955
Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 32 (2017) 955–968 DOI:10.3233/JIFS-161548 IOS Press
Algorithms for neutrosophic soft decision making based on EDAS, new similarity measure and level soft set Xindong Penga,∗ and Chong Liub a School
of Information Science and Engineering, Shaoguan University, Shaoguan, China of Command Information System, PLA University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, China
b College
Abstract. This paper presents three novel single-valued neutrosophic soft set (SVNSS) methods. First, we initiate a new axiomatic definition of single-valued neutrosophic similarity measure, which is expressed by single-valued neutrosophic number (SVNN) that will reduce the information loss and remain more original information. Then, the objective weights of various parameters are determined via grey system theory. Moreover, we develop the combined weights, which can show both the subjective information and the objective information. Later, we propose three algorithms to solve single-valued neutrosophic soft decision making problem by Evaluation based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS), similarity measure and level soft set. Finally, the effectiveness and feasibility of approaches are demonstrated by a numerical example. Keywords: Single-valued neutrosophic soft set, similarity measure, SVNN, Combined weighed , EDAS , level soft set
1. Introduction Soft set theory, initiated by Molodtsov [1], is free from the inadequacy of the parameterized tools of those theories such as fuzzy set [2], rough set [3], and interval mathematics [4]. The study of hybrid models combing soft sets with other mathematical structures are an important research topic. Maji et al. [5] firstly proposed fuzzy soft sets, a more wide notion combining fuzzy sets and soft sets. Alcantud [6] proposed a novel algorithm for fuzzy soft set based decision making from multiobserver input parameter data set. Feng et al. [7] proposed an adjustable approach to fuzzy soft set based decision making by level soft set. Yang et al. [8] developed the concept of intervalvalued fuzzy soft sets. Meanwhile, Peng and Yang applied interval-valued fuzzy soft sets in clustering ∗ Corresponding author. Xindong Peng, School of Information Science and Engineering, Shaoguan University, Shaoguan, China. Tel.: +86 15889857163; E-mail: 952518336@qq.com.
analysis [9] and decision making [10]. Peng et al. [11] presented Pythagorean fuzzy soft sets, and discussed their operations. Yang et al. [12] proposed the multi-fuzzy soft sets and successfully applied them to decision making, meanwhile they extended the multifuzzy soft sets to bipolar multi-fuzzy soft sets [13], which can describe the parameter more precisely. Wang et al. [14] presented the hesitant fuzzy soft sets by aggregating hesitant fuzzy set [15] with soft set, and developed an algorithm to solve decision making problems. Peng and Yang [16] further proposed interval-valued hesitant fuzzy soft set, presented an algorithm, and discussed its calculation complexity with others algorithms. Smarandache [17] initially presented the concept of a neutrosophic set from a philosophical point of view. A neutrosophic set is characterized by a truthmembership degree, an indeterminacy-membership degree, and a falsity-membership degree. It generalizes the concept of the classic set, fuzzy set [2], interval-valued fuzzy set [4], paraconsistent set [17],
1064-1246/17/$35.00 © 2017 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved
956
X. Peng and C. Liu / Algorithms for neutrosophic soft decision making based on EDAS
and tautological set [17]. From scientific or engineering point of view, the neutrosophic set and set-theoretic operators need to be specified. Otherwise, it will be difficult to apply in the real applications. Hence, Smarandache [17] firstly introduced the a single valued neutrosophic set (SVNS). Wang et al. [18] provided the set-theoretic operators and various properties of SVNSs. Ye [19, 20] proposed a multi-attribute decision making (MADM) method using the correlation coefficient under singlevalued neutrosophic environment. Ye [21, 22] further developed clustering method and decision making methods by similarity measures of SVNS. Meanwhile, Peng and Dai [23] presented new similarity measure of SVNS and applied them to decision making. Biswas et al. [24] extended the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method for multi-attribute single-valued neutrosophic decision-making problem. Sahin and Kucuk [25] defined a subsethood measure for SVNS, and applied to MADM. Yang et al. [26] introduced single valued neutrosophic relations and discussed their properties. Huang [27] developed a new distance measure of SVNSs, and applied them to clustering analysis and MADM. Liu [28] proposed aggregation operators based on Archimedean t-conorm and t-norm for SVNS and also gave an application in MADM. Wu et al. [29] proposed a cross-entropy and prioritized aggregation operator with simplified neutrosophic sets. Single valued neutrosophic graphs [30–32] and bipolar single valued neutrosophic graphs [33, 34] are proposed by Broumi et al. Peng et al. [35, 36] proposed ELECTRE approach and qualitative flexible approach based on likelihood for multi-valued neutrosophic MADM problem, respectively. Ji et al. [37] introduced a projectionbased TODIM method for multi-valued neutrosophic MADM problem. Tian et al. [38] presented an improved MULTIMOORA approach for simplified neutrosophic linguistic set. Later, Tian et al. [39] incorporated power aggregation operators and a TOPSIS-based QUALIFLEX method in order to solve green product design selection problems using simplified neutrosophic linguistic information. Tian et al. [40] proposed a MADM based on generalized prioritized aggregation operators under simplified neutrosophic uncertain linguistic environment. Combining the advantages of the instance of neutrosophic set [17] with soft set [1], Maji [41] proposed the single-valued neutrosophic soft set. S¸ahin and K¨uc¸u¨ k [42] presented the definition of similarity and entropy in single-valued neutrosophic soft envi-
ronment. Mukherjee and Sarkar [43] defined some similarity measures of single-valued neutrosophic soft sets, and applied them to real life problems. Deli and Broumi [44] defined some new operators and soft matrix based on single-valued neutrosophic soft sets. Alkhazaleh [45] introduced time-neutrosophic soft set and studied some of its properties in detail. Al-Quran and Hassan [46] presented the neutosophic vague soft expert set theory and discussed their properties in detail. Evaluation based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS), originally proposed by Ghorabaee et al. [47], is a new MADM method for inventory ABC classification. It is very useful when we have some conflicting parameters. In the compromise MADM methods such as TOPSIS and VIKOR [48], the best alternative is got by computing the distance from ideal and nadir solutions. The desirable alternative has lower distance from ideal solution and higher distance from nadir solution in these MADM methods. Ghorabaee et al. [49] extended the EDAS method to supplier selection. As far as we know, however, the study of the MADM problem based on EDAS method have not been reported in the existing academic literature. Hence, it is an interesting research topic to apply the EDAS in MADM to rank and determine the best alternative under single-valued neutrosophic soft environment. Through a comparison analysis of the given methods, their objective evaluation is carried out, and the method which maintains consistency of its results is chosen. For computing the similarity measure of two SVNSs, we propose a new axiomatic definition of similarity measure, which takes in the form of SVNN. Comparing with the existing literature [21, 22, 42, 43], our similarity measure can remain more original decision information. By means of level soft sets, Feng et al. [7] presented an adjustable approach to fuzzy soft sets based decision making. By considering different types of thresholds, it can derive different level soft sets from the original fuzzy soft set. In general, the final optimal decisions based on different level soft sets could be different. Thus the newly proposed approach is in fact an adjustable method which captures an important feature for decision making in an imprecise environment: some of these problems are essentially humanistic and thus subjective in nature. As far as we know, however, the study of the single-valued neutrosophic soft MADM problem based on level soft set have not been reported in the existing academic literature.
