Emergency decision-making in event networks is often constrained by scarce historical data, conflicting expert judgments, and uncertain activity durations and costs. To address this problem, this paper develops an ignorance-event-network optimization framework that integrates GC-rule-based expert evidence fusion with a time-cost-risk multi-objective scheduling model. The GC rule is used to transform expert interval judgments into fused activity parameters and residual uncertainty-risk indicators. On this basis, a competitive multi-objective particle swarm optimization algorithm (CMOPSO) is applied to generate a Pareto set of feasible schedules, and TOPSIS is used to select a representative compromise solution. The framework is validated using a marine ranching ecological-security emergency decision network containing 62 real activities and two virtual start/finish nodes. Compared with the CPM baseline, the selected CMOPSO-TOPSIS schedule reduces project duration from 190.00 days to 156.41 days and slightly reduces the uncertainty-risk objective from 59.283 to 58.791, with total cost increasing from 326.80 to 361.46. The results show that the proposed framework can support transparent trade-off analysis among response duration, cost, and uncertainty risk in data-scarce marine ranching emergencies.
- Open Access
- Article
Ignorant Critical Path Analysis with Triple Objectives for Event Networks and Its Application in Marine Ranching Emergency Decision
- Ye Yuan,
- Mario Brito and
- Qin Zhou *
Author Information
Received: 09 July 2026 | Revised: 14 August 2026 | Accepted: 21 September 2026 | Published: 27 October 2026
Abstract
Keywords
multi-objective optimization | critical path analysis | ignorance | marine ranching emergency decision making
References
- 1.
She, B.; Chen, B.; Hall, N.G. Buffer sizing in critical chain project management by network decomposition. Omega 2021, 102, 102382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2020.102382.
- 2.
Chen, S.P. Analysis of critical paths in a project network with fuzzy activity times. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2007, 183, 442–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.06.053.
- 3.
van Dorp, J.R. A dependent project evaluation and review technique: A Bayesian network approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2020, 280, 689–706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.07.051.
- 4.
Ganesh, A.H.; Shobana, A.H.; Ramesh, R. Identification of critical path for the analysis of bituminous road transport network using integrated FAHP—FTOPSIS method. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Emerging Trends and Innovations in Mechanical Engineering (ICETIME-2020), Bengaluru, India, 30 October 2020; pp. 193–206.
- 5.
Zhou, Q.; Yuen, K.F. Behavior-Based Pricing: An Analysis of the Impact of Anticipated Regret. INFOR Inf. Syst. Oper. Res. 2021, 59, 517–546. https://doi.org/10.1080/03155986.2021.1939841.
- 6.
Nemati-Lafmejani, R.; Davari-Ardakani, H. Multi-Mode Resource Constrained Project Scheduling Problem Along with Contractor Selection. INFOR Inf. Syst. Oper. Res. 2021, 59, 212–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/03155986.2020.1803720.
- 7.
Mehlawat, M.K.; Gupta, P. A new fuzzy group multi-criteria decision making method with an application to the critical path selection. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2016, 83, 1281–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7610-4.
- 8.
Li, Y.Y.; Lin, J.; Wang, Z.J. Multi-skill resource constrained project scheduling using a multi-objective discrete Jaya algorithm. Appl. Intell. 2022, 52, 5718–5738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-021-02608-8.
- 9.
Qin, M.; Wang, X.; Du, Y. Factors affecting marine ranching risk in China and their hierarchical relationships based on DEMATEL, ISM, and BN. Aquaculture 2022, 549, 737802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.737802.
- 10.
Jiao, M.; Yue, W.; Suo, A.; et al. Construction and influencing factors of an early warning system for marine ranching ecological security: Experience from China’s coastal areas. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 335, 117515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117515.
- 11.
Yuan, Y.; Ye, S.; Lin, L.; et al. Multi-objective multi-mode resource-constrained project scheduling with fuzzy activity durations in prefabricated building construction. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2021, 158, 107316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107316.
- 12.
Guo, K. Multi-Objective Optimization for Improved Tunneling Project Management from Planning to Operation Stages. Ph.D. Thesis, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, 2022.
- 13.
Muritiba, A.E.F.; Rodrigues, C.D.; Costa, F.A.D. A Path-Relinking algorithm for the multi-mode resource-constrained project scheduling problem. Comput. Oper. Res. 2018, 92, 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2018.01.001.
- 14.
Bettemir, Ö.H.; Birgonul, M.T. Solution of discrete time–cost trade-off problem with adaptive search domain. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2025, 32, 1032–1052. https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-06-2022-0601.
- 15.
Zitzler, E.; Deb, K.; Thiele, L. Comparison of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: Empirical results. Evol. Comput. 2000, 8, 173–195. https://doi.org/10.1162/106365600568202.
- 16.
Zhang, W.; Wang, S.; Li, G.; et al. Cooperative tri-population based evolutionary algorithm for large-scale multi-objective optimization. Expert Syst. Appl. 2023, 227, 120290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120290.
