A Novel Approach of Integrating Natural Language Processing Techniques with Fuzzy TOPSIS for Product Evaluation
<p>The general framework for production design in this study.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Corpus preprocessing and Word2Vec.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>The skip-gram model [<a href="#B65-symmetry-14-00120" class="html-bibr">65</a>].</p> "> Figure 4
<p>The influence ranking of the form elements on three Kansei images. (<b>a</b>) Concise and simple; (<b>b</b>) personalized and fashionable; (<b>c</b>) dynamic and flexible.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>The influence ranking of the form elements.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Importance of the 19 indicators.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>The closeness of the 10 product solutions. (<b>a</b>) The closeness between solutions and the ideal solution. (<b>b</b>) The distance about optimal and worst solution.</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Ranking results of the sensitivity analysis.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Excavating the user’s Kansei information from network evaluation big data, and to use the natural language processing technology to introduce the user’s authentic evaluation information for the Kansei image, which can effectively avoid the deviation between expressed preferences and real emotional appeals in traditional consumer surveys.
- Extracting products with symmetrical cognitive information between designers and users, and to analyze the contribution degree between the core modeling items and Kansei intentions of the product, so that the selection of key product indicators is completed in a user-centric manner.
- Making reasonable evaluations based on user needs to determine the priority of alternative product schemes, so as to realize the optimization of multi-attribute decision-making for design schemes, and solves the uncertainty and subjective problem of design scheme evaluation in the group decision-making environment, so as to provide better theoretical support for the selection of the best production plan.
References | User Need | Kansei Features | Functional Features | Product Configuration | Market Segmentation | Production Innovation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
This paper | NLP | KE | Entropy | GRA, Fuzzy TOPSIS, FA | ||
Nagamachi [14] | KE | |||||
Nagamachi et al. [38] | KE | RST | ||||
Ghorbani et al. [39] | Fuzzy TOPSIS, FAHP | |||||
Bae and Kim [40] | ARM, DT | |||||
Wang [41] | KE | RST | CA, GRA | User preferences | ||
Stavrakos et al. [42] | Focus group | |||||
Wang and Wang [43] | Fuzzy Kano, Fuzzy AHP | Affordable prices | ||||
Wang [6] | KE | RST | FCRP | TRIZ | ||
Wang and Zhou [44] | Kano | EGM | IGA, Evaluation time | |||
Wang [45] | QFD, CPA | TRIZ | ||||
Hsiao et al. [46] | AHP | QT-I, GA, | ||||
Wang [7] | SD, KJ, K-means | GRA | SVR, ANN | |||
Shi et al. [47] | KE | RST, ARM | ||||
Lin et al. [48] | Focus group | Kano | Fuzzy QFD |
2. Review
2.1. GST
2.2. The Fuzzy TOPSIS
3. Method
- Initially, the product feature words are extracted through the natural language process, so as to analyze and mine accurate and real user Kansei image appeals, which could solve the disadvantages in traditional methods of data scale, data credit, data update, and collection efficiency. Consequently, the deviation between the preferences of consumer surveys and real preferences could be effectively reduced, thereby effectively improving the success rate of new product development.
- Then, in order to determine the difference in the perception of products between designer and customer, the SD method is used to quantify the emotion, and then the T-test method is used to compare the Kansei image scores of all samples from designers and customers, and then choose Pearson correlation analysis to obtain the product samples that meet not just the Kansei needs of users but also the emotional appeals of designers. Hence, such products are a high-quality product form with symmetrical cognitive preferences of users and designers.
- Thereafter, the grey relational analysis is utilized to quantitatively analyze the relationship between the user’s Kansei need and product styling feature factors. According to the experimental results, the contribution of the styling project can be explored, and then the product core styling evaluation project can be selected so as to effectively identify the main design elements that affect the product Kansei image.
- Finally, entropy and fuzzy TOPSIS are used to explore the final ranking of the sample plans effectively, to then evaluate and optimize the product form development scheme. Due to the vagueness and uncertainty of emotional information, the fuzzy TOPSIS evaluation method is used to reduce the subjectivity and complexity of the decision-makers’ evaluation for product form schemes, so as to minimize the impact of users’ personal subjective factors on the results, and thus making the evaluation results more precise.
3.1. Natural Language Processing
3.2. Grey Relational Analysis
3.3. The Fuzzy TOPSIS
3.4. Information Entropy
4. Case Study
4.1. Construction of the Semantic Space of Product Modeling
4.2. Extraction of Key Semantic Features
4.3. Comparison of Cognitive Preferences between Designers and Users
4.4. Designer and User Emotion Matching Analysis
4.5. Analyzing the Influence Ranking of the Product Components
4.6. Product form Evaluation Index Construction
4.7. Computing the Importance of Indicators
4.8. Product Priority Decision-Making
4.9. Sensitivity Analysis
5. Discussion and Conclusions
- In order to meet the needs of users and speed up the product development process, this research proposes a user-driven automated product design framework that integrates text mining and KE to extract products with symmetrical cognitive information between users and designers, and then to help the company and designer to better complete the product customization and decision-making.
- For capturing customers’ perception of a product’s emotional characteristics effectively, a product Kansei image acquisition method based on user network review data is proposed, as well as to mine the users’ real evaluation Kansei information from the network review big data in a faster way so as to break away from the interview and questionnaire methods in traditional KE, and to establish a more efficient Kansei design way.
