International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications (IJISA)
IJISA Vol. 18, No. 3, 8 Jun. 2026
Cover page and Table of Contents: PDF (size: 2355KB)
A Fuzzy Decision Framework for High-Dimensional Course Selection
PDF (2355KB), PP.141-172
Views: 0 Downloads: 0
Author(s)
Alican Dogan
1,*
Umut Aydin
2
Index Terms
Spherical Fuzzy Sets, Dimensionality Reduction, Elective Course Selection, Autoencoder, Multi-Criteria Decision-Making
Abstract
In this study, a novel decision support model integrating spherical fuzzy sets enhanced with autoencoder-based dimensionality reduction, MEREC weighting, and CODAS ranking methods is proposed for high-dimensional, uncertain multi-criteria decision problems. The spherical fuzzy set structure allows decision makers to express their evaluations using three levels of membership (membership, non-membership, and hesitation). Thus, it produces linguistic evaluations appropriately to the nature of uncertainty. In the numerical analysis, five elective courses, Python Programming, Java Programming, C# Console Programming, Visual Programming with C#, and Web-Based Programming, were evaluated based on 41 selection criteria. The latent structures among these criteria were analyzed using the Autoencoder architecture, yielding 17 latent features with a reconstruction mean squared error of 0.016 as determined by an elbow-based reconstruction loss analysis, indicating negligible information loss beyond this dimension. The weights for these dimensions were objectively calculated using the MEREC method, which is based on the distinctiveness of each dimension in the decision process. The CODAS method was applied to rank the courses and provide decision support using the calculated weights. In the final stage, a comprehensive sensitivity analysis was performed to test the impact of changes in both dimension weights and decision-maker weights on the results Sensitivity analysis further confirmed the robustness of the proposed framework, with the top-ranked alternative preserved under ±10% criteria weight perturbations. The numerical results illustrate the practical applicability of the proposed framework and validate its effectiveness in handling complex evaluation structures. Although the proposed framework is demonstrated through a programming course selection problem, the methodology is generic and can be readily applied to other complex decision-making scenarios involving high-dimensional, uncertain, and interrelated criteria.
Cite This Paper
Alican Doğan, Umut Aydın, "A Fuzzy Decision Framework for High-Dimensional Course Selection", International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications(IJISA), Vol.18, No.3, pp.141-172, 2026. DOI:10.5815/ijisa.2026.03.10
Reference
[1]A. Hashemi, M. B. Dowlatshahi, S. Farshidi, and P. Moradi. AE-MCDM: An autoencoder-based multi-criteria decision-making approach for unsupervised feature selection. Soft Computing, [In press], 2025.
[2]M. Tao and X. Wang. An integrated MCDM model for sustainable course planning: An empirical case study in accounting education. Sustainability, 15(6):5024, 2023.
[3]L. W. Hoe, L. W. Siew, L. K. Fai, and W. S. Cheong. Data-driven decision analysis on the selection of course programmes with AHP-TOPSIS model. International Journal of Supply Chain Management, 7(4):202–208, 2018.
[4]A. Rahayu. Decision support system for elective course selection using the TOPSIS method. Journal of Intelligent Decision Support System (IDSS), 3(2):62–68, 2020.
[5]M. Al-Sarem. Solving course selection problem by a combination of correlation analysis and Analytic Hierarchy Process. International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, 7(6):3536, 2017.
[6]F. Maringe. University and course choice: Implications for positioning, recruitment and marketing. International Journal of Educational Management, 20(6):466–479, 2006.
[7]R. I. Sabir, W. Ahmad, R. U. Ashraf, and N. Ahmad. Factors affecting university and course choice: A comparison of undergraduate engineering and business students in Central Punjab, Pakistan. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 3(10):298–305, 2013.
[8]G. H. Koksalmis. Factors affecting selection of elective courses: The use of multi-criteria decision making model. Journal of Business Administration Research, 1(1):1–7, 2018.
[9]Ş. Kırış. AHP and multichoice goal programming integration for course planning. International Transactions in Operational Research, 21(5):819–833, 2014.
[10]D. Devi, R. Dhanalakshmi, and D. Sivaraman. Sustainable supplier selection using picture fuzzy sets and MABAC method. Materials Today: Proceedings, 74:2032–2039, 2023.
[11]M. J. Aqel, M. A. Ahmad, F. M. Alkhateeb, and M. A. Ghazal. A novel spherical fuzzy TOPSIS method for sustainable supplier selection. Sustainability, 14(3):1187, 2022.
[12]S. K. Jena, S. S. Mahapatra, and S. Jena. An intuitionistic fuzzy EDAS method for evaluating resilient suppliers in post-pandemic scenario. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 162:107738, 2021.
[13]B. Sarkar, S. S. Mahapatra, and S. Sahoo. An integrated q-ROF MCDM approach for cloud service selection. Journal of King Saud University – Computer and Information Sciences, 32(9):1040–1048, 2020.
[14]S. Chakraborty and P. Chatterjee. A hesitant fuzzy rough WASPAS method for personnel selection. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 101:104211, 2021.
