Table 7 Comparative analysis with existing operators.

From: Optimizing construction company selection using einstein weighted aggregation operators for q-rung orthopair fuzzy hypersoft set

Method	\(\aleph^{\left( 1 \right)}\)	\(\aleph^{\left( 2 \right)}\)	\(\aleph^{\left( 3 \right)}\)	Ranking order
PFSEWA⁴³	0.3287	0.2634	0.4532	\(\aleph^{\left( 3 \right)} { } > \aleph^{\left( 1 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 2 \right)}\)
PFSEWG⁴³	0.2924	0.2418	0.3726	\(\aleph^{\left( 3 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 1 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 2 \right)}\)
PFSEOWA⁴⁴	0.4105	0.4156	0.4281	\(\aleph^{\left( 3 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 2 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 1 \right)}\)
PFSEOWG⁴⁵	0.3951	0.3849	0.4083	\(\aleph^{\left( 3 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 1 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 2 \right)}\)
IFHSWA⁵¹	0.3894	0.4071	0.4712	\(\aleph^{\left( 3 \right)} { } > \aleph^{\left( 2 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 1 \right)}\)
IFHSWG⁵¹	0.3123	0.4436	0.4927	\(\aleph^{\left( 3 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 2 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 1 \right)}\)
PFHSEWA⁵⁴	0.1959	0.2426	0.2763	\(\aleph^{\left( 3 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 2 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 1 \right)}\)
PFHSEWG⁵⁵	− 0.0264	− 0.0217	− 0.0157	\(\aleph^{\left( 3 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 2 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 1 \right)}\)
q-ROFSWA⁴⁶	0.4194	0.4375	0.4463	\(\aleph^{\left( 3 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 2 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 1 \right)}\)
q-ROFSOWA⁴⁶	0.2964	0.3159	0.3571	\(\aleph^{\left( 3 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 2 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 1 \right)}\)
q-ROFSWG⁷²	0.3493	0.4048	0.4648	\(\aleph^{\left( 3 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 2 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 1 \right)}\)
q-ROFSOWG⁷²	0.3601	0.4132	0.4676	\(\aleph^{\left( 3 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 2 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 1 \right)}\)
q-ROFSEWA⁴⁷	0.4059	0.4567	0.5143	\(\aleph^{\left( 3 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 2 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 1 \right)}\)
q-ROFSEOWA⁴⁷	0.4367	0.4638	0.5338	\(\aleph^{\left( 3 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 2 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 1 \right)}\)
q-ROFSEWG⁴⁸	0.4158	0.4307	0.4942	\(\aleph^{\left( 3 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 2 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 1 \right)}\)
q-ROFSEOWG⁴⁸	0.4251	0.4467	0.5138	\(\aleph^{\left( 3 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 2 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 1 \right)}\)
q-ROFHSWA⁵⁹	0.0125	0.0187	0.0247	\(\aleph^{\left( 3 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 2 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 1 \right)}\)
q-ROFHSWG⁵⁹	− 0.0263	− 0.0157	− 0.0104	\(\aleph^{\left( 3 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 2 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 1 \right)}\)
q-ROFHSEWA	0.0574	0.0815	0.2181	\(\aleph^{\left( 3 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 2 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 1 \right)}\)
q-ROFHSEWG	− 0.2070	− 0.2963	− 0.1896	\(\aleph^{\left( 3 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 1 \right)} > \aleph^{\left( 2 \right)}\)

Back to article page

Table 7 Comparative analysis with existing operators.

Search

Quick links