Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine

Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine / 2020 / Article

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 |Article ID 6093545 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6093545

Jason Chih-sheng Chou, Yi-Fong Lin, Scott Shu-Cheng Lin, "A Further Study on Multiperiod Health Diagnostics Methodology under a Single-Valued Neutrosophic Set", Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, vol. 2020, Article ID 6093545, 11 pages, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6093545

A Further Study on Multiperiod Health Diagnostics Methodology under a Single-Valued Neutrosophic Set

Academic Editor: Markos G. Tsipouras
Received30 Mar 2020
Accepted06 Jul 2020
Published01 Aug 2020

Abstract

Employing the concept and function of tangency with similarity measures and counterpart distances for reliable medical consultations has been extensively studied in the past decades and results in lots of isomorphic measures for application. We compared the majority of such isomorphic measures proposed by various researchers and classified them into (a) maximum norm and (b) one-norm categories. Moreover, we found that previous researchers used monotonic functions to transform an identity function and resulted in complicated expressions. In this study, we provide a theoretical foundation to explain the isomorphic nature of a newer measure proposed by the following research paper against its studied existing one in deriving the same pattern recognition results. Specifically, this study initially proposes two similarity measures using maximum norm, arithmetic mean, and aggregation operators and followed by a detailed discussion on their mathematical characteristics. Subsequently, a simplified version of such measures is presented for easy application. This study completely covers two previous methods to point out that the complex approaches used were unnecessary. The findings will help physicians, patients, and their family members to obtain a proper medical diagnosis during multiple examinations.

1. Introduction

With the current state of medical consultations, a patient may present with several different inclinations of diseases, especially for multilevel diagnosis. This poses a critical question on how can a physician provide a reliable conclusion for the patient’s health status and extend to the patient and his or her family members. Zadeh [1] pioneered the development of fuzzy sets (FSs) to deal with complex, uncertain, vague, and incomplete problems in the physical world. There are many important extensions of the FSs such as the neutrosophic sets (NSs) that were proposed by Smarandache [2]. However, NSs pose to be difficult in actual applications such that Wang et al. [3, 4] developed single-valued neutrosophic sets (SVNSs) to provide a simplification of NSs. SVNSs have three membership functions: truth, indeterminacy, and falsity, which give sufficient information to analyze a patient’s condition and will be used to construct a systematic approach to determine the most probable disease. Many papers studied SVNSs: for example, Ye [5] constructed an operator using weighted averages under a hesitant fuzzy element (HFE) environment and a single-valued neutrosophic set. Another study is Ye [6] to consider similarity measures with the cosine function, and then Ye and Fu [7] referred to the similarity measures in Ye [6]. Ninety-three papers have cited Ye [6] in their references. We list them in the following: Peng and Dai [8], Ye [9], Biswas et al. [10], Broumi et al. [11], Chatterjee et al. [12, 13], Cui and Ye [14], Fan [15], Fan et al. [16], Fu et al. [17], Gou and Wang [18], Jha et al. [19, 20], Li et al. [2123], Liu and Luo [24], Luo et al. [25], Nancy and Garg [26], Nguyen et al. [27], Peng [28], Peng and Dai [29], Rajangam and Annamalai [30], Şahin [31], Shao et al. [32], Shi and Yuan [33], Tian et al. [34], Wang et al. [35], Wei and Zhang [36], Xie et al. [37], Ye [38], Zhai et al. [39], Zhang et al. [40], Zhao et al. [41], Akram et al. [42], Ali et al. [43], Cai and Yang [44], Fan et al. [45], Garg and Nancy [46], Guan et al. [47], Karaaslan and Hayat [48], Khanet al. [49], Küçük and Şahin [50], Liu [51], Liu et al. [52], Liu et al. [53], Liu and You [54], Mondal et al. [5557], Ngan et al. [58], Peng et al. [59], Pramanik et al. [60, 61], Şahin [62], Singh [63], Tian et al. [64], Tu et al. [65], Wei and Wei [66], Wu et al. [67], Wu et al. [68], Xiong and Cheng [69], Ye [70], Zeming et al. [71], Zhang et al. [72], Chen and Ye [73], Deli and Şubaş [74], Fan and Ye [75], Fu and Ye [76], Hu et al. [77], Lu and Ye [78], Ma et al. [79], Peng et al. [8082], Pramanik et al. [83], Singh [84], Thanh et al. [85], Tian et al. [86], Wang and Zhang [87], Xu et al. [88], Zhou and Abdel Wahab [89], Chou [90], Liu and Tang [91], Meng et al. [92], Nancy and Garg [93], Shi [94], Son [95], Ye [96], Ye and Fu [7], Zhang et al. [97], Zhang et al. [98], and Zhang et al. [99]. Among those 93 papers, 92 papers only mentioned Ye [6] in their introduction, and then they concentrated on their new similarity measures and applied their new similarity measures to solve real application problems. Only one paper, Ye and Fu [7] have written down the similarity measures proposed by Ye [6]. However, Ye and Fu [7] did not provide any discussion for the similarity measures proposed by Ye [6] with cosine functions. Instead, Ye and Fu [7] developed new similarity measures with tangent functions. Hence, Ye and Fu [7] developed two tangent similarity measures and subsequently defined aggregation operators for multiperiod medical diagnosis. There are 49 papers that have cited Ye and Fu [7] in their references. We list them in the following: Liu et al. [100], Peng and Dai [8], Awang et al. [101], Chatterjee et al. [12, 13], Cui and Ye [14], Fu et al. [17], Gou and Wang [18], Hu et al. [102], Li et al. [21], Long et al. [103], Luo et al. [25], Nancy and Garg [26], Nguyen et al. [27], Rajangam and Annamalai [30], Ren et al. [104], Shen et al. [105], Shi and Yuan [33], Smith [106], Xie et al. [37], Akram et al. [107], Ali et al. [43], Hu et al. [108], Ji et al. [109111], Karaaslan [112], Karaaslan and Hayat [48], Khan et al. [113], Liu [51], Mondal et al. [5557], Naz et al. [114], Peng and Dai [115], Tu et al. [65], Uluçay et al. [116], Wu et al. [67], Ye [70], Ashraf et al. [117], Chen and Ye [73], Fu and Ye [76], Guan et al. [118], Guo et al. [119], Hu et al. [77], Lu and Ye [78], Naz et al. [120], Peng and Dai [121], and Thanh et al. [85]. We have examined those 49 papers to find out that they only review Ye and Fu [7] in their literature study without any further discussions concerning Ye and Fu [7]. There are many similarity measures developed by researchers. However, there are only a few studies that conduct comprehensive examinations for previously published papers. For example, Julian et al. [122] improved three questionable results of Mitchell [123]. Deng and Chao [124] and Tung et al. [125] further revised two questionable findings of Julian et al. [122]. We follow this trend to examine the findings of Ye [6] and Ye and Fu [7] with a detailed analysis.

