Hybrid Binary Logarithm Similarity Measure for MAGDM Problems under SVNS Assessments by Ioan Degău

Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018

University of New Mexico

Hybrid Binary Logarithm Similarity Measure for MAGDM Problems under SVNS Assessments Kalyan Mondal1, Surapati Pramanik2, and Bibhas C. Giri3 1 Department of Mathematics, Jadavpur University, Kolkata: 700032, West Bengal, India. E mail:kalyanmathematic@gmail.com ²Department of Mathematics, Nandalal Ghosh B.T. College, Panpur, P O - Narayanpur, and District: North 24 Parganas, Pin Code: 743126, West Bengal, India. Email: sura_pati@yahoo.co.in, 3 Department of Mathematics, Jadavpur University, Kolkata: 700032, West Bengal, India. Email: bibhasc.giri@jadavpuruniversity.in

Abstract: Single valued neutrosophic set is an important mathematical tool for tackling uncertainty in scientific and engineering problems because it can handle situation involving indeterminacy. In this research, we introduce new similarity measures for single valued neutrosophic sets based on binary logarithm function. We define two type of binary logarithm similarity measures and weighted binary logarithm similarity measures for single valued neutrosophic sets. Then we define hybrid binary logarithm similarity measure and weighted hybrid binary logarithm similarity measure for single valued neutrosophic sets. We prove the basic properties of the proposed measures.

Then, we define a new entropy function for determining unknown attribute weights. We develop a novel multi attribute group decision making strategy for single valued neutrosophic sets based on the weighted hybrid binary logarithm similarity measure. We present an illustrative example to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed strategy. We conduct a sensitivity analysis of the developed strategy. We also present a comparison analysis between the obtained results from proposed strategy and different existing strategies in the literature.

Keywords: single valued neutrosophic set; binary logarithm function; similarity measure; entropy function; ideal solution; MAGDM

1 Introduction Smarandache [1] introduced neutrosophic sets (NSs) to pave the way to deal with problems involving uncertainty, indeterminacy and inconsistency. Wang et al. [2] grounded the concept of single valued neutrosophic sets (SVNSs), a subclass of NSs to tackle engineering and scientific problems. SVNSs have been applied to solve various problems in different fields such as medical problems [3– 5], decision making problems [6–18], conflict resolution [19], social problems [20–21] engineering problems [2223], image processing problems [24–26] and so on. The concept of similarity measure is very significant in studying almost every practical field. In the literature, few studies have addressed similarity measures for SNVSs [27–30]. Peng et al. [31] developed SVNSs based multi attribute decision making (MADM) strategy employing MABAC (Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison and similarity measure), TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution) and a new similarity measure. Ye [32] proposed cosine similarity measure based neutrosophic multiple attribute decision making (MADM) strategy. In order to overcome some disadvantages in the definition of cosine similarity measure, Ye [33] proposed

‘improved cosine similarity measures’ based on cosine function. Biswas et al. [34] studied cosine similarity measure based MCDM with trapezoidal fuzzy neutrosophic numbers. Pramanik and Mondal [35] proposed weighted fuzzy similarity measure based on tangent function. Mondal and Pramanik [36] proposed intuitionistic fuzzy similarity measure based on tangent function. Mondal and Pramanik [37] developed tangent similarity measure of SVNSs and applied it to MADM. Ye and Fu [38] studied medical diagnosis problem using a SVNSs similarity measure based on tangent function. Can and Ozguven [39] studied a MADM problem for adjusting the proportional-integral-derivative (PID) coefficients based on neutrosophic Hamming, Euclidean, set-theoretic, Dice, and Jaccard similarity measures. Several studies [40–42] have been reported in the literature for multi-attribute group decision making (MAGDM) in neutrosophic environment. Ye [43] studied the similarity measure based on distance function of SVNSs and applied it to MAGDM. Ye [44] developed several clustering methods using distance-based similarity measures for SVNSs.

Kalyan Mondal, Surapati Pramanik, and Bibhas C. Giri. Hybrid Binary Logarithm Similarity Measure for MAGDM Problems under SVNS Assesments

Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018

Mondal et al. [45] proposed sine hyperbolic similarity measure for solving MADM problems. Mondal et al. [46] also proposed tangent similarity measure to deal with MADM problems for interval neutrosophic environment. Lu and Ye [47] proposed logarithmic similarity measure for interval valued fuzzy set [48] and applied it in fault diagnosis strategy. Research gap: MAGDM strategy using similarity measure based on binary logarithm function under single valued neutrosophic environment is yet to appear. Research questions: 



Is it possible to define a new similarity measure between single valued neutrosophic sets using binary logarithm function? Is it possible to define a new entropy function for single valued neutrosophic sets for determining unknown attribute weights? Is it possible to develop a new MAGDM strategy based on the proposed similarity measures in single valued neutrosophic environment?

The objectives of the paper: 

To define binary logarithm similarity measures for SVNS environment and prove the basic properties.



To define a new entropy function for determining unknown weight of attributes.



To develop a multi-attribute droup decision making model based on proposed similarity measures.



To present a numerical example for the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed strategy.

Having motivated from the above researches on neutrosophic similarity measures, we introduce the concept of binary logarithm similarity measures for SVNS environment. The properties of binary logarithm similarity measures are established. We also propose a new entropy function to determine unknown attribute weights. We develope a MAGDM strategy using the proposed hybrid binary logarithm similarity measures. The proposed similarity measure is applied to a MAGDM problem. The structure of the paper is as follows. Section 2 presents basic concepts of NSs, operations on NSs, SVNSs and operations on SVNSs. Section 3 proposes binary logarithm similarity measures and weighted binary logarithm similarity measures, hybrid binary logarithm similarity measure (HBLSM), weighted hybrid binary logarithm similarity measure (WHBLSM) in SVNSs

environment. Section 4 proposes a new entropy measure to calculate unknown attribute weights and proves basic properties of entropy function. Section 5 presents a MAGDM strategy based weighted hybrid binary logarithm similarity measure. Section 6 presents an illustrative example to demonstrate the applicability and feasibility of the proposed strategies. Section 7 presents a sensitivity analysis for the results of the numerical example. Section 8 conducts a comparative analysis with the other existing strategies. Section 9 presents the key contribution of the paper. Section 10 summarizes the paper and discusses future scope of research. 2 Preliminaries In this section, the concepts of NSs, SVNSs, operations on NSs and SVNSs and binary logarithm function are outlined. 2.1 Neutrosophic set (NS) Assume that X be an universe of discourse. Then a neutrosophic sets [1] N can be defined as follows: N = {< x: TN(x), IN(x), FN(x) > | x  X}. Here the functions T, I and F define respectively the membership degree, the indeterminacy degree, and the non-membership degree of the element x  X to the set N. The three functions T, I and F satisfy the following the conditions: 

