Temporal-aware decision modeling for future energy planning based on complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy Aczel–Alsina CRITIC-WASPAS framework

  • Khurram Ali orcid

    Department of Mathematics and Statistics, International Islamic University Islamabad, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
  • Muhammad Shoaib Arif orcid

    Department of Mathematics and Sciences, College of Sciences and Humanities, Prince Sultan University, Riyadh 11586, Saudi Arabia
  • Tahir Mahmood orcid

    Department of Mathematics and Statistics, International Islamic University Islamabad, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan; Department of Mathematics, University of Management and Technology, Lahore 54700, Pakistan
  • Hafiz Muhammad Waqas orcid

    Department of Mathematics and Statistics, International Islamic University Islamabad, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
  • Kamaleldin Abodayeah orcid

    Department of Mathematics and Sciences, College of Sciences and Humanities, Prince Sultan University, Riyadh 11586, Saudi Arabia
Article ID: 4690
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59400/adecp4690
Keywords: energy planning; complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets; Aczel–Alsina aggregation operators; CRITIC-WASPAS framework

Abstract

The increasing global demand for energy, environmental concerns, and rapid technological advancements have made future energy planning a challenging multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem. The selection of appropriate energy strategies requires simultaneously considering economic, environmental, technological, and policy-related factors under uncertain and evolving conditions. Conventional MCDM approaches are often inadequate for handling complex uncertainty and temporal variations in decision information. To address these challenges, this study proposes a Temporal-Aware Complex q-Rung Orthopair Fuzzy Aczel–Alsina CRITIC-WASPAS (Cq-ROF-AA-CRITIC-WASPAS) framework for future energy planning. The proposed framework employs Cq-ROFSs to represent uncertain decision information, while the proposed Aczel–Alsina aggregation operators effectively fuse temporal decision matrices by assigning greater importance to recent evaluations. The Criteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation (CRITIC) method objectively determines attribute weights by considering contrast intensity and inter-criteria correlation, whereas the Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment (WASPAS) method ranks the energy alternatives through a hybrid additive-multiplicative evaluation strategy. A hypothetical future energy planning case study is presented to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed mathematical model using evaluation criteria related to economic viability, environmental sustainability, technological preparedness, energy security, and policy flexibility. Furthermore, comparative and sensitivity analyses are conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and stability of the proposed framework. The obtained results demonstrate that the proposed framework provides a flexible and systematic approach for handling complex uncertainty and temporal decision information, offering reliable decision support for future energy planning and other uncertain MCDM applications.

Published
2026-08-28
How to Cite
Ali, K., Arif, M. S., Mahmood, T., Waqas, H. M., & Abodayeah, K. (2026). Temporal-aware decision modeling for future energy planning based on complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy Aczel–Alsina CRITIC-WASPAS framework. Advances in Differential Equations and Control Processes, 33(3). https://doi.org/10.59400/adecp4690
Issue
Vol. 33 No. 3 (2026): In Progress
Section
Article (This article belongs to the Special Issue "Generalized Fuzzy Structures in Decision Analysis and in Differential Equations")

Copyright (c) 2026 Khurram Ali, Muhammad Shoaib Arif, Tahir Mahmood, Hafiz Muhammad Waqas, Kamaleldin Abodayeah

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

References

[1]Prasad RD, Bansal RC, Raturi A. Multi-faceted energy planning: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2014; 38: 686–699. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.021

[2]Aryanpur V, Atabaki MS, Marzband M, et al. An overview of energy planning in Iran and transition pathways towards sustainable electricity supply sector. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2019; 112: 58–74. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2019.05.047

[3]Tsangas M, Papamichael I, Zorpas AA. Sustainable energy planning in a new situation. Energies. 2023; 16(4): 1626. doi: 10.3390/en16041626

[4]Neves AR, Leal V, Lourenço JC. A methodology for sustainable and inclusive local energy planning. Sustainable Cities and Society. 2015; 17: 110–121. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2015.04.005

[5]Ferrari S, Zagarella F, Caputo P, et al. Assessment of tools for urban energy planning. Energy. 2019; 176: 544–551. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2019.04.054

[6]Mahbub MS, Viesi D, Cattani S, et al. An innovative multi-objective optimization approach for long-term energy planning. Applied Energy. 2017; 208: 1487–1504. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.245