X. Peng and C. Liu / Algorithms for neutrosophic soft decision making based on EDAS
Considering that different attribute weights will influence the ranking results of alternatives, we develop a new method to determine the attribute weights by combining the subjective elements with the objective ones. This model is different from the existing methods, which can be divided into two tactics: one is the subjective weighting evaluation methods and the other is the objective weighting determine methods, which can be computed by grey system theory [50]. The subjective weighting methods focus on the preference information of the decision maker [19–21, 27–29], while they ignore the objective information. The objective weighting determine methods do not take the preference of the decision maker into account, that is to say, these methods fail to take the risk attitude of the decision maker into account [22, 24]. The feature of our weighting model can show both the subjective information and the objective information. Hence, combining objective weights with subjective weights, a combined model to obtain attribute weights is proposed. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, we review some fundamental conceptions of neutrosophic sets, single-valued neutrosophic sets, soft set and single-valued neutrosophic soft sets. In Section 3, a new axiomatic definition of single-valued neutrosophic similarity measure is presented. In Section 4, three single-valued neutrosophic soft decision making approaches based on EDAS, similarity measure and level soft set are shown. In Section 5, a numerical example is given to illustrate the proposed methods. The paper is concluded in Section 6.
2. Preliminaries 2.1. Neutrosophic set Neutrosophic set is a portion of neutrosophy, which researches the origin, and domain of neutralities, as well as their interactions with diverse ideational scope [17], and is a convincing general formal framework, which extends the presented sets [2, 4] from philosophical point. Smarandache [17] introduced the definition of neutrosophic set as follows: Definition 1. [17] Let X be a universe of discourse, with a class of elements in X denoted by x. A neutrosophic set B in X is summarized by a truth-membership function TB (x), an indeterminacy-membership function IB (x), and a
957
falsity-membership function FB (x). The functions TB (x), IB (x), and FB (x) are real standard or nonstandard subsets of ]0− , 1+ [ . That is TB (x) : X → ]0− , 1+ [ , IB (x) : X →]0− , 1+ [ , and FB (x) : X → ]0− , 1+ [. There is restriction on the sum of TB (x), IB (x), and FB (x), so 0− ≤ sup TB (x) + sup IB (x) + sup FB (x) ≤ 3+ . As mentioned above, it is hard to apply the neutrosophic set to solve some real problems. Hence, Smarandache [17] presented SVNS, which is a subclass of the neutrosophic set and mentioned the definition as follows: Definition 2. [17] Let X be a universe of discourse, with a class of elements in X denoted by x. A single-valued neutrosophic set N in X is summarized by a truth-membership function TN (x), an indeterminacy-membership function IN (x), and a falsity-membership function FN (x). Then a SVNS N can be denoted as follows: N = {< x, TN (x), IN (x), FN (x) >| x ∈ X},
(1)
where TN (x), IN (x), FN (x) ∈ [0, 1] for ∀x ∈ X. Meanwhile, the sum of TN (x), IN (x), and FN (x) fulfills the condition 0 ≤ TN (x) + IN (x) + FN (x) ≤ 3. For a SVNS N in X, the triplet (TN (x), IN (x), FN (x)) is called single-valued neutrosophic number (SVNN). For convenience, we can simply use x = (Tx , Ix , Fx ) to represent a SVNN as an element in the SVNS N. Generally speaking, two special values are taken into consideration, i.e., SVNN 0 and 1. If we think about 0 as the worst value and 1 as the best value, we can set 0 as (0,1,1) and 1 as (1,0,0). Definition 3. [17, 18] Let x = (Tx , Ix , Fx ) and y = (Ty , Iy , Fy ) be two SVNNs, then operations can be defined as follows: (1) xc = (Fx , 1 − Ix , Tx ); (2) x y = (max{Tx , Ty }, min{Ix , Iy }, min {F x , Fy }); (3) x y = (min{Tx , Ty }, max{Ix , Iy }, max {Fx , Fy }); (4) x ⊕ y = (Tx + Ty − Tx ∗ Ty , Ix ∗ Iy , Fx ∗ Fy ); (5) x ⊗ y = (Tx ∗ Ty , Ix + Iy − Ix ∗ Iy , Fx + Fy − Fx ∗ Fy ); (6) λx = (1 − (1 − Tx )λ , (Ix )λ , (Fx )λ ), λ > 0; (7) xλ = ((Tx )λ , 1 − (1 − Ix )λ , 1 − (1 − Fx )λ ), λ > 0.
958
X. Peng and C. Liu / Algorithms for neutrosophic soft decision making based on EDAS Table 1 , A) The single-valued neutrosophic soft set (F
For comparing two SVNNs, Peng et al. [51] introduced a similarity measure method for a SVNN. Definition 4. [51] Let x = (Tx , Ix , Fx ) be a SVNN, then the score function s(x) is defined as follows: s(x) =
Ix Fx 2 Tx + − − . 3 3 3 3
(2)
It measures the hamming similarity between x = (Tx , Ix , Fx ) and the ideal solution (1, 0, 0) for the comparison of SVNNs. Definition 5. [28] Let xj (j = 1, 2, · · · , n) be a series of the SVNNs, and w = (w1 , w2 , · · · , wn )T be the weight vector of xj (i = 1, 2, · · · , n), then a singlevalued neutrosophic weighted averaging (SVNWA) operator is a mapping SVNWA: Xn → X, where SVNWA(x1 , x2 , · · · , xn ) =