T, I, F: X → ]−0,1+[



−

0 ≤ supTN(x) + supIN( x) + supFN(x) ≤ 3+

For two neutrosophic sets M = {< x: TM (x), IM(x), FM(x) > | x  X} and N = {< x, TN(x), IN(x), FN(x) > | x  X }, the two relations are defined as follows:  M  N if and only if TM(x)  TN(x), IM(x)  IN(x), FM(x )  FN(x)  M = N if and only if TM(x) = TN(x), IM(x) = IN(x), FM(x) = FN(x). 2.2. Single valued Neutrosophic sets (SVNSs) Assume that X be an universe of discourse. A SVNS [2] P in X is formed by a truth-membership function TP(x), an indeterminacy membership function IP(x), and a falsity membership function FP(x). For each point x in X, TP(x), IP(x), and FP(x)  [0, 1]. For continuous case, a SVNS P can be expressed as follows:  ( x), I P ( x), F P ( x)  P  x T P :x  X , x

Kalyan Mondal, Surapati Pramanik, and Bibhas C. Giri. Hybrid Binary Logarithm Similarity Measure for MAGDM Problems under SVNS Assesments

Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018

For discrete case, a SVNS P can be expressed as follows: n  ( x ), ( x ), (x )  P   TP i IP i FP i : xi  X xi i 1

For two SVNSs P = {< x: TP(x), IP(x), FP(x)> | x  X} and Q = {< x: TQ(x), IQ(x), FQ(x)> | x  X}, some definitions are stated below:  P  Q if and only if TP(x)  TQ(x), IP(x)  IQ(x), and   

FP(x)  FQ(x). P  Q if and only if TP(x)  TQ(x), IP(x)  IQ(x), and FP(x)  FQ(x). P = Q if and only if TP(x) = TQ(x), IP(x) = IQ(x), and FP(x) = FQ(x) for any x  X. Complement of P i.e. Pc ={< x: FP(x), 1− IP(x), TP(x)> | x  X }.

2.3. Some arithmetic operations on SVNSs

3.1. Binary logarithm similarity measures of SVNSs (type-I) Definition 2. Let A = <x(TA(xi), IP(xi), FP(xi))> and B = <x(TB(xi), IB(xi), FB(xi))> be any two SVNSs. The binary logarithm similarity measure (type-I) between SVNSs A and B are defined as follows:

BL1 ( A, B) = 1 n

 i 1

  1  TA ( xi )  TB ( xi )  I A ( xi )  I B ( xi )     log 2  2         3   FA ( xi )  FB ( xi )   

(1) Theorem 1. The binary logarithm similarity measure BL 1 ( A, B) between any two SVNSs A and B satisfy the following properties: P 1. 0  BL 1 ( A, B)  1

any two SVNSs in a universe of discourse then arithmetic

P 2. BL 1 ( A, B) 1 , if and only if A = B P 3. BL 1 ( A, B)  BL 1 ( B, A) P4. If C is a SVNS in X and A  B  C then BL 1 ( A, C )  BL 1 ( A, B) and BL 1 ( A, C )  BL 1 ( B, C ) .

operations are stated as follows.

Proof 1.

Definition 1 [49] Let P  T P( x), I P( x), F P ( x) and Q  T Q( x), I Q( x), F Q( x) be

 T P( x)  T Q( x)  T P( x)T Q( x) , I P( x) I Q( x) ,    P  Q    F P ( x) F Q ( x)    T P ( x ) T Q ( x ) , I P ( x )  I Q ( x )  I P ( x ) I Q( x ) ,    P  Q   F P ( x)  F Q ( x)  F P ( x) F Q ( x)   

 



 P  1  1 T P( x)  , I P( x)  , F P ( x)  ;   0 

P   T P( x)  , 1  1  I P( x)  , 1  1  F P( x)  ;   0

2.4. Binary logarithm function

From the definition of SVNS, we write, 0 ≤ TA(x) + IA( x) + FA(x) ≤ 3 and 0 ≤ TB(x) + IB(x) + FB(x) ≤ 3 

0  TA ( xi )  TB ( xi )  I A ( xi )  I B ( xi )  FA ( xi )  FB ( xi )  3 ,  TA ( xi )  TB ( xi ) , I A ( xi )  I B ( xi ) ,   1 0  max   F (x )  F (x )  A i B i    0  BL 1 ( A, B )  1 .

In mathematics, the logarithm of the form log2x , x > 0 is called binary logarithm function [50]. For example, the binary logarithm of 1 is 0, the binary logarithm of 4 is 2, the binary logarithm of 16 is 4, and the binary logarithm of 64 is 6.

Proof 2.

3. Binary logarithm similarity measures for SVNSs

F A ( x )  F B ( x)  0  BL 1 ( A, B) 1 .

In this section, we define two types of binary logarithm similarity measures and their hybrid and weighted hybrid similarity measures.

For any two SVNSs A and B, A=B  TA(x) = TB(x), IA(x) = IB(x), FA(x) = FB(x)  T A ( x)  T B ( x)  0 , I A ( x)  I B ( x)  0 ,

Conversely, for BL 1 ( A, B) 1 , we have,  T A ( x)  T B ( x)  0 , I A ( x)  I B ( x)  0 ,

Kalyan Mondal, Surapati Pramanik, and Bibhas C. Giri. Hybrid Binary Logarithm Similarity Measure for MAGDM Problems under SVNS Assesments

Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018

F A ( x)  F B ( x)  0  T A ( x)  T B ( x) , I A ( x)  I B ( x) , F A ( x)  F B ( x)  A = B. Proof 3. We have, T A ( x)  T B ( x)  T B ( x)  T A ( x) ,

I A ( x)  I B ( x)  I B ( x)  I A ( x) , F A ( x)  F B ( x)  F B ( x)  F A ( x)  BL 1 ( A, B)  BL 1 ( B, A) . Proof 4. For A  B  C, we have, TA(x)  TB(x)  TC(x), IA(x)  IB(x)  IC(x), FA(x)  FB(x)  FC(x) for x  X.  T A ( x)  T B ( x)  T A ( x)  T C ( x) , T B ( x)  T C ( x)  T A ( x)  T C ( x) ; I A ( x)  I B ( x)  I A ( x)  I C ( x) , I B ( x)  I C ( x)  I A ( x)  I C ( x) ; F A ( x)  F B ( x)  F A ( x)  F C ( x) , F B ( x)  F C ( x)  F A ( x)  F C ( x) .  BL 1 ( A, C )  BL 1 ( A, B) and BL 1 ( A, C )  BL 1 ( B, C ) .