- Parameterization of the Kansei vocabulary semantic vector through artificial intelligence technology of NLP can effectively avoid the deviation between the real preferences and preferences shown in traditional questionnaire surveys, while saving research time so that designers can perform related value-added work, consequently achieving symmetry between the extracted needs and the real needs of users.
- Utilizing GRA to identify the associated features between the user’s preferred modeling elements and the Kansei image can predict the importance priority of each design element for the product.
- Introducing fuzzy theory into the TOPSIS method and using the transformation scale can convert the linguistic variables into triangular fuzzy numbers. Using fuzzy logic can solve the problem of the uncertainty and ambiguity of human thinking, so the accuracy of the experimental results is improved. Thus, the subjectivity of judgment can be avoided.
- Adopting a T-test and correlation analysis, the products that fit the psychological preference factors of designers and users are extracted precisely, so as to realize the symmetry between the designer and the user’s cognitive information.
- The current system only collects information from online reviews of e-commerce platforms, which is limited. We should try from more dimensions, and other information extracted from sources such as consumer reports and social media should be included so as to explore the customer need factors from more comprehensive dimensions.
- The method used in this research is to make decision of the design plan based on the evaluation of existing products in the market. However, there are differences between the conceptual evaluation results of the marketed product and the actual product design plan. In the future, the product evaluation and decision-making in the design concept stage should be explored.
- What is more, it is necessary to collect and classify more background information from online customers to provide a research path for market segmentation and personalized development and design of products.
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Liu, C.-Y.; Tong, L.-I. Developing Automatic Form and Design System Using Integrated Grey Relational Analysis and Affective Engineering. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jung, H.; Wiltse, H.; Wiberg, M.; Stolterman, E. Metaphors, materialities, and affordances: Hybrid morphologies in the design of interactive artifacts. Des. Stud. 2017, 53, 24–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuang, J.; Jiang, P. Product platform design for a product family based on Kansei engineering. J. Eng. Des. 2009, 20, 589–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiao, J.; Zhang, Y.; Helander, M. A Kansei mining system for affective design. Expert Syst. Appl. 2006, 30, 658–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, M.; Bai, Z. Product color emotional design adaptive to product shape feature variation. Color Res. Appl. 2019, 44, 811–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.-H. Combining rough set theory with fuzzy cognitive pairwise rating to construct a novel framework for developing multi-functional tablets. J. Eng. Des. 2018, 29, 430–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, K.-C. A hybrid Kansei engineering design expert system based on grey system theory and support vector regression. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 8738–8750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, F.; Li, F.; Nagamachi, M.; Hu, M.; Li, M. Research on color optimization of tricolor product considering color harmony and users’ emotion. Color Res. Appl. 2019, 45, 156–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, W.M.; Wang, J.W.; Li, Z.; Tian, Z.G.; Tsui, E. Multiple affective attribute classification of online customer product reviews: A heuristic deep learning method for supporting Kansei engineering. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2019, 85, 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, A.; Xiao, Y.; Lu, H.; Tsai, S.-B.; Song, W. A fuzzy three-stage multi-attribute decision-making approach based on customer needs for sustainable supplier selection. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 239, 118043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, G.-N.; Hu, J.; Ren, H. A fuzzy rough number-based AHP-TOPSIS for design concept evaluation under uncertain environments. Appl. Soft Comput. 2020, 91, 106228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, X.; Ritter, S.C.; Miller, S.R. How Concept Selection Tools Impact the Development of Creative Ideas in Engineering Design Education. J. Mech. Des. 2018, 140, 052002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dong, A.; Lovallo, D.; Mounarath, R. The effect of abductive reasoning on concept selection decisions. Des. Stud. 2015, 37, 37–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagamachi, M. Kansei Engineering: A new ergonomic consumer-oriented technology for product development. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 1995, 15, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagamachi, M. Kansei Engineering and Rough Sets Model. In Proceedings of the Rough Sets and Current Trends in Computing, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference, RSCTC 2006, Kobe, Japan, 6–8 November 2006; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2006; pp. 27–37. [Google Scholar]
