Citation :

Dang Xuan Thao1, Nguyen Hong Son, Vo Thi Nhu Uyen, Bui Vinh Binh, Nguyen Chi Bao, Huynh Nhu Tan, "Selecting an Optimal Alternative by Constructing a Regression Model for Each Option," International Journal of Mechanical Engineering, vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 44-55, 2026. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.14445/23488360/IJME-V13I9P103

Abstract

Optimization for identifying the best solution is a pivotal technique that has garnered significant attention from the scientific community. It plays a decisive role in enhancing system efficiency, particularly across multidisciplinary engineering sectors such as mechanical, medical, environmental, food, and chemical engineering... This study introduces a novel approach to selecting the optimal alternative from a set of available options. For each alternative, a unique regression model is constructed to represent the relationship between its value and the evaluation criteria. The Design of Experiments (DOE) methodology is employed to build an experimental matrix, where each evaluation criterion for the alternatives is treated as an input parameter for the experimental process. The score for each alternative is calculated using the PSI method, a multi-objective optimization technique that does not require weighting the criteria. The use of DOE allows the proposed method to quickly rank alternatives when the number of options changes (increases or decreases). A notable advantage is that the proposed method can swiftly identify the optimal alternative even when a new option is added whose criteria values fall outside the range of existing alternatives’ criteria values. This is a significant superiority over all current methods. The proposed method is applied to three numerical examples and subsequently to a typical example in the field of chemical extraction. All tests were rigorously evaluated by comparing the proposed method with other existing methods, thereby confirming the validity of the proposed approach.

Keywords

Multi-objective optimization, MCDM, DOE, PSI, Extraction.

References

1. Alptekin Ulutaş et al., “A New Hybrid Fuzzy PSI-PIPRECIA-COCOSO MCDM Based Approach to Solving the Transportation Company Selection Problem,” Technological and Economic Development of Economy, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 1227-1249, 2021.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
2. Sarbast Moslem et al., “A Fuzzy Decision-Making Support Model for Traffic Safety Analysis,” Expert Systems, vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 1-16, 2025.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
3. Meltem Aslantas, Fatma Kutlu Gündoğdu, and Sarbast Moslem, “Evaluating the Potential Risks Posed by Autonomous Vehicles by Using a Decomposed Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model,” Transportation Engineering, vol. 21, 2025.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
4. Weiwen Wang et al., “Optimizing Accounting and Auditing Principles: A Fuzzy MCDM Approach to Ranking Key Influencing Factors,” IEEE Access, vol. 13, pp. 138429-138448, 2025.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
5. Feng Feng et al., “Multiple Attribute Decision Making using an Enhanced Complex Proportional Assessment Method based on Probabilistic Generalized Orthopair Fuzzy Soft Sets,” Granular Computing, vol. 9, no. 2, 2024.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
6. Do Duc Trung et al., “Development of RAMDOE: A New Method for Rapidly Ranking Alternatives with Supplementary Options and Considering Changes in Criteria Values,” Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, vol. 2 no. 4 (128), pp. 6-12, 2024.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
7. Duc Trung Do, and Ngoc Tan Tran et al., “Combination of DOE and PIV Methods for Multi-Criteria Decision Making,” Journal of Applied Engineering Science, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 361-373, 2023.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
8. Duc Trung Doa et al., “DOE-MARCOS: A New Approach to Multi-Criteria Decision Making,” Journal of Applied Engineering Science, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 263-274, 2023.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
9. Do Duc Trung et al., “Combining DOE and EDAS Methods for Multi-criteria Decision Making,” 32^nd International Conference on Organization and Technology of Maintenance (OTO 2023), pp. 210-227, 2024.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
10. Kalpesh Maniya, and M.G. Bhatt, “A Selection of Material using a Novel Type Decision-making Method: Preference Selection Index Method,” Materials & Design, vol. 31, no. 4,  pp. 1785-1789, 2010.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
11. Maja Stanujkic et al., “Approach to the Personnel Selection Process in a Group Decision-Making Environment based on the PSI Method,” MEFKON23, International Scientific & Professional Conference, Belgrade, Serbia, pp. 26-32, 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Mohammed Said Obeidat, Wiam Ababneh, and Nader Al Theeb et al., “The Preference Selection Index Performance in Large Alternatives’ Decisions to Support the AHP: The Case of a University Selection,” Journal Of Applied Research And Technology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 56-72, 2023.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
13. Wardany Rizky Nabila, “A Study Comparative of PSI, PSI-TOPSIS, and PSI-MABAC Methods in Analyzing the Financial Performance of State-Owned Enterprises Companies Listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange,” Yugoslav Journal of Operations Research, vol. 35 no. 2, pp. 313-330, 2025.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
14. Do Duc Trung, “A Combination Method for Multi-Criteria Decision Making Problem in Turning Process,” Manufacturing Review, vol. 8, pp. 1-17, 2021.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
15. S.L.C. Ferreira et al. “Box-Behnken Design: An Alternative for the Optimization of Analytical Methods,” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 597, no. 2, pp. 179-186, 2007.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
16. N. Szpisják-Gulyás et al., “Methods for Experimental Design, Central Composite Design and the Box–Behnken Design, to Optimise Operational Parameters: A Review,” Acta Alimentaria, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 521-537, 2023.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
17. Jeevitha Kannan, Vimala Jayakumar, and Mahalakshmi Pethaperumal, “Advanced Fuzzy-Based Decision-Making: The Linear Diophantine Fuzzy CODAS Method for Logistic Specialist Selection,” Spectrum of Operational Research, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 41-60, 2025.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
18. Takaaki Fujita, “The Hyperfuzzy VIKOR and Hyperfuzzy DEMATEL Methods for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making,” Spectrum of Decision Making Applications,  vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 292-315, 2026.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
19. Do Duc Trung et al. “Comparison of MCDM Methods Effectiveness in the Selection of Plastic Injection Molding Machines,” Teknomekanik, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1-19, 2024.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
20. Bartłomiej Kizielewicz, and Aleksandra Bączkiewicz, “Comparison of Fuzzy TOPSIS, Fuzzy VIKOR, Fuzzy WASPAS and Fuzzy MMOORA Methods in the Housing Selection Problem,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 192, pp. 4578-4591, 2021.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
21. Miloslav Linda, Miroslav Müller, and Rostislav Chotěborský et al., “Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of Samples Printed by FDM Method,” Manufacturing Technology, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 56-60, 2014.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
22. Mehdi Keshavarz-Ghorabaee et al., “Multi-Criteria Personnel Evaluation and Selection Using an Objective Pairwise Adjusted Ratio Analysis (OPARA),” Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 23-45, 2024.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
23. Thi Thu Trang Bui, and Duc Trung Do, “Comparing Novel Multi-Objective Optimization Methodologies,” Journal of Mechanical Engineering, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 17-38, 2026.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]