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.
1. Introduction
There are two types of mathematical logic, true (T) and false (F), having notation of 1 and 0. This concept has been changed by Zadeh. In 1965, Zadeh coined his remarkable theory of fuzzy sets (FSs)[1] to handle the uncertainty and unpredictability known as “fuzziness,” which is by the cause of partial membership of an a member to a set. Many other hybrid concepts were established after the invention of fuzzy set (FS) theory. In the situation of decision-making (DM) problems [2], FS is now considered to be a good appliance. The problem is what ways to combine various data into a single output [3–5]. The idea of fuzzy set theory utilized by Bellman and Zadeh [6] in DM for the solution of unpredictability data became from human choice. For decision investigation, Dubois compares the old and the new procedures [7].
The idea of intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS) was first introduced by Atanassov, which is the generalization of FS and is denoted by the degree of membership and degree of nonmembership [8, 9], under the limitation that the sum of its membership degrees and nonmembership degrees is
Torra [14] coined the opinion of hesitant fuzzy sets (HFSs), which are the extension of fuzzy sets. HFS is represented by the degree of membership function having set of viable values between 0 and 1. Many researchers utilized the idea of HFS to solve group DM (GDM) problems with aggregation operators in [3–5, 15, 16].
There are many problems in real life, which must not be shown in IFS theory, for example, in the issue of voting system human notions which include other answers, for example, yes, no, abstinence, and refusal. Then Coung covered these gaps by adding neutral-membership function in IFS theory. Coung [17] introduced the idea of picture fuzzy set (PFS) model, which is the expansion of IF model. In picture fuzzy set theory, basically, he combined the neutral terms in IFS theory. The only restraint in PFS theory is that the sum of positive-membership, neutral-membership, and negative-membership functions is less than or equal to 1. Some composition of PF relations was developed by Phong et al. [18]. Singh developed correlation coefficients for PFS theory in 2015. Coung and Van Hai [19] discussed the basic notion about the few fuzzy logics operations for PFS. Son introduced the generalized picture distance measure and also its uses [20]. For multiattribute decision-making (MADM) problem, Wei [21] coined the picture fuzzy cross entropy. Wei coined the picture fuzzy aggregation operator and also its uses [22]. Wei et al. [23] presented the projection model for MADM under picture fuzzy environment. Zeb et al. [24] presented the notion of extended Pythagorean fuzzy set and applied this concept to solve preference risk decision-making problem. Ullah et al. [25] initiated the concept of GRA method using picture hesitant fuzzy numbers with incomplete weight information. Some scholars are working in the field of PFS theory and introduced different type of DM approaches (Wang et al. [26] and Wang et al. [27]).
Wang and Li [28] introduced the concept of picture hesitant fuzzy set (PHFS) theory based on picture fuzzy set and hesitant fuzzy set and operations of picture hesitant fuzzy elements (PHFEs) according to the operation of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (IFNs) [29].
MADM problems have been broadly applied in the fields of management [30, 31], engineering [32, 33], economy [34, 35], and so forth. The researchers have initiated different approaches to handle MADM issues, for example, TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution) [36], ELECTRE (ELimination and Choice Expressing the REality) [37], and PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization METHod for Enrichment of Evaluations) [38]. The assessments of alternatives are surely known in MADM [39, 40]. Due to addition of uncertainty in MADM issues, the decision-makers (DMs) are laborious to provide the correct evaluation for alternatives. To solve this problem, fuzzy set theory [1] has been applied to MADM [6, 41], which gives an essential means of representing the complicated information. In 2020, Ali et al. [42] introduced the concept of TOPSIS method under complex spherical fuzzy sets utilizing Bonferroni mean operators. Tahir and Zeeshan utilized complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy set (CQROFS) and uncertain linguistic variable set (ULVS) and explored the new idea of fuzzy set called complex q-rung orthopair uncertain linguistic set (CQROULS) [43]. Also, in 2020, [44], Mahmood and Ali introduced TOPSIS algorithm based on q-rung orthopair fuzzy set (q-ROFS). In 2019, Jan et al. [45] introduced some distance measures of picture hesitant fuzzy set and conducted comparison analysis of proposed distance measures with other existing distance measures. Picture hesitant fuzzy weighted averaging (PHFWA) operator, picture hesitant fuzzy ordered weighted averaging (PHFOWA) operator, and picture hesitant fuzzy hybrid averaging (PHFHA) operator were established by Ullah et al. [46]. The fuzzy cross-entropy for picture hesitant fuzzy sets was established by Mahmood and Ali in [47]. In 2020, Wang et al. [48] introduced interactive Hamacher power aggregation operators for Pythagorean fuzzy sets.