3.2. Binary logarithm similarity measures of SVNSs ( type-II) Definition 3. [51] Let A = <x(TA(xi), IP(xi), FP(xi))> and B = <x(TB(xi), IB(xi), FB(xi))> be any two SVNSs. The binary logarithm similarity measure (type-II) between SVNSs A and B are defined as follows:

BL 2 ( A, B) = n   TA ( xi )  TB ( xi ) , I A ( xi )  I B ( xi ) ,   1   (2) log 2  2  max    F (x )  F (x )  n i 1 A i B i   



Theorem 2. The binary logarithm similarity measure BL 2 ( A, B) between any two SVNSs A and B satisfy the following properties: P 1. 0  BL 2 ( A, B )  1

P 2. BL 2 ( A, B) 1 , if and only if A = B P 3. BL 2 ( A, B)  BL 2 ( B, A) P4. If C is a SVNS in X and A  B  C then BL 2 ( A, C )  BL 2 ( A, B) and BL 2 ( A, C )  BL 2 ( B, C ) .

Proof. Proofs of the properties are shown in [51]. 3.3. Weighted binary logarithm similarity measures of SVNSs for type-I Definition 4. Let A = <x(TA(xi), IP(xi), FP(xi))> and B = <x(TB(xi), IB(xi), FB(xi))> be any two SVNSs. Then the weighted binary logarithm similarity measure for type-I between SVNSs A and B are defined as follows: w

BL1 ( A, B) =   1  TA ( x i )  TB ( x i )  I A ( x i )  I B ( x i )    n   w i log 2  2      3  FA ( x i )  FB ( x i ) i 1     (3) n

Here, 0  wi  1 and  wi 1 . i 1

Theorem 3. The weighted binary logarithm similarity measures BL1w ( A, B) between SVNSs A and B satisfy the following properties: P 1. 0  BL 1w ( A, B )  1 P 2. BL 1w ( A, B)  1 , if and only if A = B P 3. BL 1w ( A, B)  BL 1w ( B, A) P4. If C is a SVNS in X and A  B  C, then

BL1w ( A, C )  BL1w ( A, B ) and BL1w ( A, C )  BL1w ( B, C ) ; n

 wi 1 .

i 1

Proof 1. From the definition of SVNSs A and B, we write, 0 ≤ TA(x) + IA( x) + FA(x) ≤ 3 and 0 ≤ TB(x) + IB( x) + FB(x) ≤ 3  TA ( xi )  TB ( xi ) , I A ( xi )  I B ( xi ) ,   1  0  max   F (x )  F (x )  B i  A i   0  TA ( xi )  TB ( xi )  I A ( xi )  I B ( xi )  FA ( xi )  FB ( xi )  3 , n

 0  BL1 ( A, B)  1 . since,  wi  1 . w

i 1

Proof 2. For any two SVNSs A and B if A = B, then we have, TA(x) = TB(x), IA(x) = IB(x), FA(x) = FB(x)  T A ( x )  T B ( x)  0 , I A ( x)  I B ( x)  0 ,

F A ( x)  F B ( x)  0

Kalyan Mondal, Surapati Pramanik, and Bibhas C. Giri. Hybrid Binary Logarithm Similarity Measure for MAGDM Problems under SVNS Assesments

Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018

 BL1w ( A, B )  1 , (t = 1, 2), since  wi  1 .

BL 2 ( A, B) =

i 1

Conversely,



For BL1w ( A, B )  1 , then we have,  T A ( x )  T B ( x )  0 , I A ( x)  I B ( x)  0 ,

F A ( x)  F B ( x)  0  T A ( x)  T B ( x) , I A ( x )  I B ( x ) , F A ( x )  F B ( x )

 TA ( xi )  TB ( xi ) , I A ( xi )  I B ( xi ) ,     A i B i 

 w log  2  max F ( x )  F ( x ) i

i 1



(4) n

Here, 0  wi  1 and  wi 1 . i 1

 A = B, since  wi  1 . i 1

Proof 3. For any two SVNSs A and B, we have, T A ( x)  T B ( x)  T B ( x)  T A ( x) ,

I A ( x)  I B ( x)  I B ( x )  I A ( x ) ,

Proof. For proof, see [51]. 3.3. Hybrid binary logarithm similarity measures (HBLSM) for SVNSs

F A ( x)  F B ( x)  F B ( x)  F A ( x)  BL1w ( A, B )  BL1w ( B, A) for.

Definition 6. Let A = <x(TA(xi), IP(xi), FP(xi))> and B = <x(TB(xi), IB(xi), FB(xi))> be any two SVNSs. The hybrid binary logarithm similarity measure between SVNSs A and B is defined as follows:

Proof 4.

BL Hyb  A, B  =

For A  B  C, we have, TA(x)  TB(x)  TC(x), IA(x)  IB(x)  IC(x), FA(x)  FB(x)  FC(x) for x  X.  T A ( x)  T B ( x)  T A ( x)  T C ( x) ,

T B ( x)  T C ( x)  T A ( x)  T C ( x) ; I A ( x)  I B ( x)  I A ( x)  I C ( x) , I B (x)  I C (x)  I A (x)  I C (x) ; F A ( x)  F B ( x)  F A ( x)  F C ( x) , F B ( x)  F C ( x)  F A ( x)  F C ( x) . and BL1w ( A, C )  BL1w ( B, C )  BL1w ( A, C )  BL1w ( A, B ) since in1 wi 1 . 3.4. Weighted binary logarithm similarity measures of SVNSs for type-II Definition 5. [51] Let A = <x(TA(xi), IP(xi), FP(xi))> and B = <x(TB(xi), IB(xi), FB(xi))> be any two SVNSs. Then the weighted binary logarithm similarity measure (type-II between SVNSs A and B is defined as follows:

     TA ( xi )  TB ( xi )          n       log  2   1   I ( x )  I ( x )     2 A i B i  3   i 1       FA ( xi )  FB ( xi )          1       n   TA ( xi )  TB ( xi ) ,     n    (1  ) log  2  max  I ( x )  I ( x ) ,   2 A i B i      i 1  F ( x )  F ( x )     B i   A i    Here, 0    1 .



(5)



Theorem 4. The hybrid binary logarithm similarity measure BL Hyb  A, B  between any two SVNSs A and B satisfy the following properties:

P 1. 0  BL Hyb ( A, B)  1 P 2. BL Hyb ( A, B) 1 , if and only if A = B P 3. BL Hyb ( A, B)  BLHyb ( B, A) P4. If C is a SVNS in X and A  B  C then BL Hyb ( A, C )  BL Hyb ( A, B) and BL Hyb ( A, C )  BL Hyb ( B, C ) . Proof 1. From the definition of SVNS, we write, 0 ≤ TA(x)+ IA( x)+ FA(x) ≤ 3 and 0 ≤ TB(x) + IB(x) + FB(x) ≤ 3

Kalyan Mondal, Surapati Pramanik, and Bibhas C. Giri, Hybrid Binary Logarithm Similarity Measure for MAGDM Problems under SVNS Assesments

Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018

 TA ( xi )  TB ( xi ) , I A ( xi )  I B ( xi ) ,   1  F (x )  F (x )  B i  A i  0  TA ( xi )  TB ( xi )  I A ( xi )  I B ( xi ) ;   FA ( xi )  FB ( xi )  3  0  max 

 0  BL Hyb ( A, B) 1 .

Proof 2. For any two SVNSs A and B, for A = B, we have,  TA(x) = TB(x), IA(x) = IB(x), FA(x) = FB(x)  T A ( x )  T B ( x )  0 , I A ( x)  I B ( x)  0 ,

F A ( x)  F B ( x)  0  BL Hyb ( A, B)  1 .