- Xue, L.; Yi, X.; Zhang, Y. Research on Optimized Product Image Design Integrated Decision System Based on Kansei Engineering. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ahmed, W.B.; Yannou, B. A Bayesian learning of probabilistic relations between perceptual attributes and technical characteristics of car dashboards to construct a perceptual evaluation model. Int. J. Prod. Dev. 2009, 7, 47–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahin, A.; Javadi, M.H.M.; Shahrestani, H.V. Integrating Kansei engineering and revised Kano model with a case study in the automobile industry. Int. J. Product. Qual. Manag. 2014, 13, 201–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zabotto, C.N.; Amaral, D.C.; Hornos CJ, M.; Benze, B.G. Automatic digital mood boards to connect users and designers with kansei engineering. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2019, 74, 102829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schütte, S.T.W.; Eklund, J.; Axelsson, J.R.C.; Nagamachi, M. Concepts, methods and tools in Kansei engineering. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 2004, 5, 214–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shieh, M.-D.; Li, Y.; Yang, C.-C. Product Form Design Model Based on Multiobjective Optimization and Multicriteria Decision-Making. Math. Probl. Eng. 2017, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Seo, K.K.; Park, J.H.; Jang, D.S.; Wallace, D. Approximate Estimation of the Product Life Cycle Cost Using Artificial Neural Networks in Conceptual Design. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2002, 19, 461–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, M.; Jin, L.; Wang, J. A new MCDM method combining QFD with TOPSIS for knowledge management system selection from the user’s perspective in intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Appl. Soft Comput. 2014, 21, 28–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zadeh, L.A. Fuzzy Sets. Inf. Control 1965, 8, 338–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhai, L.Y.; Khoo, L.P.; Zhong, Z.W. Towards a QFD-based expert system: A novel extension to fuzzy QFD methodology using rough set theory. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37, 8888–8896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, G.-D.; Yamaguchi, D.; Nagai, M. A grey-based decision-making approach to the supplier selection problem. Math. Comput. Modell. 2007, 46, 573–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsai, H.-C.; Hsiao, S.-W.; Hung, F.-K. An image evaluation approach for parameter-based product form and color design. Comput.-Aided Des. 2006, 38, 157–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsiao, S.-W.; Lee, C.-H.; Chen, R.-Q.; Yen, C.-H. An intelligent system for fashion colour prediction based on fuzzy C-means and gray theory. Color Res. Appl. 2016, 42, 273–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.-C.; Huang, S.-Y. A new fuzzy concept approach for Kano’s model. Expert Syst. Appl. 2009, 36, 4479–4484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Z.; Tian, Z.G.; Wang, J.W.; Wang, W.M.; Huang, G.Q. Dynamic mapping of design elements and affective responses: A machine learning based method for affective design. J. Eng. Des. 2018, 29, 358–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, W.M.; Li, Z.; Tian, Z.G.; Wang, J.W.; Cheng, M.N. Extracting and summarizing affective features and responses from online product descriptions and reviews: A Kansei text mining approach. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2018, 73, 149–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsiao, Y.-H.; Chen, M.-C.; Liao, W.-C. Logistics service design for cross-border E-commerce using Kansei engineering with text-mining-based online content analysis. Telemat. Inform. 2017, 34, 284–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, S.; Kim, K.-Y. Facial configuration and BMI based personalized face and upper body modeling for customer-oriented wearable product design. Comput. Ind. 2010, 61, 559–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiao, Y.; Qu, Q.-X. A proposal for Kansei knowledge extraction method based on natural language processing technology and online product reviews. Comput. Ind. 2019, 108, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, J.; Ji, P.; Liu, Y.; Johnson Lim, S.C. Translating online customer opinions into engineering characteristics in QFD: A probabilistic language analysis approach. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2015, 41, 115–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Wang, W. Product weakness finder: An opinion-aware system through sentiment analysis. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2014, 114, 1301–1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiang, Z.; Schwartz, Z.; Gerdes, J.H.; Uysal, M. What can big data and text analytics tell us about hotel guest experience and satisfaction? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 44, 120–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagamachi, M.; Okazaki, Y.; Ishikawa, M. Kansei engineering and application of the rough sets model. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part I J. Syst. Control Eng. 2006, 220, 763–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghorbani, M.; Mohammad Arabzad, S.; Shahin, A. A novel approach for supplier selection based on the Kano model and fuzzy MCDM. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2013, 51, 5469–5484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bae, J.K.; Kim, J. Product development with data mining techniques: A case on design of digital camera. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 9274–9280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.-H. Integrating Kansei engineering with conjoint analysis to fulfil market segmentation and product customisation for digital cameras. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2015, 53, 2427–2438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stavrakos, S.K.; Ahmed-Kristensen, S.; Goldman, T. Using archetypes to create user panels for usability studies: Streamlining focus groups and user studies. Appl. Ergon. 2016, 56, 108–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, C.-H.; Wang, J. Combining fuzzy AHP and fuzzy Kano to optimize product varieties for smart cameras: A zero-one integer programming perspective. Appl. Soft Comput. 2014, 22, 410–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, T.; Zhou, M. A method for product form design of integrating interactive genetic algorithm with the interval hesitation time and user satisfaction. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2020, 76, 102901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.-H. Incorporating the concept of systematic innovation into quality function deployment for developing multi-functional smart phones. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2017, 107, 367–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsiao, S.-W.; Chiu, F.-Y.; Lu, S.-H. Product-form design model based on genetic algorithms. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2010, 40, 237–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, F.; Sun, S.; Xu, J. Employing rough sets and association rule mining in KANSEI knowledge extraction. Inf. Sci. 2012, 196, 118–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, L.-Z.; Yeh, H.-R.; Wang, M.-C. Integration of Kano’s model into FQFD for Taiwanese Ban-Doh banquet culture. Tour. Manag. 2015, 46, 245–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagpal, G.; Uddin, M.; Kaur, A. Grey Relational Effort Analysis Technique Using Regression Methods for Software Estimation. Int. Arab J. Inf. Technol. 2014, 11, 437–446. [Google Scholar]
- Wei, Y. Form Factors of Modeling Language Under Different Color Schemes with Grey Relational Analysis Based on Entropy Method. Int. J. Pattern Recognit. Artif. Intell. 2019, 33, 1950011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsiao, S.-W.; Lin, H.-H.; Ko, Y.-C. Application of Grey Relational Analysis to Decision-Making during Product Development. EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2017, 13, 2581–2600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lai, H.-H.; Lin, Y.-C.; Yeh, C.-H. Form design of product image using grey relational analysis and neural network models. Comput. Oper. Res. 2005, 32, 2689–2711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tzeng, G.-H.; Huang, J.-J. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications; CRC Press: Bota Raton, FL, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, C.-T.; Lin, C.-T.; Huang, S.-F. A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2006, 102, 289–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Şengül, Ü.; Eren, M.; Eslamian Shiraz, S.; Gezder, V.; Şengül, A.B. Fuzzy TOPSIS method for ranking renewable energy supply systems in Turkey. Renew. Energy 2015, 75, 617–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aydogan, E.K. Performance measurement model for Turkish aviation firms using the rough-AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 3992–3998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.-H. Incorporating customer satisfaction into the decision-making process of product configuration: A fuzzy Kano perspective. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2013, 51, 6651–6662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jolai, F.; Yazdian, S.A.; Shahanaghi, K.; Azari Khojasteh, M. Integrating fuzzy TOPSIS and multi-period goal programming for purchasing multiple products from multiple suppliers. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2011, 17, 42–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ravi kumar, V.; Raghuveer, K. Web User Opinion Analysis for Product Features Extraction and Opinion Summarization. Int. J. Web Semant. Technol. 2012, 3, 69–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sagara, T.; Hagiwara, M. Natural language neural network and its application to question-answering system. Neurocomputing 2014, 142, 201–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, B. Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining. Synth. Lect. Hum. Lang. Technol. 2012, 5, 1–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yadollahi, A.; Shahraki, A.G.; Zaiane, O.R. Current State of Text Sentiment Analysis from Opinion to Emotion Mining. ACM Comput. Surv. 2017, 50, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mikolov, T.; Chen, K.; Corrado, G.; Dean, J. Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space. arXiv 2013, arXiv:1301.3781. [Google Scholar]
- Chuan, C.-H.; Agres, K.; Herremans, D. From context to concept: Exploring semantic relationships in music with word2vec. Neural Comput. Appl. 2020, 32, 1023–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rong, X. Word2vec Parameter Learning Explained. arXiv 2016, arXiv:1411.2738. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, W.; Yoshida, T.; Tang, X. A comparative study of TF-IDF, LSI and multi-words for text classification. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 2758–2765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, F.; Yang, M.; Liu, W. Evaluation of automobile form design based on fuzzy TOPSIS. Comput. Integr. Manuf. Syst. 2014, 20, 276–283. [Google Scholar]
- Atkinson, D.; Baurley, S.; Petreca, B.B.; Berthouze, N.B.; Watkins, P. The tactile triangle: A design research framework demonstrated through tactile comparisons of textile materials. J. Des. Res. 2016, 14, 142–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Torri, L.; Dinnella, C.; Recchia, A.; Naes, T.; Tuorila, H.; Monteleone, E. Projective Mapping for interpreting wine aroma differences as perceived by naïve and experienced assessors. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 29, 6–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tani, Y.; Nagai, T.; Koida, K.; Kitazaki, M.; Nakauchi, S. Experts and novices use the same factors—But differently—To evaluate pearl quality. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e86400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Paasschen, J.; Bacci, F.; Melcher, D.P. The Influence of Art Expertise and Training on Emotion and Preference Ratings for Representational and Abstract Artworks. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0134241. [Google Scholar]
- Bahn, S.; Lee, C.; Nam, C.S.; Yun, M.H. Incorporating affective customer needs for luxuriousness into product design attributes. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. 2009, 19, 105–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kanai, H.; Morishima, M.; Nasu, K.; Nishimatsu, T.; Shibata, K.; Matsuoka, T. Identification of principal factors of fabric aesthetics by the evaluation from experts on textiles and from untrained consumers. Text. Res. J. 2011, 81, 1216–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, W.; Lee, Y.; Lee, J.H.; Shin, G.W.; Yun, M.H. A comparative study on designer and customer preference models of leather for vehicle. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2018, 65, 110–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poulami, D.; Debnath, B.; Kumar, B.S.; Tai-Hoon, K. Person Identification through IRIS Recognition. Int. J. Secur. Appl. 2009, 3, 163–178. [Google Scholar]
Rank | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Words | Coffee | Coffee machine | Capsule | Good | Attractiveness | taste | Like | cup |
W | 0.304 | 0.260 | 0.257 | 0.110 | 0.087 | 0.085 | 0.085 | 0.075 |
Rank | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
Words | Operation | Machine | Compact | delicious | Starbuck | Simple | Taste | Clean |
W | 0.067 | 0.066 | 0.063 | 0.058 | 0.058 | 0.053 | 0.052 | 0.050 |
⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ |
Rank | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 |
Words | Penguin | Sound | Fragrant | Unique | Evaluation | Convenient | Production | Activity |
W | 0.016 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.015 |
Rank | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 |
Words | Office | Poor | Father | Gift | Coffee shop | Form | Pleasure | Functional |
W | 0.015 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 |
Type | Kansei Words | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Users | Charm | Perfect | Quality | Beautiful | Simple |
Dexterous | Satisfied | Functional | Exquisite | Special | |
Delicate | Useful | Upright | Practical | Suitable | |
Cute | Fashionable | Designed | / | / | |
Designers | Convenient | Stylish | Soft | Plump | Technology |
Creative | Personality | / | / | / |
