We present a group decision making framework for evaluating sustainability of the insulating materials. We tested thirteen materials on a model that was applied to retrofit a traditional rural building through roof’s insulation. To evaluate the materials from the socio-economic and environmental viewpoints, we combined life cycle costing and assessment with an adaptive comfort evaluation. In this way, the performances of each coating material were measured in terms of an incurred reduction of costs and consumption of resources, maintenance of the cultural and historic significance of buildings, and a guaranteed indoor thermal comfort. The comprehensive assessment of the materials involved their assignment to one of the three preference-ordered sustainability classes. For this purpose, we used a multiple criteria decision analysis approach that accounted for preferences of a few tens of rural buildings’ owners. The proposed methodological framework incorporated an outranking-based preference model to compare the insulating materials with the characteristic class profiles while using the weights derived from the revised Simos procedure. The initial sorting recommendation for each material was validated against the outcomes of robustness analysis that combined the preferences of individual stakeholders either at the output or at the input level. The analysis revealed that the most favorable materials in terms of their overall sustainability were glass wool, hemp fibres, kenaf fibres, polystyrene foam, polyurethane, and rock wool.

Lipinski’s Rule of Five and Ghose filter are empirical guidelines for evaluating the drug-likeness of a compound, suggesting that orally active drugs typically fall within specific ranges for molecular descriptors such as hydrogen bond donors and acceptors, weight, and lipophilicity. We revisit these practices and offer a more analytical perspective using the Dominance-based Rough Set Approach (DRSA). By analyzing representative samples of drug and non-drug molecules and focusing on the same molecular descriptors, we derived decision rules capable of distinguishing between these two classes systematically and reproducibly. This way, we reduced human bias and enabled efficient knowledge extraction from available data. The performance of the DRSA model was rigorously validated against traditional rules and available machine learning (ML) approaches, showing a significant improvement over empirical rules while achieving comparable predictive accuracy to more complex ML methods. Our rules remain simple and interpretable while being characterized by high sensitivity and specificity.

The impacts of energy accidents are of primary interest for risk and resilience analysts, decision makers, and the general public. They can cause human health and environmental impacts, economic and societal losses, which justifies the interest in developing models to mitigate these adverse outcomes. We present a classification model for sorting energy accidents in the natural gas sector into hazard classes, according to their potential fatalities. The model is built on decision rules, which are knowledge blocks in the form of “if (condition), then (classification to hazard class x)”. They were extracted by the rough sets method using natural gas accident data from 1970–2016 of the Energy-related Severe Accident Database (ENSAD) of the Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI), the most authoritative information source for accidents in the energy sector. This was the first attempt to explore the relationships between the descriptors of energy accidents and the consequence (fatalities). The model was applied to a set of hypothetical accidents to show how the decision-making process could be supported when there is an interest in knowing which class (i.e., low, medium, high) of fatalities an energy accident could cause. The successful use of this approach in the natural gas sector proves that it can be also adapted for other energy chains, such as oil and coal.