Prior studies generally repeated in proposing a newer similarity measure and been evaluated against an existing one (i.e., a studied measure) in deriving the same pattern recognition results for medical diagnosis problems. Thus, they result in lots of isomorphic measures. Many researchers as mentioned above claimed that their new similarity measures are supported by existing ones. We took a detailed examination for some similarity measures and found that their counterpart distances (that is, similarity measure plus distance is the unity) can be classified into (a) maximum norm and (b) one-norm categories. Additionally, many researchers used monotonic functions to transform the identity function (that is, ) into complicated expressions. These review comments trigger us to study the similarity measures and point out that they are isomorphic when compared to those two categories. Hence, we provide a theoretical foundation to explain why a newly proposed measure by the following paper will derive the same results as its studied one (i.e., an existing measure).

Initially, we will use a simple example to explain the isomorphic property of this research for ordinary readers. We concentrate on Ye [6] and Ye and Fu [7], and they are representing an existing measure (i.e., Ye [6]) and the following measure (i.e., Ye and Fu [7]). Ye [6] used the cosine function, and Ye and Fu [7] applied the tangent function, where cosine is a strictly decreasing function, and tangent is a strictly increasing function. The isomorphic property can be understood by assuming , then

The strictly decreasing property of cosine implies . In this example, Ye [6] would create a new similarity measure as such that

In fact, the similarity measure proposed by Ye [6] preserves the original ordering of Equation (1). The strictly increasing property of tangent implies . As an example of the following study, Ye and Fu [7] would create a new similarity measure as such that

The new similarity measure proposed by Ye and Fu [7] preserves the original ordering of Equation (1) as well. In Ye and Fu [7], they claimed that they used the tangent function to develop a new similarity measure. We point out that Ye and Fu [7] applied “one minus tangent function” to create a new similarity measure. Based on the isomorphic property, Ye [6] and Ye and Fu [7] will preserve the same orderings as those in previously published papers that were constructed with different monotonic functions. Therefore, we decide to provide a reasonable explanation for researching the reason why a newer similarity measure will still derive the same results as those in already published papers.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 of this paper introduced some previous results related to Ye and Fu [7] in terms of the tangent similarity measures and aggregation operators. Section 3 highlighted the theoretical results of Jaccard [126], Dice [127], and Salton and McGill [128]. Our theoretical development of two similarity measures using maximum norm, arithmetic mean, and two aggregation operators is presented in Section 4. Section 5 showed how this study used the subject example of Ye and Fu [7] as a comparison for the proposed two aggregation operators and thereby showing that it has the same diagnosis results. A detailed analysis is presented in Section 6 about the tangent and improved cosine similarity measures and how there are transformations of the proposed revision thereby showing that these complicated computations of Ye [6] and Ye and Fu [7] are redundant. The discussion is concluded in Section 7.

Wang et al. [4] defined an SVNS as , such that is a universe of discourse with the three membership functions: truth , indeterminacy , and falsity that satisfy , , and .

For and which are different SVNSs with a universal set , Ye and Fu [7] reviewed three similarity measures: Jaccard [126], Dice [127], and Salton and McGill [128] as follows.

Jaccard [126] defined the “Jaccard index” where

Dice [127] defined the “Dice similarity measure”:

Salton and McGill [128] presented that which is based on the inner product of two vectors and then normalizes the result.

Next, Ye and Fu [7] claimed that Equation (11) has some disadvantages such that they presented two improved cosine similarity measures as follows in Ye [6]:

Using the concept of tangency, Ye and Fu [7] developed two new equations as follows: and

Finally, Ye and Fu [7] constructed two weighted measures that are still built on tangency:

During a multiple period diagnosis, Ye and Fu [7] used tangent and improved cosine measures to find out the most probable disease suffered by the patient. We recall the decision algorithm proposed by Ye and Fu [7]:

Assign as the group of different symptoms, as a series of multiple periods, and as a group of possible diagnoses. Let the weight of period be denoted as with and . For a patient with various symptoms, Ye and Fu [7] used to denote the SVNS for this patient throughout the period for symptoms and , and to represent the SVNS for disease related to the symptom . The algorithm is cited as follows:

Step 1. Ye and Fu [7] applied of Equation (15) or of Equation (13) to compute the similarity between and as or .

