
==== Front
BMC Res Notes
BMC Res Notes
BMC Research Notes
1756-0500
BioMed Central London

6903
10.1186/s13104-024-06903-8
Research Note
Enhancing biometric system selection: A hybrid AHP-neutrosophic fuzzy TOPSIS approach
Rachel Jenisha 1
Devarasan Ezhilmaran 1
Razzaque Asima 2
Selvakumar Subramanian sscseau9@gmail.com

3
1 grid.412813.d 0000 0001 0687 4946 Department of Mathematics, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, 632014 Tamilnadu India
2 https://ror.org/00dn43547 grid.412140.2 0000 0004 1755 9687 Department of Basic Sciences, King Faisal University, 31982 Al Asha, Saudi Arabia
3 Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Bahir Dar, Institute of Technology, P. O. Box 79, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia
13 9 2024
13 9 2024
2024
17 26327 5 2024
19 8 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
A biometric system is essential in improving security and authentication processes across a variety of fields. Due to multiple criteria and alternatives, selecting the most suitable biometric system is a complex decision. We employ a hybrid approach in this study, combining the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) with the Analytic Hierarchical Process (AHP). Biometric technologies are ranked using the TOPSIS method according to the relative weights that AHP determines. By applying the neutrosophic set theory, this approach effectively handles the ambiguity and vagueness inherent in decision-making. Fingerprint, face, Iris, Voice, Hand Veins, Hand geometry and signature are the seven biometric technologies that are incorporated in the framework. Seven essential characteristics are accuracy, security, acceptability, speed and efficiency, ease of collection, universality, distinctiveness used to evaluate these technologies. The model seeks to determine which biometric technology is best suited for a particular application or situation by taking these factors into account. This technique may be applied in other domains in the future.

Keywords

Analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
Biometric systems
Fuzzy sets
Multi-criteria decision-making
Neutrosophic sets
Neutrosophic fuzzy TOPSIS
TOPSIS
issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

In biometric recognition, identifying people through their physiological and behavioral traits is a complex process, which offers a number of advantages over more conventional identification techniques like ID cards and passwords. Various technologies are used in this process, which makes use of features like signatures, iris patterns, hand vein patterns, facial recognition, fingerprints, hand geometry, and voice recognition [1, 2]. Every biometric characteristic has a unique set of pros and cons. For example, facial recognition is preferred for its speedy processing and non-intrusiveness, while fingerprints are used extensively because they are unique and simple to obtain. However, a biometric system’s suitability is mostly determined by the demands of the particular application and the environment in which it is used.

The fundamental characteristics of the biometric trait itself play a major role in determining how effective a biometric system is. These characteristics include the following: universality (the characteristic must exist in all people), individuality (the characteristic must exist in each person specifically), ease of collection (the characteristic must be simple to quantify), and accuracy (the system must be able to correctly identify individuals). In addition, a biometric system’s overall success is contingent upon a number of factors, including acceptability (the degree to which users are willing to adopt the system), security (the degree to which the system can safeguard sensitive data), and speed and efficiency (the degree to which the system functions and performs) [3, 4].

Choosing the appropriate biometric system for a given application is still a difficult task, even with the advancements in biometric technologies. The wide variety of biometric systems that are currently in use, each with unique performance metrics and operational characteristics, is the source of this complexity. Biometric systems are rapidly taking the place of more outdated technologies in a variety of applications, including time and attendance management, law enforcement, surveillance, and access control [4, 5]. However, a careful assessment and selection procedure is required due to the varying effectiveness of these systems in various contexts.

The chosen human characteristic must satisfy a number of essential requirements in order for a biometric system to be considered effective: accuracy, ease of collection, universality, and individuality. Practical implementation factors like data security, operational efficiency, and user acceptability must also be taken into account. These complex requirements show how important it is to evaluate and choose biometric systems in an organized manner.

Although much research has focused on individual biometric systems, there is a notable lack of frameworks for methodically selecting the best system using multi criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques. Previous studies often concentrate on specific biometric technologies without providing comprehensive frameworks for evaluating and comparing various systems tailored to specific application needs. This gap limits professionals’ ability to effectively choose suitable biometric systems for diverse applications. Despite extensive research on fingerprint and facial recognition systems, integrated frameworks comparing these to other biometric technologies while considering multiple decision criteria are scarce.

Robust decision support models are crucial for selecting biometric systems in complex environments. Advanced MCDM techniques enhance the precision and relevance of these assessments. Reliable biometric systems are essential in sectors like transportation, banking, and healthcare for preventing unauthorized access and improving security. These models boost performance and reliability, leading to more secure and efficient operations.

This work proposes a decision support model combining Neutrosophic Soft Set (NSS) Fuzzy TOPSIS [6, 7] and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) [8] within an MCDM framework. The model aids in selecting the most suitable biometric system based on specific requirements and preferences. AHP structures and analyzes decisions through hierarchical modeling and pairwise comparisons [8]. NSS Fuzzy TOPSIS addresses ambiguous information by expanding traditional TOPSIS methods [6, 7]. This integrated approach enhances the precision of biometric system evaluations.

The proposed model offers a robust framework for assessing biometric alternatives by integrating advanced MCDM techniques like AHP and NSS Fuzzy TOPSIS [6, 8]. It improves the accuracy and efficiency of biometric system selection by addressing complex decision-making scenarios with rough sets and neutrosophic methods [7, 9]. This novel approach provides a structured evaluation based on various standards and preferences, enhancing informed decision-making [10, 11].