Based on what was discussed with regard to the above-mentioned studies, the contributions of this manuscript are given as follows:
(1) Proposing the extended TOPSIS method under PHF environment using linguistics variables.
(2) Solving numerical problem based on the planned TOPSIS algorithm.
(3) To show the effectiveness and validity of the planned TOPSIS algorithm, a comparative study with other existing methods is discussed.
There are some situations in real-life MADM problems where the decision-makers provide the membership degree, neutral degree, and nonmembership degree represented by many viable values in [0, 1]. Under these circumstances, in this study, we will introduce the concept of TOPSIS method for supplier selection under picture hesitant fuzzy environment using linguistic variable and an illustrative example is given as an application and appropriateness of the proposed method.At the end, we conduct comparison analysis of the planned algorithm with preexisting algorithm.
So, the remainder of this manuscript is organized as follows: In the 2nd section, we give a short illustration of picture hesitant fuzzy sets. In the 3rd section, we develop a picture hesitant fuzzy TOPSIS method. In the 4th section, a numerical example is established. In the 5th section, we conduct comparison analysis. The 6th section presents our conclusion.
2. Preliminaries
2.1. Picture Fuzzy Set (PFS)
In this section, we recall some basic definitions and properties.
Definition 1.
[49] A picture fuzzy set
If we put
Definition 2.
[28] A picture fuzzy value (PFV) or picture fuzzy number (PFN) is represented by
Definition 3.
[22] Let
2.2. Hesitant Fuzzy Set (HFS)
Definition 4.
[14] Let
Definition 5.
[3] A hesitant fuzzy number (HFN) or hesitant fuzzy value (HFV) is a nonempty and finite subset of
Definition 6.
[14] Let
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
2.3. Picture Hesitant Fuzzy Set (PHFS)
Definition 7.
[28] A picture hesitant fuzzy set
During the process of using the PHFNs in the MCDM problems, it is necessary to rank the PHFNs; thus, we develop the score and accuracy functions of PHFNs.
Definition 8.
Let
The accuracy function is defined as
Definition 9.
[28] Let
Obviously, the following theorem can be obtained by using Definition 9.
Theorem 1.
Let
(1)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
Definition 10.
Let
Definition 11.
Let
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Definition 12.
Let
Example 1.
Let
2.4. TOPSIS Method and Linguistics Variables
Here, we briefly describe the TOPSIS method and its applications. After that, we explain the use of TOPSIS method in solving MADM problems. We present the relationship among linguistic variables and picture hesitant fuzzy numbers (PHFNs). TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) is a very convenient practical method for selecting of suitable alternative and also for ranking of alternatives with respect to their distance from the positive-ideal solution and negative-ideal solution. Hwang and Yoon developed TOPSIS to MCDM problems. In TOPSIS method, the chosen alternative should have the shortest distance from the positive-ideal solution and the farthest distance from the negative-ideal solution. Dubois discussed few new methods of decision analysis in [7]. The TOPSIS method is extended for triangular fuzzy numbers in [50, 51]. A linguistic variable is a variable whose values are represented with words or sentence instead of numbers in a natural language. The concept of linguistic variable plays an important role in solving DM problems with complex content. For example, we can represent the performance ratings of alternatives on qualitative criteria by linguistic variables such as very important, important, and medium. Such linguistic values can be represented by PHFNs.
3. Picture Hesitant Fuzzy TOPSIS
In this section, we define the TOPSIS method under picture hesitant fuzzy environment using linguistic variables. Let
3.1. Steps of Picture Hesitant Fuzzy TOPSIS Method
Step 1.
Determine the weight of decision-makers.