- 17.
Dissanayake, H.; Perera, N.; Abeykoon, S.; et al. Nexus between carbon emissions, energy consumption, and economic growth: Evidence from global economies. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0287579. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287579.
- 18.
Li, J.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, S.; et al. Task incremental learning-driven Digital-Twin predictive modeling for customized metal forming product manufacturing process. Robot. Comput.-Integr. Manuf. 2024, 85, 102647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2023.102647.
- 19.
Zhang, H.; Qian, Z.; Fang, Z.; et al. Modeling and multi-objective optimization of polymer desiccant cooling system. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2024, 53, 103871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2023.103871.
- 20.
Deng, X.; Yang, F.; Cao, L.; et al. Multi-objective optimization for a novel sandwich corrugated square tubes. Alex. Eng. J. 2023, 74, 611–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2023.05.069.
- 21.
Elbeltagi, E.; Ammar, M.; Sanad, H.; et al. Overall multiobjective optimization of construction projects scheduling using particle swarm. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2016, 23, 265–282. https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-11-2014-0135.
- 22.
Yılmaz, M.; Dede, T. Optimizing multiobjective time-cost-quality problems in construction projects: Efficacy of strength Pareto-based Rao algorithms. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2025, 151, 04025036. https://doi.org/10.1061/jcemd4.coeng-15551.
- 23.
Xu, Y.; Reniers, G.; Yang, M. A multidisciplinary review into the evolution of risk concepts and their assessment methods. Processes 2024, 12, 2449. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr12112449.
- 24.
Huang, Y.; Zhuang, Y.; Xing, Y.; et al. Multi-objective optimization for work-integrated heat exchange network coupled with interstage multiple utilities. Energy 2023, 273, 127240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.127240.
- 25.
Chen, W.; Wang, J.; Yu, G. Energy-efficient scheduling for an energy-intensive industry under punitive electricity price. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 373, 133851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133851.
- 26.
Joo, B.J.; Shim, S.O.; Chua, T.J.; et al. Multi-level job scheduling under processing time uncertainty. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2018, 120, 480–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.02.003.
- 27.
Delgoshaei, A.; Ali, A.; Ariffin, M.K.A.; et al. A multi-period scheduling of dynamic cellular manufacturing systems in the presence of cost uncertainty. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2016, 100, 110–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2016.08.010.
- 28.
Peng, W.; Lin, X.; Li, H. Critical chain based Proactive-Reactive scheduling for Resource-Constrained project scheduling under uncertainty. Expert Syst. Appl. 2023, 214, 119188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.119188.
- 29.
Batista, D.M.; da Fonseca, N.L.S. Robust scheduler for grid networks under uncertainties of both application demands and resource availability. Comput. Netw. 2011, 55, 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2010.07.009.
- 30.
Jiang, M.; Lu, J.; Qu, Z.; et al. Safety evaluation of the ports along the maritime silk road. Marit. Policy Manag. 2022, 49, 797–819. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2021.1903598.
- 31.
Zhao, X.; Yan, H.; Zhang, J. A critical review of container security operations. Marit. Policy Manag. 2017, 44, 170–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2016.1253883.
- 32.
Said, A.M.; Mahdi, D.; Zina, Z. Applying AHP and SCOR to assess road transport risk in the petroleum supply chain. Supply Chain. Forum Int. J. 2024, 25, 380–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/16258312.2024.2328510.
- 33.
Gul, M. A fuzzy-based occupational health and safety risk assessment framework and a case study in an international port authority. J. Mar. Eng. Technol. 2020, 19, 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/20464177.2019.1670994.
- 34.
Liu, T.; Ding, C.; Feng, H.; et al. Trade strategy with the countries along the Ice Silk Road: A Rabin model-based perspective. Marit. Policy Manag. 2024, 51, 995–1012. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2024.2324144.
- 35.
Wang, J.; Zhang, B.; Zhou, H. A theoretical model on maritime culture development: New evidence from ten typical port cities of China. Int. J. Logist.-Res. Appl. 2023, 28, 784–803. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2023.2230918.
- 36.
Shen, M.; Zhao, Z.; Wang, H.; et al. Round-trip multimodal transportation routes planning for foldable vehicle racks. Marit. Policy Manag. 2024, 52, 930–954. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2024.2385847.
- 37.
Kim, M.; Jeong, Y.; Moon, I. Efficient stowage plan with loading and unloading operations for shipping liners using foldable containers and shift cost-sharing. Marit. Policy Manag. 2021, 48, 877–894. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2020.1821109.
- 38.
Mahmud, K.K.; Chowdhury, M.M.H.; Shaheen, M.M.A. Green port management practices for sustainable port operations: A multi method study of Asian ports. Marit. Policy Manag. 2024, 51, 1902–1937. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2023.2258125.
- 39.
