A Hybrid IRN-Based BWM–COPRAS Framework for Electro-Optic System Selection in UAVs with Heterogeneous Evaluations

Ozlek, Atakan; Ervural, Bilal; Cayir Ervural, Beyzanur

doi:10.22111/ijfs.2026.52261.9218

تعداد نشریات	31
تعداد شماره‌ها	836
تعداد مقالات	8,048
تعداد مشاهده مقاله	15,029,957
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله	9,757,153

	A Hybrid IRN-Based BWM–COPRAS Framework for Electro-Optic System Selection in UAVs with Heterogeneous Evaluations
Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems
دوره 23، شماره 2، خرداد و تیر 2026، صفحه 157-175 اصل مقاله (1.1 M)
نوع مقاله: Research Paper
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22111/ijfs.2026.52261.9218
نویسندگان
Atakan Ozlek¹؛ Bilal Ervural^* ²؛ Beyzanur Cayir Ervural³
¹Ind.Eng.Dept., Eng. Faculty, Necmettin Erbakan University
²Industrial Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty, Necmettin Erbakan University
³Department of Aviation Management, FACULTY OF AVIATION AND SPACE SCIENCES, Necmettin Erbakan University
چکیده
The rapid proliferation of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) across diverse civil and military domains has heightened the need for careful payload selection due to inherent weight and capacity constraints. Among these payloads, electro-optic (EO) systems are of paramount importance, offering capabilities such as real-time imaging, surveillance, reconnaissance, and precision targeting. Given the increasing diversity and complexity of EO systems, selecting the most appropriate system for Medium-Altitude Long-Endurance (MALE) UAVs has emerged as a multi-dimensional decision-making challenge that requires the integration of both technical specifications and expert evaluations. This study proposes a novel decision-making framework that integrates the Fuzzy Best-Worst Method (BWM) and the Complex Proportional Assessment (COPRAS) method under the Interval Rough Number (IRN) theory. The approach addresses the uncertainty and heterogeneity in expert judgments and objective data, thereby providing a more nuanced and robust evaluation mechanism. The proposed hybrid framework offers methodological contributions by extending traditional MCDM techniques to heterogeneous decision environments through the use of IRNs. Empirical results demonstrate the model’s reliability and consistency, with sensitivity and comparative analyses validating its robustness across multiple scenarios. The findings provide valuable insights for decision-makers and system developers in the aerospace and defense industries, offering a structured and adaptable tool for selecting EO systems in MALE-class UAV applications.
کلیدواژه‌ها
Fuzzy BWM؛ Rough COPRAS؛ Electro-Optic System؛ Unmanned Aerial Vehicle؛ Heterogeneous Information