Kansei Words | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | … | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Charm | −0.177 | 0.191 | −0.087 | 0.064 | 0.089 | −0.054 | −0.001 | −0.036 | |
Perfect | −0.049 | 0.135 | −0.103 | 0.005 | … | −0.099 | −0.062 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
Quality | −0.092 | −0.130 | −0.072 | −0.152 | … | 0.085 | −0.142 | 0.113 | −0.032 |
Beautiful | −0.037 | 0.077 | −0.223 | 0.110 | … | −0.131 | −0.122 | −0.054 | 0.087 |
Simple | −0.082 | 0.111 | −0.161 | 0.136 | … | −0.078 | −0.274 | −0.025 | 0.017 |
Dexterous | 0.021 | 0.097 | −0.163 | 0.003 | … | −0.069 | −0.293 | 0.050 | 0.130 |
Satisfied | −0.148 | 0.054 | −0.160 | 0.020 | … | 0.035 | 0.049 | 0.024 | −0.076 |
Useful | −0.107 | 0.106 | −0.251 | 0.171 | … | −0.044 | −0.138 | −0.001 | −0.063 |
Exquisite | −0.127 | 0.119 | −0.171 | −0.020 | … | −0.081 | −0.211 | 0.063 | 0.030 |
⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ |
Fashionable | −0.039 | 0.137 | −0.155 | 0.089 | … | −0.072 | −0.179 | −0.086 | 0.025 |
Designed | −0.049 | 0.120 | −0.086 | 0.046 | … | −0.113 | −0.105 | −0.033 | 0.091 |
Personality | −0.029 | 0.070 | −0.036 | 0.042 | … | −0.024 | −0.012 | −0.040 | 0.047 |
Convenient | −0.022 | 0.132 | −0.137 | 0.091 | … | −0.101 | −0.157 | −0.017 | 0.041 |
Stylish | −0.035 | 0.069 | −0.074 | 0.049 | … | −0.057 | −0.013 | −0.026 | 0.054 |
Soft | −0.057 | 0.063 | −0.049 | 0.036 | … | −0.047 | 0.040 | −0.017 | 0.086 |
Plump | −0.057 | 0.081 | −0.033 | 0.061 | … | 0.006 | 0.026 | −0.018 | 0.018 |
Technology | −0.111 | 0.088 | −0.077 | 0.051 | … | −0.077 | 0.072 | −0.029 | 0.095 |
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy | 0.866 | |
---|---|---|
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity | Approx. Chi-Square | 9220.807 |
Df | 253 | |
Sig | 0.000 |
Kansei Words | Factor | ||
---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | |
Beautiful | 0.858 | 0.229 | 0.286 |
Simple | 0.699 | 0.340 | 0.494 |
Dexterous | 0.815 | 0.341 | 0.271 |
Exquisite | 0.852 | 0.331 | 0.247 |
Delicate | 0.799 | 0.293 | 0.281 |
Useful | 0.729 | 0.407 | 0.442 |
Upright | 0.708 | 0.348 | 0.562 |
Practical | 0.611 | 0.455 | 0.590 |
Cute | 0.759 | 0.436 | 0.115 |
Fashionable | 0.841 | 0.326 | 0.286 |
Designed | 0.849 | 0.407 | 0.204 |
Convenient | 0.676 | 0.469 | 0.415 |
Stylish | 0.580 | 0.750 | 0.212 |
Soft | 0.436 | 0.834 | 0.144 |
Plump | 0.200 | 0.875 | 0.367 |
Technology | 0.568 | 0.754 | 0.067 |
Suitable | 0.426 | 0.676 | 0.300 |
Personalized | 0.516 | 0.811 | 0.155 |
Quality | 0.442 | 0.370 | 0.561 |
Creative | −0.001 | −0.212 | 0.324 |
Satisfied | 0.441 | 0.424 | 0.682 |
Functional | 0.415 | 0.461 | 0.699 |
Special | 0.333 | 0.406 | 0.625 |
Percentage of variance | 72.089 | 5.882 | 4.735 |
Cumulative percentage | 72.089 | 77.972 | 82.706 |
Kansei word | Refined and concise | Personalized and fashionable | Dynamic and flexible |
Refined and concise | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | −1 | −2 | −3 | Complex and rough |
Personalized and fashionable | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | −1 | −2 | −3 | Conventional and traditional |
Dynamic and flexible | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | −1 | −2 | −3 | Stiff and stable |
Kansei Images | F | Significance | Degrees of Freedom | Sig. (Two-Tailed) | 95% Confidence Interval | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower Limit | Upper Limit | ||||||
Refined and concise | Assumed equal variance | 10.821 | 0.002 | 36 | 0.001 | −1.23975 | −0.35636 |
Not assumed equal variance | 22.763 | 0.001 | −1.24884 | −0.34727 |
Number of Categories | Category Style | Description |
---|---|---|
1 | C1 | Bionic type |
2 | C2 | Business type |
3 | C3 | Office type |
4 | C4 | Cartoon type |
5 | C5 | Dexterous type |
Sample | Product Description | High Related Category | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | ||
No.4 | 0.998 b | C3 | ||||
No.5 | 0.998 b | C2 | ||||
No.8 | 0.954 b | C1 | ||||
No.10 | 0.982 b | C4 | ||||
No.11 | −0.998 b | C2 | ||||
No.13 | 0.977 b | C5 | ||||
No.15 | 0.998 b | C2 | ||||
No.19 | 1.000 b | C1 |
Picture | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sample | 4 | 5 | 8 | 10 | 13 | 15 | 19 |
Item | Design Element Category Display | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Top cover | Other | ||||||
X1 | X11 | X12 | X13 | X14 | X15 | X16 | X17 |
Body | |||||||
X2 | X21 | X22 | X23 | X24 | X25 | ||
Waste water tray | |||||||
X3 | X31 | X32 | X33 | ||||
Bottom seat | Other | ||||||
X4 | X41 | X42 | X43 | X44 | |||
Water tank | Other | ||||||
X5 | X51 | X52 | X53 | X54 | X55 | ||
Overall style | |||||||
X6 | X61 | X62 | X63 | X64 | X65 | X66 |
Sample Number | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kansei word | Personalized and Fashionable | 1.61 | 1.52 | 2.29 | 2.70 | 2.32 | 1.59 | 1.43 | 1.39 |
Product modeling element | X1 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 1.85 | 2.15 | 1.75 | 1.55 | 1.15 | 0.65 |
X2 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 2.15 | 2.55 | 2.15 | 1.45 | 1.15 | 1.2 | |
X3 | 1 | 1 | 1.8 | 1.35 | 1.6 | 1 | 0.55 | 1 | |
