A Novel SIR Approach to Closeness Coefficient-Based MAGDM Problems Using Pythagorean Fuzzy Aczel–Alsina Aggregation Operators for Investment Policy

Ul Haq, Iftikhar; Shaheen, Tanzeela; Ali, Wajid; Senapati, Tapan

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5172679

Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society

On this page

Abstract Introduction Preliminaries Numerical Example Conclusions Data Availability Conflicts of Interest References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 5172679 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5172679

A Novel SIR Approach to Closeness Coefficient-Based MAGDM Problems Using Pythagorean Fuzzy Aczel–Alsina Aggregation Operators for Investment Policy

Iftikhar Ul Haq,¹Tanzeela Shaheen,¹Wajid Ali,¹and Tapan Senapati^2,3

Academic Editor: Youssef N. Raffoul

Received06 Sept 2022

Revised15 Nov 2022

Accepted18 Nov 2022

Published13 Dec 2022

Abstract

In this study, a novel Pythagorean fuzzy aggregation operator is presented by combining the concepts of Aczel–Alsina () T-norm and T-conorm operations for multiple attribute group decision-making (MAGDM) challenge for the superiority and inferiority ranking (SIR) approach. This approach has many advantages in solving real-life problems. In this study, the superiority and inferiority ranking method is illustrated and showed the effectiveness for decision makers by using multicriteria. The Aczel–Alsina aggregation operators on interval-valued IFSs, hesitant fuzzy sets (HFSs), Pythagorean fuzzy sets (PFSs), and T-spherical fuzzy sets (TSFSs) for multiple attribute decision-making (MADM) issues have been proposed in the literature. In addition, we propose a Pythagorean fuzzy Aczel–Alsina weighted average closeness coefficient () aggregation operator on the basis of the closeness coefficient for MAGDM challenges. To highlight the relevancy and authenticity of this approach and measure its validity, we conducted a comparative analysis with the method already in vogue.

1. Introduction

The superiority and inferiority ranking (SIR) approach for MAGDM is essential to decision-making (DM) challenges. It provides the most desirable and attractive option from a set of alternatives. The (SIR) approach was first introduced by Xu [1] in 2001. In this approach, alternatives are ranked by superiority and inferiority flows. The advantages of the SIR method are that it associates the properties of other MCDM problems such as PROMETHEE, SAW, and TOPSIS. Tam et al. [2] used this method for selecting concrete pumps in 2004. Tam and Tong [3] utilized this method in development projects with a grey aggregation approach in 2008. Liu [4] introduced the SIR approach for IFSs in 2010. Ma et al. [5] continued the SIR approach with HFSs and interval-valued HFSs in 2014. Peng and Yang [6] proposed this method for PFS and showed few results in 2015. Rouhani [7] employed the fuzzy SIR method in the IT field. Chen [8] introduced a PROMETHEE-based outranking approach for PFNs in 2018. Tavana et al. [9] introduced the IF-grey SIR approach in 2018. Selvaraj and Samayan [10] extended the SIR method for HPFSs for MCDM challenges in 2020.

1.1. Research Gap and Motivation of the Study

Atanassov [11] suggested the idea of IFS, a successful extension of Zadeh’s fuzzy set theory [12] that deals with vagueness and uncertainties in the data. Every element in the IFS is represented by an ordered pair of the degree of membership and degree of nonmembership, whose sum ranges from zero to one. However, in some cases, the sum of membership and nonmembership degrees provided by the DM may be greater than one, but their square sum is less than or equal to one. Therefore, Yager [13–15] introduced PFS, which satisfies the condition that the sum of the square of its membership and nonmembership degrees is less than or equal to one. In addition, Yager [13–15] proposed different kinds of aggregation operators for DM problems, where ambiguity is found in the other basis of achievement.

Triangular norms play an essential role in decision-making problems. Menger [16] was the first to introduce triangular norms. Deschrijver et al. [17] discussed T‐norm () and T‐conorm () for IFSs. There are many and that are used for the aggregation of data. Those are Lukasiewicz and [18], product , and sum [19], Archimedian and , [20], and drastic and [21]. These norms have an essential role in the formation of aggregation operators. Aczel–Alsina () [22] proposed a new idea of and known as Aczel–Alsina () and Many researchers used and and concluded that these norms and conorms give better results due to their parameters. Senapati et al. [23–30] recognized the IF, IVIF, HF, PF, IVPF, and linguistic IF aggregation operators based on the - and - by using the MADM challenges. Hussain et al. [31] used the aggregation operators on TSFSs. Hussain et al. [32] considered aggregation operators on PFSs using the MADM problems.