n
(wj xj )
j=1
=
1−
n j=1
(1 − Tj ) , wj
n
wj
(Ij ) ,
j=1
n
(.3) (Fj ) wj
j=1
, A) is called a singleDefinition 6. [41] A pair (F is a valued neutrosophic soft set over U, where F : A → P(U). mapping given by F In other words, the single-valued neutrosophic soft set is not a kind of set, but a parameterized family of subsets of the set U. For any parameter e ∈ A, (e) may be considered as the set of e-approximate F elements of the single-valued neutrosophic soft , A). Let F (e)(x) denote the membership set (F (e) value that object x holds parameter e, then F can be written as a single-valued neutrosophic (e) = {x/F (e)(x) | x ∈ U} = {x/(T (e)(x), set that F F IF (e)(x), FF (e)(x)) | x ∈ U}. Example 1. Let U = {x1 , x2 , x3 } and A = {e1 , e2 , , A) be a single-valued neutrosophic soft e3 }. Let (F set over U, defined as follows: (e1 ) = {x1 /(0.3, 0.4, 0.7), x2 /(0.3, 0.5, 0.6), F x3 /(0.4, 0.4, 0.6)}, (e2 ) = {x1 /(0.7, 0.4, 0.8), x2 /(0.6, 0.4, 0.6), F x3 /(0.3, 0.5, 0.7)}, (e3 ) = {x1 /(0.5, 0.4, 0.6), x2 /(0.3, 0.6, 0.7), F x3 /(0.3, 0.4, 0.8)}. , A) is described by the following Table 1. Then, (F
x1 x2 x3
e1
e2
e3
(0.3,0.4,0.7) (0.3,0.5,0.6) (0.4,0.4,0.6)
(0.7,0.4,0.8) (0.6,0.4,0.6) (0.3,0.5,0.7)
(0.5,0.4,0.6) (0.3,0.6,0.7) (0.3,0.4,0.8)
B) be two , A) and (G, Definition 7. [41] Let (F single-valued neutrosophic soft sets over the com , A) is said to be single-valued mon universe U. (F B) if A ⊂ B, neutrosophic soft subset of (G, TF (e)(x) ≤ TG (e)(x), I (e)(x) ≤ I (e)(x), FF (e)(x) F G ≥ FG (e)(x), ∀e ∈ A, x ∈ U. We denote it by B). , A) ⊆ (G, (F 3. A new single-valued neutrosophic similarity measure For the existing single-valued neutrosophic similarity measures [21, 22, 42, 43], its similarity result is a fuzzy number, it may lost some original information. In the following, we will propose a new single-valued neutrosophic similarity measure, its similarity result is still a single-valued neutrosophic number, hence it can be remain more original decision information in some extent. Definition 8. Let A1 , A2 and A3 be three SVNSs on X. A similarity measure S (A1 , A2 ) is a mapping S : SVNS(X) × SVNS(X) → SVNN, possessing the following properties: (1) (2) (3) (4)
S (A1 , A2 ) is a SVNN; S (A1 , A2 ) = (1, 0, 0), iff A1 = A2 ; S (A1 , A2 ) = S (A2 , A1 ); If A1 ⊆ A2 ⊆ A3 , then S (A1 , A2 ) ⊇ S (A1 , A3 ) and S (A2 , A3 ) ⊇ S (A1 , A3 ).
Theorem 1. Let Ai and Ak be two SVNSs, then S (Ai , Ak ) is a similarity measure. S (Ai , Ak ) = min{L(Ai , Ak ), M(Ai , Ak ), R(Ai , Ak )}, min{L(Ai , Ak ), W(Ai , Ak ), R(Ai , Ak )},
1 − max{L(Ai , Ak ), M(Ai , Ak ), R(Ai , Ak )} , (4) n
where L(Ai , Ak ) =
j=1 n
j=1
wj min{Tij ,Tkj } wj max{Tij ,Tkj }
,
X. Peng and C. Liu / Algorithms for neutrosophic soft decision making based on EDAS n
M(Ai , Ak ) = n
, wj max{1−Iij ,1−Ikj }
j=1
n
W(Ai , Ak ) = 1 −
j=1 n
n
R(Ai , Ak ) =
j=1 n
It means that L(Ai , Ak ) = M(Ai , Ak ) = R(Ai , Ak ) = 1, W(Ai , Ak ) = 0. Furthermore, n
wj min{1−Iij ,1−Ikj }
j=1
wj min{Tij ,Tkj }
L(Ai , Ak ) = n
j=1
wj min{1−Iij ,1−Ikj }
,
wj max{Tij ,Tkj }
j=1 n
wj max{1−Iij ,1−Ikj }
j=1
M(Ai , Ak ) =
j=1 n
wj min{1−Fij ,1−Fkj } wj max{1−Fij ,1−Fkj }
959
and wj is the
j=1
wj min{1−Iij ,1−Ikj } wj max{1−Iij ,1−Ikj } n
j=1
weight of jth SVNN.
= 1,
W(Ai , Ak ) = 1 − n
= 1,
wj min{1−Iij ,1−Ikj }
j=1
Proof. In order for S (Ai , Ak ) to be qualified as a sensible similarity measure for SVNSs, it must satisfy the (1)-(4) of axiomatic requirements. n wj min{Tij ,Tkj }
(1) Since 0 ≤ L(Ai , Ak ) = n
≤ 1,
j=1
n
0 ≤ M(Ai , Ak ) = n
wj max{Tij ,Tkj }
j=1
wj min{1−Iij ,1−Ikj }
j=1
j=1
wj max{1−Iij ,1−Ikj } n
0 ≤ W(Ai , Ak ) = 1 −
j=1 n
n
0 ≤ R(Ai , Ak ) =
j=1 n
≤ 1,
R(Ai , Ak ) =
j=1 n
≤ 1,
j=1
≤ 1,
j=1
therefore, 0 ≤ min{L(Ai , Ak ), M(Ai , Ak ), R(Ai , Ak )} ≤ 1, 0 ≤ min{L(Ai , Ak ), W(Ai , Ak ), R(Ai , Ak )} ≤ 1, 0 ≤ 1 − max{L(Ai , Ak ), M(Ai , Ak ), R(Ai , Ak )} ≤ 1. Furthermore, 0 ≤ min{L(Ai , Ak ), M(Ai , Ak ), R(Ai , Ak )} + min{L(Ai , Ak ), W(Ai , Ak ), R(Ai , Ak )} + 1 − max{L(Ai , Ak ), M(Ai , Ak ), R(Ai , Ak )} ≤ 3. Consequently, S (Ai , Ak ) is a SVNN. (2) ① Necessity: Since S (Ai , Ak ) = (1, 0, 0), we have min{L(Ai , Ak ), M(Ai , Ak ), R(Ai , Ak )} = 1, min{L(Ai , Ak ), W(Ai , Ak ), R(Ai , Ak )} = 0, max{L(Ai , Ak ), M(Ai , Ak ), R(Ai , Ak )} = 1.
j=1
wj min{1−Fij ,1−Fkj } wj max{1−Fij ,1−Fkj }
= 1.
j=1
wj min{Tij , Tkj } =
j=1
n
wj max{Tij , Tkj },
j=1
n
wj min{1−Fij ,1−Fkj } wj max{1−Fij ,1−Fkj }
= 0,
Based on the randomicity of wj , we can have Tij = Tkj , Iij = Ikj , Fij = Fkj , i.e., Ai = Ak . ② Sufficiency: Since Ai = Ak , we have Tij = Tkj , Iij = Ikj , Fij = Fkj . Furthermore, n
wj min{1−Iij ,1−Ikj } wj max{1−Iij ,1−Ikj }
n
wj max{1−Iij ,1−Ikj }
wj min{1 − Iij , 1 − Ikj }
j=1
=
n
wj max{1 − Iij , 1 − Ikj },
j=1 n
wj min{1 − Fij , 1 − Fkj }
j=1
=
n
wj max{1 − Fij , 1 − Fkj }.
