research-article
Author: Murat Kirişci
Volume 152, Issue C
Published: 25 June 2024 Publication History
- 0citation
- 0
- Downloads
Metrics
Total Citations0Total Downloads0Last 12 Months0
Last 6 weeks0
New Citation Alert added!
This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:
You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.
To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.
Manage my Alerts
New Citation Alert!
Please log in to your account
- View Options
- References
- Media
- Tables
- Share
Abstract
The decision-making(DM) processes used by autonomous vehicle driving systems are separate from those of the users, allowing them to oversee and regulate the operations of the cars in expected and unforeseen circ*mstances. Although there are several advantages to using this technology, such as fewer accidents caused by human error and more efficient energy utilization, it is also evident that there are some risks involved. Hence, developing a risk assessment application for these systems will be advantageous given the hazards associated with autonomous cars and driving systems that must be tested and addressed. In this study, a new integrated FF-based MCDM methodology combining the Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP), Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution(TOPSIS), and Multi-Attributive Border Approximation Area Comparison (MABAC) methods is proposed as a new security model that will help decision-makers address the physical design and attack risks of autonomous vehicles, estimate their uncertainty, and control cyber risks Interval-valued Fuzzy Fermatean sets ten possibilities for autonomous vehicle driving systems assessed in the application based on six main criteria and fifteen sub-criteria. Comparative and sensitivity studies have also been used to demonstrate the adaptability, validity, and verification of the suggested approach and the sensitivity of the decisions made. Possible implications from a theoretical, managerial, and policy framework have been examined based on the application findings and studies that have been done.
Highlights
•
A hybrid technique based on IVFF-AHP,-TOPSIS, -MABAC procedures has been suggested.
•
Interval-valued Fermatean fuzzy sets were used for the new method.
•
IVFF-AHP calculates the weights and the hazards are ranked by IVFF-TOPSIS,-MABAC.
•
A sensitivity analysis was performed to confirm the result of the new methodology.
•
The effectiveness of the new hybrid approach was evaluated by comparison analysis.
References
[1]
Placek M., Autonomous vehicles worldwide - statistics & facts, 2022, https://www.statista.com/topics/3573/autonomous-vehicle-technology/#topicOverview.
[2]
Carlier M., Global automotive industry profit pool by segment 2021 & 2035, 2023, https://www.statista.com/statistics/979663/global-auto-industry-profit-pool-by-segment/.
[3]
Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan, Autonomous Vehicles Factsheet, Pub. No. CSS16-18, 2023.
[4]
Menke T., Self-Driving Cars: The Technology, Risks and Possibilities, Science in the News in Harvard University, The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, 2017, available online, https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/self-driving-cars-technology-risks-possibilities/.
[5]
Senapati T., Yager R.R., Fermatean fuzzy sets, J. Ambient Intell. Hum. Comput. 11 (2020) 663–674.
[6]
Senapati T., Yager R.R., Some new operations over fermatean fuzzy numbers and application of Fermatean fuzzy WPM in multiple criteria decision making, Informatica 30 (2) (2019) 391–412.
[7]
Zadeh L.A., Fuzzy sets, Inf. Comp. 8 (1965) 338–353.
[8]
Atanassov K., Intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 20 (1986) 87–96.
[9]
R.R. Yager, Pythagorean fuzzy subsets, in: Proc. Joint IFSA World Congress and NAFIPS Annual Meeting, Edmonton, Canada, 2013.
[10]
Yager R.R., Pythagorean membership grades in multicriteria decision-making, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 22 (4) (2014) 958–965.
[11]
Alkan N., Kahraman C., Prioritization of supply chain digital transformation strategies using multi-expert fermatean fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, Informatica 34 (1) (2023) 1–3,.
[12]
Garg H., Shahzadi G., Akram M., Decision-making analysis based on fermatean fuzzy yager aggregation operators with application in COVID-19 testing facility, Math. Probl. Eng. (2020),. Article ID 7279027.
[13]
Jeevaraj S., Ordering of interval-valued fermatean fuzzy sets and its applications, Expert Syst. Appl. 185 (2021).
Digital Library
[14]
Kirişci M., Correlation coefficients of fermatean fuzzy sets with their application, J. Math. Sci. Model. 5 (2) (2022) 16–23,.
[15]
Kirisci M., New cosine similarity and distance measures for fermatean fuzzy sets and TOPSIS approach, Knowl. Inf. Syst. 65 (2023) 855–868.