Irvanizam and Zahara improve the RAFSI method with single-valued trapezoidal neutrosophic numbers for better healthcare service quality evaluation [12]. Irvanizam and Zahara extend EDAS for evaluating mathematics teachers using similar neutrosophic numbers for reliable assessments [13]. Irvanizam et al. enhance EDAS and MULTIMOORA methods with bipolar and trapezoidal fuzzy neutrosophic sets, respectively, improving decision-making robustness and objectivity in group contexts [14, 15].

The objective of increasing accuracy and efficiency in biometric system selection techniques has drawn significant attention recently. This review examines integrated methods, focusing on TOPSIS and AHP techniques in decision making. The fundamental idea of the TOPSIS approach [6] is to select the variable nearest to the positive ideal solution, studied extensively by Adeel et al. [16–24]. Saqlain et al. [25] used MCDM to predict CWC 2019 results. Knowledge-based systems using AHP, TOPSIS, and Hesitant Fuzzy Sets enhance web app security [26]. The Neutrosophic Hypersoft Set (NHSS) framework addresses uncertainty in decision-making [27]. Combining TOPSIS and GRA in a neutrosophic setting, Green Supplier Selection method aids sustainable supplier evaluation [10]. Integrated approaches using AHP and TOPSIS balance web application usability [11], evaluate IoHT systems [28], and improve smartphone selection [7]. Neutrosophic MCDM for IoT enhances factor estimation [9], while Neutrosophic-TOPSIS for Personnel Selection addresses decision-making complexity [29]. Interval neutrosophic sets are applied in science and engineering [30], and soft sets address hesitancy and uncertainty [22]. Neutrosophic soft sets paired with TOPSIS are explored in various decision-making scenarios [7, 31–35].

Furthermore, the study demonstrates how well neutrosophic methods work in conjunction with AHP and TOPSIS to manage uncertainty and complexity in decision making processes, improving the process’s robustness and reliability [9, 36, 37]. A major improvement in managing uncertainty and complexity is provided by the integration of neutrosophic methods with AHP and TOPSIS in the suggested model. This is important for enhancing the decision-making process when choosing biometric systems [31, 38]. By offering a model that improves the decision-making process’s accuracy, efficiency, and robustness, this study thus makes a contribution to the larger field of decision sciences, especially when it comes to the selection of biometric systems [39–41].

The structure of the paper is as follows: Section “Preliminaries” covers the fundamental concepts of neutrosophic theory, such as definitions, operational relations, and accuracy functions. Section “Methodology” outlines an algorithm designed to address MCDM problems in a neutrosophic framework. Section “Numerical analysis” provides a numerical example to illustrate the application of the proposed decision-making method. The paper concludes with Section “Conclusion”, which includes final observations, the implications of the study, and a discussion of its limitations.

Preliminaries

Fuzzy set [42]

If X is a collection of objects denoted generically by x, then a fuzzy set A in X is a set of ordered pairs:A=x,μAxx∈X}

μA(x) is called the membership function (generalized characteristic function) which maps X to the membership space M. Its range is the subset of non-negative real numbers whose supremum is finite. For sup μA(x) = 1: normalized fuzzy set. In Definition 2.1, the membership function of the fuzzy set is a crisp (real-valued) function. Zadeh also defined fuzzy sets in which the membership functions themselves are fuzzy sets.

Neutrosophic set [43]

Let X be a space of points (objects), with a generic element in X denoted by x. A neutrosophic set A in X is characterized by a truth-membership functionTA(x), an indeterminacy—membership function IA(x) and a falsity-membership functionFA(x). The functionsTA(x), IA(x) and FA(x) are real standard or nonstandard subsets of]0+, 1-[, that is TAx:X→] 0+,0+[, IA(x):X→] 0+, 0+[ and FA(x):X→] 0+,0+[.

There is no restriction on the sum of TA(x), IA(x) and FA(x), so 0-≤sup TAx+supIA(x)+supFAx≤3-.

Accuracy function [7]

Accuracy function is the method or mathematical form by which neutrosophic numbers.

N are transformed into crisp numbers.AF=x=Tx+Ix+Fx3

Operational relations [43]

Let A=⟨x,TAx,IAx,FAx|x∈X⟩, B=⟨x,TBx,IBx,FBx|x∈X⟩ are two.

NSs. Operational relations are defined by.A+B=⟨TAx+TBx-TAxTBx,IAx+IBx-IAxIBx,FAx+FBx-FAxFBx⟩,

A.B=⟨TAxTBx,IAxIBx,FAxFBx⟩,

λA=1-1-TAxλ,1-1-IAxλ,1-1-FAxλ,λ>0

Aλ=⟨TAλx,IAλx,FAλx⟩,λ>0

Methodology

As a new approach to solving the biometric selection problem, our study views the integration of neutrosophic TOPSIS with AHP as a means of selecting best biometric optimally. The TOPSIS method is applied to the problem of biometric selection, as stated in the literature review section. An algorithm for solving the MCDM problem in a neutrosophic environment is proposed in this section.

In the current generation, choosing a biometric system is a difficult problem. Several techniques involving the application of AHP and neutrosophic fuzzy TOPSIS concepts have been put forward to address this complexity. The fuzzy linguistic approach is applied for the few forms of uncertainty present in the selection process. The aim is to examine the level of uncertainty in the biometric selection criteria. Figure 1 specifies the steps of the proposed techniques.Fig. 1 Steps of the proposed model

There are four phases that comprise the conceptual flow.