مراجع
[1] H. Amoozad Mahdiraji, S. Arzaghi, G. Stauskis, E. K. Zavadskas, A hybrid fuzzy BWM-COPRAS method for analyzing key factors of sustainable architecture, Sustainability, 10(5) (2018), 1626. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su10051626 [2] E. Arı, M. Dursun, An integrated Bayesian Best-Worst method and consensus-based intuitionistic fuzzy evaluation based on distance from average solution approach for evaluating alternative aircraft models from a sustainability perspective, Symmetry (Basel), 16(8) (2024), 1086. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym16081086 [3] ASELSAN, Electro-Optic systems technologies - ASELSAN, Accessed: Apr. 20, 2026. Available at: https://www. aselsan.com/en/defence/platform/air [4] G. Buyukozkan, F. Gocer, A novel approach integrating AHP and COPRAS under Pythagorean fuzzy sets for digital supply chain partner selection, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 99 (2019), 1-18. https: //doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2019.2907673 [5] F. J. Cabrerizo, E. Herrera-Viedma, W. Pedrycz, A method based on PSO and granular computing of linguistic information to solve group decision making problems defined in heterogeneous contexts, European Journal of Operational Research, 230(3) (2013), 624-633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.04.046 [6] B. Cao, Y. Jin, A. Uluta¸s, A. Topal, ˜Z. Stevi´c, D. Karabasevic, C. Sava, A new integrated rough multi-criteria decision-making model for enterprise resource planning software selection, PeerJ Computer Science, 10 (2024), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.2096 [7] C¸ . Cengiz, B. C¸ elik, Insansız hava ara¸clarında elektro-optik kamera yerle¸sim tasarımı, Journal of Aviation Research, 3(1) (2021), 53-62. https://doi.org/10.51785/jar.796510 [8] M. Deveci, E. ¨ Ozcan, R. John, D. Pamucar, H. Karaman, Offshore wind farm site selection using interval rough numbers based best-worst method and MARCOS, Applied Soft Computing, 109 (2021), 107532. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.asoc.2021.107532 [9] B. Ervural, ¨ O. Kabak, A cumulative belief degree approach for group decision-making problems with heterogeneous information, Expert Systems, 36(6), (2019). https://doi.org/10.1111/exsy.12458 [10] M. Gargalakos, The role of unmanned aerial vehicles in military communications: Application scenarios, current trends, and beyond, Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation Applications Methodology Technology, 21(3) (2021), 313-321. https://doi.org/10.1177/15485129211031668 [11] L. F. A. M. Gomes, J. E. de Mattos Fernandes, J. C. C. B. S. de Mello, A fuzzy stochastic approach to the multicriteria selection of an aircraft for regional chartering, Journal of Advanced Transportation, 48(3) (2014), 223-237. https://doi.org/10.1002/atr.206 [12] S. Greco, B. Matarazzo, R. Slowinski, Rough sets methodology for sorting problems in presence of multiple attributes and criteria, European Journal of Operational Research, 138(2) (2002), 247-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0377-2217(01)00244-2 [13] G. Guido, V. Gallelli, D. Rogano, A. Vitale, Evaluating the accuracy of vehicle tracking data obtained from unmanned aerial vehicles, International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology, 5(3) (2016), 136-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijtst.2016.12.001 [14] M. Hamurcu, T. Eren, Selection of unmanned aerial vehicles by using multicriteria decision-making for defence, Journal of Mathematics, 2020(1) (2020), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4308756 [15] I. M. Hezam, A. R. Mishra, P. Rani, A. Saha, F. Smarandache, D. Pamucar, An integrated decision support framework using single-valued neutrosophic-MASWIP-COPRAS for sustainability assessment of bioenergy production technologies, Expert Systems with Applications, 211 (2023), 118674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022. 118674 [16] F. Ilyas, M. Akram, An enhanced interval rough numbers-based outranking technique for evaluation of technology for sustainable mining, Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 22(1) (2025), 111-130. https://doi.org/10.22111/ ijfs.2025.49980.8832 [17] E. Kazimieras Zavadskas, A. Kaklauskas, F. Peldschus, Z. Turskis, Multi-attribute assessment of road design solutions by using the COPRAS method, The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering, 2(4) (2007), 195-203. Available at: https://bjrbe-journals.rtu.lv/bjrbe/article/view/1822-427X.2007.4.195%E2%80%93203 [18] E. Kurt, A. Y. Arabul, F. Keskin Arabul, I. Senol, Electric machine design and integration for an electric propulsion system in medium-altitude long-endurance unmanned aerial vehicles, Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 15(7) (2025). https://doi.org/10.3390/app15073438 [19] J. Lee, Z. Zhong, K. Kim, B. Dimitrijevic, B. Du, S. Gutesa, Examing the applicability of small quadcopter drone for traffic surveillance and roadway incident minotoring, 94th Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, 134(4) (2015), 635-646. [20] D. F. Li, Z. G. Huang, G. H. Chen, A systematic approach to heterogeneous multiattribute group decision making, Computers and Industrial Engineering, 59(4) (2010), 561-572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2010.06.015 [21] G. Li, G. Kou, Y. Peng, A group decision making model for integrating heterogeneous information, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 48(6) (2018), 982-992. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC. 2016.2627050 [22] F. Liang, M. Brunelli, J. Rezaei, Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds, Omega, 96 (2020), 102175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2019.102175 [23] D. Liang, W. Pedrycz, D. Liu, P. Hu, Three-way decisions based on decision-theoretic rough sets under linguistic assessment with the aid of group decision making, Applied Soft Computing, 29 (2015), 256-269. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.01.008 [24] C. E. Lin, P. C. Shao, Failure analysis for an unmanned aerial vehicle using safe path planning, Journal of Aerospace Computing, Information and Communication, 17(1) (2020), 358-369. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.I010795 [25] G. Liu, Rough set theory based on two universal sets and its applications, Knowledge-Based Systems, 23(2) (2010), 110-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2009.06.011 [26] T. ¨ Ozta¸s, A. ¨ Oz¸cil, E. Ayta¸c Adalı, A. Tu¸s, G. Z. ¨ Ozta¸s, A decision-making methodology based on Bayesian BWM and picture fuzzy COPRAS for airline company selection, Applied Soft Computing, 193 (2026), 114840. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ASOC.2026.114840 [27] D. Pamu˘car, K. Chatterjee, E. K. Zavadskas, Assessment of third-party logistics provider using multi-criteria decision-making approach based on interval rough numbers, Computers and Industrial Engineering, 127 (2019), 383-407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.10.023 [28] D. Pamu˘car, L. Savin, Multiple-criteria model for optimal off-road vehicle selection for passenger transportation: BWM-COPRAS model, Vojnotehni˘cki Glasnik, 68(1) (2020), 28-64. https://doi.org/10.5937/ vojtehg68-22916 [29] Z. Pawlak, Rough set approach to knowledge-based decision support, European Journal of Operational Research, 99(1) (1997), 48-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(96)00382-7 [30] E. Petritoli, F. Leccese, L. Ciani, Reliability and maintenance analysis of unmanned aerial vehicles, Sensors, 18(9) (2018), 3171. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18093171 [31] J. Rezaei, Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method, Omega, 53 (2015), 49-57. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.omega.2014.11.009 [32] R. Rishabh, K. N. Das, A decomposed fuzzy based fusion of decision-making and metaheuristic algorithm to select best unmanned aerial vehicle in agriculture 4.0 era, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 159 (2025), 111491. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGAPPAI.2025.111491 [33] J. Roy, H. K. Sharma, S. Kar, E. K. Zavadskas, J. Saparauskas, An extended COPRAS model for multi-criteria decision-making problems and its application in web-based hotel evaluation and selection, Economic Research- Ekonomska Istra˘zivanja, 32(1) (2019), 219-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2018.1543054 [34] M. H. Sadraey, Payloads selection/design, in Unmanned aircraft design. Synthesis lectures on mechanical engineering, Springer, Cham, (2025), 19-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-67795-3_2 [35] D. Schitea, M. Deveci, M. Iordache, K. Bilgili, I. Z. Akyurt, I. Iordache, Hydrogen mobility roll-up site selection using intuitionistic fuzzy sets based WASPAS, COPRAS and EDAS, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 44(16) (2019), 8585-8600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.02.011 [36] T. K. See, A. Gurnani, K. Lewis, Multi-attribute decision making using hypothetical equivalents and inequivalents, Journal of Mechanical Design, 126(6) (2004), 950-958. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1814389 [37] H. Shidpour, C. da Cunha, A. Bernard, Group multi-criteria design concept evaluation using combined rough set theory and fuzzy set theory, Expert Systems with Applications, 64 (2016), 633-644. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.eswa.2016.08.022 [38] W. Song, X. Ming, H. C. Liu, Identifying critical risk factors of sustainable supply chain management: A rough strength-relation analysis method, Journal of Cleaner Production, 143 (2017), 100-115. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.145 [39] W. Song, X. Ming, Z.Wu, An integrated rough number-based approach to design concept evaluation under subjective environments, Journal of Engineering Design, 24(5) (2013), 320-341. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2012. 732994 [40] SSB, Turkish Defence Industry Catalog, Ankara, (2025). Accessed: Oct. 29, 2025. Available at: https://www.ssb. gov.tr/WebSite/contentlist.aspx?PageID=50&LangID=2 [41] R. Steen, N. H˚aheim-Saers, G. Aukland, Military unmanned aerial vehicle operations through the lens of a highreliability system: Challenges and opportunities, Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 15(3) (2024), 347-373. https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12279 [42] ˘Z. Stevi´c, E. Durmi´c, M. Gaji´c, D. Pamu˘car, A. Pu˘ska, A novel multi-criteria decision-making model: Interval rough SAW method for sustainable supplier selection, Information, 10(10) (2019), 292. https://doi.org/10. 3390/info10100292 [43] E. Turanoglu Bekar, M. Cakmakci, C. Kahraman, Fuzzy COPRAS method for performance measurement in total productive maintenance: A comparative analysis, Journal of Business Economics and Management, 17(5) (2016), 663-684. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2016.1202314 [44] W. Wei, J. Liang, Information fusion in rough set theory: An overview, Information Fusion, 48 (2019), 107-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2018.08.007 [45] C. H. Yeh, Y. H. Chang, Modeling subjective evaluation for fuzzy group multicriteria decision making, European Journal of Operational Research, 194(2) (2009), 464-473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.12.029 [46] L. Y. Zhai, L. P. Khoo, Z. W. Zhong, A rough set enhanced fuzzy approach to quality function deployment, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 37(5-6) (2008), 613-624. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s00170-007-0989-9 [47] G. N. Zhu, J. Hu, H. Ren, A fuzzy rough number-based AHP-TOPSIS for design concept evaluation under uncertain environments, Applied Soft Computing, 91 (2020), 106228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106228
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 23 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 19

سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. طراحی و پیاده سازی از سیناوب

پیوندهای مفید

اخبار و اعلانات

آمار

A Hybrid IRN-Based BWM–COPRAS Framework for Electro-Optic System Selection in UAVs with Heterogeneous Evaluations