[16]
Senapati T., Yager R.R., Fermatean fuzzy weighted averaging/geometric operators and its application in multi-criteria decision-making methods, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 85 (2019) 112–121,.
[17]
Kirişci M., Demir I., Simsek N., Fermatean fuzzy ELECTRE multi-criteria group decision-making and most suitable biomedical material selection, Artif. Intell. Med. 127 (2022),.
Digital Library
[18]
Kirisci M., Data analysis for lung cancer: Fermatean hesitant fuzzy sets approach, in: Applied Mathematics, Modeling, and Computer Simulation, IOS Press, 2022, pp. 701–710,.
[19]
M. Kirisci, Data analysis for panoramic X-ray selection: Fermatean fuzzy type correlation coefficients approach, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 126 (106824) 1–20.
[20]
Kirisci M., Simsek N., A novel kernel principal component analysis with application disaster preparedness of hospital: interval-valued fermatean fuzzy set approach, J. Supercomput. 79 (2023) 19848–19878.
[21]
Simsek N., Kirisci M., A new risk assessment method for autonomous vehicle driving systems: Fermatean fuzzy AHP approach, İstanb. Commer. Univ. J. Sci. 22 (2023) 11–20.
[22]
Smarandache F., Neutrosophic set, a generalization of the intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Int. J. Pure Appl. Math. 24 (2005) 287–297.
[23]
Abualkishik Abedallah Z., Almajed Rasha, Triangular neutrosophic multi-criteria decision making AHP method for solar power site selection, Int. J. Adv. Appl. Comput. Intell. 2 (2) (2022) 08–15.
[24]
AbdelMouty Ahmed M., Abdel-Monem Ahmed, Aal Samah Ibrahim Abdel, Ismail Mahmoud M., Analysis of the role of the Internet of Things and Industry 4.0 in healthcare supply chain using neutrosophic sets, Neutrosophic Syst. Appl. 4 (2023) 33–42,.
[25]
Pustokhina Irina V., Pustokhin Denis A., An intelligent neutrosophic model for evaluation sustainable housing affordability, Int. J. Adv. Appl. Comput. Intell. 2 (2) (2022) 45–53.
[26]
Martin Nivetha, Broumi Said, Sudha S., Priya R., Neutrosophic MARCOS in decision making on smart manufacturing system, Neutrosophic Syst. Appl. 4 (2023) 12–32,.
[27]
Petridou E., Moustaki M., Human factors in the causation of road traffic crashes, Eur. J. Epidemiol. 16 (2000) 819–826.
[28]
Hulse L.M., Xie H., Galea E.R., Perceptions of autonomous vehicles: Relationships with road users, risk, gender and age, Saf. Sci. 102 (2018) 1–13.
[29]
Sjoberg K., Andres P., Buburuzan T., Brakemeier A., Cooperative intelligent transport systems in europe: current deployment status and outlook, IEEE Veh. Technol. Mag. 12 (2) (2017) 89–97.
[30]
J. Edwards, A. Kashani, Identifying Security Vulnerabilities Early in the ECU Software Development Lifecycle, SAE Technical Paper, 2017.
[31]
Parkinson S., Ward P., Wilson K., Miller J., Cyber threats facing autonomous and connected vehicles: future challenges, IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 18 (11) (2017) 2898–2915.
Digital Library
[32]
J. Cui, G. Sabaliauskaite, On the alignment of safety and security for autonomous vehicles, in: IARIA CYBER, Barcelona, Spain, 2017.
[33]
Hashim H.H., Omar M.Z., Towards autonomous vehicle implementation: issues and opportunities, J. Soc. Automot. Eng. Malay. 1 (2) (2017) 111–123.
[34]
Casley S.V., Jardim A.S., Quartulli A.M., A Study of Public Acceptance of Autonomous Cars, Interactive Qualifying Project, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 2013.
[35]
Eiza M.H., Ni Q., Driving with sharks: Rethinking connected vehicles with vehicle cybersecurity, IEEE Veh. Technol. Mag. 12 (2) (2017) 45–51.
[36]
Hoppe T., Kiltz S., Dittman J., Security threats to automotive CAN networks – Practical examples and selected short-term countermeasures, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 96 (2011) 11–25.
[37]
Keller T.M., Benjamin J.S., Wright V.L., Gold B.H., Vulnerabilities Under the Surface, Idaho National Lab. (INL, Idaho Falls, 2017.