Conversely, for BL Hyb ( A, B)  1 , we have,

T A ( x )  T B ( x )  0 , I A ( x)  I B ( x)  0 ,

F A ( x)  F B ( x)  0  T A ( x)  T B ( x) , I A ( x )  I B ( x ) , F A ( x )  F B ( x )  A = B.

and BL Hyb ( A, C )  BL Hyb ( B, C ) . 3.4. Weighted hybrid binary logarithm similarity measures (WHBLSM) for SVNSs Definition 7. Let A = <x(TA(xi), IP(xi), FP(xi))> and B = <x(TB(xi), IB(xi), FB(xi))> be any two SVNSs. The weighted hybrid binary logarithm similarity measure between SVNSs A and B is defined as follows:

BL wHyb  A, B  =      TA ( xi )  TB ( xi )         n       w log  2   1   I ( x )  I ( x )    2 A i B i  3   i 1 i      FA ( xi )  FB ( xi )                 TA ( xi )  TB ( xi ) ,   n   (1  )  wi log 2 2  max  I A ( xi )  I B ( xi ) ,    i 1  F (x )  F (x )   B i  A i  



                 

(6)

Here, 0    1 . Theorem 5. The weighted hybrid binary logarithm similarity measure BL wHyb ( A, B) between any two SVNSs A and B satisfy the following properties:

Proof 3.

P1. 0  BL wHyb ( A, B) 1

For any two SVNSs A and B, we have, T A ( x)  T B ( x)  T B ( x)  T A ( x) ,

P 2. BL wHyb ( A, B)  1 , if and only if A = B P 3. BL wHyb ( A, B)  BL wHyb ( B, A)

I A ( x)  I B ( x)  I B ( x )  I A ( x ) , F A ( x)  F B ( x)  F B ( x)  F A ( x)  BL Hyb ( A, B)  BL Hyb ( B, A) .

P4. If C is a SVNS in then BL wHyb ( A, C )  BL wHyb ( A, B)

and

A  B  C,

and BL wHyb ( A, C )  BL wHyb ( B, C ) .

Proof 4.

Proof 1.

For A  B  C, we have, TA(x)  TB(x)  TC(x), IA(x)  IB(x)  IC(x), FA(x)  FB(x)  FC(x) for x  X.  T A ( x)  T B ( x)  T A ( x)  T C ( x) ,

From the definition of SVNS, we write, 0 ≤ TA(x)+ IA( x)+ FA(x) ≤ 3 and 0 ≤ TB(x) + IB(x) + FB(x) ≤ 3  TA ( xi )  TB ( xi ) , I A ( xi )  I B ( xi ) ,   1  0  max   F (x )  F (x )  A i B i  

T B ( x)  T C ( x)  T A ( x)  T C ( x) ; I A ( x)  I B ( x)  I A ( x)  I C ( x) ,



0  TA ( xi )  TB ( xi )  I A ( xi )  I B ( xi )

I B ( x)  I C ( x)  I A ( x)  I C ( x) ; F A ( x)  F B ( x)  F A ( x)  F C ( x) , F B ( x)  F C ( x)  F A ( x)  F C ( x) .

Proof 2.

 BL Hyb ( A, C )  BL Hyb ( A, B )

For any two SVNSs A and B,



 FA ( xi )  FB ( xi )  3

;

0  BL wHyb ( A, B) 1 .

Kalyan Mondal, Surapati Pramanik, and Bibhas C. Giri. Hybrid Binary Logarithm Similarity Measure for MAGDM Problems under SVNS Assesments

Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018

for A = B, we have,  TA(x) = TB(x), IA(x) = IB(x), FA(x) = FB(x)  T A ( x )  T B ( x )  0 , I A ( x)  I B ( x)  0 ,

F A ( x)  F B ( x)  0  BL wHyb ( A, B )  1 .

Conversely, for BL wHyb ( A, B )  1 , we have,

T A ( x)  T B ( x)  0 , I A ( x)  I B ( x)  0 ,

paper, we define an entropy measure for determining unknown attribute weights. Definition 8.

The entropy function of a SVNS P

= T ijP ( x), I ijP ( x), F ijP ( x) (i = 1, 2, ..., m; j = 1, 2, ..., n) is defined as follows: E j ( P)  1 

wj 





1 m P  T ( x)  F ijP ( x) 1 2 I ijP ( x) n i 1 ij

2

(7)

1  E j ( P) n  nj1 E j ( P )

(8)

F A ( x)  F B ( x)  0  T A ( x)  T B ( x) , I A ( x )  I B ( x ) , F A ( x )  F B ( x )  A = B.

Theorem 6. The entropy function E j (P) satisfies the

Proof 3.

following properties:

For any two SVNSs A and B, we have, T A ( x)  T B ( x)  T B ( x)  T A ( x) ,

P1. E j ( P )  0 , if T ij 1, F ij  I ij  0 .

I A ( x)  I B ( x)  I B ( x )  I A ( x ) , F A ( x)  F B ( x)  F B ( x)  F A ( x)  BL wHyb ( A, B )  BL wHyb ( B, A) .

Here,  w j  1 j 1

P2. E j ( P )  1 , if T ij , I ij , F ij  0.5, 0.5, 0.5 . P3. E j ( P)  E j (Q) , if T ijP  F ijP  T Qij  F Qij ; I ijP  I Qij . P4. E j ( P)  E j ( P c ) .

Proof 4.

Proof 1.

For A  B  C, we have, TA(x)  TB(x)  TC(x), IA(x)  IB(x)  IC(x), FA(x)  FB(x)  FC(x) for all x  X.  T A ( x)  T B ( x)  T A ( x)  T C ( x) ,

T ij 1, F ij  I ij  0 1 n n  E j ( P )  1   1  0   1   0 n i 1 n Proof 2.