Multi-criteria decision making technique

Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) is a systematic approach that takes into consideration multiple criteria or objectives when evaluating and choosing the best alternative from a set of options. In complex decision-making situations involving multiple factors, it offers a systematic framework that helps decision makers make well-informed decisions. A MCDM problem is typically expressed in matrix form [44]. Figure 2 represents the 3 phases of MCDM technique.Fig. 2 Procedure of MCDM Technique

MCDM follows the following process:Formulation of the Problem: Define the decision problem precisely and specify the standards or goals that will be applied in determining the alternatives.

Alternative Identification: List every possibility or course of action that could taken with regard to the decision.

Criteria Definition: Determine the characteristics or criteria that are important in making the decision. These criteria need to be quantifiable and closely related to the decision’s objectives.

AHP approach

Thomas L. Saaty [8] developed the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), a structure method for making decisions. It is a multi-criteria decision-making technique that breaks down complex decisions into smaller, more manageable components in a systematic way that assists in selecting the best option among variety of options. In order to determine priority scales for decision criteria and alternatives, AHP uses mathematical computations and pairwise comparisons. Figure 3 specifies the procedure of the AHP method in conceptual view.Fig. 3 Steps of AHP Approach in conceptual view

The following procedure below are used to ascertain the relative weights of each criterion.Develop a pairwise comparison matrix by using Saaty’s 9-point scale in Table 1 to subjectively evaluate each pair of criteria [8].

Using the eigenvalue calculation framework specified in [8], normalize the comparison matrix and ascertain the relative weight of each criterion.

Utilizing the consistency index and consistency ratio concepts as described in reference [8], to evaluate the consistency of subjective perception in pairwise comparisons. Apply the following formula to determine consistency:1 CR=CIRI

where RI is a random consistency index, CI is a consistency index, and CR is consistency ratio.Table 1 Assigning neutrosophic numbers to each linguistic variable

S.No	Linguistic Variable	Code	Neutrosophic numbers	
1	Very Inferior	VI	(0.1,0.2,0.9)	
2	Inferior	I	(0.3,0.4,0.65)	
3	Medium	M	(0.5,0.45,0.5)	
4	Superior	S	(0.75,0.3,0.35)	
5	Very Superior	VS	(1.0,0.2,0.1)	

Neutrosophic evaluation

Form a committee of experts in decision-makers to provide their opinions on the suggested criteria and alternatives. Compile the committee’s findings utilizing the neutrosophic scales specified in Table 1.

Once each linguistic variable has been given a neutrosophic number in accordance with the criteria and alternatives, use the accuracy function A(F) to transform the neutrosophic numbers into fuzzy numbers [7].2 AF=x=Tx+Ix+Fx3

TOPSIS method

A multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) technique referred to TOPSIS is used to prioritize a set of alternatives according to how similar they are to an ideal solution. It is especially helpful in situations where the decision-making process involves several criteria. As first being developed by Hwang and Yoon in 1981 [6], TOPSIS has gained widespread application in variety of fields, such as environmental studies, engineering, and business. Here is an extensive description of the TOPSIS Method procedure [20, 33], which is shown in Fig. 4.Fig. 4 Five different phases of TOPSIS method

Normalize the decision matrix: Make a matrix with the criteria represented in columns and the alternatives represented in rows. To make sure that each criteria is unit-free and on the same scale, normalize this matrix. The formula in Eq. (3) yields the normalized value of an element (i, j) in the matrix.

3 rij=xij∑n=1mxij2

where, rij is the normalised value of element (i, j), n is the number of the alternatives and xij is the initial value of element (i, j).

b Establish the Weighted Normalized Decision Matrix: To create a weighted normalized decision matrix, multiply each normalized value by the corresponding weight of each criteria determined by the AHP Process. For each element (i, j) in the matrix, the weighted normalized value (V) is:4 vij=wj×rij

where, vij is the weighted normalised value of element (i, j) and wj is the weight assigned to the criteria j.

c. Determining the Ideal and Anti-Ideal solutions: Establish the ideal and anti-ideal values for each criteria. The ideal solution A+ represents the maximal value and the anti-ideal solution A- represents the minimal value.5 A+=(maxv1j,maxv2j,⋯,maxvnj)

6 A-=(minv1j,minv2j,⋯,minvnj)

d. Evaluate the Similarity Points: Using the Euclidean distance, determine how similar each alternative is to the ideal and anti-ideal solutions The formula for the ideal solution [20]is7 Si+=∑j=1nvij-Aj+2

and for the anti-ideal solution[20] is8 Si-=∑j=1nvij-Aj-2

e. Determine the Score for TOPSIS: Finally, for each alternative, the TOPSIS score (Relative closeness to Ideal Solution,Ri) is determined [20] as follows:9 Ri=Si-Si++Si-

where, Si+ represents the similarity to the ideal solution for alternative i and Si-represents the similarity to the anti-ideal solution.

Choose the alternatives according to their TOPSIS scores. A solution is considered closer to the ideal one if its TOPSIS score is higher. TOPSIS offers an approach to methodically evaluate and prioritize options according to various factors, considering the separation from the optimal solution as well as the closeness to the anti-optimal solution. It is a systematic process that assists decision-makers in deciding which option, out of several, is best.

Numerical analysis

MCDM approach

Formulation of the problem

The biometric system has been selected as the criterion choosing tool; the public’s choice will then determine the criterion. Based on their criteria, a biometric system has been chosen based on the final result. The market is becoming more competitive due to the advent of new technologies, making it more challenging for users to choose an appropriate biometric. Neutrosophic set was applied to obtain more accuracy in the result as it appears that in the rapidly expanding market, the fuzzy idea result has been improved. Investigating the accuracy of the biometric system’s criterion selection is the study’s target.