Many scholars worked on decision-making processes and also introduced different approaches. There are several approaches in the literature mentioned above. By inspiring this trend of scholars, we also invented a new approach for decision-making under multiple-attribute alternatives. We developed Pythagorean fuzzy Aczel–Alsina weighted average closeness coefficient () aggregation operators, applied them to the Pythagorean environment, and ranked the superiority and inferiority of the alternatives. Specially, we evaluate the group decision-making process of multicriteria known as MAGDM and for ranking the best and worst results of the alternatives. We used the superiority and inferiority ranking method under the Pythagorean data. Furthermore, we expressed the validity and effectiveness of the proposed approach and we solved a mathematical example for selecting the best stock of Internet stocks for a valuable investment. Finally, we compared the developed approach with existing studies and showed its graphical representations.

1.2. Contributions of this Study

The rest of the study is structured as follows. In Section 2, basic concepts of IFS, PFS, , , , and are briefly reviewed. Furthermore, in this section, we discuss operations on Pythagorean fuzzy numbers (PFNs), and some Pythagorean fuzzy Aczel–Alsina (PF-) averaging aggregation operators are defined. In Section 3, we introduce a novel aggregation operator for solving MAGDM challenges for the SIR approach and with their properties. In Section 4, we developed the SIR approach to deal with MAGDM challenges for operator. In Section 5, an approach is depicted by a numerical example. In Section 6, a comparison of suggested results is done with the results already present. Finally, we concluded this study with Section 7.

2. Preliminaries

In this section, we summarize the requisite knowledge associated with IFSs and PFSs with their operations and operators utilizing Aczel–Alsina T-Norm (-. We also discuss more familiarized ideas, which are helpful in sequential analysis.

2.1. IFS and PFS

Atanassov [11] introduced IFS theory, which is the extension of Fuzzy set theory (FS) [12].

Definition 1. (see [11]). For the universe of discourse , an IFS “’” is defined aswhere [0, 1] denotes the degree of membership and [0, 1] denotes the degree of nonmembership of in , respectively, with the condition , for all .
Yager [13–15] proposed the idea of PFS as a generalization of IFS with the modified condition that the sum of squares of the degree of membership and degree of nonmembership is less than or equal to 1. In contrast to IFSs, PFSs include more space for the selection of grades.

Definition 2. (see [13–15]). For universe of discourse , a PFS “” is defined aswhere [0,1] denotes the degree of membership and [0,1] denotes the degree of nonmembership of in , respectively, with the condition . The degree of indeterminacy is.
For convenience, Zhang and Xu [33] denoted Pythagorean fuzzy number (PFN) by .

Definition 3. (see [33]). The distance between two Pythagorean fuzzy numbers is defined as

Definition 4. (see [33]). The score function of PFN is defined aswhere ∈ [−1, 1].
For Pythagorean fuzzy numbers and ,(1)If () < (), then ≺ (2)If () > (), then (3)If () = (), then ∼

Definition 5. (see [33, 34]). the accuracy function of Pythagorean fuzzy number is defined aswhere ∈ [0, 1].(1)If () < (), then ≺ .(2)If () > (), then .(3)If () = (), then(a)If () > (), then ≻ (b)If () (), then (c)If () = (), then ∼

2.2. Triangular Norm, Triangular Co-Norm, and Aczel–Alsina Triangular Norm

Triangular norms () are the particular classes of functions that act as a tool for interpreting the conjunction of fuzzy logic and the intersection of fuzzy sets. Menger [16] was the first to introduce triangular norms for statistical metric spaces. They have many applications in decision-making and aggregation. We shall here examine some ideas necessary for this study’s development.