[7]Mohseni S, Brent AC. Long-term planning optimisation of sustainable energy systems: A systematic review and meta-analysis of trends, drivers, barriers, and prospects. Energy Strategy Reviews. 2025; 57: 101640. doi: 10.1016/j.esr.2025.101640

[8]Bogia S, Saini RK, Saini DK, et al. Energy and climate nexus: A systematic review of challenges, solutions, and future directions. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2026; 234: 116896. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2026.116896

[9]Wiest G, Nolzen N, Baader F, et al. Low-regret strategies for energy systems planning in a highly uncertain future. Cell Reports Sustainability. 2026; 3(2): 100585. doi: 10.1016/j.crsus.2025.100585

[10]Zhou H, Yang RG. Critical dimensions in strengthening education and instructor training using fuzzy based decision algorithm and CRITIC WASPAS method. Scientific Reports. 2025; 15(1): 28701. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-12393-w

[11]Çolak M, Kaya İ. Prioritization of renewable energy alternatives by using an integrated fuzzy MCDM model: A real case application for Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2017; 80: 840–853. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.194

[12]Dursun M, Karsak EE. A fuzzy MCDM approach for personnel selection. Expert Systems with Applications. 2010; 37(6): 4324–4330. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2009.11.067

[13]Tsaur SH, Chang TY, Yen CH. The evaluation of airline service quality by fuzzy MCDM. Tourism Management. 2002; 23(2): 107–115. doi: 10.1016/S0261-5177(01)00050-4

[14]Deb PP, Bhattacharya D, Chatterjee I, et al. An intuitionistic fuzzy consensus WASPAS method for assessment of open-source software learning management systems. Informatica. 2023; 34(3): 529–556. doi: 10.15388/23-INFOR523

[15]Senapati T, Chen G, Yager RR. Aczel–Alsina aggregation operators and their application to intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute decision making. International Journal of Intelligent Systems. 2022; 37(2): 1529–1551. doi: 10.1002/int.22684

[16]Alkan N, Kahraman C. Continuous intuitionistic fuzzy CRITIC & WASPAS: Smart city evaluation. In: Kahraman C, Cevik Onar S, Cebi S, et al. (editors). Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems: INFUS 2024. Springer; 2024. Volume 1088, pp. 725–734. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-70018-7_80

[17]Fahmi A, Khan A, Maqbool Z, et al. Circular intuitionistic fuzzy Hamacher aggregation operators for multi-attribute decision-making. Scientific Reports. 2025; 15(1): 5618. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-88845-0

[18]Wang P, Zhu B, Yan K, et al. Power aggregation operators based on Aczel–Alsina T-norm and T-conorm for intuitionistic hesitant fuzzy information and their application to logistics service provider selection. Artificial Intelligence Review. 2025; 58(7): 204. doi: 10.1007/s10462-025-11155-4

[19]Lai YD, Chang KH. A novel pythagorean fuzzy stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis approach for group decision-making under heterogeneous information conditions. Systems. 2026; 14(6): 640. doi: 10.3390/systems14060640

[20]Haq IU, Shaheen T, Ali W, et al. A novel SIR approach to closeness coefficient-based MAGDM problems using Pythagorean fuzzy Aczel–Alsina aggregation operators for investment policy. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society. 2022; 2022(1): 5172679. doi: 10.1155/2022/5172679

[21]Hussain A, Ullah K, Alshahrani MN, et al. Novel Aczel–Alsina operators for Pythagorean fuzzy sets with application in multi-attribute decision making. Symmetry. 2022; 14(5): 940. doi: 10.3390/sym14050940

[22]Hussain A, Latif S, Ullah K, et al. Pythagorean fuzzy Aczel–Alsina Hamy mean aggregation operators and its applications to multi-attribute decision-making process. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems. 2024; 46(2): 3141–3171. doi: 10.3233/JIFS-232691

[23]Gurmani SH, Rasool Z, Ali R, et al. Linguistic Pythagorean fuzzy Aczel–Alsina aggregation operators and their application in multi-attribute group decision-making: An approach for smart city development. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence. 2025; 156: 111215. doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2025.111215

[24]Fahmi A, Ahmed R, Aslam M, et al. Disaster decision-making with a mixing regret philosophy DDAS method in Fermatean fuzzy number. AIMS Mathematics. 2023; 8(2): 3860–3884.