Specifications

Criteria and alternatives are crucial in determining a solution to the complicated problem of selection. In this problem formulation, the criteria and alternatives listed as in Table 2 and Table 3 are taken into account.Table 2 Alternatives under consideration (A)

A1	Fingerprint	
A2	Face	
A3	Iris	
A4	Voice	
A5	Hand veins	
A6	Hand geometry	
A7	Signature	

Table 3 Criteria’s under consideration (C)

C1	Universality	
C2	Individuality	
C3	Ease of collection	
C4	Accuracy	
C5	Acceptability	
C6	Security	
C7	Speed and efficiency	

Determining the weights of each criteria

Pairwise Comparison Matrix of Criteria is determined by Using Saaty’s 9-point Scales in Table 4.

By dividing each element by its column sum, the normalized pair-wise comparison matrix can be determined, refer Table 5.

Calculating the Consistency.

Table 4 Pairwise comparison matrix of criteria [4]

Criteria	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6	C7	
C1	1	1/3	2	1/3	2	1/5	1/2	
C2	3	1	3	1/3	2	1/3	1/2	
C3	1/2	1/3	1	1/2	3	1/4	1/2	
C4	3	3	2	1	5	1/3	1/2	
C5	1/2	1/2	1/3	1/5	1	1/9	1/3	
C6	5	3	4	3	9	1	1	
C7	2	2	2	2	3	1	1	
Sum	15	10.16	14.33	7.36	25	3.22	4.33	

Table 5 Matrix of normalized pairwise comparison

Criteria	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6	C7	
C1	0.0667	0.0325	0.1396	0.0448	0.08	0.0621	0.1155	
C2	0.2	0.0984	0.2094	0.0448	0.08	0.1025	0.1155	
C3	0.0333	0.0325	0.0698	0.0679	0.12	0.0776	0.1155	
C4	0.2	0.2953	0.1396	0.1359	0.2	0.1025	0.1155	
C5	0.0333	0.0492	0.0230	0.0272	0.04	0.0342	0.0762	
C6	0.3333	0.2953	0.2791	0.4076	0.36	0.3106	0.2309	
C7	0.1333	0.1969	0.1396	0.2717	0.12	0.3106	0.2309	
The criteria weights are 0.0773, 0.1215, 0.0738, 0.1698, 0.0404, 0.3167, 0.2004

Using Table 6, we can obtain the Consistency Index. Equation (1) is used to verify the consistency ratio, which comes out to be 0.0625. The criteria weights exhibit a reasonable level of consistency since the value is less than 0.10.Table 6 Consistency table

Criteria	Weighted sum value	Criteria Weights	Ratio	
C1	0.5653	0.0773	7.3131	
C2	0.9163	0.1215	7.5416	
C3	0.5381	0.0738	7.2913	
C4	1.3205	0.1698	7.7768	
C5	0.293	0.0404	7.2524	
C6	2.4363	0.3167	7.6928	
C7	1.5231	0.2004	7.6003	

Neutrosophic evaluation

The proposed model has decision makers expert, who assign Linguistic variables with respect to Criteria and Alternatives (see Table 7).

According to their personal interests, knowledge, and experience, the decision makers will allocate linguistic values from Table 1 to the alternatives and criteria listed above, as indicated in Table 8.

Conversion of Neutrosophic numbers into fuzzy numbers using accuracy function (see Table 9).

Table 7 Decision matrix with respect to alternatives and criteria’s

Criteria	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6	C7	
A1	I	M	S	I	M	I	M	
A2	VS	VI	S	M	VS	I	VS	
A3	VS	VS	M	S	I	S	I	
A4	M	I	I	VI	S	M	S	
A5	I	M	M	M	M	I	VI	
A6	S	VS	M	VS	M	VS	M	
A7	VI	I	VS	I	VI	VI	S	

Table 8 For every linguistic variable, assign a neutrosophic number

	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6	C7	
A1	(0.3,0.4,0.65)	(0.5,0.45,0.5)	(0.75,0.3,0.35)	(0.3,0.4,0.65)	(0.5,0.45,0.5)	(0.3,0.4,0.65)	(0.5,0.45,0.5)	
A2	(1.0,0.2,0.1)	(0.1,0.2,0.9)	(0.75,0.3,0.35)	(0.5,0.45,0.5)	(1.0,0.2,0.1)	(0.3,0.4,0.65)	(1.0,0.2,0.1)	
A3	(1.0,0.2,0.1)	(1.0,0.2,0.1)	(0.5,0.45,0.5)	(0.75,0.3,0.35)	(0.3,0.4,0.65)	(0.75,0.3,0.35)	(0.3,0.4,0.65)	
A4	(0.5,0.45,0.5)	(0.3,0.4,0.65)	(0.3,0.4,0.65)	(0.1,0.2,0.9)	(0.75,0.3,0.35)	(0.5,0.45,0.5)	(0.75,0.3,0.35)	
A5	(0.3,0.4,0.65)	(0.5,0.45,0.5)	(0.5,0.45,0.5)	(0.5,0.45,0.5)	(0.5,0.45,0.5)	(0.3,0.4,0.65)	(0.1,0.2,0.9)	
A6	(0.75,0.3,0.35)	(1.0,0.2,0.1)	(0.5,0.45,0.5)	(1.0,0.2,0.1)	(0.5,0.45,0.5)	(1.0,0.2,0.1)	(0.5,0.45,0.5)	
A7	(0.1,0.2,0.9)	(0.3,0.4,0.65)	(1.0,0.2,0.1)	(0.3,0.4,0.65)	(0.1,0.2,0.9)	(0.1,0.2,0.9)	(0.75,0.3,0.35)	