Definition 6. (see [35] [36, 37]). A function Ť: [0, 1] × [0, 1] ⟶ [0, 1] is a triangular norm if the following axioms are satisfied, ∈ [0, 1]:(1)Symmetry: Ť (,) = Ť (,)(2)Associativity: Ť (, Ť ( , )) = Ť (Ť (,), )(3)Monotonicity: Ť (,) Ť (,) if (4)One Identity: Ť (1, ) = Examples of are ∈ [0, 1]:(1)Product triangular norm: (, ) = . .(2)Minimum triangular norm: (, ) = min (, ).(3)Lukasiewicz triangular norm: (, ) = max ( + ).(4)Drastic triangular norm:

Definition 7. (see [35] [36, 37]). A function Š: [0, 1] × [0, 1] ⟶ [0, 1] is triangular conorm if the following axioms are satisfied, ∈ [0, 1]:(1)Symmetry: Š (, β) = Š (,)(2)Associativity: Š (, Š (, )) = Š (Š (,), )(3)Monotonicity: Š (,) Š (,) if (4)Zero Identity: Š (0, ) = Examples of are ∈ [0, 1]:(1)Probabilistic sum triangular co-norm: (,) = +.(2)Maximum triangular co-norm: (,) = max (,).(3)Lukasiewicz triangular co-norm: (,) = min { + }.(4)Drastic triangular co-norm:

Definition 8. (see [22]). Aczel–Alsina presented triangular norm in the circumstance of functional equations, known as Aczel–Alsina triangular norm . For , it stated asFor , is stated as

Definition 9. (see [32]). Let and Ṙ be two PFSs. Then, the generalizations of intersection and union are defined aswhere is for and is for .

2.3. Aczel–Alsina Operations on Pythagorean Fuzzy Numbers

We suppose Ť and Š represent product and sum , respectively. Then, the generalization of intersection and union over two PFSs “” and “Ṙ” turn out to be the product (represented by ⊗ Ṙ) and sum (represented by ⊕ Ṙ) over two PFSs “” and “Ṙ,” respectively, [32]:

Definition 10. (see [32]). Let , be three Pythagorean fuzzy numbers, with ≥ 1 and > 0. Then, operations of PFNs with Definition 8 is defined as

2.4. Pythagorean Fuzzy Aczel–Alsina (PF-) Average Aggregation Operators (AOs)

Hussain et al. [32] introduced some PF- average AOs under PFNs. Additionally, some related properties are also discussed.

Definition 11. Let , be an accumulation of PFNs. Let the weight vector of with 0, ,and Then, PF--WA operator is a function, (PF--WA): , defined as

Theorem 1. Let , be an accumulation of PFNs. Let the weight vector of with 0, , and Then, aggregated values of PFNs by PF--WA operator is defined as

3. Proposed Operator for Solving MAGDM Problems

Now, we introduce operators with their properties under PFSs to deal with MAGDM challenges for decision makers.

Definition 12. suppose is an accumulation of PFNs. Let be the individual measure degree via weight of experts. Let be the normalized vector of individual measure degrees. Then, operator is a function: (): defined as

Theorem 2. suppose , is an accumulation of PFNs. Let be the individual measure degree of experts via weight . Let be the normalized vector of individual measure degrees. Then, aggregated values of PFNs by operator are defined as

Proof. By induction, for ,which is true for .
We suppose it is true for that is,We have to show that it is true for ; that is,which is true for . Thus, it is true for all values of .

Theorem 3. suppose is an accumulation of PFNs. Let the weight vector be of with 0, and Then, the following properties are satisfied. (P1) Idempotency: for equal PFNs , that is, , we have (P2) Boundedness: let , be an accumulation of PFNs, with = and = . Then, (P3) Monotonicity: we suppose and are any two accumulations of PFNs, and if and , with = and = , then

4. Application of the SIR Approach for PFSs with Novel Aggregation Operators in MAGDM

In this section, we use the operator to consider the MAGDM issues for PF data. Let = {} be a family of alternatives and = {} the collection of attributes. Let = {} be a set of experts with as weight vector. Let (, and (, be the PF decision matrix (DM) given by the decision maker. represents the attribute value such that the alternative satisfies the attribute suggested by expert . is the attribute weight DM, where denotes the weightage of attribute suggested by expert .

Step 1. find individual measure degree through weights of experts. The relative closeness coefficient is obtained as and with .
If , then ; if ,then .

Step 2. normalize for sum as a unit:which is the normalized vector as individual measure degrees.