[25]Khan MR, Wang H, Ullah K, et al. Construction material selection by using multi-attribute decision making based on q-rung orthopair fuzzy Aczel–Alsina aggregation operators. Applied Sciences. 2022; 12(17): 8537. doi: 10.3390/app12178537

[26]Ali W, Shaheen T, Haq IU, et al. A novel generalization of q-rung orthopair fuzzy Aczel–Alsina aggregation operators and their application in wireless sensor networks. Sensors. 2023; 23(19): 8105. doi: 10.3390/s23198105

[27]Senapati T, Martínez L, Chen G. Selection of appropriate global partner for companies using q-rung orthopair fuzzy Aczel–Alsina average aggregation operators. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems. 2023; 25(3): 980–996. doi: 10.1007/s40815-022-01417-6

[28]Ali S, Ali A, Azim AB, et al. Utilizing aggregation operators based on q-rung orthopair neutrosophic soft sets and their applications in multi-attributes decision making problems. Heliyon. 2024; 10(15): e35059. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e35059

[29]Rahim M, Abosuliman SS, Alroobaea R, et al. Cosine similarity and distance measures for p, q-quasirung orthopair fuzzy sets: Applications in investment decision-making. Heliyon. 2024; 10(11): e32107. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e32107

[30]Ali J, Al-Kenani AN, Syam MI. Prioritized Aczel–Alsina aggregation operators under p, q-quasirung orthopair fuzzy environment for sustainable supplier selection in new energy vehicle industry. Scientific Reports. 2026; 16(1): 268. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-29432-1

[31]Kaya T, Kahraman C. Multicriteria decision making in energy planning using a modified fuzzy TOPSIS methodology. Expert Systems with Applications. 2011; 38(6): 6577–6585. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.11.081

[32]Abdullah L, Najib L. Sustainable energy planning decision using the intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: Choosing energy technology in Malaysia. International Journal of Sustainable Energy. 2016; 35(4): 360–377. doi: 10.1080/14786451.2014.907292

[33]Cajot S, Mirakyan A, Koch A, et al. Multicriteria decisions in urban energy system planning: A review. Frontiers in Energy Research. 2017; 5: 10. doi: 10.3389/fenrg.2017.00010

[34]Diakoulaki D, Antunes CH, Gomes Martins A. MCDA and energy planning. In: Figueira JR, Greco S, Ehrgott M (editors). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. Springer; 2005. Volume 78, pp. 859–890. doi: 10.1007/0-387-23081-5_21

[35]Ahmmad J, Mahmood T, Pamucar D, et al. A novel complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy Yager aggregation operators and their applications in environmental engineering. Heliyon. 2025; 11(1): e41668. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e41668

[36]Aczél J, Alsina C. Characterizations of some classes of quasilinear functions with applications to triangular norms and to synthesizing judgements. Aequationes Mathematicae. 1982; 25(1): 313–315. doi: 10.1007/BF02189626

[37]Stanujkić D, Karabašević D. An extension of the WASPAS method for decision-making problems with intuitionistic fuzzy numbers: A case of website evaluation. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications. 2018; 1(1): 29–39.

[38]Kahraman C, Cevik Onar S, Oztaysi B, et al. Selection among GSM operators using Pythagorean fuzzy WASPAS method. Journal of Multiple-Valued Logic & Soft Computing. 2019; 33(4–5): 459–469.

[39]Mardani A, Saberi S. Industry 4.0 adoption drivers for sustainable supply chain in the manufacturing sector using a hybrid decision-making approach under q-rung orthopair fuzzy information. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. 2024; 71: 12164–12181. doi: 10.1109/TEM.2023.3262961

[40]Liu P, Mahmood T, Ali Z. Complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy aggregation operators and their applications in multi-attribute group decision making. Information. 2020; 11(1): 5. doi: 10.3390/info11010005

[41]Pal B, Rahaman R, Sardar P, et al. A deep learning approach to model and predict tuberculosis in both diabetic smoker and non-smoker individuals using physics-informed neural networks. Nonlinear Science. 2025; 5: 100060. doi: 10.1016/j.nls.2025.100060

[42]Rahaman R, Pal B, Sardar P, et al. A machine learning approach to colon cancer modeling of intestinal epithelial cells using physics-informed neural networks. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Physik. 2026; 77(3): 91. doi: 10.1007/s00033-026-02735-7