Table 9 Conversion of neutrosophic numbers into fuzzy numbers using A(F)

Criteria	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6	C7	
A1	0.45	0.483	0.467	0.45	0.483	0.45	0.483	
A2	0.433	0.400	0.467	0.483	0.433	0.45	0.433	
A3	0.433	0.433	0.483	0.467	0.45	0.467	0.45	
A4	0.483	0.45	0.45	0.400	0.467	0.483	0.467	
A5	0.45	0.483	0.483	0.433	0.483	0.45	0.400	
A6	0.467	0.433	0.483	0.433	0.483	0.433	0.483	
A7	0.400	0.45	0.433	0.45	0.400	0.400	0.467	

TOPSIS method

Step 1: Normalize the Decision Matrix by Eq. (3), refer Table 10.

Step 2: Compute Weighted Decision Matrix using Eq. (4), refer Table 11.

Step 3: Determine the ideal (positive and negative) alternatives, refer Table 12.

Step 4: Eqs. (7 and 8) can be used to determine the separation measure of each alternative, refer Table 13.

Step 5: Calculate the relative closeness to the ideal solution utilizing Eq. (9), refer Table 14.

Table 10 Standardized decision matrix

	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6	C7	
A1	0.382	0.407	0.378	0.375	0.399	0.379	0.401	
A2	0.367	0.337	0.378	0.403	0.357	0.379	0.359	
A3	0.367	0.365	0.391	0.389	0.371	0.394	0.373	
A4	0.409	0.379	0.364	0.334	0.385	0.407	0.388	
A5	0.382	0.407	0.391	0.403	0.399	0.379	0.332	
A6	0.396	0.365	0.391	0.361	0.399	0.365	0.401	
A7	0.339	0.379	0.351	0.375	0.330	0.337	0.388	

Table 11 Weighted decision matrix

	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6	C7	
A1	0.0295	0.0495	0.0279	0.0637	0.0161	0.1200	0.0804	
A2	0.0283	0.0409	0.0279	0.0684	0.0144	0.1200	0.0719	
A3	0.0283	0.0443	0.0289	0.0661	0.0149	0.1248	0.0747	
A4	0.0316	0.0460	0.0269	0.0567	0.0156	0.1289	0.0778	
A5	0.0295	0.0495	0.0289	0.0684	0.0161	0.1200	0.0665	
A6	0.0306	0.0443	0.0289	0.0613	0.0161	0.1156	0.0804	
A7	0.0262	0.0460	0.0259	0.0637	0.0133	0.1067	0.0778	

Table 12 Positive and negative ideal alternatives

	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6	C7	
vj+	0.0316	0.0495	0.0289	0.0684	0.0161	0.1289	0.0804	
vj-	0.0262	0.0409	0.0259	0.0567	0.0133	0.1067	0.0665	

Table 13 Alternatives separation measures

	Si+	Si-	
A1	0.0103	0.0227	
A2	0.0155	0.0188	
A3	0.0097	0.0226	
A4	0.0127	0.0261	
A5	0.0166	0.0204	
A6	0.0159	0.0185	
A7	0.0241	0.0142	

Table 14 TOPSIS score

	Ri	Rank	
A1	0.6879	2	
A2	0.5481	5	
A3	0.6996	1	
A4	0.6727	3	
A5	0.5514	4	
A6	0.5378	6	
A7	0.3707	7	

The Iris alternative is considered to be the most effective for use with the best biometric system. The A3 option satisfies the standards for being the best biometric system as well as the decision makers committee’s judgment. Nonetheless, A7 is regarded as the worst option since it is unable to satisfy the given assessments and standards in order to achieve its own goals.

Results and discussion

The ranking of biometric systems using the generalized TOPSIS method resulted in the following order [4]: A3 (Iris), A1 (Fingerprint), A5 (Hand veins), A6 (Hand geometry), A4 (Voice), A2 (Face), and A7 (Signature). According to this ranking, the Iris-based biometric system emerged as the best option based on the personalized preferences set for decision-making.

In comparison, the following biometric systems were ranked when using the Fuzzy TOPSIS method: A3 (Iris), A3 (Fingerprint), A4 (Voice), A5 (Hand veins), A2 (Face), A6 (Hand geometry), and A7 (Signature). Even with varying rankings, the Iris-based biometric system is consistently regarded as one of the best biometric systems to use (Fig. 5).Fig. 5 Ranking comparison of alternatives

Conclusion

Choosing the best biometric system for security and identity is a difficult choice that is frequently beyond the scope of conventional methods because of uncertain and inconsistent situations. Our study combines the neutrosophic Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) to address these problems within the multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) framework while taking into account different environmental constraints. This work offers a solid framework for assessing biometric systems, enhancing the accuracy and reliability of decision-making.

The implications are significant, improving decision-making with advanced techniques such as TOPSIS and neutrosophic AHP, particularly in cases where the data is ambiguous. The handling of neutrosophic data and the requirement for exact criteria weight determination, require significant computational resources and experience, are important constraints. Incorporate dynamic components, use machine learning for criteria weights, and extend this methodology to new domains in future research. The approach needs to be verified and refined through empirical investigations and practical applications in order to ensure its efficiency in real-world scenarios. By resolving these issues and expanding its use, this methodology can greatly improve the biometric system selection process.