Mohsendokht, M.; Kontovas, C.; Chang, C.H.; et al. Resilience analysis of seaports: A critical review of development and research directions. Marit. Policy Manag. 2025, 53, 227–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2025.2483410.
- 40.
Yuen, K.F.; Wang, X.; Wong, Y.D.; et al. The effect of sustainable shipping practices on shippers’ loyalty: The mediating role of perceived value, trust and transaction cost. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2018, 116, 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2018.06.002.
- 41.
Zhu, M.; Yuen, K.F.; Ge, J.W.; et al. Impact of maritime emissions trading system on fleet deployment and mitigation of CO2 emission. Transp. Res. Part D-Transp. Environ. 2018, 62, 474–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.03.016.
- 42.
Yuen, K.F.; Thai, V.V.; Wong, Y.D. Corporate social responsibility and classical competitive strategies of maritime transport firms: A contingency-fit perspective. Transp. Res. Part A-Policy Pract. 2017, 98, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.01.020.
- 43.
Wan, X.; Li, Q.; Zhang, G.; et al. Sustainable collaborative innovation capability enhancement paths of marine ranching: Supernetwork analysis perspective. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2023, 231, 106387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106387.
- 44.
Majszak, M.; Jebeile, J. Expert judgment in climate science: How it is used and how it can be justified. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 2023, 100, 32–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2023.05.005.
- 45.
Rigaud, M.; Buekers, J.; Bessems, J.; et al. The methodology of quantitative risk assessment studies. Environ. Health 2024, 23, 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-023-01039-x.
- 46.
Wu, Y.; Liu, Z.; Liu, J.; et al. Breaking free from fusion rule: A fully semantic-driven infrared and visible image fusion. IEEE Signal Process. Lett. 2023, 30, 418–422. https://doi.org/10.1109/lsp.2023.3266980.
- 47.
Xiao, F.; Wen, J.; Pedrycz, W.; et al. Complex evidence theory for multisource data fusion. Chin. J. Inf. Fusion 2024, 1, 134–159. https://doi.org/10.62762/cjif.2024.999646.
- 48.
Du, Y.W.; Zhong, J.J.; Wang, Y.M. Analytical generalized combination rule for evidence fusion. Inf. Sci. 2025, 686, 120903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2024.120903.
- 49.
Dubois, D.; Faux, F.; Prade, H. Prejudice in uncertain information merging: Pushing the fusion paradigm of evidence theory further. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 2020, 121, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2020.02.012.
- 50.
Xiao, F. Multi-sensor data fusion based on the belief divergence measure of evidences and the belief entropy. Inf. Fusion 2019, 46, 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2018.04.003.
- 51.
Yuan, K.; Xiao, F.; Fei, L.; et al. Conflict management based on belief function entropy in sensor fusion. Springerplus 2016, 5, 638. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2205-6.
- 52.
Du, Y.W.; Zhong, J.J. Group inference method of attribution theory based on Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2020, 188, 104985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2019.104985.
- 53.
Yang, Y.; Han, D. A new distance-based total uncertainty measure in the theory of belief functions. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2016, 94, 114–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2015.11.014.
- 54.
Taylor, M.D.; Chick, R.C.; Lorenzen, K.; et al. Fisheries enhancement and restoration in a changing world. Fish. Res. 2017, 186, 407–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2016.10.004.
- 55.
Liu, D.; Cheng, Y.; Peng, D. The multiple interacting fuzzy linguistic set and its application in emergency decision making. Expert Syst. Appl. 2024, 245, 123100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.123100.
- 56.
Zhou, M.; Zhang, Y.; Fan, X.; et al. A novel consensus reaching approach for large-scale multi-attribute emergency group decision-making under social network clustering based on graph attention mechanism. Appl. Intell. 2025, 55, 453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-024-05992-z.
- 57.
Wang, Q.; Zhang, K.; Lin, S. Fault Diagnosis Method of Disconnector Based on CNN and D-S Evidence Theory. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2023, 59, 5691–5704. https://doi.org/10.1109/tia.2023.3284780.
- 58.
Li, J.; Chen, P. A new Q-matrix validation method based on signal detection theory. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 2024, 78, 522–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12371.
- 59.
Yan, B.; Wang, Y.; Xia, W.; et al. Novel consensus-reaching model in the social network environment for large-group emergency decision-making: An approach to managing non-cooperative behaviors. Artif. Intell. Rev. 2023, 56, 8609–8645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-022-10384-1.
- 60.
Zhu, Y.; Xu, X.; Pan, B. A method for the dynamic collaboration of the public and experts in large-scale group emergency decision-making: Using social media data to evaluate the decision-making quality. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2023, 176, 108943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2022.108943.
- 61.
Du, Y.; Cao, W. Theoretical framework for the supervision of the ecological security of China’s marine ranching. ChinaPopul. Resour. Environ. 2021, 31, 182–191.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