Remark 1. Ye and Fu [7] used where the relation of the patient’s disease and the period is not indicated clearly. Hence, the proposed change of the expression is from to .

Step 2. To derive the weighted aggregation value, for the patient related to the disease : or

Step 3. Present the most probable diagnosis to the patient according to the highest amount among weighted aggregations.

Step 4. Finish.

3. Our Theoretical Results for Similarity Measures of Jaccard, Dice, and Cosine

This section demonstrated that

Hence, we will prove that relations among the three similarity measures proposed by Jaccard [126], Dice [127], and Ye [6].

Building on the concept of the arithmetic average is greater than or equal to the geometric average, it is found that and thereby deriving that

From the definition of , , and of Equations (7)–(9), respectively, the following is obtained: such that

Theorem 2 below summarizes the findings.

Theorem 2. Using two SVNSs and together with the universe of discourse , is confirmed.

4. Our Proposed Similarity Measures

Using the two SVNSs A and B with a universal set as above, it is assumed that: with

and with such that is related to the maximum norm, and is related to the arithmetic mean.

Our proposed weighted aggregation value for a patient, , to a disease, , is computed as where is the SVNS for the patient , with the symptom , at period , and is the SVNS for the disease and the symptom . On the other hand, we provide a second aggregated value by our proposed second similarity measure of Equation (27) as

5. Diagnoses Illustration

The example from Ye and Fu [7] is used, wherein a patient group presents with an array of diseases,  = {viral fever, malaria, typhoid, gastritis, stenocardia}, the list of symptoms as,  = {temperature, headache, stomach pain, cough, chest pain}, and a set of four patients, . The characteristic values of the patients and symptoms for a certain period are listed in Table 1. For example, is the SVNS for the patient with the symptom at period .


(temperature) (headache) (stomach pain) (cough) (chest pain)

(0.8,0.6,0.5)(0.5,0.4,0.3)(0.2,0.1,0.3)(0.7,0.6,0.3)(0.4,0.3,0.2)
(0.7,0.3,0.2)(0.6,0.3,0.2)(0.3,0.2,0.4)(0.6,0.5,0.2)(0.6,0.5,0.3)
(0.5,0.2,0.4)(0.6,0.3,0.4)(0.3,0.3,0.5)(0.4,0.3,0.2)(0.6,0.4,0.4)

(0.6,0.6,0.1)(0.1,0.2,0.6)(0.3,0.2,0.8)(0.6,0.2,0.3)(0.2,0.3,0.7)
(0.5,0.4,0.2)(0.2,0.2,0.6)(0.2,0.1,0.7)(0.8,0.3,0.1)(0.1,0.1,0.8)
(0.8,0.3,0.1)(0.2,0.1,0.5)(0.1,0.1,0.9)(0.7,0.2,0.0)(0.1,0.1,0.8)

(0.3,0.1,0.2)(0.3,0.2,0.2)(0.7,0.6,0.7)(0.3,0.2,0.2)(0.4,0.4,0.3)
(0.4,0.2,0.2)(0.5,0.1,0.3)(0.4,0.2,0.2)(0.5,0.3,0.3)(0.6,0.3,0.2)
(0.8,0.7,0.6)(0.7,0.5,0.5)(0.4,0.1,0.1)(0.7,0.3,0.4)(0.7,0.4,0.5)

(0.2,0.1,0.7)(0.2,0.3,0.7)(0.2,0.2,0.7)(0.2,0.1,0.8)(0.8,0.2,0.1)
(0.1,0.1,0.6)(0.1,0.2,0.8)(0.2,0.1,0.8)(0.3,0.0,0.9)(0.7,0.1,0.2)
(0.1,0.1,0.8)(0.1,0.2,0.7)(0.3,0.1,0.8)(0.2,0.1,0.9)(0.9,0.1,0.1)

Table 2 continues the list between (a) probable diseases and (b) their corresponding symptoms. For example, is the SVNS for disease with the symptom .


(temperature) (headache) (stomach pain) (cough) (chest pain)

viral fever(0.4,0.6,0.0)(0.3,0.2,0.5)(0.1,0.3,0.7)(0.4,0.3,0.3)(0.1,0.2,0.7)
malaria(0.7,0.3,0.0)(0.2,0.2,0.6)(0.0,0.1,0.9)(0.7,0.3,0.0)(0.1,0.1,0.8)
typhoid(0.3,0.4,0.3)(0.6,0.3,0.1)(0.2,0.1,0.7)(0.2,0.2,0.6)(0.1,0.0,0.9)
gastritis(0.1,0.2,0.7)(0.2,0.4,0.4)(0.8,0.2,0.0)(0.2,0.1,0.7)(0.2,0.1,0.7)
stenocardia(0.1,0.1,0.8)(0.0,0.2,0.8)(0.2,0.0,0.8)(0.2,0.0,0.8)(0.8,0.1,0.1)

With the proposed method of and , for and with weights for periods , , and and weights for symptoms , for , the results are presented in Table 3.


Diagnosis result

0.67300.59900.65600.52600.5270 viral fever
0.79700.87300.67800.55100.5330 malaria
0.5860050400.55400.53000.4520 viral fever
0.52100.47500.56400.60200.8910 stenocardia
0.77700.73230.74830.68100/6510 viral fever
0.86830.92500.78970.68830.6670 malaria
0.75730.69830.69600.71330.6573 viral fever
0.69170.66170.71700.75770.9443 stenocardia

Maximum values and thus, the most probable diagnosis.

