Development of a Generic Decision Tree for the Integration of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) and Multi-Objective Optimization (MOO) Methods under Uncertainty to Facilitate Sustainability Assessment: A Methodical Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The integration of Multi-Objective Optimization (MOO) and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) has gathered significant attention across various scientific research domains to facilitate integrated sustainability assessment. Recently, there has been a growing interest in hybrid approaches that combine MCDM with MOO, aiming to enhance the efficacy of the final decisions. However, a critical gap exists in terms of providing clear methodological guidance, particularly when dealing with data uncertainties. To address this gap, this systematic review is designed to develop a generic decision tree that serves as a practical roadmap for practitioners seeking to perform MOO and MCDM in an integrated fashion, with a specific focus on accounting for uncertainties. The systematic review identified the recent studies that conducted both MOO and MCDM in an integrated way. It is important to note that this review does not aim to identify the superior MOO or MCDM methods, but rather it delves into the strategies for integrating these two common methodologies. The prevalent MOO methods used in the reviewed articles were evolution-based metaheuristic methods. TOPSIS and PROMETHEE II are the prevalent MCDM ranking methods. The integration of MOO and MCDM methods can occur either a priori, a posteriori, or through a combination of both, each offering distinct advantages and drawbacks. The developed decision tree illustrated all three paths and integrated uncertainty considerations in each path. Finally, a real-world case study for the pulse fractionation process in Canada is used as a basis for demonstrating the various pathways presented in the decision tree and their application in identifying the optimized processing pathways for sustainably obtaining pulse protein. This study will help practitioners in different research domains use MOO and MCDM methods in an integrated way to identify the most sustainable and optimized system.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.066 | 0.223 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".