j=1
Consequently, S (Ai , Ak ) = (1, 0, 0). (3) It is obvious. (4) If A1 ⊆ A2 ⊆ A3 , then ∀j, T1j ≤ T2j ≤ T3j , I1j ≥ I2j ≥ I3j and F1j ≥ F2j ≥ F3j . Hence, n
L(A1 , A3 ) =
j=1 n j=1
wj min{T1j , T3j } wj max{T1j , T3j }
960
X. Peng and C. Liu / Algorithms for neutrosophic soft decision making based on EDAS n
=
j=1 n j=1 n
=
j=1 n j=1 n
M(A1 , A3 ) =
j=1 n j=1 n
=
j=1 n j=1 n
=
j=1 n j=1
n
wj T1j ≤ wj T3j
j=1 n j=1
= wj T2j
wj max{T1j , T2j }
n
= L(A1 , A2 ),
n
wj (1 − I1j ) wj (1 − I3j )
≤
j=1 n j=1
wj (1 − I1j ) wj (1 − I2j )
wj max{1 − I1j , 1 − I2j }
j=1 n
j=1 n n j=1 n j=1 n j=1 n j=1
wj max{1 − I1j , 1 − I3j } wj (1 − I1j ) wj (1 − I3j ) wj (1 − I1j )
R(A1 , A3 ) =
j=1 n j=1
≤
j=1
wj (1 − F1j ) wj (1 − F2j )
wj min{1 − F1j , 1 − F2j } wj max{1 − F1j , 1 − F2j }
= R(A1 , A2 ).
min{L(A1 , A2 ), M(A1 , A2 ), R(A1 , A2 )} ≥ min{L(A1 , A3 ), M(A1 , A3 ), R(A1 , A3 )}, ≥ min{L(A1 , A3 ), W(A1 , A3 ), R(A1 , A3 )}, 1 − max{L(A1 , A2 ), M(A1 , A2 ), R(A1 , A2 )} ≤ 1 − max{L(A1 , A2 ), M(A1 , A2 ), R(A1 , A2 )}. Consequently, S (A1 , A2 ) ⊇ S (A1 , A3 ). Similarly, S (A2 , A3 ) ⊇ S (A1 , A3 ). This completes the proof. Example 2. [21] Assume that we have the following three SVNSs in a universe of discourse X = {x1 , x2 }, A ⊆ B ⊆ C, w = {0.5, 0.5}: A = {< x1 , 0.1, 0.5, 0.6 >, < x2 , 0.2, 0.5, 0.7 >}, B = {< x1 , 0.3, 0.4, 0.5 >, < x2 , 0.5, 0.3, 0.4 >}, C = {< x1 , 0.6, 0.1, 0.2 >, < x2 , 0.8, 0.1, 0.3 >}. By applying the proposed similarity measure, S (A, B) = (0.3750, 0.2308, 0.2308), S (B, C) = (0.5714, 0.2778, 0.2778),
wj (1 − I2j ) wj min{1 − I1j , 1 − I2j }
S (A, C) = (0.2143, 0.2143, 0.4444). Thus, S (A, C) < S (A, B) and S (A, C) < S (B, C).
wj max{1 − I1j , 1 − I2j }
= W(A1 , A2 ), n
wj (1 − F3j )
j=1 n
min{L(A1 , A2 ), W(A1 , A2 ), R(A1 , A2 )}
wj min{1 − I1j , 1 − I2j }
j=1
= 1−
n
wj (1 − F1j )
Furthermore, wj max{1 − I1j , 1 − I3j }
n
≤ 1−
=
j=1 n j=1
wj min{1 − I1j , 1 − I3j }
j=1
= 1−
j=1 n j=1
wj min{T1j , T2j }
= M(A1 , A2 ), n wj min{1 − I1j , 1 − I3j } W(A1 , A3 ) = 1 −
n
wj T1j
4. Three algorithms for single-valued neutrosophic soft decision making
wj min{1 − F1j , 1 − F3j }
4.1. Problem description
wj max{1 − F1j , 1 − F3j }
Let U = {x1 , x2 , · · · , xm } be a finite set of m alternatives, E = {e1 , e2 , · · · , en } be a set of n
X. Peng and C. Liu / Algorithms for neutrosophic soft decision making based on EDAS Table 2 , E) Tabular representation of (F x1 x2 .. . xm
e1
e2
···
(e1 )(x1 ) F (e1 )(x2 ) F .. . (e1 )(xm ) F
(e2 )(x1 ) F (e2 )(x2 ) F .. . (e2 )(xm ) F
··· ··· .. . ···
en
(en )(x1 ) F (en )(x2 ) F .. . (en )(xm ) F
parameters, and the weight of parameter ei is wi , wi ∈ , E) is single-valued neutro[0, 1], ni=1 wi = 1. (F sophic soft set which can be expressed in Table 2. (ej )(xi ) = (T (ej )(xi ), I (ej )(xi ), F (ej )(xi )) repF F F F resents the possible SVNN of the ith alternative xi satisfying the jth parameter ej which is given by the decision maker. In the following, we will apply the EDAS, similarity measure and level soft set methods to SVNSS. 4.2. The method of computing the combined weights We develop a novel method to obtain the weights by combining the subjective elements with the objective ones. This model is different from the existing methods, which can be divided into two tactics: one is the subjective weighting determine methods and the other is the objective weighting methods, which can be computed by grey system theory [50]. The feature of our weighting model can show both the subjective information and the objective information. Hence, combining subjective weights with objective weights, we provide a combined model to determine attribute weights. 4.2.1. Determining the objective weights: The grey system method The grey system theory [50] is an excellent tool to deal with small sample and poor information. For a decision maker problem, the alternatives and attributes are generally small which accord with the condition of grey system theory, so we take the method of grey system into consideration. Theoretically, if an attribute information with respect to other attribute more matches in the average information of the attribute, the attribute contains more information for decision making, the greater the weight. Based on this idea, we propose a grey relational analysis method to determine the attribute weights. Definition 9. Suppose R = (rij )m×n (i = 1, 2, · · · , m; j = 1, 2, · · · , n) be a single-valued neutrosophic
961
matrix. And S = (sij )m×n (i = 1, 2, · · · , m; j = 1, 2, · · · , n) is the score function s (Equation (2)) of R. Let si = n1 nj=1 sij , then the attribute weight ωj is defined as follows: m 1 q q 1 1− m (oij ) i=1 ωj = (5) m 1 , n q q 1 n− m (oij ) j=1
where oij =
i=1
min |sij −si |+ξ max |sij −si | i
i
|sij −si |+ξ max |sij −si |
is grey mean rela-
i
tional degree, in general, we set ξ = 0.5. In order to improve the effective resolution, this paper uses Euclidean distance instead of Hamming distance, i.e., q = 2. 4.2.2. Determining the combined weights: The non-linear weighted comprehensive method Suppose that the vector of the subjective weight, given by the decision makers directly, is w = {w1 , w2 , · · · , wn }, where nj=1 wj = 1, 0 ≤ wj ≤ 1. The vector of the objective weight, computed by Equation (11) directly, is ω = {ω1 , ω2 , · · · , ωn }, where nj=1 ωj = 1, 0 ≤ ωj ≤ 1. Therefore, the vector of the combined weight = { 1 , 2 , · · · , n } can be defined as follows: j = n
wj ∗ ωj
n
j=1
wj ∗ ω j
,
(6)
where j=1 j = 1, 0 ≤ j ≤ 1. The objective weight and subjective weight are aggregated by non-linear weighted comprehensive method. According to the multiplier effect, the larger the value of the subjective weight and objective weight are, the larger the combined weight is, or vice versa. At the same time, we can obtain that the Equation (6) overcomes the limitation of only considering either subjective or objective factor influence. The advantage of Equation (6) is that the attribute weights and rankings of alternatives can show both the subjective information and the objective information. 4.3. The method of EDAS In this section, an extended version of the EDAS method is proposed to deal with decision making problems in the single-valued neutrosophic soft environment. Therefore, the concepts and arithmetic
962
X. Peng and C. Liu / Algorithms for neutrosophic soft decision making based on EDAS
operations of the SVNN are utilized for extending the EDAS method.