From Table 3, by the aggregation operator of with the maximum norm or the aggregation operator with the arithmetic mean, the same results are derived for patients and suffering from viral fever, the patient suffering malaria, and the patient suffering stenocardia. The study’s derivations are the same as that of Yu and Fu [7] with the aggregation operator of Equation (18) and the aggregation operator of Equation (19).

6. Further Discussion for Aggregation Operators

In this section, we will explain that previous researchers used monotonic functions to transform the identity function (that is, ) to complicated expressions. Based on the abbreviations of and , it is possible to rewrite of Equation (16) and of Equation (17) proposed by Yu and Fu [7] to simplify their expressions as follows

Comparing Equation (25) with Equation (31), the following general expression is implied: such that in Equation (25), for , , and in Equation (31), for , .

By the same argument, comparing Equation (27) with Equation (32) obtains a general expression: such that in Equation (27), for , , and in Equation (32), for , .

Consequently, we can further simplify of Equation (12) and of Equation (13) proposed by Ye [6] as follows

Hence, Equations (25), (31), and (35) are used in comparison to determine their relationship with of Equation (26). By the same observation, it is found that Equations (27), (32), and (36) are related to of Equation (28).

In Equations (25) and (27), the most natural approach is applied by us. Meanwhile, in Equations (31) and (32), Ye and Fu [7] used , and in Equations (35) and (36), Ye [6] used .

and are both increasing functions from to . On the other hand, is a decreasing function from to . All of them are monotonic functions.

For a similarity measure, say , , and are ideal, such as in Equations (25), (27), (31), and (32) and then abstractly expressed in Equations (33) and (34), researchers use or .

There are infinite increasing functions that satisfy and . However, Ye and Fu [7] did not provide any explanation of why was selected by them.

Moreover, there are infinite decreasing functions that satisfy and . Ye [6] and Ye and Fu [7] also did not explain why was used.

Since our proposed approach to use the simplest form can still derive the desired diagnosis, the study recommends not to apply the complicated method proposed by Ye [6] with and Ye and Fu [7] with . Instead, using our simplest form will help researchers solve their similarity measure problems and also reduce the complicated computation caused by Ye [6] and Ye and Fu [7].

For completeness, we point out that Section 5.3 of Ye and Fu [7] shows the comparative analysis of Ye and Fu [7]. It is mentioned that the multiple period method is better than a single period of Ye [6] since the latter poses more difficulty in giving a suitable diagnosis for a specific patient presenting with a specific disease. Recalling the example of Section 5 of Ye and Fu [7], it showed that the aggregation operator of Equation (18) was used with tangent similarity measure of Equation (15) and the aggregation operator of Equation (19) with tangent similarity measure of Equation (13) which was proposed by Ye [6]. Both operators derived the same diagnosis results for four patients as obtained in Table 3 by aggregation operator of Equation (29) and aggregation operator of Equation (30).

In Ye and Fu [7], the improved similarity measure of Ye [6] was used and repeated three times, then combined with the weighted mean such that the improved similarity measure of the latter study can be used to solve multiperiod medical diagnosis problems. Ye and Fu [7] already successfully applied in their algorithm as mentioned that using the tangent function and cosine measure, the diagnoses are similar and therefore proving that their proposed multiperiod method was indeed effective. The reference implies the possibility to use the cosine measure from Ye [6] for medical diagnoses over multiple periods. Ye and Fu [7] first used the improved cosine similarity measure of Equation (13) proposed by Ye [6] to support their tangent similarity measure of Equation (15), since aggregation approach by the two measures derive identical diagnosis results. On the contrary, in the same section, Ye and Fu [7] claimed that the improved cosine similarity measure of Equation (13) proposed by Ye [6] is unable to solve multiperiod medical diagnosis problems. Hence, the study points out that Section 5.2 or the comparative analysis of Ye and Fu [7] contained questionable results.

7. Conclusion

In this paper, we tried to claim that there is an isomorphism between (a) our simplest similarity measures and (b) those complicated similarity measures. Hence, to construct new similarity measures that can be explained by isomorphism is tedious and unnecessary. This study provided a detailed analysis of the improved cosine similarity measure proposed by Ye [6] and the tangent similarity measure proposed by Ye and Fu [7] to point out that these are transformations of the maximum norm and the arithmetic mean. As a recommendation, researchers can directly apply the well-known distance: the maximum norm and the arithmetic mean, to simplify the complicated computations in Ye and Fu [7].

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

This research was partially supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, with grant no. MOST 107-2410-H-241-001.