T B ( x)  T C ( x)  T A ( x)  T C ( x) ; I A ( x)  I B ( x)  I A ( x)  I C ( x) , I B ( x)  I C ( x)  I A ( x)  I C ( x) ; F A ( x)  F B ( x)  F A ( x)  F C ( x) , F B ( x)  F C ( x)  F A ( x)  F C ( x) .  BL wHyb ( A, C )  BL wHyb ( A, B ) and

BL wHyb ( A, C )  BL wHyb ( B, C ) . 4. A new entropy measure for SVNSs Entropy strategy [52] is an important contribution for determining indeterminate information. Zhang et al. [53] introduced the fuzzy entropy. Vlachos and Sergiadis [54] proposed entropy function for intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Majumder and Samanta [55] developed some entropy measures for SVNSs. When attribute weights are completely unknown to decision makers, the entropy measure is used to calculate attribute weights. In this

T ij , I ij , F ij  0.5, 0.5, 0.5 . 

E j ( P)  1 

1 n  0.5  0.5  0  1  0  1 n i 1

Proof 3. P Q P P Q Q T ij  F ij  T ij  F ij , I ij  I ij



 T ijP  F ijP 1 2 I ijP    T Qij  F Qij 1 2 I Qij  m

i 1

2 2 1 m P 1 m  T ij  F ijP 1 2 I ijP    T Qij  F Qij 1 2 I Qij   n i 1 n i 1 2 2 1 m Q 1 m P P P Q Q  1   T ij  F ij 1 2 I ij   1   T ij  F ij 1 2 I ij  n i 1 n i 1  E j ( P )  E j (Q) .

Proof 4. c Since T ij , I ij , F ij  F ij ,1  I ij , T ij , we have

E j ( P)  E j ( P c ) .

Kalyan Mondal, Surapati Pramanik, and Bibhas C. Giri. Hybrid Binary Logarithm Similarity Measure for MAGDM Problems under SVNS Assesments

Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018

5. MAGDM strategy based on weighted hybrid binary logarithm similarity measure for SVNSs Assume that (P1, P2, ..., Pm) be the alternatives, (C1, C2, ..., Cn) be the attributes of each alternative, and {D1, D2, ..., Dr} be the decision makers. Decision makers provide the rating of alternatives based on the predefined attribute. Each decision maker constructs a neutrosophic decision matrix associated with the alternatives based on each attribute shown in Equation (9). Using the following steps, we present the MAGDM strategy (see figure 1) based on weighted hybrid binary logarithm similarity measure (WHBLSM). Step 1: Determine the relation between the alternatives and the attributes At first, each decision maker prepares decision matrix. The relation between alternatives Pi (i = 1, 2, ..., m) and the attribute Cj (j = 1, 2, ..., n) corresponding to each decision maker is presented in the Equation (9). Dr [ P | C ] =

  D P1  T 11r ,  Dr , P 2  T 21    P m  T mD1r ,

     P1   P  2     P  m 

C1 r



t 1

Dt T 11

Dt , I 11



C2 Dt , F 11

Dt , Dt , Dt  T 11 I 11 F 11

t 1



t 1

Dt T 11

Dt , I 11

Dt , F 11

D t , Dt , Dt  T 11 I 11 F 11

t 1

r 

Dt , Dt , Dt  T 11 I 11 F 11

t 1





t 1 r



Dt T 11

Dt , I 11

Dt , F 11

D t , Dt , Dt  T 11 I 11 F 11

t 1

r 



D t , Dt , Dt  T 11 I 11 F 11

t 1

Cn r



D t , Dt , Dt  T 11 I 11 F 11

t 1

              

(10) Step 3: Determine the ideal solution The evaluation of attributes can be categorized into benefit attribute and cost attribute. An ideal alternative can be determined by using a maximum operator for the benefit attributes and a minimum operator for the cost attributes for determining the best value of each attribute among all the alternatives. An ideal alternative [42] is presented as follows: P* = {C1*, C2*, … , Cm*}. where the benefit attribute is

C1 Dr I 11 D I 21r

C2 , ,

Dr F11 D F 21r



Dr , T 12 Dr T 22 ,

Dr , I 12 Dr I 22 ,

Dr F12 D F 22r



I mD1r , F mD1r

T mD2r , I mD2r , F mD2r

    

Cn T 1Dnr , D T 2 nr ,

I 1Dnr , D I 2 nr ,

F 1Dnr D F 2 nr

 Dr Dr Dr , I mn , F mn T mn

        

(9)

(P ) (P ) (P ) C*j  maxT C j i , min I C j i , min F C j i i

(11)

and the cost attribute is (P ) (P ) (P ) C*j  min T C j i , max I C j i , max F C j i i

(12)

Step 4: Determine the attribute weights Using Equation (8), determine the weights of the attribute.

Here,

T ijDr ,

I ijDr ,

F ijDr

(i = 1, 2, ..., m; j = 1, 2, ..., n) is the

single valued neutrosophic rating value of the alternative Pi with respect to the attribute Cj corresponding to the decision maker Dr.

Step 5: Determine the WHBLSM values Using Equation (6), calculate the weighted similarity measures for each alternative. Step 6: Ranking the priority

Step 2: Determine the core decision matrix We form a new decision matrix, called core decision matrix to combine all the decision maker’s opinions into a group opinion. Core decision matrix minimizes the biasness which is imposed by different decision makers and hence credibility to the final decision increases. The core decision matrix is presented in Equation (10). D[ P | C ] =

All the alternatives are preference ranked based on the decreasing order of calculated measure values. The highest value reflects the best alternative. Step 7: End. 6. An illustrative example Suppose that a state government wants to construct an ecotourism park for the development of state tourism and especially for mental refreshment of children. After initial screening, three potential spots namely, spot-1 (P1), spot-2 (P2), and spot-3 (P3) remain for further selection. A team

Kalyan Mondal, Surapati Pramanik, and Bibhas C. Giri. Hybrid Binary Logarithm Similarity Measure for MAGDM Problems under SVNS Assesments

Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018

of three decision makers, namely, D1, D2, and D3 has been constructed for selecting the most suitable spot with respect to the following attributes.  Ecology (C1),  Costs (C2),  Technical facility (C3),  Transport (C4),  Risk factors (C5) The steps of decision-making strategy to select the best potential spot to construct an eco-tourism park based on the proposed strategy are stated below:

D3 [ P | C ]  C1   0.7,   P1 0.4,  0 .3   0.6,  0.2,  P2  0 .3   0.6,  0.2,  P3  0 .3 

6.1. Steps of MAGDM strategy

Step 2: Determine the core decision matrix

We present MAGDM strategy based on the proposed

Using Equation (10), we construct the core decision matrix for all decision makers shown in Equation (16).

WHBLSM using the following steps.