Step 3. use operator to aggregate group viewpoints.(a)Individual attributes’ weight integration:(b)Individual decision matrix integration:The attribute weight vector and group integrated decision matrix are obtained.

Step 4. determine PF superiority matrix (SM) and inferiority matrix (IM).(a)Performance function: with ; if , then ; if then .(b)Preference intensity (): w define, () as preference intensity of alternative with alternative to the parallel attribute ; that is, here is generalized threshold functions or may defined themselves by experts.(c)determine superiority index (S-I): S = : (d) determine inferiority index (I-I): I = Step 5determine superiority flow: Inferiority flow:We calculate the score function of and of . This gives S-flow and I-flow of alternatives as. For greater and smaller alternative is better.

Step 6. Superiority inferiority ranking.(a)Superiority ranking rules.(1)If and then (2)If and then (3)If and then (b)Inferiority ranking rules:(1)If and then (2)If and then (3)If and then

Step 7. combine the rules of superiority inferiority ranking for the best alternative ().

5. Numerical Example

An investment company is interested in investing in Internet stocks. So, the company employs three brands of experts: market maker (, dealer , and finder . They select four stocks: is GAD, is FUT, is NET, and is PUM, for three attributes, (market trend), (policy direction), and (yearly performance). The experts evaluate stocks relating to the attributes and form the following three PF decision matrices in Table 1, weights of experts in Table 2, and attribute weights in Table 3.

For choosing the most attractive alternate(s), we have the following steps: Step 1: we find the individual measure degree through weights of experts by using equation (23): Step 2: we determine the normalized vector , by using equation (24): Step 3.(a)determine the attributes weights integration by using equation (25):(b)determine the aggregated decision matrix integration by using (26): Step 4:(a)determine the performance function by using equation (27):(b)determine preference intensity () by using (28). Setting attribute threshold function,(c)determine superiority matrix (S. Matrix) by using equation (29):(d)determine inferiority matrix (I. Matrix) by using equation (30): Step 5: we determine the S-Flow and I-Flow by equations (31) and (32) as shown in Table 4, and they are illustrated in Figure 1. Step 6.(a)combine superiority ranking rules with Table 4 that gives(b)combine inferiority ranking rules with Table 4 that gives Step 7: according to the results of SIR rules, the best alternative is (PUM) for Internet stock investment.

6. Comparative Analysis

In this section, we compare the proposed results with the results already in vogue in [6] which are represented in Table 5, and they are illustrated in Figure 2. It is observed from our numerical example that aggregation operators used in [6] and aggregation operators used in the proposed method give same results. However, the accuracy and authenticity of this approach lie in the fact that are established on . Hence, these operators are responsible for accurate outcomes. Thus, we found another easier, authentic, and valid method for choosing the best and most attractive alternative for MAGDM for SIR approach.

7. Conclusions

In this research article, we worked on an aggregation operator, namely, the PF--WA operator for PFNs with SIR techniques. Meanwhile, depending on the PF aggregation operator, we examine some properties such as idempotency, boundedness, and monotonicity. This structure of AO based on t-norm and t-conorm with SIR techniques is more generalized that effectively integrates the complicated problems. Mainly, we used the Pythagorean information and developed the MAGDM approach for the easiness of decision makers. A MAGDM problem for the selection of Internet stocks has been solved to demonstrate the authenticity of the proposed work and measure its validity by comparing its results with the method already in vogue. It is observed that our developed method is also feasible for intuitionistic fuzzy data and fuzzy data which are a very fruitful contribution to the literature.

We will extend our developments on q-rung orthogonal pair data and cubic Pythagorean fuzzy environment in the future. Furthermore, we can spread them to other aggregation operators, such as power mean AOs, Bonferroni mean AOs, Hamacher AOs, Hamy mean AOs, and Dombi AOs with SIR techniques. In the future, there is a lot of potential in machine learning, information retrieval, data mining, artificial intelligence, social network analysis, and many other areas in uncertain scenarios [38–48]. These are all fascinating topics for future studies.