Acknowledgements

The work has been strengthened by the valuable suggestions made by the anonymous referees and editor, for which the authors are grateful.

Author contributions

Jenisha Rachel contributes to the development of the algorithms, while Ezhilmaran Devarasan is involved in writing and suggesting sample computations. Asima Razzaque and Subramanian Selvakumar are involved in the verification and validation of the algorithm and computations. The final manuscript was read and approved by all authors.

Funding

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

All of the information created or analyzed during the investigation is contained in this article.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Micheli-Tzanakou E Plataniotis KN Donida Labati R Biometrics: terms and definitions Biometrics: terms and definitions 2021 Berlin, Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 1 5
Micheli-Tzanakou E, Plataniotis KN, Donida Labati R. Biometrics: terms and definitions. In: Encyclopedia of Cryptography, Security and Privacy. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2021. p. 1–5.
2. Jain AK Hong L Pankanti S Bolle R An identity-authentication system using fingerprints Proc IEEE 1997 85 1365 1388 10.1109/5.628674
Jain AK, Hong L, Pankanti S, Bolle R. An identity-authentication system using fingerprints. Proc IEEE. 1997;85:1365–88.10.1109/5.628674
3. Jain AK Ross A Prabhakar S An introduction to biometric recognition IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 2004 14 4 20 10.1109/TCSVT.2003.818349
Jain AK, Ross A, Prabhakar S. An introduction to biometric recognition. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol. 2004;14:4–20.10.1109/TCSVT.2003.818349
4. Patil, S. S. & Singh, S. P. An ahp-topsis based decision support model for selecting biometric system, 272–275 (IEEE, 2023).
5. Sabhanayagam T Venkatesan VP Senthamaraikannan K A comprehensive survey on various biometric systems Int J Appl Eng Res 2018 13 2276 2297
Sabhanayagam T, Venkatesan VP, Senthamaraikannan K. A comprehensive survey on various biometric systems. Int J Appl Eng Res. 2018;13:2276–97.
6. Hwang CL. Multiple attributes decision making. In: Methods and applications. 1981.
7. Saqlain M Jafar MN Riaz M A new approach of neutrosophic soft set with generalized fuzzy topsis in application of smart phone selection Neutrosophic Sets Syst 2020 32 306
Saqlain M, Jafar MN, Riaz M. A new approach of neutrosophic soft set with generalized fuzzy topsis in application of smart phone selection. Neutrosophic Sets Syst. 2020;32:306.
8. Saaty TL Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process Int J Serv Sci 2008 1 83 98
Saaty TL. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci. 2008;1:83–98.
9. Nabeeh NA Abdel-Basset M El-Ghareeb HA Aboelfetouh A Neutrosophic multi-criteria decision making approach for iot-based enterprises IEEE Access 2019 7 59559 59574 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2908919
Nabeeh NA, Abdel-Basset M, El-Ghareeb HA, Aboelfetouh A. Neutrosophic multi-criteria decision making approach for iot-based enterprises. IEEE Access. 2019;7:59559–74.10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2908919
10. Sun Y Cai Y A flexible decision-making method for green supplier selection integrating topsis and gra under the single-valued neutrosophic environment IEEE Access. 2021 9 83025 83040 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3085772
Sun Y, Cai Y. A flexible decision-making method for green supplier selection integrating topsis and gra under the single-valued neutrosophic environment. IEEE Access. 2021;9:83025–40.10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3085772
11. Kumar R An integrated approach of fuzzy logic, ahp and topsis for estimating usable-security of web applications IEEE Access 2020 8 50944 50957 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2970245
Kumar R, et al. An integrated approach of fuzzy logic, ahp and topsis for estimating usable-security of web applications. IEEE Access. 2020;8:50944–57.10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2970245
12. Irvanizam I Zahara N An improved rafsi method based on single-valued trapezoidal neutrosophic number and its harmonic and arithmetic mean operators for healthcare service quality evaluation Expert Syst Appl 2024 248 123343 10.1016/j.eswa.2024.123343
Irvanizam I, Zahara N. An improved rafsi method based on single-valued trapezoidal neutrosophic number and its harmonic and arithmetic mean operators for healthcare service quality evaluation. Expert Syst Appl. 2024;248: 123343.10.1016/j.eswa.2024.123343
13. Irvanizam I Zahara N An extended edas based on multi-attribute group decision making to evaluate mathematics teachers with single-valued trapezoidal neutrosophic numbers Handbook of research on the applications of neutrosophic sets theory and their extensions in education 2023 IGI Global 40 67
Irvanizam I, Zahara N. An extended edas based on multi-attribute group decision making to evaluate mathematics teachers with single-valued trapezoidal neutrosophic numbers. In: Handbook of research on the applications of neutrosophic sets theory and their extensions in education. IGI Global; 2023. p. 40–67.
14. Irvanizam I An improved edas method based on bipolar neutrosophic set and its application in group decision-making Appl Comput Intellig Soft Comput 2021 2021 1474629 10.1155/2021/1474629
Irvanizam I, et al. An improved edas method based on bipolar neutrosophic set and its application in group decision-making. Appl Comput Intellig Soft Comput. 2021;2021:1474629.10.1155/2021/1474629