References

  1. L. A. Zadeh, “Fuzzy sets,” Information and Control, vol. 8, pp. 338–353, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
  2. F. Smarandache, A Unifying Field in Logics. Neutrosophy: Neutrosophic Probability, Set and Logic, American Research Press, Rehoboth, DE, 1999.
  3. H. Wang, F. Smarandache, Y. Q. Zhang, and R. Sunderraman, Interval Neutrosophic Sets and Logic: Theory and Applications in Computing, Hexis, Phoenix, AZ, 2005.
  4. H. Wang, F. Smarandache, Y. Q. Zhang, and R. Sunderraman, “Single valued neutrosophic sets,” Multispace and Multistructure, vol. 4, pp. 410–413, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  5. J. Ye, “Multiple-attribute decision-making method under a single-valued neutrosophic hesitant fuzzy environment,” Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 23–36, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. J. Ye, “Improved cosine similarity measures of simplified neutrosophic sets for medical diagnoses,” Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 171–179, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. J. Ye and J. Fu, “Multi-period medical diagnosis method using a single valued neutrosophic similarity measure based on tangent function,” Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, vol. 123, pp. 142–149, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. X. Peng and J. Dai, “A bibliometric analysis of neutrosophic set: two decades review from 1998 to 2017,” Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 199–255, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. J. Ye, “Generalized ordered weighted simplified neutrosophic cosine similarity measure for multiple attribute group decision making,” International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 51–62, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. P. Biswas, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri, “Neutrosophic TOPSIS with group decision making,” Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, vol. 369, pp. 543–585, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. S. Broumi, A. Bakali, M. Talea et al., “Bipolar complex neutrosophic sets and its application in decision making problem,” Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, vol. 369, pp. 677–710, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. R. Chatterjee, P. Majumdar, and S. K. Samanta, “Similarity measures in neutrosophic sets-I,” Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, vol. 369, pp. 249–294, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. R. Chatterjee, P. Majumdar, and S. K. Samanta, “Similarity measures in neutrosophic sets-II,” Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, vol. 369, pp. 295–325, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. W. Cui and J. Ye, “Logarithmic similarity measure of dynamic neutrosophic cubic sets and its application in medical diagnosis,” Computers in Industry, vol. 111, pp. 198–206, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. C. Fan, “Correlation coefficients of refined-single valued neutrosophic sets and their applications in multiple attribute decision-making,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 421–426, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. C. Fan, S. Feng, and K. Hu, “Linguistic neutrosophic numbers einstein operator and its application in decision making,” Mathematics, vol. 7, no. 5, p. 12, 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  17. J. Fu, J. Ye, and W. Cui, “The Dice measure of cubic hesitant fuzzy sets and its initial evaluation method of benign prostatic hyperplasia symptoms,” Scientific Reports, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 8, 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  18. L. Gou and M. Wang, “Semantic risk analysis based on single-valued neutrosophic sets,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 76480–76488, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. S. Jha, R. Kumar, L. H. Son et al., “Neutrosophic soft set decision making for stock trending analysis,” Evolving Systems, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 621–627, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. S. Jha, L. H. Son, R. Kumar, I. Priyadarshini, F. Smarandache, and H. V. Long, “Neutrosophic image segmentation with Dice coefficients,” Measurement, vol. 134, pp. 762–772, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. G. Li, C. Niu, and C. Zhang, “Multi-criteria decision making approach using the fuzzy measures for environmental improvement under neutrosophic environment,” Ekoloji, vol. 28, no. 107, pp. 1605–1615, 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  22. H. Li, S. Zhang, J. Shi, and Y. Hu, “Research and design of intelligent learning system based on recommendation technology,” Mechatronic Systems and Control, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 43–49, 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  23. Y. Li, J. Wang, and T. Wang, “A linguistic neutrosophic multi-criteria group decision-making approach with EDAS method,” Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 2737–2749, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. C. Liu and Y. Luo, “New aggregation operators of single-valued neutrosophic hesitant fuzzy set and their application in multi-attribute decision making,” Pattern Analysis and Applications, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 417–427, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. M. Luo, L. Wu, K. Zhou, and H. Zhang, “Multi-criteria decision making method based on the single valued neutrosophic sets1,” Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 2403–2417, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. H. G. Nancy, “A novel divergence measure and its based TOPSIS method for multi criteria decision-making under single-valued neutrosophic environment,” Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 101–115, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. G. N. Nguyen, L. H. Son, A. S. Ashour, and N. Dey, “A survey of the state-of-the-arts on neutrosophic sets in biomedical diagnoses,” International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 13, 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  28. X. Peng, “New multiparametric similarity measure and distance measure for interval neutrosophic set with IoT industry evaluation,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 28258–28280, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. X. Peng and J. Dai, “Interval neutrosophic reducible weighted Maclaurin symmetric means with internet of medical things (IoMt) industry evaluation,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 62479–62495, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. M. Rajangam and C. Annamalai, “Extractive document summarization using an adaptive, knowledge based cognitive model,” Cognitive Systems Research, vol. 56, pp. 56–71, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. R. Şahin, “An approach to neutrosophic graph theory with applications,” Soft Computing, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 569–581, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. S. Shao, X. Zhang, and Q. Zhao, “Multi-attribute decision making based on probabilistic neutrosophic hesitant fuzzy Choquet aggregation operators,” Symmetry, vol. 11, no. 5, p. 15, 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  33. L. Shi and Y. Yuan, “Hybrid weighted arithmetic and geometric aggregation operator of neutrosophic cubic sets for MADM,” Symmetry, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 10, 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  34. C. Tian, W. Y. Zhang, S. Zhang, and J. J. Peng, “An extended single-valued neutrosophic projection-based qualitative flexible multi-criteria decision-making method,” Mathematics, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 16, 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  35. L. Wang, Q. Xia, H. Li, and Y. Cao, “Multi-criteria decision making method based on improved cosine similarity measure with interval neutrosophic