Data Availability

No data were used to support this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

X. Xu, “The SIR method: a superiority and inferiority ranking method for multiple criteria decision making,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 131, no. 3, pp. 587–602, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. M. Tam, T. K. L. Tong, and Y. W. Wong, “Selection of concrete pump using the superiority and inferiority ranking method,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 130, no. 6, pp. 827–834, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. M. Tam and T. K. Tong, “Locating large-scale harbour-front project developments using SIR method with grey aggregation approach,” Construction Innovation, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 120–136, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. N. K. Liu, “A novel multicriteria group decision making approach with intuitionistic fuzzy SIR method,” in Proceedings of the 2010 World Automation Congress, IEEE, Sao Paulo, Brazil, November 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
Z. J. Ma, N. Zhang, and Y. Dai, “A novel SIR method for multiple attributes group decision making problem under hesitant fuzzy environment,” Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 2119–2130, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Peng and Y. Yang, “Some results for Pythagorean fuzzy sets,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 1133–1160, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Rouhani, “A fuzzy superiority and inferiority ranking based approach for IT service management software selection,” Kybernetes, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 728–746, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Y. Chen, “A novel PROMETHEE-based outranking approach for multiple criteria decision analysis with Pythagorean fuzzy information,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 54495–54506, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Tavana, M. Zareinejad, and F. J. Santos, “An intuitionistic fuzzy-grey superiority and inferiority ranking method for third-party reverse logistics provider selection,” International Journal of Systems Science: Operations & Logi, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 175–194.
View at: Google Scholar
G. Selvaraj and N. Samayan, “Superiority and inferiority ranking method with hesitant Pythagorean fuzzy set for solving MCDM problems,” Malaya Journal of Matematik, vol. 2020, pp. 11–15, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. T. Atanassov, “Intuitionistic fuzzy sets,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 87–96, 1986.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. A. Zadeh, “Fuzzy sets,” Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Logic, and Fuzzy Systems: Selected Papers, World Scientific, Singapore, 1996.
View at: Google Scholar
R. R. Yager, “Pythagorean fuzzy subsets,” in Proceedings of the 2013 Joint IFSA World congress and NAFIPS Annual Meeting (IFSA/NAFIPS), IEEE, Edmonton, Canada, June 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
R. R. Yager, “Pythagorean membership grades in multicriteria decision making,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 958–965, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. R. Yager, “Properties and applications of Pythagorean fuzzy sets,” Imprecision and Uncertainty in Information Representation and Processing, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
K. Menger, “Statistical metrics,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 535–537, 1942.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Deschrijver, C. Cornelis, and E. E. Kerre, “On the Representation of Intuitionistic Fuzzy t-Norms and t-Conorms,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 45–61, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. A. Drossos, “Generalized t-norm structures,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 104, no. 1, pp. 53–59, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Pap, Z. Bošnjak, and S. Bošnjak, “Application of fuzzy sets with different t-norms in the interpretation of portfolio matrices in strategic management,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 114, no. 1, pp. 123–131, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. B. Stamou and S. G. Tzafestas, “Resolution of composite fuzzy relation equations based on Archimedean triangular norms,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 120, no. 3, pp. 395–407, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Wang, “A fuzzy logic for the revised drastic product t-norm,” Soft Computing, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 591–590, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Aczél and C. Alsina, “Characterizations of some classes of quasilinear functions with applications to triangular norms and to synthesizing judgements,” Aequationes Mathematicae, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 313–315, 1982.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Senapati, G. Chen, and R. R. Yager, “Aczel–Alsina aggregation operators and their application to intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute decision making,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 1529–1551, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Senapati, G. Chen, R. Mesiar, and R. R. Yager, “Novel Aczel–Alsina operations-based interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators and their applications in multiple attribute decision‐making process,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 37, no. 8, pp. 5059–5081, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Senapati, G. Chen, R. Mesiar, R. R. Yager, and A. Saha, “Novel Aczel- Alsina operations-based hesitant fuzzy aggregation operators and their applications in cyclone disaster assessment,” International Journal of General Systems, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 511–546, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Senapati, “Approaches to multi-attribute decision-making based on picture fuzzy Aczel–Alsina average aggregation