Step 1: Determine the relation between alternatives and attributes The relation between alternatives P1, P2 and P3 and the attribute set {C1, C2, C3, C4, C5} corresponding to the set of decision makers {D1, D2, D3} are presented in Equations (13), (14), and (15). D1[ P | C ]  C1   0.7,   P1 0.4,  0 .4   0.4,  0.3,  P2  0 .6   0.4,  0.2,  P3  0 .3 

C2 0.7, 0.4, 0.3 0.5, 0.2, 0.5 0.8, 0.1, 0.3

C3 0.8, 0.1, 0.1 0.6, 0.2, 0.2 0.5, 0.4, 0.4

C4 0.7, 0.2, 0,1 0.7, 0.3, 0.3 0.5, 0.2, 0.2

C5 0.6, 0.5, 0.5 0.4, 0.3, 0.4 0.7, 0.3, 0.2

               

C2 0.7, 0.4, 0.4 0.5, 0.2, 0.4 0.8, 0.2, 0.2

C3 0.8, 0.2, 0.2 0.5, 0.3, 0.3 0.5, 0.3, 0.3

C4 0.5, 0.2, 0,2 0.8, 0.3, 0.3 0.7, 0.2, 0.2

C5 0.5, 0.5, 0.4 0.4, 0.1, 0.4 0.7, 0.4, 0.2

               

(13)

C1 0.5, 0.2, 0.3 0.5, 0.4, 0.4 0.4, 0.2, 0.5

C3 0.6, 0.3, 0.3 0.7, 0.4, 0.4 0.5, 0.3, 0.3

C4 0.7, 0.2, 0,5 0.5, 0.3, 0.4 0.7, 0.4, 0.2

               

C5 0.5, 0.6, 0.5 0.3, 0.4, 0.4 0.5, 0.6, 0.4

(15)

D[ P | C ]    P  1     P2      P3  

C1 0.984, 0.324, 0.332 0.938, 0.292, 0.420 0.949, 0.203, 0.359

C2 0.988, 0.324, 0.232 0.956, 0.162, 0.395 0.994, 0.203, 0.232

C3 0.989, 0.184, 0.184 0.979, 0.292, 0.292 0.956, 0.334, 0.334

C4 0.956, 0.203, 0.219 0.989, 0.304, 0.334 0.984, 0.255, 0.203

C5 0.961, 0.452, 0.219 0.908, 0.232, 0.404 0.984, 0.420, 0.255

               

(16)

Step 3: Determine the ideal solution Here, C3 and C4 denote benefit attributes and C1, C2 and C5 denote cost attributes. Using Equations (11) and (12), we calculate the ideal solutions as follows:  0.938, 0.324, 0.420 , 0.956 , 0.324, 0.395   P *   0.989, 0.184, 0.184 , 0.989, 0.203, 0.203    0.908, 0.452, 0.404

D2 [ P | C ]      P1      P2      P3  

C2 0.8, 0.2, 0.1 0.5, 0.1, 0.3 0.6, 0.4, 0.2

,   ,.   

Step 4: Determine the attribute weights (14)

Using Equation (8), we calculate the attribute weights as follows: [w1, w2, w3, w4, w5] = [0.1680, 0.3300, 0.2285, 0.2485, 0.0250] Step 5: Determine the weighted hybrid binary logarithm similarity measures Using Equation (6), we calculate similarity values for alternatives shown in Table 1.

Kalyan Mondal, Surapati Pramanik, and Bibhas C. Giri. Hybrid Binary Logarithm Similarity Measure for MAGDM Problems under SVNS Assesments

Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018

Step 6: Ranking the alternatives Ranking order of alternatives is prepared as the descending order of similarity values. Highest value indicates the best alternative. Ranking results are shown in Table 1 for different values of  .

10. Conclusion Conclusions in the paper are concise as follows: 1.

Step 7. End. 7. Sensitivity analysis In this section, we discuss the variation of ranking results (see Table 1) for different values of  . From the results shown in Tables 1, we observe that the proposed strategy provides the same ranking order for different values of  .

8. Comparison analysis

In this section, we solve the problem with different existing strategies [33, 37, 38, 56]. Outcomes are furnished in the Table 2 and figure 2.

5. 6.

9. Contributions of the proposed strategy 



We propose two types of binary logarithm similarity measures and their hybrid similarity measure for SVNS environment. We have proved their basic properties. To calculate unknown weights structure of attributes in SVNS environment, we have proposed a new entropy function. We develop a decision making strategy based on the proposed weighted hybrid binary logarithm similarity measure (WHBLSM). We have solved a illustrative example to show the feasibility, applicability, and effectiveness of the proposed strategy.

We have proposed hybrid binary logarithm similarity measure and weighted hybrid binary logarithm similarity measure for dealing indeterminacy in decision making situation. We have defined a new entropy function to determine unknown attribute weights. We have developed a new MAGDM strategy based on the proposed weighted hybrid binary logarithm similarity measure. We have presented a numerical example to illustrate the proposed strategy. We have conducted a sensitivity analysis We have presented comparative analyses between the obtained results from the proposed strategies and different existing strategies in the literature. The proposed weighted hybrid binary logarithm similarity measure can be applied to solve MAGDM problems in clustering analysis, pattern recognition, personnel selection, etc. Future research can be continued to investigate the proposed similarity measures in neutrosophic hybrid environment for tackling uncertainty, inconsistency and indeterminacy in decision making. The concept of the paper can be applied in practical decisionmaking, supply chain management, data mining, cluster analysis, teacher selection etc.

Table 1 Ranking order for different values of  . Similarity measures

()

BLwHyb ( P*, Pi )

0.10 0.25 0.40 0.55 0.70 0.90

BLwHyb ( P*, Pi ) BLwHyb ( P*, Pi ) BLwHyb ( P*, Pi ) BLwHyb ( P*, Pi ) BLwHyb ( P*, Pi )

Measure values BL wHyb ( P*, P1)  0.9426 ; BL wHyb ( P*, P 2)  0.9233 ; BL wHyb ( P*, P 3)  0.9101 BL wHyb ( P*, P1)  0.9479 ; BL wHyb ( P*, P 2)  0.9296 ; BL wHyb ( P*, P 3)  0.9153

BL wHyb ( P*, P1)  0.9532 ; BL wHyb ( P*, P 2)  0.9357 ; BL wHyb ( P*, P 3)  0.9207 BL wHyb ( P*, P1)  0.9585 ; BL wHyb ( P*, P 2)  0.9419 ; BLwHyb ( P*, P3)  0.9260

BL wHyb ( P*, P1)  0.9638 ; BLwHyb ( P*, P2)  0.9482 ; BL wHyb ( P*, P 3)  0.9313 BL wHyb ( P*, P1)  0.9708 ; BL wHyb ( P*, P 2)  0.9565 ; BL wHyb ( P*, P 3)  0.9384