Pij =
Algorithm 1: EDAS Step 1. Identify the alternatives and parameters, and , E) obtain the single-valued neutrosophic soft set (F which is shown in Table 2. Step 2. Normalize the single-valued neutrosophic , E) into (F , E) by Equation (7). soft set (F (ej )(xi ) F
⎧ ⎪ (e )(x ), I (e )(x ), F (e )(x ) , ej ∈ B, ⎨ T j i j i j i F F F (7) = ⎪ (e )(xi ), 1 − I (e )(xi ), T (e )(xi ) , ej ∈ C, ⎊ F F j F j F j
Nij =
⎧ (ej )(xi ))−s(AVj )} max{0,s(F ⎪ ⎨ , ej ∈ B, s(AVj ) (ej )(xi ))} ⎪ j )−s(F ⎊ max{0,s(AVs(AV , ej ∈ C, j)
⎧ (ej )(xi ))} max{0,s(AVj )−s(F ⎪ ⎨ , ej ∈ B, s(AVj ) ⎪ j )(xi ))−s(AVj )} ⎊ max{0,s(F (e , ej ∈ C, s(AVj )
(10)
(11)
(ej )(xi )) are score function of where s(AVj ) and s(F AVj and F (ej )(xi ), respectively. Step 6. Determine the weighted sum of PDA and NDA for all alternatives, shown as follows: SPi =
n
wj Pij ,
(12)
wj Nij .
(13)
j=1
where B is benefit parameter set and C is cost parameter set. Step 3. Compute the combined weights by Equation (6). Step 4. Determine the average solution according to all parameters, shown as follows: AV = (AVj )1Ă—n ,
(8)
j=1
Step 7. Normalize the values of SPi and SNi for all alternatives, shown as follows: NSPi =
SPi max{SPi }
m
1 1− (1 − TF (ej )(xi )), m m
ASi =
i=1
m
IF (ej )(xi ),
m
i=1
1−
FF (ej )(xi )
i=1
1 IF (ej )(xi )
m
1 (NSPi + NSNi ), 2
(16)
Step 9. Rank the alternatives by means of the decreasing values of ASi . The alternative with the highest ASi is the best choice among the candidate alternatives.
1 m m (1 − TF (ej )(xi )) ,
i=1
(15)
where 0 ≤ ASi ≤ 1.
i=1
m
SNi max{SNi }
Step 8. Calculate the appraisal score ASi (i = 1, 2, ¡ ¡ ¡ , m) for all alternatives, shown as follows:
i=1
(14)
i
i
1 F (ej )(xi ) AVj = m
=
n
NSNi = 1 −
where
=
SNi =
m 1 , ( FF (ej )(xi )) m . i=1
(9) Step 5. Calculate the positive distance from average (PDA) with PDA = (Pij )mĂ—n and the negative distance from average (NDA) with NDA = (Nij )mĂ—n matrixes according to the type of parameters, shown as follows:
4.4. The method of similarity measure In this section, we introduce a method for the decision making problem by the proposed similarity measure between SVNSs. The concept of ideal point has been applied to help determine the best alternative in the decision process. Although the ideal alternative does not exist in practical problems, it does offer a useful theoretical construct against which to appraise alternatives. Therefore, we define the ideal alternative x∗ as the SVNN xj∗ = (T ∗ , I ∗ , F ∗ ) = (1, 0, 0) for ∀j.
X. Peng and C. Liu / Algorithms for neutrosophic soft decision making based on EDAS
963
Hence, by applying Equation (3), the proposed similarity measure S between an alternative xi and the ideal alternative x∗ represented by the SVNSs is defined by
Step 4. Calculate the similarity measure S(xi , x∗ ) (i = 1, 2, · · · , m) by Equation (17).
S (xi , x∗ ) = min{L(xi , x∗ ), M(xi , x∗ ), R(xi , x∗ )},
Step 6. Rank the alternatives by s(S(xi , x∗ )) (i = 1, 2, · · · , m). The most desired alternative is the one with the biggest value of xi .
min{L(xi , x∗ ), W(xi , x∗ ), R(xi , x∗ )},
1 − max{L(xi , x∗ ), M(xi , x∗ ), R(xi , x∗ )} , (17) where n
L(xi , x∗ ) =
j=1 n j=1
=
n
j min{TF (ej )(xi ), 1} j max{TF (ej )(xi ), 1} j TF (ej )(xi ),
j=1 n ∗
M(xi , x ) =
j=1 n j=1
= 1−
j min{1 − IF (ej )(xi ), 1} j max{1 − IF (ej )(xi ), 1} n
j IF (ej )(xi ),
j=1 n ∗
W(xi , x ) = 1 −
j=1 n j=1
=
n
j min{1 − IF (ej )(xi ), 1} j max{1 − IF (ej )(xi ), 1}
j IF (ej )(xi ),
j=1 n
R(xi , x∗ ) =
j=1 n j=1
= 1−
j min{1 − FF (ej )(xi ), 1} j max{1 − FF (ej )(xi ), 1} n
Step 5. Compute the each alternative of score function s(S(xi , x∗ )) by Equation (2).
