A novel method for solving the fully neutrosophic linear programming problems: Suggested modifications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abdel-Basset et al. (Neural Computing and Applications, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-018-3404-6) proposed methods for solving different types of neutrosophic linear programming problems (NLPPs) (NLPPs in which some/all the parameters are represented as trapezoidal neutrosophic numbers (TrNNs)). Abdel-Basset et al. also pointed out that as a trapezoidal fuzzy number is a special case of trapezoidal neutrosophic number. Therefore, the fuzzy linear programming problems which can be solved by the existing methods (Ganesan and Veermani, Ann Oper Res, 2006, 143 : 305-315; Ebrahimnejad and Tavana, Appl Math Model, 2014, 38 : 4388-4395; Kumar et al., 2011, Appl Math Model, 35 : 817-823; Satti et al., Int J Decis Sci, 7 : 312-33) can also be solved by thier proposed method. In addition to that, to show the advantages of their proposed method over the existing methods (Ganesan and Veermani, Ann Oper Res, 2006, 143 : 305-315; Ebrahimnejad and Tavana, Appl Math Model, 2014, 38 : 4388-4395; Kumar et al., 2011, Appl Math Model, 35 : 817-823; Satti et al., Int J Decis Sci, 7 : 312-33), Abdel-Basset et al. solved the same fuzzy linear programming problems by their proposed method as well as the existing methods (Ganesan and Veermani, Ann Oper Res, 2006, 143 : 305-315; Ebrahimnejad and Tavana, Appl Math Model, 2014, 38 : 4388-4395; Kumar et al., 2011, Appl Math Model, 35 : 817-823; Satti et al., Int J Decis Sci, 7 : 312-33) and shown that the results, obtained on applying by their proposed method are better than the results, obtained on applying the existing methods (Ganesan and Veermani, Ann Oper Res, 2006, 143 : 305-315; Ebrahimnejad and Tavana, Appl Math Model, 2014, 38 : 4388-4395; Kumar et al., 2011, Appl Math Model, 35 : 817-823; Satti et al., Int J Decis Sci, 7 : 312-33). After a deep study of Abdel-Basset et al. ’s method, it is observed that Abdel-Basset et al. have considered several mathematical incorrect assumptions in their proposed method and hence, it is scientifically incorrect to use Abdel-Basset et al. ’s method in its present form. The aim of this paper is to make the researchers aware about the mathematical incorrect assumptions, considered by Abdel-Basset et al. in their proposed method, as well as to suggest the required modifications in Abdel-Basset et al. ’s method.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".