Ranking order P1  P2  P3 P1  P2  P3 P1  P2  P3 P1  P2  P3 P1  P2  P3 P1  P2  P3

Kalyan Mondal, Surapati Pramanik, and Bibhas C. Giri. Hybrid Binary Logarithm Similarity Measure for MAGDM Problems under SVNS Assesments

Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018

Table 2 Ranking order for different existing strategies Similarity measures Mondal and Pramanik [37] Ye [33] Biswas et al. [56] (  0.55) Ye and Fu [38] Proposed strategy (  0.55)

Measure values for P1, P2 and P3 0.8901, 0.8679, 0.8093 0.8409, 0.8189, 0.7766 0.9511, 0.9219, 0.9007 0.9161, 0.8758, 0.7900 0.9585, 0.9419, 0.9260

Ranking order P1  P2  P3 P1  P2  P3 P1  P2  P3 P1  P2  P3 P1  P2  P3

WHBLSM based decision making strategy

Decision making analysis phase Determination of the relation between alternatives and attributes

Determine the core decision matrix

Step-1

Step- 2

Determine ideal solution

Step- 3

Determine the attribute weights

Step-4

Calculate the WHBLSM values

Ranking the alternatives

Step-5

Step- 6

Fig. 1: Decision making phases of the proposed approach

Kalyan Mondal, Surapati Pramanik, and Bibhas C. Giri. Hybrid Binary Logarithm Similarity Measure for MAGDM Problems under SVNS Assesments

Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018

Fig. 2: Ranking order of different strategies

References [1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

F. Smarandache, A unifying field in logics, neutrosophy: neutrosophic probability, set and logic. Rehoboth, American Research Press, 1998. H. Wang, F. Smarandache, Y. Q. Zhang, and R. Sunderraman. Single valued neutrosophic sets. Multispace and Multistructure, 4(2010), 410–413. Y. Guo, C. Zhou, H. P. Chan, A. Chughtai, J. Wei, L. M. Hadjiiski, E. A. Kazerooni. Automated iterative neutrosophic lung segmentation for image analysis in thoracic computed tomography. Medical Physics. 40(8) (2013), 081912. doi: 10.1118/1.4812679 K. M. Amin, A. I. Shahin, Y. Guo. A novel breast tumor classification algorithm using neutrosophic score features. Measurement, 81 (2016), 210–220. Y. X. Ma, J. Q. Wang, J. Wang, X. H. Wu. An interval neutrosophic linguistic multi-criteria group decision-making strategy and its application in selecting medical treatment options. Neural Computing and Applications, 28(9) (2017), 2745–2765. J. Ye. Improved cross entropy measures of single valued neutrosophic sets and interval neutrosophic sets and their multicriteria decision making strategies. Cybernetics and Information Technologies, 15(4) (2015), 13–26. J. J. Peng, J. Q. Wang, X. H. Wu, J. Wang, X. H. Chen. Multi-valued neutrosophic sets and power aggregation operators with their applications in multi-criteria group

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

decision-making problems. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 8(2) (2015), 345–363. R. Şahin, and P. Liu. Maximizing deviation strategy for neutrosophic multiple attribute decision making with incomplete weight information. Neural Computing and Applications, 27(7) (2017), 2017–2029. J. Ye. Simplified neutrosophic harmonic averaging projection-based strategy for multiple attribute decision making problems. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 8(3) (2017), 981–987. P. Chi, P. Liu. An extended TOPSIS method for the multiple attribute decision making problems based on interval neutrosophic set, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 1 (2013), 63–70. P. Biswas, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. Entropy based grey relational analysis method for multi-attribute decision making under single valued neutrosophic assessments. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 2(2014), 102–110. P. Biswas, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. A new methodology for neutrosophic multi-attribute decision making with unknown weight information. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 3 (2014), 42–52. P. Biswas, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. Aggregation of triangular fuzzy neutrosophic set information and its application to multi-attribute decision making. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 12 (2016), 20–40. P. Biswas, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. Value and ambiguity index based ranking method of single-valued trapezoidal

Kalyan Mondal, Surapati Pramanik, and Bibhas C. Giri. Hybrid Binary Logarithm Similarity Measure for MAGDM Problems under SVNS Assesments

Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018

neutrosophic numbers and its application to multi-attribute decision making. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 12 (2016), 127–138. [15] P. Biswas, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. Multi-attribute group decision making based on expected value of neutrosophic trapezoidal numbers. New Trends in Neutrosophic Theory and Applications-Vol-II. Pons Editions, Brussells (2017). In Press. [16] P. Biswas, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. Non-linear programming approach for single-valued neutrosophic TOPSIS method. New Mathematics and Natural Computation, (2017). In Press. [17] S. Pramanik, S. Dalapati, and T. K. Roy. Logistics center location selection approach based on neutrosophic multicriteria decision making. New Trends in Neutrosophic Theories and Applications, Pons-Edtitons, Brussels, 2016, 161–174. [18] K. Mondal, and S. Pramanik. Neutrosophic decision making model of school choice. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 7 (2015), 62–68. [19] S. Pramanik, T. K. Roy. Neutrosophic game theoretic approach to Indo-Pak conflict over Jammu-Kashmir. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 2 (2014), 82–101. [20] S. Pramanik, and S. N. Chackrabarti. A study on problems of construction workers in West Bengal based on neutrosophic cognitive maps. International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, 2(11) (2013), 6387–6394. [21] K. Mondal, and S. Pramanik. A study on problems of Hijras in West Bengal based on neutrosophic cognitive maps. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 5(2014), 21–26. [22] J. Ye. Fault diagnoses of steam turbine using the exponential similarity measure of neutrosophic numbers. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 30(4) (2016), 1927–1934. [23] K. Hu, J. Ye, E. Fan, S. Shen, L. Huang, J. Pi. A novel object tracking algorithm by fusing color and depth information based on single valued neutrosophic crossentropy. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 32(3) (2017), 1775–1786. [24] Y. Guo, A. Şengür. A novel image segmentation algorithm based on neutrosophic similarity clustering. Applied Soft Computing, 25 (2014), 391–398. [25] D. Koundal, S. Gupta, S. Singh. Automated delineation of thyroid nodules in ultrasound images using spatial neutrosophic clustering and level set. Applied Soft Computing, 40 (2016), 86–97. [26] D. Koundal, S. Gupta, S. Singh. Speckle reduction strategy for thyroid ultrasound images in neutrosophic domain. IET Image Processing, 10(2) (2016), 167–75. [27] J. Ye. Multicriteria decision-making strategy using the correlation coefficient under single-valued neutrosophic