[38]
[39]
Zaidi K., Rajarajan M., Vehicular Internet: Security & privacy challenges and opportunities, Future Internet 7 (3) (2015) 257–275.
[40]
Goodyear S., San Francisco robotaxi traffic jam is a warning to the world, says city official, 2023, CBC Radio. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/san-francisco-robotaxi-traffic-jam-1.6938440. (Access 21 August 2023).
[41]
Halff N., Cruise driverless cars block San Francisco street after ’TEN’ of the vehicles suffered Wi-Fi failures ‘caused by music festival’, 2023, Mail Online. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12401407/Cruise-driverless-cars-block-San-Francisco-street-TEN.html. (Access 21 August 2023).
[42]
Marshall A., Cruise’s robot car outages are jamming up San Francisco, wired, 2023, https://www.wired.com/story/cruises-robot-car-outages/ (Access 21 August 2023).
[43]
Solon O., Why self-driving cars aren’t safe yet: Rain, roadworks and other obstacles, 2023, The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/05/tesla-crash-self-driving-car-software-flaws. (Access 21 August 2023).
[44]
Disruption of internet connectivity in robot taxis triggers traffic disarray in San Francisco, Yeni Safak, 2023, https://www.yenisafak.com/en/news/disruption-of-internet-connectivity-in-robot-taxis-triggers-traffic-disarray-in-san-francisco-3669166. (Access 21 August 2023).
[45]
Karasan A., Kaya I., Erdoğan M., Budak A., Risk analysis of the autonomous vehicle driving systems by using pythagorean fuzzy AHP, in: Kahraman C., Cebi S., Cevik Onar S., Oztaysi B., Tolga A., Sari I. (Eds.), Intelligent and Fuzzy Techniques in Big Data Analytics and Decision Making, in: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 1029, Springer, Cham, 2020, p. INFUS 2019,.
[46]
Bakioglu G., Atahan A.O., Evaluating the influencing factors on adoption of self-driving vehicles by using interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy AHP, in: Kahraman C., Cevik Onar S., Oztaysi B., Sari I., Cebi S., Tolga A. (Eds.), Intelligent and Fuzzy Techniques: Smart and Innovative Solutions, in: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 1197, INFUS 2020, Springer, Cham, 2021,.
[47]
Abdel-Basset M., Gamal A., Moustafa N., Abdel-Monem A., El-Saber N., A security-by-design decision-making model for risk management in autonomous vehicles, IEEE Access 9 (2021) 107657–107679.
[48]
Bakioğlu G., Atahan A.O., AHP integrated TOPSIS and VIKOR methods with Pythagorean fuzzy sets to prioritize risks in self-driving vehicles, Appl. Soft Comput. 99 (2022).
[49]
Bonab S.R., Ghoushchi S.J., Deveci M., Haseli G., Logistic autonomous vehicles assessment using decision support model under spherical fuzzy set integrated choquet integral approach, Expert Syst. Appl. 214 (2013).
[50]
Claussmann L., O’Brien M., Glaser S., Najjaran H., Gruyer D., Multi-criteria decision making for autonomous vehicles using fuzzy dempster-shafer reasoning, in: 2018 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, IV, IEEE, 2018, pp. 2195–2202.
[51]
Ülker B., A fuzzy MCDM algorithm, and practical decision aid tool to determine the best ROV design alternative, Kybernetes 44 (4) (2015) 623–645.
[52]
Hasgul Z., Aytore C., Road selection for autonomous trucks in Turkey with fuzzy AHP, in: International Conference on Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, Springer, Cham, 2020, pp. 582–590.
[53]
Doğan O., Deveci M., Canıtez F., Kahraman C., A corridor selection for locating autonomous vehicles using an interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS method, Soft Comput. 24 (12) (2020) 8937–8953.
[54]
Erdoğan Melike, Kaya Ihsan, Karaşan Ali, Çolak Murat, Evaluation of autonomous vehicle driving systems for risk assessment based on three-dimensional uncertain linguistic variables, Appl. Soft Comput. 113 (2021).
Digital Library
[55]
Persyn D., Díaz-Lanchas J., Barbero J., Estimating road transport costs between and within European union regions, Transp. Policy 124 (2020) 33–42.
[56]
Petro F., Konečný V., Calculation of emissions from transport services and their use for the internalization of external costs in road transport, Procedia Eng. 192 (2017) 677–682.
[57]
Rolison J.J., Regev S., Moutari S., Feeney A., What are the factors that contribute to road accidents? An assessment of law enforcement views, ordinary drivers’ opinions, and road accident records, Accid. Anal. Prev. 115 (2018) 11–24.