Suppose that our decision group contains “n” decision-makers. The importance of decision-makers is expressed as a linguistic term represented by picture hesitant fuzzy numbers. Let
We have that
Step 2.
Calculate aggregated picture hesitant fuzzy decision matrix under the notions of the decision-makers.
Let
The aggregated picture hesitant fuzzy decision matrix of decision-maker can be defined as follows:
Step 3.
Calculate the weights of attributes.In the decision-making method, each attribute as reported by decision-makers may have different importance. By combining the weight values and the attributes values of decision-makers for the importance of each attribute, we can obtain the weights of the attributes. Suppose that the weight of attributes is denoted by
Step 4.
Calculate aggregated weighted picture hesitant fuzzy decision matrix with respect to attributes.
After finding the aggregated weighted picture hesitant fuzzy decision matrix
where
The aggregated weighted picture hesitant fuzzy decision matrix of attributes can be defined as follows:
Step 5.
Calculation of picture hesitant fuzzy positive-ideal solution (PF-PIS) and picture hesitant fuzzy negative-ideal solution (PF-NIS).
In TOPSIS method, the evaluation of attributes can be classified into two groups, benefit and cost. Let
Step 6.
Calculate the separation distance of each alternative from picture hesitant fuzzy positive-ideal solution (PHF-PIS) and picture hesitant fuzzy negative-ideal solution (PHF-NIS).
To measure distance of each alternative
Step 7.
Measure the closeness coefficient (CC).
Finally, we calculate the relative closeness coefficient of each alternative with respect to picture hesitant fuzzy positive-ideal solution (PF-PIS)
Step 8.
Measure the rank of alternatives.
After finding the relative closeness coefficient of each alternative we can rank all the alternatives in a descending order according to relative closeness coefficient.
4. An Illustrative Example
In this part, we adopt a numerical example of MADM problem from the study of [52] to describe the application of the planned approach and conduct a comparison analysis with PF-TOPSIS and IF-TOPSIS [11].
4.1. Implementation
Example 2.
Suppose that there is a production industry; for supplier selection, four decision-makers have been appointed to evaluate 5-supplier alternatives
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
The importance weights from PHFNs of linguistic terms are listed in Table 1.
Moreover, in Table 2, we give the set of linguistic terms to rate the importance of alternatives as reported by decision-makers.
To find the performance of each attribute, the decision-maker utilizes a linguistic set of weights. The information of weights given to four attributes by four decision-makers is listed in Table 3.
We assume that the decision-makers utilize the linguistic variables and ratings to describe the appropriateness of the supplier alternatives with respect to each of the individual attributes. The results are listed in Tables 4–7.
Next, we apply the procedure of picture hesitant fuzzy TOPSIS method, which is as follows.
Step 1: determine the weights of decision-makers.
By utilizing equation (11), we get the weights of decision-makers, which are listed in Table 8.
Then, we denote the weight vector of the decision-makers by
Step 2: calculation of aggregated picture hesitant fuzzy decision matrix under the notions of decision-makers.
The ratings selected by the decision-makers to all alternatives were given in Table 4–7. Then the aggregated picture hesitant fuzzy decision matrix is obtained by utilizing equation (13) and the result is given in Table 9.
We have the following:
Step 3: calculate the weight of each attribute.
We find the weight of each attribute by utilizing equation (14) and we use the information from Table 1 and present it in Table 10.
Step 4: calculation of aggregated weighted picture hesitant fuzzy decision matrix with respect to attributes.
To calculate the aggregated weighted picture fuzzy decision matrix, we utilize equation (15) and give it in Table 11.
The details of Table 11 are presented in Appendix A.
Step 5: Calculation of picture hesitant fuzzy positive-ideal solution and picture hesitant fuzzy negative-ideal solution. Delivery performance, product quality, and service are benefit attributes
For the details of the calculation of PHF-PIS and PHF-NIS, see Appendix B.
Step 6: calculation of the separation measures.
To calculate the separation measure of each alternative
Step 7: calculate relative closeness coefficient (CC).
We find the closeness coefficient of each alternative by using equation (20). The 4th column of Table 12 presents the result.
Step 8: rank the alternatives.