sets,” International Journal of Intelligent Computing and Cybernetics, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 414–423, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. G. Wei and Z. Zhang, “Some single-valued neutrosophic Bonferroni power aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making,” Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 863–882, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. L. Xie, J. He, P. Cheng, R. Xiao, and X. Zhou, “A multi-criteria 2-tuple linguistic group decision-making method based on TODIM for cholecystitis treatments selection,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 127967–127986, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. J. Ye, “PID tuning method using single-valued neutrosophic cosine measure and genetic algorithm,” Intelligent Automation and Soft Computing, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 15–23, 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  39. Z. Zhai, J. M. Ortega, P. Castillejo, and V. Beltran, “A triangular similarity measure for case retrieval in CBR and its application to an agricultural decision support system,” Sensors, vol. 19, no. 21, p. 23, 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  40. Y. Zhang, L. Wang, X. Yu, and C. Yao, “A new concept of cosine similarity measures based on dual hesitant fuzzy sets and its possible applications,” Cluster Computing, vol. 22, no. S6, pp. 15483–15492, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. S. Zhao, D. Wang, L. Changyong, and W. Lu, “Induced Choquet integral aggregation operators with single-valued neutrosophic uncertain linguistic numbers and their application in multiple attribute group decision-making,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2019, 14 pages, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. M. Akram, M. Nasir, and K. P. Shum, “Novel applications of bipolar single-valued neutrosophic competition graphs,” Applied Mathematics, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 436–467, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. M. Ali, L. H. Son, N. D. Thanh, and N. V. Minh, “A neutrosophic recommender system for medical diagnosis based on algebraic neutrosophic measures,” Applied Soft Computing Journal, vol. 71, pp. 1054–1071, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. T. Cai and X. Yang, “Non-structured data integration access policy using hadoop,” Wireless Personal Communications, vol. 102, no. 2, pp. 895–908, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. C. Fan, E. Fan, and J. Ye, “The cosine measure of single-valued neutrosophic multisets for multiple attribute decision-making,” Symmetry, vol. 10, no. 5, p. 13, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  46. N. H. Garg, “Non-linear programming method for multi-criteria decision making problems under interval neutrosophic set environment,” Applied Intelligence, vol. 48, no. 8, pp. 2199–2213, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. H. Guan, J. He, A. Zhao, Z. Dai, and S. Guan, “A forecasting model based on multi-valued neutrosophic sets and two-factor, third-order fuzzy fluctuation logical relationships,” Symmetry, vol. 10, no. 7, p. 18, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  48. F. Karaaslan and K. Hayat, “Some new operations on single-valued neutrosophic matrices and their applications in multi-criteria group decision making,” Applied Intelligence, vol. 48, no. 12, pp. 4594–4614, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. Q. Khan, P. Liu, and T. Mahmood, “Some generalized Dice measures for double-valued neutrosophic sets and their applications,” Mathematics, vol. 6, no. 7, p. 16, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  50. G. D. Küçük and R. Şahin, “A novel hybrid approach for simplified neutrosophic decision-making with completely unknown weight information,” International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 161–173, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. C. Liu, “New similarity measures of simplified neutrosophic sets and their applications,” Journal of Information Processing Systems, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 790–800, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  52. D. Liu, G. Liu, and Z. Liu, “Some similarity measures of neutrosophic sets based on the euclidean distance and their application in medical diagnosis,” Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, vol. 2018, 9 pages, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. P. Liu, T. Mahmood, and Q. Khan, “Group decision making based on power heronian aggregation operators under linguistic neutrosophic environment,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 970–985, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. P. Liu and X. You, “Some Maclaurin symmetric mean operators based on neutrosophic linguistic numbers for multi-attribute group decision making,” Informatica, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 711–732, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  55. K. Mondal, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri, “Hybrid binary logarithm similarity measure for MAGDM problems under SVNS assessments,” Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, vol. 20, pp. 12–25, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  56. K. Mondal, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri, “Interval neutrosophic tangent similarity measure based MADM strategy and its application to MADM problems,” Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, vol. 19, pp. 47–56, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  57. K. Mondal, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri, “Single valued neutrosophic hyperbolic sine similarity measure based MADM strategy,” Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, vol. 20, pp. 3–11, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  58. R. T. Ngan, M. Ali, and L. H. Son, “δ-Equality of intuitionistic fuzzy sets: a new proximity measure and applications in medical diagnosis,” Applied Intelligence, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 499–525, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. H. Peng, H. Zhang, and J. Wang, “Probability multi-valued neutrosophic sets and its application in multi-criteria group decision-making problems,” Neural Computing and Applications, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 563–583, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. S. Pramanik, S. Dalapati, S. Alam, and T. K. Roy, “NC-VIKOR based MAGDM strategy under neutrosophic cubic set environment,” Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, vol. 20, pp. 95–108, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  61. S. Pramanik, R. Mallick, and A. Dasgupta, “Contributions of selected Indian researchers to multi attribute decision making in neutrosophic environment: an overview,” Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, vol. 20, pp. 109–131, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  62. R. Şahin, “Normal neutrosophic multiple attribute decision making based on generalized prioritized aggregation operators,” Neural Computing and Applications, vol. 30, no. 10, pp. 3095–3115, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  63. P. K. Singh, “Medical diagnoses using three-way fuzzy concept lattice and their Euclidean distance,” Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 3283–3306, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  64. Z. Tian, J. Wang, H. Zhang, and J. Wang, “Multi-criteria decision-making based on generalized prioritized aggregation operators under simplified neutrosophic uncertain linguistic environment,” International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 523–539, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  65. A. Tu, J. Ye, and B. Wang, “Multiple attribute decision-making method using similarity measures of neutrosophic cubic sets,” Symmetry, vol. 10, no. 6, p. 11, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  66. G. Wei and Y. Wei, “Some single-valued