4.5. The method of level soft set We present an adjustable approach to single-valued neutrosophic soft set based decision making problems. This proposal is based on the following novel concept called level soft sets. , E) be a SVNSS over Definition 10. Let = (F U. Let λ : E → [0, 1] be a function, i.e. ∀ej ∈ E, λ(ej ) = (r(ej ), k(ej ), t(ej )), and r(ej ), k(ej ), t(ej ) ∈ [0, 1]. The level soft set of with respect to λ is λ , E > defined by a crisp soft set L( ; λ) =< F Fλ (ej ) = L(F (ej ); λ(ej )) = {xi ∈ U|TF (ej )(xi ) ≥ r(ej ), IF (ej )(xi ) ≥ k(ej ), FF (ej )(xi ) ≤ t(ej )}, for all ej ∈ E(j = 1, 2, · · · , n), xi ∈ U(i = 1, 2, · · · , m). Remark 1. In the above definition, the function λ : E → [0, 1]3 is not restricted to be SVNS, it is only a function, r(ej ) ∈ [0, 1] can be viewed as a given least threshold (the parameter ej on the degree of truth-membership, k(ej ) ∈ [0, 1] can be viewed as a given least threshold (the parameter ej on the degree of indeterminacy-membership), and t(ej ) ∈ [0, 1] can be viewed as a given greatest threshold (the parameter ej on the degree of falsity-membership). Maybe some SVNNs may not strictly follow the Definition 10 (TF (ej )(xi ) ≥ r(ej ), IF (ej )(xi ) ≥ k(ej ), FF (ej )(xi ) ≤ t(ej )). For solving this situation, we can continue to compute the two SVNNs by score function defined in Equation (2). For convenience, we choose mid-level threshold function mid E → [0, 1]3 , i.e., mid (ej ) = (rmid (ej ), kmid (ej ), tmid (ej )) for all ej ∈ E, where 1
TF (ej )(xi ), m m
rmid (ej ) =
i=1
j FF (ej )(xi ).
j=1
1
IF (ej )(xi ), m m
kmid (ej ) =
i=1
Algorithm 2: Similarity measure Steps 1-3. Similarly to Steps 1-3 in Algorithm 1.
1
FF (ej )(xi ). m m
tmid (ej ) =
i=1
964
X. Peng and C. Liu / Algorithms for neutrosophic soft decision making based on EDAS Table 4 , E) The normalized single-valued neutrosophic soft set (F
The function mid is called the mid-threshold of , E), the level soft set w.r.t. mid , namely = (F L( ,mid ) is called the mid-level soft set of . Algorithm 3: Level soft set Steps 1-3. Similarly to Steps 1-3 in Algorithm 1.
x1 x2 x3 x4
e1
e2
e3
(0.5, 0.4, 0.7) (0.6, 0.5, 0.6) (0.7, 0.3, 0.5) (0.6, 0.4, 0.5)
(0.7, 0.5, 0.1) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.7, 0.4, 0.2)
(0.3, 0.4, 0.6) (0.4, 0.6, 0.5) (0.4, 0.5, 0.7) (0.4, 0.4, 0.5)
Step 4. Compute the mid-level soft set L( ; mid ). Step 5. Present the mid-level soft set L( ; mid ) in tabular form and compute the weighted choice value ci of xi by Equation (18). ci =
n
i L(ej )(xi ).
(18)
j=1
Step 6. The optimal decision is to select xk if ck = m max ci . i=1
Step 3. Compute the combined weights by Equation (6) as follows: 1 = 0.4078, 2 = 0.1017, 3 = 0.4905. Step 4. Determine the average solution according to all parameters by Equation (9), shown as follows: AV1 = (0.6064, 0.3936, 0.5692),
5. A numerical example
AV2 = (0.6776, 0.2991, 0.1414),
An internet company wants to select a software development project to invest. Assume that there are four software projects: e-commerce development project, game development project, browser development project and web development project. The company selects three parameters to evaluate the four software development projects. Let U = {x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 } be the set of software projects, E = {e1 , e2 , e3 } be the set of parameters, e1 stands for economic feasibility, e2 stands for technological feasibility, e3 stands for staff feasibility. e1 and e2 are benefit parameters, e3 is cost parameter. The weight vector of the parameters is given as w = (0.4, 0.1, 0.5)T . The decision tabular given by expert is presented in Table 3. In what follows, we utilize the algorithms proposed above to select software development projects under single-valued neutrosophic soft information. Algorithm 1: EDAS Step 1. Identify the alternatives and parameters, and , E) obtain the single-valued neutrosophic soft set (F which is shown in Table 3. Table 3 , E) Tabular representation of (F x1 x2 x3 x4
Step 2. Normalize the single-valued neutrosophic , E) into (F , E) by Equation (7), which soft set (F is shown in Table 4.
AV3 = (0.5838, 0.5180, 0.3722). Step 5. Calculate the positive distance from average PDA = (Pij )4×3 and the negative distance from average NDA = (Nij )4×3 matrixes by Equations (10) and (11), shown as follows: ⎛ ⎞ 0.0000 0.0000 0.0038 ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ 0.0000 0.0000 0.0038 ⎟ ⎜ ⎟, PDA = (Pij )4×3 ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ 0.1560 0.0728 0.0628 ⎠ 0.0343 0.0000 0.0000 ⎛ ⎞ 0.1482 0.0613 0.0000 ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ 0.0873 0.0166 0.0000 ⎟ ⎟ NDA = (Nij )4×3 ⎜ ⎜ 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ⎟ . ⎝ ⎠ 0.0000 0.0613 0.1143 Step 6. Determine the weighted sum of PDA and NDA for all alternatives by Equations (12) and (13), respectively, shown as follows: SP1 = 0.0019, SP2 = 0.0019, SP3 = 0.1019, SP4 = 0.0140, NP1 = 0.0667, NP2 = 0.0373,
e1
e2
e3
(0.5, 0.4, 0.7) (0.6, 0.5, 0.6) (0.7, 0.3, 0.5) (0.6, 0.4, 0.5)
(0.7, 0.5, 0.1) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.7, 0.4, 0.2)
(0.6, 0.6, 0.3) (0.5, 0.4, 0.4) (0.7, 0.5, 0.4) (0.5, 0.6, 0.4)
NP3 = 0.0000, NP4 = 0.0623. Step 7. Normalize the values of SPi and SNi for all alternatives by Equations (14) and (15), respectively, shown as follows:
X. Peng and C. Liu / Algorithms for neutrosophic soft decision making based on EDAS
NSP1 = 0.0183, NSP2 = 0.0183,
Table 5 Tabular representation of the level soft set L( ; mid ) with weighted choice values
NSP3 = 1.0000, NSP4 = 0.1375, NSN1 = −0.0702, NSN2 = 0.4011, NSN3 = 1.0000, NSN4 = 0.0000. Step 8. Calculate the appraisal score ASi (i = 1, 2, 3, 4) for all alternatives by Equation (16), shown as follows: AS1 = −0.0260, AS2 = 0.2097, AS3 = 1.0000, AS4 = 0.0687. Step 9. Rank the software development projects xi according to the decreasing values of ASi as follows: x3 x2 x4 x1 . Obviously, amongst them x3 is the best software development project. Algorithm 2: Similarity measure Steps 1-3. Similarly to Steps 1-3 in Algorithm 1. Step 4. Calculate the similarity measure S(xi , x∗ ) (i = 1, 2, 3, 4) by Equation (17), shown as follows: S(x1 , x∗ ) = (0.4223, 0.4102, 0.4101), S(x2 , x∗ ) = (0.4815, 0.5019, 0.4897), S(x3 , x∗ ) = (0.5529, 0.3879, 0.3879), S(x4 , x∗ ) = (0.4695, 0.4000, 0.4000). Step 5. Compute the each alternative of score function s(S(Ai , A∗ )) by Equation (2), shown as follows: s(S(x1 , x∗ )) = 0.533993, s(S(x2 , x∗ )) = 0.496602, s(S(x3 , x∗ )) = 0.592335, s(S(x4 , x∗ )) = 0.556487. Step 6. Rank the software development projects by s(S(xi , x∗ ))(i = 1, 2, 3, 4) as follows: x3 x4 x1 x2 . Obviously, amongst them x3 is the best software development project. Algorithm 3: Level soft set Steps 1-3. Similarly to Steps 1-3 in Algorithm 1. Step 4. Compute the mid-level soft set L( ; mid ) by Definition 10. mid = {< e1 , (0.6, 0.4, 0.575) >,