After finding the relative closeness coefficients, five alternatives are ranked in a descending order according to relative closeness coefficient. The alternatives are ranked as
Table 1
Importance weights as linguistic variables.
Linguistic terms | PFNs |
Very important (VI) | |
Important (I) | |
Medium (M) | |
Unimportant (UI) | |
Very unimportant (VUI) |
Table 2
Linguistic terms for rating the importance of alternatives.
Linguistic terms | PFNs |
Extremely high (EH)/extremely good (EG) | |
Very very good (VVG)/very very high (VVH) | |
Very good (VG)/very high (VH) | |
Good (G)/high (H) | |
Medium good (MG)/medium high (MH) | |
Medium (M)/fair (F) | |
Medium bad (MB)/medium low (ML) | |
Bad (B)/low (L) | |
Very bad (VB)/very low (VL) | |
Very very bad (VVB)/very very low (VVL) |
Table 3
The importance weight of the decision attributes.
Attributes | DM (1) | DM (2) | DM (3) | DM (4) |
VI | UI | VI | I | |
UI | VI | M | I | |
M | VI | M | UI | |
VI | M | UI | VI |
Table 4
The ratings of the alternatives for
Supp. | DM (1) | DM (2) | DM (3) | DM (4) |
L | H | M | VL | |
VH | H | M | L | |
MH | M | VL | VH | |
VH | MH | H | L | |
M | VH | MH | MH |
Table 5
The ratings of the alternatives for
Supp. | DM (1) | DM (2) | DM (3) | DM (4) |
MH | MH | H | VH | |
H | M | VH | MH | |
H | VH | M | L | |
H | MH | VH | M | |
MH | H | VH | H |
Table 6
The ratings of the alternatives for
Supp. | DM (1) | DM (2) | DM (3) | DM (4) |
H | VH | MH | H | |
M | VH | VH | MH | |
VH | MH | M | L | |
MH | L | VH | M | |
L | H | VH | H |
Table 7
The ratings of the alternatives for
Supp. | DM (1) | DM (2) | DM (3) | DM (4) |
H | VH | MH | L | |
VH | MH | L | VL | |
MH | H | H | VH | |
L | VH | MH | M | |
M | MH | VH | L |
4.2. Comparison Analysis with Picture Fuzzy TOPSIS Method
Picture fuzzy numbers can be considered as a special case of picture hesitant fuzzy numbers when there is only one element in membership, neutral, and nonmembership degrees. For comparison, the picture hesitant fuzzy numbers can be converted into picture fuzzy numbers by finding the average values of membership, neutral, and nonmembership degrees; after calculation, the picture information is listed in Table 13 and Table 14.
Table 8
The importance of decision-makers and their weights.
DM | DM (1) | DM (2) | DM (3) | DM (4) |
Linguistic term | VI | I | M | UI |
Weight | 0.394 | 0.365 | 0.135 | 0.106 |
Table 9
Aggregated picture fuzzy decision matrix.
Supp. | ||||
Table 10
The weights of attributes.
Attributes | Weight |
Table 11
Pessimistic aggregated weighted picture hesitant fuzzy decision matrix.
Supp. | ||||
Table 12
Separation measure and the relative closeness coefficient of each alternative.
Alter. | CC | Ranking | ||
0.078 | 0.139 | 0.359 | 5 | |
0.136 | 0.067 | 0.670 | 2 | |
0.090 | 0.108 | 0.455 | 4 | |
0.122 | 0.091 | 0.573 | 3 | |
0.124 | 0.056 | 0.689 | 1 |
Table 13
Importance weight as linguistic variable.
Linguistic terms | PFNs |
Very important (VI) | |
Important (I) | |
Medium (M) | |
Unimportant (UI) | |
Very unimportant (VUI) |
Table 14
Linguistic terms for rating the importance of alternatives.
Linguistic terms | PFNs |
Extremely good (EG)/extremely high (EH) | |
Very very good (VVG)/very very high (VVH) | |
Very good (VG)/very high (VH) | |
Good (G)/high (H) | |
Medium good (MG)/medium high (MH) | |
Medium (M)/fair (F) | |
Medium bad (MB)/medium low (ML) | |
Bad (B)/low (L) | |
Very bad (VB)/very low (VL) | |
Very very bad (VVB)/very very low (VVL) |
Now we calculate the weight of decision-makers using the picture fuzzy TOPSIS method. The weights of decision-makers are given in Table 15.