15. Irvanizam I An extended multimoora based on trapezoidal fuzzy neutrosophic sets and objective weighting method in group decision-making IEEE Access 2022 10 47476 47498 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3170565
Irvanizam I, et al. An extended multimoora based on trapezoidal fuzzy neutrosophic sets and objective weighting method in group decision-making. IEEE Access. 2022;10:47476–98.10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3170565
16. Adeel A Akram M Koam AN Group decision-making based on m-polar fuzzy linguistic topsis method Symmetry 2019 11 735 10.3390/sym11060735
Adeel A, Akram M, Koam AN. Group decision-making based on m-polar fuzzy linguistic topsis method. Symmetry. 2019;11:735.10.3390/sym11060735
17. Akram M Arshad M A novel trapezoidal bipolar fuzzy topsis method for group decision-making Group Decis Negot 2019 28 565 584 10.1007/s10726-018-9606-6
Akram M, Arshad M. A novel trapezoidal bipolar fuzzy topsis method for group decision-making. Group Decis Negot. 2019;28:565–84.10.1007/s10726-018-9606-6
18. Boran FE Gen CS Kurt M Akay D A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with topsis method Exp Syst Appl 2009 36 11363 11368 10.1016/j.eswa.2009.03.039
Boran FE, Gen CS, Kurt M, Akay D. A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with topsis method. Exp Syst Appl. 2009;36:11363–8.10.1016/j.eswa.2009.03.039
19. Eraslan S Karaaslan F A group decision making method based on topsis under fuzzy soft environment J New Theory. 2015 2015 3 30 40
Eraslan S, Karaaslan F. A group decision making method based on topsis under fuzzy soft environment. J New Theory. 2015;2015(3):30–40.
20. Kumar K Garg H Topsis method based on the connection number of set pair analysis under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy set environment Comput Appl Math 2018 37 1319 1329 10.1007/s40314-016-0402-0
Kumar K, Garg H. Topsis method based on the connection number of set pair analysis under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy set environment. Comput Appl Math. 2018;37:1319–29.10.1007/s40314-016-0402-0
21. Peng X Dai J Approaches to single-valued neutrosophic madm based on mabac, topsis and new similarity measure with score function Neural Comput Appl 2018 29 939 954 10.1007/s00521-016-2607-y
Peng X, Dai J. Approaches to single-valued neutrosophic madm based on mabac, topsis and new similarity measure with score function. Neural Comput Appl. 2018;29:939–54.10.1007/s00521-016-2607-y
22. Selvachandran G Peng X A modified topsis method based on vague parameterized vague soft sets and its application to supplier selection problems Neural Comput Appl 2019 31 5901 5916 10.1007/s00521-018-3409-1
Selvachandran G, Peng X. A modified topsis method based on vague parameterized vague soft sets and its application to supplier selection problems. Neural Comput Appl. 2019;31:5901–16.10.1007/s00521-018-3409-1
23. Xu Z Zhang X Hesitant fuzzy multi-attribute decision making based on topsis with incomplete weight information Knowl Based Syst 2013 52 53 64 10.1016/j.knosys.2013.05.011
Xu Z, Zhang X. Hesitant fuzzy multi-attribute decision making based on topsis with incomplete weight information. Knowl Based Syst. 2013;52:53–64.10.1016/j.knosys.2013.05.011
24. Zhang X Xu Z Extension of topsis to multiple criteria decision making with pythagorean fuzzy sets Int J Intell Syst 2014 29 1061 1078 10.1002/int.21676
Zhang X, Xu Z. Extension of topsis to multiple criteria decision making with pythagorean fuzzy sets. Int J Intell Syst. 2014;29:1061–78.10.1002/int.21676
25. Saqlain M Jafar N Hamid R Shahzad A Prediction of cricket world cup 2019 by topsis technique of mcdm—a mathematical analysis Int J Sci Eng Res 2019 10 789 792
Saqlain M, Jafar N, Hamid R, Shahzad A. Prediction of cricket world cup 2019 by topsis technique of mcdm—a mathematical analysis. Int J Sci Eng Res. 2019;10:789–92.
26. Kumar R A knowledge-based integrated system of hesitant fuzzy set, ahp and topsis for evaluating security-durability of web applications IEEE Access 2020 8 48870 48885 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2978038
Kumar R, et al. A knowledge-based integrated system of hesitant fuzzy set, ahp and topsis for evaluating security-durability of web applications. IEEE Access. 2020;8:48870–85.10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2978038
27. Saqlain M Riaz M Saleem MA Yang M-S Distance and similarity measures for neutrosophic hypersoft set (nhss) with construction of nhss-topsis and applications IEEE Access 2021 9 30803 30816 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3059712
Saqlain M, Riaz M, Saleem MA, Yang M-S. Distance and similarity measures for neutrosophic hypersoft set (nhss) with construction of nhss-topsis and applications. IEEE Access. 2021;9:30803–16.10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3059712
28. Wang L Ali Y Nazir S Niazi M Isa evaluation framework for security of internet of health things system using ahp-topsis methods IEEE Access 2020 8 152316 152332 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3017221
Wang L, Ali Y, Nazir S, Niazi M. Isa evaluation framework for security of internet of health things system using ahp-topsis methods. IEEE Access. 2020;8:152316–32.10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3017221
29. Nabeeh NA Smarandache F Abdel-Basset M El-Ghareeb HA Aboelfetouh A An integrated neutrosophic-topsis approach and its application to personnel selection: a new trend in brain processing and analysis IEEE Access 2019 7 29734 29744 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2899841