965
x1 x2 x3 x4
e1
e2
e3
weighted choice value ci
0 0 1 1
1 0 1 0
0 1 1 1
0.1017 0.4905 1 0.8983
< e2 , (0.675, 0.325, 0.15) >, < e3 , (0.375, 0.475, 0.575) >}. Step 5. Present the mid-level soft set L( ; mid ) in tabular form and compute the weighted choice value ci of xi by Equation (18), which is shown in Table 5. Step 6. The optimal decision is to select software development project x3 . According to Algorithms 1, 2 and 3, we can conclude that the final decision results are the same, i.e., x3 is the most desirable investment software development project. Hence, the three approaches proposed above are effective and available. In the following, some comparisons of Algorithm 1, Algorithm 2 and Algorithm 3 are shown. (1) Comparison of computational complexity We know that Algorithm 1 will consume more computational complexity than Algorithm 2 and Algorithm 3, especially in Step 4. So if we take the computational complexity into consideration, the Algorithm 2 and Algorithm 3 are given priority to make decision. (2) Comparison of discrimination Comparing the results in Algorithm 1, Algorithm 2 with Algorithm 3, we can find that the results of Algorithm 2 are quite close and vary from 0.496602 to 0.592335. These result of decision values cannot clearly distinguish, in other words, the results obtained from Algorithm 2 are not very convincing (or at least not applicable). That is to say, the Algorithm 1 has a clearly distinguish. So if we take the discrimination into consideration, the Algorithm 1 and Algorithm 3 is given priority to make decision. In order to further verify the practicability of the proposed SVNSS MADM approaches based on the EDAS, similarity measure and level soft set, a comparison study with some existing methods is now conducted in Table 6. From the above results shown in Table 6, we can know that the optimal alternative of our proposed three methods is in agreement with the existing methods. That is to say, it is effective and feasible.
966
X. Peng and C. Liu / Algorithms for neutrosophic soft decision making based on EDAS Table 6 A comparison study with some existing methods
Method
The final ranking
Deli and Broumi [44] Maji [53] Karaaslan [54] Deli and Broumi [55] Algorithm 1 Algorithm 2 Algorithm 3
x3 x3 x3 x3 x3 x3 x3
x4 x4 x4 x4 x2 x4 x4
x1 x1 x1 x1 x4 x1 x2
x2 x2 x2 x2 x1 x2 x1
Acknowledgments
The optimal alternative x3 x3 x3 x3 x3 x3 x3
The authors are very appreciative to the reviewers for their precious comments which enormously ameliorated the quality of this paper. Our work is sponsored by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 61163036, 61462019). References [1]
6. Conclusion and remarks The major contributions in this paper can be summarized as follows: (1) We construct a new axiomatic definition of single-valued neutrosophic similarity measure and give a similarity formula. Comparing with the existing literature [21, 22, 42, 43], it can reduce the information miss and remain more original information. (2) A novel single-valued neutrosophic soft decision making approach based on EDAS is explored, which has not been reported in the existing literature. The approach doesn’t need to calculate the ideal and the nadir solution. (3) A novel single-valued neutrosophic soft decision making approach based on similarity measure is proposed, which can reduce the information loss and remain more original information. (4) A novel single-valued neutrosophic soft decision making approach based on level soft set is proposed. (5) The subjective weighting methods pay much attention to the preference information of the decision maker [19–21, 27], while they neglect the objective information. The objective weighting methods do not take into account the preference of the decision maker, in particular, these methods fail to take into account the risk attitude of the decision maker [22, 24]. The characteristic of our weighting model can reflect both the subjective considerations of the decision maker and the objective information. In the future, we shall apply more advanced theories [52] into single-valued neutrosophic soft set and solve more decision making problems.
[2] [3] [4]
[5] [6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] [16]
[17]
[18]
D.A. Molodtsov, Soft set theory-first results, Computers and Mathematics with Applications 37 (1999), 19–31. L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Information Control 8 (1965), 338–353. Z. Pawlak, Rough sets, International Journal of Computer and Information Sciences 11 (1982), 341–356. M.B. Gorzalzany, A method of inference in approximate reasoning based on interval-valued fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 21 (1987), 1–17. P.K. Maji, R. Biswas and A.R. Roy, Fuzzy soft sets, Journal of Fuzzy Mathematics 9 (2001), 589–602. J.C.R. Alcantud, A novel algorithm for fuzzy soft set based decision making from multiobserver input parameter data set, Information Fusion 29 (2016), 142–148. F. Feng, Y.B. Jun, X. Liu and L. Li, An adjustable approach to fuzzy soft set based decision making, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 234 (2010), 10–20. X.B. Yang, T.Y. Lin and J.Y. Yang, Combination of intervalvalued fuzzy set and soft set, Computers and Mathematics with Applications 58 (2009), 521–527. X.D. Peng and Y. Yang, Information measures for intervalvalued fuzzy soft sets and their clustering algorithm, Journal of Computer Applications 35 (2015), 2350–2354. X.D. Peng and Y. Yang, Algorithms for interval-valued fuzzy soft sets in stochastic multi-criteria decision making based on regret theory and prospect theory with combined weight, Applied Soft Computing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.asoc.2016.06.036. X.D. Peng, Y. Yang, J.P. Song and Y. Jiang, Pythagoren fuzzy soft set and its application, Computer Engineering 41 (2015), 224–229. Y. Yang, X. Tan and C.C. Meng, The multi-fuzzy soft set and its application in decision making, Applied Mathematics Modelling 37 (2013), 4915–4923. Y. Yang, X.D. Peng, H. Chen and L. Zeng, A decision making approach based on bipolar multi-fuzzy soft set theory, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems 27 (2014), 1861–1872. F.Q. Wang, H.X. Li and X.H. Chen, Hesitant fuzzy soft set and its applications in multicriteria decision making, Journal of Applied Mathematics 2014 (2014), 1–10. V. Torra, Hesitant fuzzy sets, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 25 (2010), 529–539. X.D. Peng and Y. Yang, Interval-valued hesitant fuzzy soft sets and their application in decision making, Fundamenta Informaticae 141 (2015), 71–93. F. Smarandache, Neutrosophy/Neutrosophic Probability, Set, and Logic. American Research Press, Rehoboth, NM, 1998. H. Wang, F. Smarandache, Y.Q. Zhang and R. Sunderraman, Single valued neutrosophic sets, Multispace Multistruct 4 (2010), 410–413.