Table 15
The importance of decision-makers and their weights.
DM | DM (1) | DM (2) | DM (3) | DM (4) |
Linguistic term | VI | I | M | UI |
Weight | 0.322 | 0.313 | 0.194 | 0.170 |
The construction of aggregated picture fuzzy decision matrix with respect to decision-makers is given in Table 16.
Table 16
Aggregated picture fuzzy decision matrix.
Supp. | ||||
(0.362, 0.261, 0.239) | (0.614, 0.093, 0.138) | (0.699, 0.067, 0.077) | (0.650, 0.081, 0.088) | |
(0.623, 0.090, 0.087) | (0.590, 0.107, 0.121) | (0.668, 0.055, 0.061) | (0.562, 0.099, 0.113) | |
(0.469, 0.142, 0.172) | (0.621, 0.092, 0.089) | (0.581, 0.091, 0.105) | (0.653, 0.092, 0.114) | |
(0.638, 0.080, 0.093) | (0.614, 0.098, 0.120) | (0.488, 0.139, 0.154) | (0.545, 0.108, 0.110) | |
(0.594, 0.084, 0.105) | (0.659, 0.087, 0.109) | (0.592, 0.124, 0.114) | (0.496, 0.131, 0.151) |
Table 17 gives the weights of attributes.
Table 17
The weights of attributes.
Attributes | Weight |
(0.573, 0.035, 0.036) | |
(0.287, 0.068, 0.070) | |
(0.436, 0.095, 0.098) | |
(0.519, 0.053, 0.055) |
The construction of aggregated weighted picture fuzzy decision matrix with respect to attributes is given in Table 18.
Table 18
Aggregated weighted picture fuzzy decision matrix.
Supp. | ||||
(0.207, 0.287, 0.266) | (0.176, 0.155, 0.198) | (0.305, 0.156, 0.168) | (0.337, 0.130, 0.138) | |
(0.357, 0.122, 0.120) | (0.169, 0.168, 0.183) | (0.291, 0.145, 0.153) | (0.292, 0.147, 0.162) | |
(0.269, 0.172, 0.202) | (0.178, 0.154, 0.153) | (0.253, 0.177, 0.193) | (0.339, 0.140, 0.162) | |
(0.366, 0.112, 0.126) | (0.176, 0.159, 0.182) | (0.213, 0.221, 0.237) | (0.283, 0.155, 0.159) | |
(0.340, 0.116, 0.137) | (0.189, 0.149, 0.171) | (0.258, 0.207, 0.201) | (0.257, 0.177, 0.198) |
The information of PF-PIS and PF-NIS is given in Table 19.
Table 19
PF-PIS and PF-NIS values.
Attribute | PF-PIS | PF-NIS |
(0.366, 0.112, 0.120) | (0.207, 0.287, 0.266) | |
(0.189, 0.149, 0.153) | (0.169, 0.168, 0.198) | |
(0.305, 0.145, 0.153) | (0.213, 0.221, 0.237) | |
(0.257, 0.177, 0.198) | (0.339, 0.130, 0.138) |
The separation measures of each alternative
Table 20
Separation measures.
Alter. | ||
0.067 | 0.152 | |
0.153 | 0.034 | |
0.086 | 0.094 | |
0.150 | 0.079 | |
0.142 | 0.049 |
The relative closeness coefficient of each alternative
Table 21
Relative closeness coefficient and ranking of each alternative.
Alter. | CC | Ranking |
0.306 | 5 | |
0.818 | 1 | |
0.478 | 4 | |
0.655 | 3 | |
0.744 | 2 |
Rank the alternatives
So, the most suitable alternative is
Clearly, the result obtained from picture fuzzy TOPSIS method is different from the result of the proposed method (see Figure 1). The difference in the alternative ranking is due to the fact that, in our planned approach, we assume that the membership degree, neutral degree, and nonmembership degree in picture hesitant fuzzy information are represented by many viable values between [0, 1], and in PF set membership degree, neutral degree, and nonmembership degree, it is represented by only single value. Obviously, our proposed method is more accurate and more stable. . So our planned algorithm is most reliable for such types of problems. In particular, when we face some situations where the information is represented by many possible values here, our planned approach shows its superiority to handle those decision-making problems. Thus, our planned approach is more suitable than PF-TOPSIS because it assumes the situation where decision-makers would like to use many viable values to represent the membership, neutral, and nonmembership degrees.