[58]
Steinbakk R.T., Ulleberg P., Sagberg F., Fostervold K.I., Effects of roadwork characteristics and drivers’ differences on speed preferences in a rural work zone, Accid. Anal. Prev. 132 (2019).
[59]
Michelmore R., Kwiatkowska M., Gal Y., Evaluating uncertainty quantification in end-to-end autonomous driving control, 2018, arXiv:1811.06817.
[60]
Li H., Wu C., Chu D., Lu L., Cheng K., Combined trajectory planning and tracking for autonomous vehicle considering driving styles, IEEE Access 9 (2021) 9453–9463,.
[61]
Chen S., Wang M., Song W., Yang Y., Li Y., Fu M., Stabilization approaches for reinforcement learning-based end-to-end autonomous driving, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 69 (2020) 4740–4750,.
[62]
Chen J., Zhang C., Luo J., Xie J., Wan Y., Driving maneuvers prediction based autonomous driving control by deep Monte Carlo tree search, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 69 (2020) 7146–7158,.
[63]
Amini A., Gilitschenski I., Phillips J., Moseyko J., Banerjee R., Karaman S., Rus D., Learning robust control policies for end-to-end autonomous driving from data-driven simulation, IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 5 (2020) 1143–1150,.
[64]
Bhavsar P., Das P., Paugh M., Dey K., Chowdhury M., Risk analysis of autonomous vehicles in mixed traffic streams, Transp. Res. Rec. 2625 (2017) 51–61.
[65]
Lee J.D., Kolodge K., Exploring trust in self-driving vehicles through text analysis, Hum. Factors: J. Hum. Factors Ergonom. Soc. 62 (2020) 260–277.
[66]
J. Pimentel, J. Bastiaan, Characterizing the safety of self-driving vehicles: A fault containment protocol for functionality involving vehicle detection, in: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Veh. Electron. Saf, ICVES, 2018, pp. 1–7.
[67]
T.L. Saaty, The analytic hierarchy and analytic network measurement processes: Applications to decisions under risk, Eur. J. Pure Appl. Math. 1 (1) (2008) 122–196,.
[68]
Van Laarhoven P., Pedrycz W., A fuzzy extension of saaty’s priority theory, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 11 (1–3) (1983) 229–241.
[69]
Buckley J., Fuzzy hierarchical analysis, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 17 (3) (1985) 233–247.
[70]
Chang D., Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP, European J. Oper. Res. 95 (3) (1986) 649–655.
[71]
Kahraman C., Oztaysi B., Sari I., Turanoğlu E., Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process with interval type-2 fuzzy sets, Knowl.-Based Syst. 59 (2016) 48–57.
Digital Library
[72]
Sadiq R., Tesfamariam S., Environmental decision-making under uncertainty using intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 23 (1) (2009) 75–91.
[73]
Wu J., Huang H., Cao Q., Research on AHP with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets and its application in multicriteria decision-making problems, Appl. Math. Model. 37 (24) (2013) 9898–9906.
[74]
B. Öztaysi, S. Onar, E. Bolturk, C. Kahraman, Hesitant fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, in: 2015 IEEE International Conference Fuzzy Systems, FUZZ-IEEE, 2015, pp. 1–7.
[75]
Gül M., Application of Pythagorean fuzzy AHP and VIKOR methods in occupational health and safety risk assessment: the case of a gun and rifle barrel external surface oxidation and coloring unit, Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 26 (4) (2018) 705–718.
[76]
Büyüközkan G., Göçer F., A novel approach integrating AHP and COPRAS under Pythagorean fuzzy sets for digital supply chain partner selection, IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 68 (2021) 1486–1503.
[77]
Karasan A., Ilbahar E., Kahraman C., A novel Pythagorean fuzzy AHP and its application to landfill site selection problem, Soft Comput. 23 (21) (2019) 10953–10968.
Digital Library
[78]
Abdel-Basset M., Mohamed M., Zhou Y., Hezam I., Multi-criteria group decision making based on neutrosophic analytic hierarchy process, J. Intell. Fuzzy Systems 333 (6) (2017) 4055–4066.
[79]
Boltürk E., Kahraman C., A novel interval-valued neutrosophic AHP with cosine similarity measure, Soft Comput. 22 (15) (2018) 4941–4958.
