Serious games together with the gamified and the game-based surveys (GBS), offer an engaging way to increase citizens’ participation in urban planning projects. However, there is always the risk of untrustworthy participants, which can decrease the overall reliability of the game-based research. Trustworthiness analysis is a highly challenging task since the neuropsychology of the GBS respondents and the infinite amount of their possible in-game actions causes many uncertainties in the data analysis. The novel MCDM approach PROMETHEE-mGqNN (PROMETHEE under m-generalised q-neutrosophic numbers) is proposed in this paper as the solution to the described problem. Five criteria that might be automatically calculated from the in-game data are proposed to construct the decision matrix to identify the untrustworthy respondents. The game-based survey “Parkis” developed to assess the safety and attractiveness of the urban public park “Missionary Garden” (Vilnius, Lithuania) is proposed as the case study of this research

This eighth volume of Collected Papers includes 75 papers comprising 973 pages on (theoretic and applied) neutrosophics, written between 2010-2022 by the author alone or in collaboration with the following 102 co-authors (alphabetically ordered) from 24 countries: Mohamed Abdel-Basset, Abduallah Gamal, Firoz Ahmad, Ahmad Yusuf Adhami, Ahmed B. Al-Nafee, Ali Hassan, Mumtaz Ali, Akbar Rezaei, Assia Bakali, Ayoub Bahnasse, Azeddine Elhassouny, Durga Banerjee, Romualdas Bausys, Mircea Boșcoianu, Traian Alexandru Buda, Bui Cong Cuong, Emilia Calefariu, Ahmet Çevik, Chang Su Kim, Victor Christianto, Dae Wan Kim, Daud Ahmad, Arindam Dey, Partha Pratim Dey, Mamouni Dhar, H. A. Elagamy, Ahmed K. Essa, Sudipta Gayen, Bibhas C. Giri, Daniela Gîfu, Noel Batista Hernández, Hojjatollah Farahani, Huda E. Khalid, Irfan Deli, Saeid Jafari, Tèmítópé Gbóláhàn Jaíyéolá, Sripati Jha, Sudan Jha, Ilanthenral Kandasamy, W.B. Vasantha Kandasamy, Darjan Karabašević, M. Karthika, Kawther F. Alhasan, Giruta Kazakeviciute-Januskeviciene, Qaisar Khan, Kishore Kumar P K, Prem Kumar Singh, Ranjan Kumar, Maikel Leyva-Vázquez, Mahmoud Ismail, Tahir Mahmood, Hafsa Masood Malik, Mohammad Abobala, Mai Mohamed, Gunasekaran Manogaran, Seema Mehra, Kalyan Mondal, Mohamed Talea, Mullai Murugappan, Muhammad Akram, Muhammad Aslam Malik, Muhammad Khalid Mahmood, Nivetha Martin, Durga Nagarajan, Nguyen Van Dinh, Nguyen Xuan Thao, Lewis Nkenyereya, Jagan M. Obbineni, M. Parimala, S. K. Patro, Peide Liu, Pham Hong Phong, Surapati Pramanik, Gyanendra Prasad Joshi, Quek Shio Gai, R. Radha, A.A. Salama, S. Satham Hussain, Mehmet Șahin, Said Broumi, Ganeshsree Selvachandran, Selvaraj Ganesan, Shahbaz Ali, Shouzhen Zeng, Manjeet Singh, A. Stanis Arul Mary, Dragiša Stanujkić, Yusuf Șubaș, Rui-Pu Tan, Mirela Teodorescu, Selçuk Topal, Zenonas Turskis, Vakkas Uluçay, Norberto Valcárcel Izquierdo, V. Venkateswara Rao, Volkan Duran, Ying Li, Young Bae Jun, Wadei F. Al-Omeri, Jian-qiang Wang, Lihshing Leigh Wang, Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas.

N-Norm and N-conorm are extended in Neutrosophic Logic/Set.

This handbook presents a systematic overview of approaches to, diversity, and problems involved in interdisciplinary rating methodologies. Historically, the purpose of ratings is to achieve information transparency regarding a given body’s activities, whether in the field of finance, banking, or sports for example. This book focuses on commonly used rating methods in three important fields: finance, sports, and the social sector. In the world of finance, investment decisions are largely shaped by how positively or negatively economies or financial instruments are rated. Ratings have thus become a basis of trust for investors. Similarly, sports evaluation and funding are largely based on core ratings. From local communities to groups of nations, public investment and funding are also dependent on how these bodies are continuously rated against expected performance targets. As such, ratings need to reflect the consensus of all stakeholders on selected aspects of the work and how to evaluate their success. The public should also have the opportunity to participate in this process. The authors examine current rating approaches from a variety of proposals that are closest to the public consensus, analyzing the rating models and summarizing the methods of their construction. This handbook offers a valuable reference guide for managers, analysts, economists, business informatics specialists, and researchers alike.

A website's ranking on Google can spell the difference between success and failure for a new business. NCAA football ratings determine which schools get to play for the big money in postseason bowl games. Product ratings influence everything from the clothes we wear to the movies we select on Netflix. Ratings and rankings are everywhere, but how exactly do they work? Who's #1? offers an engaging and accessible account of how scientific rating and ranking methods are created and applied to a variety of uses. Amy Langville and Carl Meyer provide the first comprehensive overview of the mathematical algorithms and methods used to rate and rank sports teams, political candidates, products, Web pages, and more. In a series of interesting asides, Langville and Meyer provide fascinating insights into the ingenious contributions of many of the field's pioneers. They survey and compare the different methods employed today, showing why their strengths and weaknesses depend on the underlying goal, and explaining why and when a given method should be considered. Langville and Meyer also describe what can and can't be expected from the most widely used systems. The science of rating and ranking touches virtually every facet of our lives, and now you don't need to be an expert to understand how it really works. Who's #1? is the definitive introduction to the subject. It features easy-to-understand examples and interesting trivia and historical facts, and much of the required mathematics is included.

In this paper one generalizes the intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS), paraconsistent set, and intuitionistic set to the neutrosophic set (NS). Many examples are presented. Distinctions between NS and IFS are underlined.