confirmed by the comparative and sensitivity analysis in the three aspects of robustness, consistency, and flexibility. The findings mention renewable energy as the most viable means of mitigating carbon emissions. On the whole, the analysis provides a mathematically sound and versatile decision model that can be generalised to three-way or binary models, to make informed policymaking in complicated environmental systems.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Li, K., Teng, J., Wang, Q., Zhao, J., Shan, E., Zhang, C., & Sun, X. (2024). Microplastic pollution as an environmental risk exacerbating the greenhouse effect and climate change: A review. Carbon Research, 3(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44246-023-00097-7

Toromade, A. S., Soyombo, D. A., Kupa, E., & Ijomah, T. I. (2024). Reviewing the impact of climate change on global food security: Challenges and solutions. International Journal of Applied Research in Social Sciences, 6(7), 1403–1416. https://doi.org/10.51594/ijarss.v6i7.1300

Adewumi, A., Ojekemi, O., & Agupugo, C. (2024). Sustainable energy solutions and climate change: A policy review of emerging trends and global responses. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 21(2), 408–420. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2024.21.2.0474

Fletcher, C., Ripple, W. J., Newsome, T., Barnard, P., Beamer, K., Behl, A., Bowen, J., Cooney, M., Crist, E., Field, C., et al. (2024). Earth at risk: An urgent call to end the age of destruction and forge a just and sustainable future. PNAS nexus, 3(4), pgae106. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae106

Murphy, D. J. (2024). Biological carbon sequestration: From deep history to the present day. Earth, 5(2), 186–212. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth5020010

Change, O. C. (2007). Intergovernmental panel on climate change. World Meteorological Organization, 52(1-43), 1.

Mathew, N., Nair, A. S., & Gopakumar, A. (2024). The impact of short-lived climate pollutants on the human health. Environmental Pollution and Management, 1, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epm.2024.04.001

Ali, G., Farooq, A., & Al-Shamiri, M. M. A. (2023). Novel multiple criteria decision-making analysis under m-polar fuzzy aggregation operators with application. Math. Biosci. Eng, 20(2), 3566–35934. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2023166

Varshney, A. K., & Torra, V. (2023). Literature review of the recent trends and applications in various fuzzy rule-based systems. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 25(6), 2163–2186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-023-01534-w

Fujita, T. (2025). Expanding horizons of plithogenic superhyperstructures: Applications in decision-making, control, and neuro systems. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/xqrd6_v1

Atanassov, K. T. (1999). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-1870-3_1

Jebadass, J. R., & Balasubramaniam, P. (2024). Color image enhancement technique based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy set. Information Sciences, 653, 119811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2023.119811

Broumi, S., et al. (2024). Data-driven modelling with fuzzy sets: Embracing uncertainty. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003487029

Lekshmi, I., & Regees, M. (2022). A review on fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methods in medical diagnosis. International journal of health sciences, 6(S5), 2546–2554. https://doi.org/10.53730/ijhs.v6nS5.9198

Arshi, M., Nehi, H. M., & Najafi, H. (2023). A non-linear programming model to solve madm problems with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. International Journal of Industrial Engineering, 30(3). https://doi.org/10.23055/ijietap.2023.30.3.8023

Yager, R. R. (2013). Pythagorean fuzzy subsets. 2013 joint IFSA world congress and NAFIPS annual meeting (IFSA/NAFIPS), 57–61. https://doi.org/10.1109/IFSA-NAFIPS.2013.6608375

Ejegwa, P. A. (2019). Pythagorean fuzzy set and its application in career placements based on academic performance using max–min–max composition. Complex Intelligent Systems, 5(2), 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40747-019-0091-6

Alghazzawi, D., Hasan, A., Al-Quran, A., & Al-Husban, A. (2024). A novel perspective on the selection of an effective approach to reduce road traffic accidents under fermatean fuzzy settings. PLoS one, 19(5), e0303139. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305489

Liukkonen, S. (2023). Investigating real options valuation methods for high-value, high-uncertainty investments: Applying simulation and fuzzy-based techniques to uncertain r and d projects, complex systems, and inter-stakeholder dynamics [Doctoral dissertation]. https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe20231214154224

Chen, J., Li, S., Ma, S., & Wang, X. (2014). M-polar fuzzy sets: An extension of bipolar fuzzy sets. The scientific world journal, 2014(1), 416530. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/416530

Ghorai, G., & Pal, M. (2015). On some operations and density of m-polar fuzzy graphs. Pacific Science Review A: Natural Science and Engineering, 17(1), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psra.2015.12.001

Naeem, K., Riaz, M., & Karaaslan, F. (2021). Some novel features of pythagorean m-polar fuzzy sets with applications. Complex and Intelligent Systems, 7, 459–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40747-020-00219-3

Bozorg-Haddad, O., Zolghadr-Asli, B., & Loaiciga, H. A. (2021). A handbook on multi-attribute decision-making methods. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119563501

Akram, M. (2019). M-polar fuzzy graphs. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03751-2

Jagtap, M., & Karande, P. (2022). Effect of normalization methods on rank performance in single valued m-polar fuzzy electre-i algorithm. Materials Today: Proceedings, 52, 762–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.10.146

Kamran, M., Zhang, Q., Pamucar, D., Tahir, M., & Hussain, M. J. (2025). Paradigm shift in mobility optimization with multilayered five-way decision model using rough sets. Applied Soft Computing, 113994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2025.113994

Kamran, M., Zhang, Q., Tahir, M., Pamucar, D., & Farman, M. (2025). A hybrid five-way decision architecture integrating q-rofs with outranking relations and bayesian risk optimization. Results in Engineering, 107696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2025.107696

Pawlak, Z., Polkowski, L., & Skowron, A. (2001). Rough set theory. KI, 15(3), 38–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-111X(200101)16:1<3::AID-INT2>3.0.CO;2-I

Yao, Y. (2020). Tri-level thinking: Models of three-way decision. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 11(5), 947–959. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-019-01040-2

Jana, C., Pal, M., Karaaslan, F., & Senapati, T. (2023). Picture fuzzy logic and its applications in decision making problems. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2023-0-00194-7

Hamid, M. T., Riaz, M., & Afzal, D. (2020). Novel mcgdm with q-rung orthopair fuzzy soft sets and topsis approach under q-rung orthopair fuzzy soft topology. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 39(3), 3853–3871. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-19219

Riaz, M., Ishtiaq, U., Park, C., & Zareef, I. (2021). Novel concepts of m-polar spherical fuzzy sets and new correlation measures with application to pattern recognition and medical diagnosis. AIMS Math, 6(10), 11346–11379. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2021660

Saeed, M., Mehmood, A., Ahsan, M., & Saeed, M. H. (2020). Multi-polar neutrosophic soft sets with application in medical diagnosis and decision-making. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 33, 183–207.

Lamba, N., & Thareja, P. (2021). Developing the structural model based on analyzing the relationship between the barriers of green supply chain management using topsis approach. Materials Today: Proceedings, 43, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.09.487

Khurma, R. A., Aljarah, I., & Sharieh, A. (2022). A review of the modification strategies of the nature inspired algorithms for feature selection problem. Mathematics, 10(3), 464. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10030464

Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and control, 8(3), 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X

Waseem, N., Akram, M., & Alcantud, J. C. R. (2019). Multi-attribute decision-making based on m-polar fuzzy hamacher aggregation operators. Symmetry, 11(12), 1498. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11121498