neutrosophic dombi prioritized weighted aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making,” Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 2001–2013, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  67. H. Wu, Y. Yuan, L. Wei, and L. Pei, “On entropy, similarity measure and cross-entropy of single-valued neutrosophic sets and their application in multi-attribute decision making,” Soft Computing, vol. 22, no. 22, pp. 7367–7376, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  68. Q. Wu, P. Wu, L. Zhou, H. Chen, and X. Guan, “Some new Hamacher aggregation operators under single-valued neutrosophic 2-tuple linguistic environment and their applications to multi-attribute group decision making,” Computers and Industrial Engineering, vol. 116, pp. 144–162, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  69. W. Xiong and J. Cheng, “A novel method for determining the attribute weights in the multiple attribute decision-making with neutrosophic information through maximizing the generalized single-valued neutrosophic deviation,” Information, vol. 9, no. 6, p. 14, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  70. J. Ye, “Operations and aggregation method of neutrosophic cubic numbers for multiple attribute decision-making,” Soft Computing, vol. 22, no. 22, pp. 7435–7444, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  71. L. Zeming, G. Jianmin, J. Hongquan, G. Xu, G. Zhiyong, and W. Rongxi, “A similarity-based method for remaining useful life prediction based on operational reliability,” Applied Intelligence, vol. 48, no. 9, pp. 2983–2995, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  72. X. Zhang, C. Bo, F. Smarandache, and J. Dai, “New inclusion relation of neutrosophic sets with applications and related lattice structure,” International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, vol. 9, no. 10, pp. 1753–1763, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  73. J. Chen and J. Ye, “Some single-valued neutrosophic dombi weighted aggregation operators for multiple attribute decision-making,” Symmetry, vol. 9, no. 6, p. 11, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  74. I. Deli and Y. Şubaş, “Some weighted geometric operators with SVTrN-numbers and their application to multi-criteria decision making problems,” Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 291–301, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  75. C. Fan and J. Ye, “The cosine measure of refined-single valued neutrosophic sets and refined-interval neutrosophic sets for multiple attribute decision-making,” Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 2281–2289, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  76. J. Fu and J. Ye, “Simplified neutrosophic exponential similarity measures for the initial evaluation/diagnosis of benign prostatic hyperplasia symptoms,” Symmetry, vol. 9, no. 8, p. 10, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  77. J. Hu, J. Pan, and X. Chen, “An interval neutrosophic projection-based VIKOR method for selecting doctors,” Cognitive Computation, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 801–816, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  78. Z. Lu and J. Ye, “Cosine measures of neutrosophic cubic sets for multiple attribute decision-making,” Symmetry, vol. 9, no. 7, p. 10, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  79. Y. Ma, J. Wang, and X. Wu, “An interval neutrosophic linguistic multi-criteria group decision-making method and its application in selecting medical treatment options,” Neural Computing and Applications, vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 2745–2765, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  80. J. Peng, J. Wang, and X. Wu, “An extension of the ELECTRE approach with multi-valued neutrosophic information,” Neural Computing and Applications, vol. 28, no. S1, pp. 1011–1022, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  81. J. Peng, J. Wang, L. Yang, and J. Qian, “A novel multi-criteria group decision-making approach using simplified neutrosophic information,” International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 355–376, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  82. J. Peng, J. Wang, and W. Yang, “A multi-valued neutrosophic qualitative flexible approach based on likelihood for multi-criteria decision-making problems,” International Journal of Systems Science, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 425–435, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  83. S. Pramanik, P. Biswas, and B. C. Giri, “Hybrid vector similarity measures and their applications to multi-attribute decision making under neutrosophic environment,” Neural Computing and Applications, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 1163–1176, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  84. P. K. Singh, “Complex vague set based concept lattice,” Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, vol. 96, pp. 145–153, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  85. N. D. Thanh, M. Ali, and L. H. Son, “A novel clustering algorithm in a neutrosophic recommender system for medical diagnosis,” Cognitive Computation, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 526–544, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  86. Z. Tian, J. Wang, J. Wang, and H. Zhang, “An improved MULTIMOORA approach for multi-criteria decision-making based on interdependent inputs of simplified neutrosophic linguistic information,” Neural Computing and Applications, vol. 28, no. S1, pp. 585–597, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  87. N. Wang and H. Zhang, “Probability multivalued linguistic neutrosophic sets for multi-criteria group decision-making,” International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 207–228, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  88. D. Xu, C. Wei, and G. Wei, “TODIM method for single-valued neutrosophic multiple attribute decision making,” Information, vol. 8, no. 4, p. 18, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  89. Y. Zhou and M. Abdel Wahab, “Cosine based and extended transmissibility damage indicators for structural damage detection,” Engineering Structures, vol. 141, pp. 175–183, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  90. C. C. Chou, “A generalized similarity measure for fuzzy numbers,” Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 1147–1155, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  91. P. Liu and G. Tang, “Multi-criteria group decision-making based on interval neutrosophic uncertain linguistic variables and Choquet integral,” Cognitive Computation, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 1036–1056, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  92. F. Meng, X. Su, and Z. Qu, “Nonlinear approach for estimating WCET during programming phase,” Cluster Computing, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 1449–1459, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  93. N. H. Garg, “Novel single-valued neutrosophic aggregated operators under frank norm operation and its application to decision-making process,” International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 361–375, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  94. L. Shi, “Correlation coefficient of simplified neutrosophic sets for bearing fault diagnosis,” Shock and Vibration, vol. 2016, 11 pages, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  95. L. H. Son, “Generalized picture distance measure and applications to picture fuzzy clustering,” Applied Soft Computing Journal, vol. 46, pp. 284–295, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  96. J. Ye, “Multiple-attribute group decision-making method under a neutrosophic number environment,” Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 377–386, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  97. H. Zhang, P. Ji, J. Wang, and X. Chen, “A neutrosophic normal cloud and its application in decision-making,” Cognitive Computation, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 649–669, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  