X4 | 0.75 | 0.8 | 1.3 | 1.25 | 1.5 | 1 | 0.85 | 1.1 | |
X5 | 0.85 | 0.8 | 2.3 | 2.15 | 2.5 | 1.95 | 0.6 | 0.6 | |
X6 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 2.3 | 2.65 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 1.35 | 1.25 |
Components | Category | Evaluation Index |
---|---|---|
Upper body (S1) | S11 | Upper morphological image |
S12 | The ratio of the upper body to the fuselage | |
S13 | Interface button layout | |
S14 | Interface location | |
S15 | Outlet shape style | |
S16 | The ratio of the water outlet to the upper part of the whole | |
Body (S2) | S21 | The outline of the fuselage |
S22 | The shape style of the fuselage | |
S23 | Morphological image of the fuselage | |
S24 | The ratio of the fuselage to the overall shape | |
S25 | Decorative pattern | |
Overall style (S3) | S31 | Main body style |
S32 | Body trend | |
S33 | Body-scale relationship | |
S34 | Morphological image | |
S35 | Unity of function and style | |
Water tank (S4) | S41 | The ratio of the water tank to the whole body |
S42 | The degree of coordination between the shape of the water tank and the overall style | |
S43 | The position relationship between the water tank and the whole |
X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | X5 |
---|---|---|---|---|
0.07 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.03 |
X6 | X7 | X8 | X9 | X10 |
0.03 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.04 |
X11 | X12 | X13 | X14 | X15 |
0.07 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.09 |
X16 | X17 | X18 | X19 | / |
0.03 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.08 | / |
Weight Variable | Fuzzy Rating |
---|---|
0.01–0.02 | (1, 1, 3) |
0.02–0.05 | (1, 3, 5) |
0.05–0.07 | (3, 5, 7) |
0.07–0.09 | (5, 7, 9) |
0.1–0.2 | (7, 9, 9) |
Linguistic Variables | Fuzzy Rating |
---|---|
Very bad | (1, 1, 3) |
Bad | (1, 3, 5) |
General | (3, 5, 7) |
Good | (5, 7, 9) |
Very good | (7, 9, 9) |
Criterion | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | P6 | P7 | P8 | P9 | P10 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X1 | 6.105 | 7.322 | 7.347 | 7.365 | 7.315 | 7.309 | 5.486 | 5.474 | 5.474 | 7.365 |
X2 | 6.032 | 7.328 | 7.347 | 7.384 | 7.347 | 7.309 | 5.425 | 5.367 | 5.425 | 7.365 |
X3 | 6.115 | 7.328 | 7.359 | 7.378 | 7.291 | 7.334 | 5.449 | 5.425 | 5.486 | 7.365 |
X4 | 6.115 | 7.353 | 7.315 | 7.365 | 7.291 | 7.309 | 5.425 | 5.401 | 5.437 | 7.372 |
X5 | 6.032 | 7.353 | 7.353 | 7.365 | 7.334 | 7.334 | 5.524 | 5.437 | 5.537 | 7.416 |
X6 | 6.022 | 7.334 | 7.391 | 7.378 | 7.334 | 7.340 | 5.499 | 5.390 | 5.461 | 7.365 |
X7 | 5.674 | 7.365 | 7.372 | 7.378 | 7.284 | 7.315 | 5.425 | 5.437 | 5.461 | 7.372 |
X8 | 5.972 | 7.347 | 7.365 | 7.372 | 7.309 | 7.340 | 5.461 | 5.486 | 5.461 | 7.365 |
X9 | 6.012 | 7.334 | 7.365 | 7.391 | 7.309 | 7.334 | 5.486 | 5.449 | 5.524 | 7.378 |
X10 | 5.962 | 7.340 | 7.372 | 7.353 | 7.303 | 7.347 | 5.437 | 5.401 | 5.437 | 7.404 |
X11 | 6.063 | 7.359 | 7.404 | 7.429 | 7.365 | 7.322 | 5.486 | 5.499 | 5.499 | 7.391 |
X12 | 5.992 | 7.353 | 7.384 | 7.384 | 7.309 | 7.328 | 5.461 | 5.461 | 5.425 | 7.340 |
X13 | 5.992 | 7.365 | 7.378 | 7.391 | 7.328 | 7.309 | 5.437 | 5.486 | 5.461 | 7.416 |
X14 | 5.972 | 7.347 | 7.365 | 7.359 | 7.328 | 7.309 | 5.401 | 5.425 | 5.449 | 7.378 |
X15 | 6.022 | 7.322 | 7.359 | 7.384 | 7.315 | 7.309 | 5.486 | 5.437 | 5.461 | 7.397 |
X16 | 6.032 | 7.322 | 7.359 | 7.347 | 7.340 | 7.309 | 5.461 | 5.474 | 5.461 | 7.359 |
X17 | 6.053 | 7.347 | 7.353 | 7.391 | 7.303 | 7.347 | 5.449 | 5.461 | 5.499 | 7.416 |
X18 | 6.022 | 7.378 | 7.378 | 7.384 | 7.291 | 7.309 | 5.461 | 5.437 | 5.486 | 7.391 |
X19 | 6.053 | 7.384 | 7.372 | 7.378 | 7.315 | 7.322 | 5.449 | 5.461 | 5.499 | 7.416 |
Criterion | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | P6 | P7 | P8 | P9 | P10 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X1 | 4.380 | 2.069 | 2.042 | 2.022 | 2.076 | 2.083 | 5.766 | 5.779 | 5.779 | 2.022 |
X2 | 4.439 | 2.062 | 2.042 | 2.002 | 2.042 | 2.083 | 5.829 | 5.895 | 5.829 | 2.022 |
X3 | 4.372 | 2.062 | 2.029 | 2.009 | 2.104 | 2.056 | 5.804 | 5.829 | 5.766 | 2.022 |
X4 | 4.372 | 2.035 | 2.076 | 2.022 | 2.104 | 2.083 | 5.829 | 5.855 | 5.816 | 2.015 |
X5 | 4.439 | 2.035 | 2.035 | 2.022 | 2.056 | 2.056 | 5.730 | 5.816 | 5.718 | 1.971 |
X6 | 4.448 | 2.056 | 1.996 | 2.009 | 2.056 | 2.049 | 5.754 | 5.868 | 5.791 | 2.022 |
X7 | 4.502 | 2.022 | 2.015 | 2.009 | 2.111 | 2.076 | 5.829 | 5.816 | 5.791 | 2.015 |
X8 | 4.492 | 2.042 | 2.022 | 2.015 | 2.083 | 2.049 | 5.791 | 5.766 | 5.791 | 2.022 |
X9 | 4.456 | 2.056 | 2.022 | 1.996 | 2.083 | 2.056 | 5.766 | 5.804 | 5.730 | 2.009 |
X10 | 4.501 | 2.049 | 2.015 | 2.035 | 2.090 | 2.042 | 5.816 | 5.855 | 5.816 | 1.983 |
X11 | 4.414 | 2.029 | 1.983 | 1.958 | 2.022 | 2.069 | 5.766 | 5.754 | 5.754 | 1.996 |
X12 | 4.474 | 2.035 | 2.002 | 2.002 | 2.083 | 2.062 | 5.791 | 5.791 | 5.829 | 2.049 |
X13 | 4.474 | 2.022 | 2.009 | 1.996 | 2.062 | 2.083 | 5.816 | 5.766 | 5.791 | 1.971 |
X14 | 4.492 | 2.042 | 2.022 | 2.029 | 2.062 | 2.083 | 5.855 | 5.829 | 5.804 | 2.009 |