X. Peng and C. Liu / Algorithms for neutrosophic soft decision making based on EDAS [19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
J. Ye, Multicriteria decision-making method using the correlation coefficient under single-valued neutrosophic environment, International Journal of General Systems 42 (2013), 386–394. J. Ye, Improved correlation coefficients of single valued neutrosophic sets and interval neutrosophic sets for multiple attribute decision making, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems 27 (2014), 2453–2462. J. Ye, Clustering methods using distance-based similarity measures of single-valued neutrosophic sets, Journal of Intelligent Systems 23 (2014), 379–389. J. Ye, Multiple attribute group decision-making method with completely unknown weights based on similarity measures under single valued neutrosophic environment, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems 27 (2014), 2927–2935. X.D. Peng and J.G. Dai, Approaches to single-valued neutrosophic MADM based on MABAC, TOPSIS and new similarity measure with score function, Neural Computing and Applications. doi:10.1007/s00521-016-2607-y P. Biswas, S. Pramanik and B.C. Giri, TOPSIS method for multi-attribute group decision-making under single-valued neutrosophic environment, Neural Computing and Applications 27 (2016), 727–737. R. Sahin and A. Kucuk, Subsethood measure for single valued neutrosophic sets, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems 29 (2015), 525–530. H.L. Yang, Z.L. Guo, Y.H. She and X.W. Liao, On single valued neutrosophic relations, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems 30 (2016), 1045–1056. H.L. Huang, New distance measure of single-valued neutrosophic sets and its application, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 31 (2016), 1021–1032. P.D. Liu, The aggregation operators based on archimedean t-Conorm and t-Norm for single-valued neutrosophic numbers and their application to decision making, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems. doi:10.1007/s40815-016-0195-8 X.H.Wu, J. Wang, J.J. Peng and X.H. Chen, Crossentropy and prioritized aggregation operator with simplified neutrosophic sets and their application in multi-criteria decisionmaking problems, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems. doi: 10.1007/s40815-016-0180-2 S. Broumi, M. Talea, A. Bakali and F. Smarandache, Single valued neutrosophic graphs, Journal of New Theory 10 (2016), 86–101. S. Broumi, A. Bakali, M. Talea and F. Smarandache, Isolated single valued neutrosophic graphs, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 11 (2016), 74–78. S. Broumi, M. Talea, F. Smarandache and A. Bakali, Single valued neutrosophic graphs: Degree, order and size, IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence (2016), 2444–2451. S. Broumi, M. Talea, A. Bakali and F. Smarandache, On bipolar single valued neutrosophic graphs, Journal of New Theory 11 (2016), 84–102. S. Broumi, F. Smarandache, M. Talea and A. Bakali, An introduction to bipolar single valued neutrosophic graph theory, Applied Mechanics and Materials 841 (2016), 184–191. J.J. Peng, J.Q. Wang and W.E. Yang, A multi-valued neutrosophic qualitative flexible approach based on likelihood for multi-criteria decision-making problems, International Journal of Systems Science. doi: 10.1080/00207721. 2016.1218975 J.J. Peng, J.Q. Wang and X. Wu, An extension of the ELECTRE approach with multi-valued neutrosophic information,
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41] [42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50] [51]
[52]
967
Neural Computing and Applications. doi: 10.1007/s00521016-2411-8 P. Ji, H.Y. Zhang and J.Q. Wang, A projection-based TODIM method under multi-valued neutrosophic environments and its application in personnel selection, Neural Computing and Applications. doi: 10.1007/s00521-0162436-z Z.P. Tian, J. Wang, J.Q. Wang and H.Y. Zhang, An improved MULTIMOORA approach for multi- criteria decision-making based on interdependent inputs of simplified neutrosophic linguistic information, Neural Computing and Applications. doi: 10.1007/s00521-016-2378-5 Z.P. Tian, J. Wang, J.Q. Wang and H.Y. Zhang, Simplified neutrosophic linguistic multi-criteria group decision-making approach to green product development, Group Decision and Negotiation. doi: 10.1007/s10726-0169479-5 Z.P. Tian, J. Wang, H.Y. Zhang and J.Q. Wang, Multi-criteria decision-making based on generalized prioritized aggregation operators under simplified neutrosophic uncertain linguistic environment, International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics. doi: 10.1007/s13042-0160552-9 P.K. Maji, Neutrosophic soft set, Annals of Fuzzy Mathematics and Informatics 5 (2013), 157–168. R. S¸ahin and A. K¨uc¸u¨ k, On similarity and entropy of neutrosophic soft sets, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems 27 (2014), 2417–2430. A. Mukherjee and S. Sarkar, Several similarity measures of neutrosophic soft sets and its application in real life problems, Annals of Pure and Applied Mathematics 7 (2014), 1–6. I. Deli and S. Broumi, Neutrosophic soft matrices and NSM decision making, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems 28 (2015), 2233–2241. S. Alkhazaleh, Time-neutrosophic soft set and its applications, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems 30 (2016), 1087–1098. A. Al-Quran and N. Hassan, Neutrosophic vague soft expert set theory, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems 30 (2016), 3691–3702. M.K. Ghorabaee, E.K. Zavadskas, L. Olfat and Z. Turskis, Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS), Informatica 26 (2015), 435–451. S. Opricovic and G.H. Tzeng, Compromise solution by MCDMmethods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS, European Journal of Operational Research 156 (2004), 445–455. M.K. Ghorabaee, E.K. Zavadskas, M. Amiri and Z. Turskis, Extended EDAS method for fuzzy multi-criteria decisionmaking: An application to supplier selection, International Journal of Computers Communications and Control 11 (2016), 358–371. S.F. Liu, Y.G. Dang and Z.G. Fang, Grey systems theory and its applications, Science Press, Beijing, 2000. J.J. Peng, J.Q. Wang, J. Wang, H.Y. Zhang and X.H. Chen, Simplified neutrosophic sets and their applications in multicriteria group decision-making problems, International Journal of Systems Science 47 (2016), 2342–2358. F. Smarandache, Neutrosophic Overset, Neutrosophic Underset, and Neutrosophic Offset. Similarly for Neutrosophic Over-/Under-/Off- Logic, Probability, and Statistics. Pons Editions, Brussels, Belgium, 2016.
968 [53]
[54]
X. Peng and C. Liu / Algorithms for neutrosophic soft decision making based on EDAS P.K. Maji, A neutrosophic soft set approach to a decision making problem, Annals of Fuzzy Mathematics and Informatics 3 (2012), 313–319. F. Karaaslan, Neutrosophic soft sets with applications in decision making, International Journal of Information Science and Intelligent System 4 (2015), 1–20.
View publication stats
[55]
I. Deli and S. Broumi, Neutrosophic soft relations and some properties, Annals of Fuzzy Mathematics and Informatics 9 (2015), 169–182.