Nabeeh NA, Smarandache F, Abdel-Basset M, El-Ghareeb HA, Aboelfetouh A. An integrated neutrosophic-topsis approach and its application to personnel selection: a new trend in brain processing and analysis. IEEE Access. 2019;7:29734–44.10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2899841
30. Ye J Similarity measures between interval neutrosophic sets and their applications in multicriteria decision-making J Intell Fuzzy Syst 2014 26 165 172 10.3233/IFS-120724
Ye J. Similarity measures between interval neutrosophic sets and their applications in multicriteria decision-making. J Intell Fuzzy Syst. 2014;26:165–72.10.3233/IFS-120724
31. Farooq MU Saqlain M The selection of laser as surgical instrument in medical using neutrosophic soft set with generalized fuzzy topsis, wsm and wpm along with matlab coding Neutrosophic Sets Syst 2021 40 3
Farooq MU, Saqlain M, et al. The selection of laser as surgical instrument in medical using neutrosophic soft set with generalized fuzzy topsis, wsm and wpm along with matlab coding. Neutrosophic Sets Syst. 2021;40:3.
32. Saqlain M Jafar N Moin S Saeed M Broumi S Single and multivalued neutrosophic hypersoft set and tangent similarity measure of single valued neutrosophic hypersoft sets Neutrosophic Sets Syst 2020 32 317 329
Saqlain M, Jafar N, Moin S, Saeed M, Broumi S. Single and multivalued neutrosophic hypersoft set and tangent similarity measure of single valued neutrosophic hypersoft sets. Neutrosophic Sets Syst. 2020;32:317–29.
33. Pramanik S Dey PP Giri BC Topsis for single valued neutrosophic soft expert set based multi-attribute decision making problems Neutrosophic Sets Syst 2015 10 88 95
Pramanik S, Dey PP, Giri BC. Topsis for single valued neutrosophic soft expert set based multi-attribute decision making problems. Neutrosophic Sets Syst. 2015;10:88–95.
34. Deli I Broumi S Neutrosophic soft matrices and NSM-decision making J Intell Fuzzy Syst 2015 28 2233 2241 10.3233/IFS-141505
Deli I, Broumi S. Neutrosophic soft matrices and NSM-decision making. J Intell Fuzzy Syst. 2015;28:2233–41.10.3233/IFS-141505
35. Deli I Cagman N Intuitionistic fuzzy parameterized soft set theory and its decision making Appl Soft Comput 2015 28 109 113 10.1016/j.asoc.2014.11.053
Deli I, Cagman N. Intuitionistic fuzzy parameterized soft set theory and its decision making. Appl Soft Comput. 2015;28:109–13.10.1016/j.asoc.2014.11.053
36. Dat LQ Linguistic approaches to interval complex neutrosophic sets in decision making IEEE Access 2019 7 38902 38917 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2902841
Dat LQ, et al. Linguistic approaches to interval complex neutrosophic sets in decision making. IEEE Access. 2019;7:38902–17.10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2902841
37. Tey DJY A novel neutrosophic data analytic hierarchy process for multicriteria decision making method: a case study in Kuala lumpur stock exchange IEEE Access 2019 7 53687 53697 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2912913
Tey DJY, et al. A novel neutrosophic data analytic hierarchy process for multicriteria decision making method: a case study in Kuala lumpur stock exchange. IEEE Access. 2019;7:53687–97.10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2912913
38. Zytoon MA A decision support model for prioritization of regulated safety inspections using integrated delphi, ahp and double-hierarchical topsis approach IEEE Access 2020 8 83444 83464 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2991179
Zytoon MA. A decision support model for prioritization of regulated safety inspections using integrated delphi, ahp and double-hierarchical topsis approach. IEEE Access. 2020;8:83444–64.10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2991179
39. Mathew M Chakrabortty RK Ryan MJ A novel approach integrating ahp and topsis under spherical fuzzy sets for advanced manufacturing system selection Eng Appl Artif Intell 2020 96 103988 10.1016/j.engappai.2020.103988
Mathew M, Chakrabortty RK, Ryan MJ. A novel approach integrating ahp and topsis under spherical fuzzy sets for advanced manufacturing system selection. Eng Appl Artif Intell. 2020;96: 103988.10.1016/j.engappai.2020.103988
40. Wardana AK The best selection of pip scholarship: Ahp-topsis vs fuzzy ahp –topsis J Phys Conf Ser 2021 1823 012006 10.1088/1742-6596/1823/1/012006
Wardana AK, et al. The best selection of pip scholarship: Ahp-topsis vs fuzzy ahp –topsis. J Phys Conf Ser. 2021;1823: 012006.10.1088/1742-6596/1823/1/012006
41. Issa U Saeed F Miky Y Alqurashi M Osman E Hybrid ahp-fuzzy topsis approach for selecting deep excavation support system Buildings 2022 12 295 10.3390/buildings12030295
Issa U, Saeed F, Miky Y, Alqurashi M, Osman E. Hybrid ahp-fuzzy topsis approach for selecting deep excavation support system. Buildings. 2022;12:295.10.3390/buildings12030295
42. Zimmermann H-J Fuzzy set theory Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Stat 2010 2 317 332 10.1002/wics.82
Zimmermann H-J. Fuzzy set theory. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Stat. 2010;2:317–32.10.1002/wics.82
43. Ye J A multicriteria decision-making method using aggregation operators for simplified neutrosophic sets J Intell Fuzzy Syst 2014 26 2459 2466 10.3233/IFS-130916
Ye J. A multicriteria decision-making method using aggregation operators for simplified neutrosophic sets. J Intell Fuzzy Syst. 2014;26:2459–66.10.3233/IFS-130916
44. Triantaphyllou E Triantaphyllou E Multi-criteria decision making methods 2000 Springer Us
Triantaphyllou E, Triantaphyllou E. Multi-criteria decision making methods. Springer Us; 2000.