[80]
Garg H., Ali Z., Mahmood T., Algorithms for complex interval-valued q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets in decision making based on aggregation operators, AHP, and TOPSIS, Expert Syst. 38 (1) (2021) 1–36,.
[81]
Gündoğdu F.K., Duleba S., Moslem S., Aydın S., Evaluating public transport service quality using picture fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and linear assignment model, Appl. Soft Comput. 100 (2021).
[82]
Mathew M., Chakrabortty R., Ryan M., A novel approach integrating AHP and TOPSIS under spherical fuzzy sets for advanced manufacturing system selection, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 96 (2020).
[83]
Beg I., Rashid T., TOPSIS for hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets, Int. J. Intell. Syst. 28 (12) (2013) 1162–1171.
[84]
Boran F.E., Genc S., Kurt M., Akay D., A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method, Expert Syst. Appl. 36 (8) (2009) 11363–11368.
Digital Library
[85]
Broumi S., Ye J., Smarandache F., An extended TOPSIS method for multiple attribute decision making based on interval neutrosophic uncertain linguistic variables, Neutrosophic Sets Syst. 8 (2015) 22–31,.
[86]
Cevik Onar S., Oztaysi B., Kahraman C., Multicriteria evaluation of cloud service providers using Pythagorean fuzzy TOPSIS, J. Multiple-Valued Logic Soft. Comput. 30 (2018) 263–283.
[87]
Chen C.T., Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision making under fuzzy environment, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 114 (2000) 1–9.
[88]
Chen T.Y., Tsao C.Y., The interval-valued fuzzy TOPSIS method and experimental analysis, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 159 (11) (2008) 1410–1428.
[89]
B. Erdebilli, E. Gecer, I. Yilmaz, T. Aksoy, U. Hacioglu, H. Dincer, S. Yuksel, Q-ROF fuzzy TOPSIS and VIKOR methods for the selection of sustainable private health insurance policies, Sustainability 15 (12) 9229.
[90]
Gündoğdu F.K., Kahraman C., Spherical fuzzy sets and spherical fuzzy TOPSIS method, J. Intell. Fuzzy Systems 36 (2019) 337–352.
[91]
Gündoğdu F.K., Kahraman C., A novel fuzzy TOPSIS method using emerging interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 85 (2019) 307–323.
[92]
Hajiaghaei-Keshteli Mostafa, Cenk Zeynep, Erdebilli Babek, Ozdemir Yavuz Selim, Gholian-Joiybari Fatemeh, Pythagorean fuzzy TOPSIS method for green supplier selection in the food industry, Expert Syst. Appl. 224 (2023).
[93]
Piya Sujan, Shamsuzzoha Ahm, Azizuddin Muhammad, Al-Hinai Nasr, Erdebilli Babek, Integrated fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS method to analyze green management practice in hospitality industry in the sultanate of oman, Sustainability 14 (3) (2022) 1118,.
[94]
Rouyendegh B.D., Yildizbasi A., Ustunyer P., Intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method for green supplier selection problem, Soft Comput. 24 (2020) 2215–2228,.
Digital Library
[95]
Sajjad A., Khan M., Abdullah S., Ali M. Yousaf, Extension of TOPSIS method base on choquet integral under interval-valued pythagorean fuzzy environment, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 34 (1) (2018) 267–282.
[96]
Xu Z., Zhang X., Hesitant fuzzy multi-attribute decision making based on TOPSIS with incomplete weight information, Knowl.-Based Syst. 52 (2013) 53–64.
Digital Library
[97]
Pamučar D., Ćirović G., The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison (MABAC), Expert Syst. Appl. 42 (6) (2015) 3016–3028.
[98]
Wang J., Wei G., Wei C., Wei Y., MABAC method for multiple attribute group decision making under q-rung orthopair fuzzy environment, Def. Technol. 16 (1) (2020) 208–216.
[99]
Yu S.-M., Wang J., Wang J.-Q., An interval type-2 fuzzy likelihood-based MABAC approach and its application in selecting hotels on a tourism website, Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 19 (1) (2017) 47–61.
[100]
Mishra A.R., Garg A.K., Purwar H., Rana P., Liao H., Mardani A., An extended intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attributive border approximation area comparison approach for smartphone selection using discrimination measures, Informatica 32 (1) (2021) 119–143.
[101]
Jia F., Liu Y., Wang X., An extended MABAC method for multi-criteria group decision-making based on intuitionistic fuzzy rough numbers, Expert Syst. Appl. 127 (2019) 241–255.