operators,” Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol. 41, no. 1, p. 40, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Senapati, G. Chen, R. Mesiar, and R. R. Yager, “Intuitionistic fuzzy geometric aggregation operators in the framework of Aczel-Alsina triangular norms and their application to multiple attribute decision making,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 212, Article ID 118832, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Senapati, R. Mesiar, V. Simic, A. Iampan, R. Chinram, and R. Ali, “Analysis of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy aczel–alsina geometric aggregation operators and their application to multiple attribute decision-making,” Axioms, vol. 11, no. 6, p. 258, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Senapati and G. Chen, “Some novel interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy aggregation operator based on Hamacher triangular norms and their application in MADM issues,” Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 109–127, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Siab, M. A. Jan, M. S. A. Khan, S. Pal, and T. Senapati, “Multiple criteria group decision making based on linguistic intuitionistic fuzzy aczel-alsina aggregation operators,” Mathematical Problem in Engineering, 2023.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Hussain, K. Ullah, M. S. Yang, and D. Pamucar, “Aczel-alsina aggregation operators on T-spherical fuzzy (TSF) information with application to TSF multi-attribute decision making,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 26011–26023, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Hussain, K. Ullah, M. N. Alshahrani, M. S. Yang, and D. Pamucar, “Novel aczel–alsina operators for pythagorean fuzzy sets with application in multi-attribute decision making,” Symmetry, vol. 14, no. 5, p. 940, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Zhang and Z. Xu, “Extension of TOPSIS to multiple criteria decision making with Pythagorean fuzzy sets,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 29, no. 12, pp. 1061–1078, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Zhang, “A novel approach based on similarity measure for Pythagorean fuzzy multiple criteria group decision making,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 593–611, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. T. Nguyen, C. Walker, and E. A. Walker, A First Course in Fuzzy Logic, Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018.
E. P. Klement and R. Mesiar, Logical, Algebraic, Analytic and Probabilistic Aspects of Triangular Norms, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2005.
E. P. Klement, R. Mesiar, and E. Pap, “Generated triangular norms,” Kybernetika, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 363–377, 2000.
View at: Google Scholar
T. Senapati and G. Chen, “Picture fuzzy WASPAS technique and its application in multi-criteria decision-making,” Soft Computing, vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 4413–4421, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Sergi, U. S. Irem, and T. Senapati, “Extension of capital budgeting techniques using interval-valued Fermatean fuzzy sets,” Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems Preprint, vol. 1, pp. 1–12, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar
A. R. Mishra, P. Rani, A. Saha, T. Senapati, I. M. Hezam, and R. R. Yager, “Fermatean fuzzy copula aggregation operators and similarity measures-based complex proportional assessment approach for renewable energy source selection,” Complex & Intelligent Systems, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 5223–5248, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Mesiar, K. Anna, and T. Senapati, “Aggregation on lattices isomorphic to the lattice of closed subintervals of the real unit interval,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 441, pp. 262–278, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Saha, V. Simic, T. Senapati, S. Dabic-Miletic, and A. Ala, “A dual hesitant fuzzy sets-based methodology for advantage prioritization of zero-emission last-mile delivery solutions for sustainable city logistics,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, p. 1, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Tan, Y. Liu, T. Senapati, H. Garg, and Y. Rong, “An extended MABAC method based on prospect theory with unknown weight information under Fermatean fuzzy environment for risk investment assessment in B&R,” Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, pp. 1–30, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Sahoo, S. Sen, K. Tiwary, S. Samanta, and T. Senapati, “Optimization of data distributed network system under uncertainty,” Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, vol. 2022, Article ID 7806083, 12 pages, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Sahoo, S. Sen, K. Tiwary, S. Samanta, and T. Senapati, “Modified floyd–warshall’s algorithm for Maximum connectivity in wireless sensor networks under uncertainty,” Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, vol. 2022, Article ID 5973433, 11 pages, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Rong, L. Yu, W. Niu, Y. Liu, T. Senapati, and A. R Mishra, “MARCOS approach based upon cubic Fermatean fuzzy set and its application in evaluation and selecting cold chain logistics distribution center,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 116, Article ID 105401, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Saha, F. Ecer, P. Chatterjee, T. Senapati, and E. K. Zavadskas, “Q-rung orthopair fuzzy improved power weighted operators for solving group decision-making issues,” Informatica, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 593–621, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Dey, T. Senapati, M. Pal, and G. Chen, “Pythagorean Fuzzy Soft RMS Approach to Decision Making and Medical Diagnosis,” Afrika Matematika, vol. 33, no. 4, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Iftikhar Ul Haq 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.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

272

Downloads

346

Citations