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

environment. International Journal of General Systems, 42(4) (2013), 386–394. J. Ye. Single valued neutrosophic clustering algorithms based on similarity measures. Journal of Classification, 34(1) (2017), 148–162. S. Broumi, F. Smarandache. Neutrosophic refined similarity measure based on cosine function. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 6 (2014), 41–47. S. Pramanik, P. Biswas, B. C. Giri. Hybrid vector similarity measures and their applications to multi-attribute decision making under neutrosophic environment. Neural Computing and Applications, 28(5) (2017), 1163–1176. X. Peng, J. Dai. Approaches to single-valued neutrosophic MADM based on MABAC, TOPSIS and new similarity measure with score function. Neural Computing and Applications, 2016, 1–16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521016-2607-y J. Ye. Vector similarity measures of simplified neutrosophic sets and their application in multicriteria decision making. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 16(2) (2014), 204–211. J. Ye. Improved cosine similarity measures of simplified neutrosophic sets for medical diagnosis. Artificial intelligence in medicine, 63(3) (2015), 171–179. P. Biswas, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. Cosine similarity measure based multi-attribute decision-making with trapezoidal fuzzy neutrosophic numbers. Neutrosophic Sets Systems, 2015, 8 (2015), 47–57. S. Pramanik and K. Mondal. Weighted Fuzzy Similarity Measure Based on Tangent Function and its Application to Medical Diagnosis. International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, 4(2) (2015), 158–164. K. Mondal and S. Pramanik. Intuitionistic fuzzy similarity measure based on tangent function and its application to multi-attribute decision making. Global Journal of Advanced Research, 2(2) (2015), 464–471. K. Mondal, S. Pramanik. Neutrosophic tangent similarity measure and its application to multiple attribute decision making. Neutrosophic sets and systems, 9 (2015), 80–87. J. Ye, J. Fu. Multi-period medical diagnosis strategy using a single valued neutrosophic similarity measure based on tangent function. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 123 (2016), 142–149. M. S. Can, O. F. Ozguven. PID tuning with neutrosophic similarity measure. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 19(2) (2016), 489–503. K. Mondal, S. Pramanik. Multi-criteria group decision making approach for teacher recruitment in higher education

Kalyan Mondal, Surapati Pramanik, and Bibhas C. Giri. Hybrid Binary Logarithm Similarity Measure for MAGDM Problems under SVNS Assesments

Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018

[41] under simplified neutrosophic environment. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 6 (2014), 28–34. [42] P. Liu, F. Teng. An extended TODIM strategy for multiple attribute group decision-making based on 2dimension uncertain linguistic variable. Complexity, 21(5) (2016), 20–30. [43] S. Pramanik, S. Dalapati, S. Alam, F. Smarandache, T. K. Roy. NS-Cross Entropy-Based MAGDM under Single-Valued Neutrosophic Set Environment. Information, 9(2) (2018), 37; doi:10.3390/info9020037 [44] J. Ye. Multiple attribute group decision-making strategy with completely unknown weights based on similarity measures under single valued neutrosophic environment. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 27(6) (2014), 2927–2935. [45] J. Ye. Clustering methods using distance-based similarity measures of single-valued neutrosophic sets. Journal of Intelligent Systems, 23(4) (2014), 379–389. [46] K. Mondal, S Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. Single valued neutrosophic hyperbolic sine similarity measure based strategy for MADM problems. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 19 (2018) (ACCEPTED). [47] K. Mondal, S Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. Interval neutrosophic tangent similarity measure and its application to MADM problems. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 19 (2018) (ACCEPTED). [48] Z. Lu, J. Ye. Logarithmic similarity measure between interval-valued fuzzy sets and its fault diagnosis method. Information, 9(2) (2018), 36. doi: 10.3390/info9020036 [49] B. Ashtiani, F. Haghighirad, A. Makui. G. A. Montazer. Extension of fuzzy TOPSIS method based on intervalvalued fuzzy sets. Applied Soft Computing, 9(2) (2009), 457–461. [50] J. Ye. A multi-criteria decision-making method using aggregation operators for simplified neutrosophic sets. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 26(5) (2014), 2459–2466. [51] J. N. Mitchell. Computer multiplication and division using binary logarithms. IRE Transactions on Electronic Computers, (4) (1962), 512–517. [52] K. Mondal, S. Pramanik, B. C. Giri, F. Smarandache, J. Ye. Hybrid logarithm similarity measure based MAGDM strategy under SVNS environment. Preprints 2018, 2018030231 (doi:10.20944/preprints201803.0231.v1)

[53] C. E. Shannon Prediction and entropy of printed English. Bell Labs Technical Journal, 30(1) (1951), 50– 64. [54] H. Zhang, W. Zhang, C. Mei. Entropy of interval-valued fuzzy sets based on distance and its relationship with similarity measure. Knowledge-Based Systems, 22(6) (2009), 449–454. [55] I. K. Vlachos, G. D. Sergiadis. Intuitionistic fuzzy information–applications to pattern recognition. Pattern Recognition Letters, 28(2) (2007), 197–206. [56] P. Majumdar, S. K. Samanta. On similarity and entropy of neutrosophic sets. Journal of Intelligence and Fuzzy Systems, 26 (2014), 1245–1252. [57] P. Biswas, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. TOPSIS method for multi-attribute group decision-making under singlevalued neutrosophic environment. Neural Computing and Applications, 27(3) (2016), 727–737. [58] Abdel-Basset, M., Mohamed, M., Smarandache, F., & Chang, V. (2018). Neutrosophic Association Rule Mining Algorithm for Big Data Analysis. Symmetry, 10(4), 106. [59] Abdel-Basset, M., & Mohamed, M. (2018). The Role of Single Valued Neutrosophic Sets and Rough Sets in Smart City: Imperfect and Incomplete Information Systems. Measurement. Volume 124, August 2018, Pages 47-55 [60] Abdel-Basset, M., Gunasekaran, M., Mohamed, M., & Smarandache, F. A novel method for solving the fully neutrosophic linear programming problems. Neural Computing and Applications, 1-11. [61] Abdel-Basset, M., Manogaran, G., Gamal, A., & Smarandache, F. (2018). A hybrid approach of neutrosophic sets and DEMATEL method for developing supplier selection criteria. Design Automation for Embedded Systems, 1-22. [62] Abdel-Basset, M., Mohamed, M., & Chang, V. (2018). NMCDA: A framework for evaluating cloud computing services. Future Generation Computer Systems, 86, 12-29. [63] Abdel-Basset, M., Mohamed, M., Zhou, Y., & Hezam, I. (2017). Multi-criteria group decision making based on neutrosophic analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 33(6), 4055-4066. [64] Abdel-Basset, M.; Mohamed, M.; Smarandache, F. An Extension of Neutrosophic AHP–SWOT Analysis for Strategic Planning and Decision-Making. Symmetry 2018, 10, 116.

Received : March 19, 2018. Accepted : April 9, 2018.

Kalyan Mondal, Surapati Pramanik, and Bibhas C. Giri. Hybrid Binary Logarithm Similarity Measure for MAGDM Problems under SVNS Assesments