. 2021 Oct 25;14(6):6919–6946. doi: 10.1007/s12652-021-03550-w

Table 6.

The comparison with the existing aggregation operators

Method	Criteria Weight	Parameter	Score Function	Ranking Order
HBNA	No	No	$s (A_{1}) = 0.585, s (A_{2}) = 0.704,$ $s (A_{3}) = 0.633, s (A_{4}) = 0.735$	$A_{4} > A_{2} > A_{3} > A_{1}$
HBNG	No	No	$s (A_{1}) = 0.528, s (A_{2}) = 0.664,$ $s (A_{3}) = 0.603, s (A_{4}) = 0.658$	$A_{2} > A_{4} > A_{3} > A_{1}$
HBNWA (Awang et al. 2019a,b)	Yes	No	$s (A_{1}) = 0.570, s (A_{2}) = 0.695,$ $s (A_{3}) = 0.629, s (A_{4}) = 0.727$	$A_{4} > A_{2} > A_{3} > A_{1}$
HBNWG (Awang et al. 2019a,b)	Yes	No	$s (A_{1}) = 0.477, s (A_{2}) = 0.629,$ $s (A_{3}) = 0.569, s (A_{4}) = 0.621$	$A_{2} > A_{4} > A_{3} > A_{1}$
HBN-BM	No	Yes	$s (A_{1}) = 0.554, s (A_{2}) = 0.677,$ $s (A_{3}) = 0.614, s (A_{4}) = 0.694$	$A_{4} > A_{2} > A_{3} > A_{1}$
GHBN-WA	Yes	Yes	$s (A_{1}) = 0.604, s (A_{2}) = 0.730,$ $s (A_{3}) = 0.670, s (A_{4}) = 0.757$	$A_{4} > A_{2} > A_{3} > A_{1}$
HBN-SNWBM (Proposed method)	Yes	Yes	$s (A_{1}) = 0.536, s (A_{2}) = 0.669,$ $s (A_{3}) = 0.609, s (A_{4}) = 0.682$	$A_{4} > A_{2} > A_{3} > A_{1}$