[15]H. Garg and M. Rani. A novel approach for solving MCDM problems with picture fuzzy information based on CoCoSo method. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 37(2):2385–2395, 2019.
[16]A. Kumar, A. Prakash, and H. Kaur. Grey relational analysis for selection of COVID-19 diagnostic tools using PCA. Decision Analytics Journal, 2:100018, 2022.
[17]D. K. Panda and A. Sreekumar. Sustainable energy planning using entropy and VIKOR under crisp data. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 47:101494, 2021.
[18]C. Thirumalai and P. Sinha. A combined PCA and CoCoSo methodology for evaluating ERP systems. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 130:597–610, 2019.
[19]Z. Lin, C. Ding, and Y. Hu. A novel orthogonal clustering-based unsupervised feature selection. Knowledge-Based Systems, 212:106554, 2021.
[20]J. Wang, J. Sun, H. Zhang, and D. Kong. Dependence guided unsupervised feature selection. Knowledge-Based Systems, 215:106764, 2021.
[21]W. Zhu, C. Ding, and Y. Zhao. Feature selection via regularized self-representation optimization. Information Sciences, 546:924–941, 2021.
[22]J. Huang, Q. Wang, L. T. Yang, Z. Zhang, and Y. Ding. A subspace clustering and adaptive feature selection algorithm for high-dimensional data. Information Sciences, 560:189–206, 2021.
[23]V. Beiranvand, A. Kazemi, A. M. Rahmani, and M. Yaghmaee. A hybrid feature selection approach based on PCA and bipartite graph matching. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 12:5619–5633, 2021.
[24]X. Yang and Z. Chen. An application of dimensionality reduction and visualization techniques for assessing water resources management alternatives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 472:143417, 2024.
[25]K. Saranya and A. Valarmathi. A multilayer deep autoencoder approach for cross layer IoT attack detection using deep learning algorithms. Scientific Reports, 15:10246, 2025.
[26]A. Menekşe and H. C. Akdağ. Medical waste disposal planning for healthcare units using spherical fuzzy CRITIC-WASPAS. Applied Soft Computing, 144:110480, 2023.
[27]T. Aydın and A. B. Şahin. Perspectives of the dental educators with regard to online education. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal, 26(1):54–62, 2023.
[28]D. F. Blake, C. R. Gibbs, K. H. Commons, and L. H. Brown. Middle ear barotrauma in a tourist-oriented, condensed open-water diver certification course: Incidence and effect of language of instruction. Undersea & Hyperbaric Medicine, 45(3):176–180, 2015.
[29]A. Alborch, S. Pandiella, and J. Benegas. Active learning of geometrical optics in high school: The ALOP approach. Physics Education, 52(5):055005, 2017.
[30]Y. Li, S. Li, C. Wei, and J. Liu. How students’ friendship network affects their GPA ranking: A data-driven approach linking friendship with daily behaviour. Information Technology & People, 33(2):535–553, 2020.
[31]M. Caramia and S. Giordani. Curriculum-based course timetabling with student flow, soft constraints, and smoothing objectives: An application to a real case study. Operations Research Forum, 1(2):11, 2020.
[32]K. A. Babb and C. Ross. The timing of online lecture slide availability and its effect on attendance, participation, and exam performance. Computers & Education, 52(4):868–881, 2009.
[33]S. Silvanto, J. Ryan, and V. Gupta. A study of the impact of business education on global career mobility: An analysis of location and international orientation. Journal of International Education in Business, 10(1):31–48, 2017.
[34]G. Deltas and S. J. Evenett. Language as a trade barrier in public procurement: Evidence from Georgia’s policies on English language documentation. Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 99:101898, 2025.
[35]E. Delaney and M. Ashton. Does an attendance policy positively impact staff and student wellbeing? A case study exploring attitudes toward a University of Surrey attendance policy. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 36(3):205–215, 2024.
[36]S. Schick, L. Eberhard, L. Wettach, S. Fazeli, A. Heberle, R. Neumann, J. Miebach, S. Titz, J. Fuchs, S. Sen, C. Lux, and C. Frese. Development of a mobile app to optimize organization and assessment for clinical teaching in dentistry. E-Learning and Digital Media, 2024.
[37]A. M. Kalimullin and S. G. Dobrotvorskaya. Higher education marketing strategies based on factors impacting the enrollees’ choice of a university and an academic program. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(13):6025–6040, 2016.
[38]X. Zhang and F. Lu. Contradictory predictive power of prestigious universities on courses’ popularity and satisfaction: A preliminary analysis of massive open online courses (MOOCs) on journalism and communication. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, pages 355–359, 2022.
[39]V. V. Bracho Perez and A. Coso Strong. Exploring the effects of learning assistants on instructional team–student interactions in statics. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education, 51(4):294–318, 2023.
[40]A. Kumar, A. Prakash, and R. K. Singh. Sustainable supplier selection using Pythagorean fuzzy TOPSIS approach with PCA. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(7):6535–6552, 2020.