[102]
Mishra A.R., Chandel A., Motwani D., Extended MABAC method based on divergence measures for multi-criteria assessment of programming language with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Granul. Comput. 5 (1) (2020) 97–117.
[103]
Xue Y.-X., You J.-X., Lai X.-D., Liu H.-C., An interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy MABAC approach for material selection with incomplete weight information, Appl. Soft Comput. 38 (2016) 703–713.
Digital Library
[104]
Peng X., Yang Y., Pythagorean fuzzy choquet integral based MABAC method for multiple attribute group decision-making, Int. J. Intell. Syst. 31 (10) (2016) 989–1020.
[105]
Peng X., Dai J., Approaches to single-valued neutrosophic MADM based on MABAC, TOPSIS and new similarity measure with score function, Neural Comput. Appl. 29 (10) (2018) 939–954.
[106]
ISO 26262 – Parts [2-8], Requirements decomposition concerning ASIL tailoring, 2011.
[107]
B. Brown, D. Park, B. Sheehan, S. Shikoff, J. Solomon, J. Yang, I. Kim, Assessment of human driver safety at dilemma zones with automated vehicles through a virtual reality environment, in: 2018 Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium, SIEDS, 2018, pp. 185–190.
[108]
Chhavi Bharadwaj, Automomous Vehicles and Risks, https://grm.institute/blog/research-study-on-autonomous-vehicles-and-risks.
[109]
Chia W.M.D., Keoh S.L., Goh C., Johnson C., Risk assessment methodologies for autonomous driving: A survey, IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 23 (10) (2022) 16923–16939,.
[110]
Dominic D., Chhawri S., Eustice R.M., Ma D., Wiemmerskrich A., CPS-SPC ’16: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Workshop on Cyber-Physical Systems Security and Privacy, 2016, pp. 47–58,.
Digital Library
[111]
Jiao X., Chen J., Jiang K., Cao Z., Yang D., Autonomous driving risk assessment with boundary-based environment model, IEEE Trans. Intell. Veh. (2023),.
[112]
Katrakazas C., Quddus M., Chen W.-H., A new integrated collision risk assessment methodology for autonomous vehicles, Accid. Anal. Prev. 127 (2019) 61–79.
[113]
2023 State of Automotive Software Development Report. https://www.automotive-iq.com/autonomous-drive/reports/2023-state-of-automotive-software-development-report?.
[114]
Rezaie K., Ramiyani S.S., Nazari-Shirkouhi S., Badizadeh A., Evaluating the performance of Iranian cement firms using an integrated fuzzy AHP–VIKOR method, Appl. Math. Model. 38 (21–22) (2014) 5033–5046.
[115]
Sun C.C., A performance evaluation model by integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods, Expert Syst. Appl. 37 (12) (2010) 7745–7754.
Recommendations
- The Hybrid MCDM Model for Performance Assessment in Mobile Commerce Development
ICMECG '11: Proceedings of the 2011Fifth International Conference on Management of e-Commerce and e-Government
This study applies a hybrid MCDM model for risk evaluation in Mobile Commerce development. First, the risk in MC development is formulated by the combined use of the MCDM (multi-criteria decision making) approach and a proposed five-step hybrid process, ...
Read More
- A corridor selection for locating autonomous vehicles using an interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS method
Abstract
Autonomous vehicles (AVs) provide a new mobility option and have been becoming widespread around the world. They can be used not only as automobiles but also as public transport vehicles in the form of shuttles, buses and pods. One of the problem ...
Read More
- A two stage risk assessment model based on interval-valued fuzzy numbers and risk attitudes
Abstract
Due to the lack of historical data, experts often score risks based on their experience and some linguistic terms in risk assessment, then the risk assessment is essentially a semi-quantitative problem. When experts score risks, the ...
Read More
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
Applied Soft Computing Volume 152, Issue C
Feb 2024
1017 pages
ISSN:1568-4946
Issue’s Table of Contents
Elsevier B.V.
Publisher
Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.
Netherlands
Publication History
Published: 25 June 2024
Author Tags
- Self-driving vehicles
- Risk assessment
- Fermatean fuzzy environment
- AHP
- TOPSIS
- MABAC
- Multi-Criteria Decision-Making(MCDM)
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Contributors
Other Metrics
View Article Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
Total Citations
Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)0
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Other Metrics
View Author Metrics
Citations
View Options
View options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in
Full Access
Get this Publication
Media
Figures
Other
Tables