X15 | 4.448 | 2.069 | 2.029 | 2.002 | 2.076 | 2.083 | 5.766 | 5.816 | 5.791 | 1.990 |
X16 | 4.439 | 2.069 | 2.029 | 2.042 | 2.049 | 2.083 | 5.791 | 5.779 | 5.791 | 2.029 |
X17 | 4.422 | 2.042 | 2.035 | 1.996 | 2.090 | 2.042 | 5.804 | 5.791 | 5.754 | 1.971 |
X18 | 4.448 | 2.009 | 2.009 | 2.002 | 2.104 | 2.083 | 5.791 | 5.816 | 5.766 | 1.996 |
X19 | 4.422 | 2.002 | 2.015 | 2.009 | 2.076 | 2.069 | 5.804 | 5.791 | 5.754 | 1.971 |
Alternative Design Sample | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Index | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | P6 | P7 | P8 | P9 | P10 |
di+ | 114.24 | 139.58 | 139.94 | 140.18 | 139.01 | 139.13 | 103.71 | 103.41 | 103.94 | 140.27 |
di- | 84.43 | 38.81 | 38.43 | 38.18 | 39.43 | 39.29 | 110.10 | 110.42 | 109.86 | 38.08 |
Ci | 0.4250 | 0.2175 | 0.2154 | 0.2141 | 0.2210 | 0.2202 | 0.5149 | 0.5164 | 0.5138 | 0.2135 |
Rank | 4 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 10 |
No | Variables | Alternatives | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | P6 | P7 | P8 | P9 | P10 | ||
Z1 | Ci | 0.425 | 0.218 | 0.215 | 0.214 | 0.221 | 0.220 | 0.515 | 0.516 | 0.514 | 0.214 |
Rank | 4 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 10 | |
Z2 | Ci | 0.216 | 0.426 | 0.215 | 0.214 | 0.221 | 0.220 | 0.515 | 0.516 | 0.514 | 0.214 |
Rank | 7 | 4 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 10 | |
Z3 | Ci | 0.216 | 0.218 | 0.423 | 0.214 | 0.221 | 0.220 | 0.515 | 0.516 | 0.514 | 0.214 |
Rank | 8 | 7 | 4 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 10 | |
Z4 | Ci | 0.216 | 0.218 | 0.215 | 0.421 | 0.221 | 0.220 | 0.515 | 0.516 | 0.514 | 0.214 |
Rank | 8 | 7 | 9 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 10 | |
Z5 | Ci | 0.216 | 0.218 | 0.215 | 0.214 | 0.430 | 0.220 | 0.515 | 0.516 | 0.514 | 0.214 |
Rank | 7 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 10 | |
Z6 | Ci | 0.216 | 0.218 | 0.215 | 0.214 | 0.221 | 0.429 | 0.515 | 0.516 | 0.514 | 0.214 |
Rank | 7 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 10 | |
Z7 | Ci | 0.521 | 0.218 | 0.215 | 0.214 | 0.221 | 0.220 | 0.421 | 0.516 | 0.514 | 0.214 |
Rank | 1 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 10 | |
Z8 | Ci | 0.521 | 0.218 | 0.215 | 0.214 | 0.221 | 0.220 | 0.515 | 0.422 | 0.514 | 0.214 |
Rank | 1 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 10 | |
Z9 | Ci | 0.521 | 0.218 | 0.215 | 0.214 | 0.221 | 0.220 | 0.515 | 0.516 | 0.420 | 0.214 |
Rank | 1 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 10 | |
Z10 | Ci | 0.216 | 0.218 | 0.215 | 0.214 | 0.221 | 0.220 | 0.515 | 0.516 | 0.514 | 0.421 |
Rank | 8 | 7 | 9 | 10 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | |
Z11 | Ci | 0.521 | 0.218 | 0.215 | 0.214 | 0.221 | 0.220 | 0.515 | 0.516 | 0.514 | 0.214 |
Rank | 1 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 10 | |
Z12 | Ci | 0.216 | 0.218 | 0.215 | 0.214 | 0.221 | 0.220 | 0.515 | 0.516 | 0.514 | 0.214 |
Rank | 7 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 10 | |
Z13 | Ci | 0.216 | 0.218 | 0.215 | 0.214 | 0.221 | 0.220 | 0.515 | 0.516 | 0.514 | 0.214 |
Rank | 7 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 10 | |
Z14 | Ci | 0.216 | 0.218 | 0.215 | 0.214 | 0.221 | 0.220 | 0.515 | 0.516 | 0.514 | 0.214 |
Rank | 7 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 10 | |
Z15 | Ci | 0.560 | 0.218 | 0.215 | 0.214 | 0.221 | 0.220 | 0.515 | 0.516 | 0.514 | 0.214 |
Rank | 1 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 10 | |
Z16 | Ci | 0.216 | 0.218 | 0.215 | 0.214 | 0.221 | 0.220 | 0.515 | 0.516 | 0.514 | 0.214 |
Rank | 7 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 10 | |
Z17 | Ci | 0.216 | 0.218 | 0.215 | 0.214 | 0.221 | 0.220 | 0.515 | 0.516 | 0.514 | 0.214 |
Rank | 7 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 10 | |
Z18 | Ci | 0.216 | 0.218 | 0.215 | 0.214 | 0.221 | 0.220 | 0.515 | 0.516 | 0.514 | 0.214 |
Rank | 7 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 10 | |
Z19 | Ci | 0.521 | 0.218 | 0.215 | 0.214 | 0.221 | 0.220 | 0.515 | 0.516 | 0.514 | 0.214 |
Rank | 1 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 10 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, T. A Novel Approach of Integrating Natural Language Processing Techniques with Fuzzy TOPSIS for Product Evaluation. Symmetry 2022, 14, 120. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym14010120
Wang T. A Novel Approach of Integrating Natural Language Processing Techniques with Fuzzy TOPSIS for Product Evaluation. Symmetry. 2022; 14(1):120. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym14010120
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Tianxiong. 2022. "A Novel Approach of Integrating Natural Language Processing Techniques with Fuzzy TOPSIS for Product Evaluation" Symmetry 14, no. 1: 120. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym14010120
APA StyleWang, T. (2022). A Novel Approach of Integrating Natural Language Processing Techniques with Fuzzy TOPSIS for Product Evaluation. Symmetry, 14(1), 120. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym14010120