98. C. Zhang, D. Li, and Y. Yan, “A Dual Hesitant Fuzzy Multigranulation Rough Set over Two-Universe Model for Medical Diagnoses,” Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, vol. 2015, 12 pages, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  99. M. Zhang, H. Hu, Z. He, L. Gao, and L. Sun, “Efficient link-based similarity search in web networks,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 42, no. 22, pp. 8868–8880, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  100. P. Liu, Q. Khan, and T. Mahmood, “Group decision making based on power heronian aggregation operators under neutrosophic cubic environment,” Soft Computing, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 1971–1997, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  101. A. Awang, N. A. H. Aizam, and L. Abdullah, “An integrated decision-making method based on neutrosophic numbers for investigating factors of coastal erosion,” Symmetry, vol. 11, no. 3, p. 26, 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  102. K. Hu, W. He, J. Ye, L. Zhao, H. Peng, and J. Pi, “Online visual tracking of weighted multiple instance learning via neutrosophic similarity-based objectness estimation,” Symmetry, vol. 11, no. 6, p. 24, 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  103. H. V. Long, M. Ali, H. Son, M. Khan, and D. N. Tu, “A novel approach for fuzzy clustering based on neutrosophic association matrix,” Computers and Industrial Engineering, vol. 127, pp. 687–697, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  104. H. Ren, S. Xiao, and H. Zhou, “A chi-square distance-based similarity measure of single-valued neutrosophic set and applications,” International Journal of Computers, Communications and Control, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 78–89, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  105. K. Shen, X. Wang, and J. Wang, “Multi-criteria decision-making method based on smallest enclosing circle in incompletely reliable information environment,” Computers and Industrial Engineering, vol. 130, pp. 1–13, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  106. P. Smith, “Exploring public transport sustainability with neutrosophic logic,” Transportation Planning and Technology, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 257–273, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  107. M. Akram, S. Shahzadi, and F. Smarandache, “Multi-attribute decision-making method based on neutrosophic soft rough information,” Axioms, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 24, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  108. K. Hu, E. Fan, J. Ye, J. Pi, L. Zhao, and S. Shen, “Element-weighted neutrosophic correlation coefficient and its application in improving CAMShift tracker in RGBD video,” Information, vol. 9, no. 5, p. 16, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  109. P. Ji, J. Wang, and H. Zhang, “Frank prioritized bonferroni mean operator with single-valued neutrosophic sets and its application in selecting third-party logistics providers,” Neural Computing and Applications, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 799–823, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  110. P. Ji, H. Zhang, and J. Wang, “A projection-based TODIM method under multi-valued neutrosophic environments and its application in personnel selection,” Neural Computing and Applications, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 221–234, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  111. F. Jin, Z. Ni, H. Chen, R. Langari, X. Zhu, and H. Yuan, “Single-valued neutrosophic entropy and similarity measures to solve supplier selection problems,” Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 6513–6523, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  112. F. Karaaslan, “Multicriteria decision-making method based on similarity measures under single-valued neutrosophic refined and interval neutrosophic refined environments,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 928–952, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  113. M. Khan, L. H. Son, M. Ali, H. T. M. Chau, N. T. N. Na, and F. Smarandache, “Systematic review of decision making algorithms in extended neutrosophic sets,” Symmetry, vol. 10, no. 8, p. 26, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  114. S. Naz, M. Akram, and F. Smarandache, “Certain notions of energy in single-valued neutrosophic graphs,” Axioms, vol. 7, no. 3, p. 30, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  115. X. Peng and J. Dai, “Approaches to single-valued neutrosophic MADM based on MABAC, TOPSIS and new similarity measure with score function,” Neural Computing and Applications, vol. 29, no. 10, pp. 939–954, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  116. V. Uluçay, I. Deli, and M. Şahin, “Similarity measures of bipolar neutrosophic sets and their application to multiple criteria decision making,” Neural Computing and Applications, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 739–748, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  117. S. Ashraf, S. Naz, H. Rashmanlou, and M. A. Malik, “Regularity of graphs in single valued neutrosophic environment,” Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 529–542, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  118. H. Guan, S. Guan, and A. Zhao, “Forecasting model based on neutrosophic logical relationship and Jaccard similarity,” Symmetry, vol. 9, no. 9, p. 16, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  119. Z. Guo, Y. Liu, and H. Yang, “A novel rough set model in generalized single valued neutrosophic approximation spaces and its application,” Symmetry, vol. 9, no. 7, p. 19, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  120. S. Naz, H. Rashmanlou, and M. A. Malik, “Operations on single valued neutrosophic graphs with application,” Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 2137–2151, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  121. X. Peng and J. Dai, “Algorithms for interval neutrosophic multiple attribute decision-making based on mabac, similarity measure, and EDAS,” International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 395–421, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  122. P. Julian, K. C. Hung, and S. J. Lin, “On the Mitchell similarity measure and its application to pattern recognition,” Pattern Recognition Letters, vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 1219–1223, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  123. H. B. Mitchell, “On the Dengfeng–Chuntian similarity measure and its application to pattern recognition,” Pattern Recognition Letters, vol. 24, no. 16, pp. 3101–3104, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  124. P. S. Deng and H. C. J. Chao, “Analysis on comparison of distances derived by one-norm and two-norm with weight functions,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 219, no. 17, pp. 9093–9098, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  125. C. Tung, S. Liu, and B. S. Wang, “A comment on “On the Mitchell similarity measure and its application to pattern recognition”,” Pattern Recognition Letters, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 453–455, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  126. P. Jaccard, “Distribution de la flore alpine dans le Bassin des Drouces et dans quelques regions voisines,” Bulletin de la Société Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles, vol. 37, no. 140, pp. 241–272, 1901. View at: Google Scholar
  127. L. R. Dice, “Measures of the amount of Ecologic Association between Species,” Ecology, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 297–302, 1945. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  128. G. Salton and M. J. McGill, Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA, 1987.

Copyright © 2020 Jason Chih-sheng Chou et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views108
Downloads187
Citations

Related articles

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2020, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.