Table 1.
Comparative analysis with existing operators.
| g 1 | g 2 | g 3 | g 4 | g 5 | g 6 | Alternatives ranking | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rathika and Subramanian [40] | 4.4 | 0.4 | 1.1 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.3 | g 1 > g3 > g4 > g2 > g6 > g5 |
| Rajarajeswari and Dhanalakshmi [29] | 4.3 | −0.2 | 0.8 | 0.3 | −0.3 | 0.3 | g 1 > g3 > g4=g6 > g2 > g5 |
| Borah et al. [41] | 2.04 | 0.64 | 0.66 | 0.51 | 0.52 | 0.44 | g 1 > g3 > g2 > g5 > g4 > g6 |
| Rathika et al. [42] | 2.7 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | g 1 > g3 > g4 > g2=g5=g6 |
| Chetia and Das [43] | 4.9 | 3.6 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 4.0 | 3.8 | g 1 > g4 > g3=g5 > g6 > g2 |
| Proposed approach | 3.11 | 1.21 | 0.35 | 0.15 | 0.85 | 0.68 | g 1 > g2 > g5 > g6 > g3 > g4 |