[figure omitted; refer to PDF]4.3. Comparison Analysis with Intuitionistic Fuzzy TOPSIS Method
In this subsection, we will compare our propose method with intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method. The importance weight as linguistic variable is given in Table 22.
Table 22
Importance weight as linguistic variable.
Linguistic terms | IFNs |
Very important (VI) | |
Important (I) | |
Medium (M) | |
Unimportant (UI) | |
Very unimportant (VUI) |
The linguistic terms for rating the importance of alternatives are listed in Table 23.
Table 23
Linguistic terms for rating the importance of alternatives.
Linguistic terms | IFNs |
Extremely good (EG)/extremely high (EH) | |
Very very good (VVG)/very very high (VVH) | |
Very good (VG)/very high (VH) | |
Good (G)/high (H) | |
Medium good (MG)/medium high (MH) | |
Medium (M)/fair (F) | |
Medium bad (MB)/medium low (ML) | |
Bad (B)/low (L) | |
Very bad (VB)/very low (VL) | |
Very very bad (VVB)/very very low (VVL) |
Now we calculate the weight of decision-makers using the intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method. The weights of decision-makers are given in Table 24.
Table 24
The importance of decision-makers and their weights.
DM | DM (1) | DM (2) | DM (3) | DM (4) |
Linguistic term | VI | I | M | UI |
Weight | 0.271 | 0.268 | 0.236 | 0.225 |
The construction of aggregated intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix with respect to decision-makers is given in Table 25.
Table 25
Aggregated intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix.
Supp. | ||||
(0.337, 0.250, 0.414) | (0.641, 0.115, 0.243) | (0.685, 0.087, 0.227) | (0.616, 0.104, 0.281) | |
(0.577, 0.104, 0.319) | (0.608, 0.111, 0.281) | (0.674, 0.061, 0.265) | (0.511, 0.135, 0.354) | |
(0.494, 0.150, 0.356) | (0.577, 0.105, 0.319) | (0.538, 0.122, 0.340) | (0.672, 0.098, 0.230) | |
(0.612, 0.105, 0.283) | (0.615, 0.110, 0.275) | (0.511, 0.136, 0.153) | (0.526, 0.124, 0.350) | |
(0.584, 0.119, 0.297) | (0.674, 0.096, 0.230) | (0.622, 0.100, 0.278) | (0.514, 0.135, 0.351) |
The weights of attributes are given in Table 26.
Table 26
The weights of attributes.
Attributes | Weight |
(0.585, 0.033, 0.382) | |
(0.485, 0.071, 0.444) | |
(0.410, 0.114, 0.475) | |
(0.519, 0.055, 0.426) |
The construction of aggregated weighted intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix with respect to attributes is given in Table 27.
Table 27
Aggregated weighted intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix.
Supp. | ||||
(0.197, 0.275, 0.528) | (0.311, 0.178, 0.511) | (0.281, 0.191, 0.528) | (0.320, 0.153, 0.527) | |
(0.338, 0.134, 0.529) | (0.295, 0.174, 0.531) | (0.276, 0.168, 0.556) | (0.265, 0.183, 0.552) | |
(0.289, 0.178, 0.533) | (0.280, 0.169, 0.552) | (0.221, 0.222, 0.557) | (0.349, 0.148, 0.504) | |
(0.358, 0.135, 0.507) | (0.298, 0.173, 0.529) | (0.210, 0.235, 0.556) | (0.273, 0.172, 0.555) | |
(0.342, 0.148, 0.510) | (0.327, 0.160, 0.513) | (0.255, 0.203, 0.542) | (0.267, 0.183, 0.551) |
The information of IF-PIS and IF-NIS is given in Table 28.
Table 28
IF-PIS and IF-NIS values.
Attribute | IF-PIS | IF-NIS |
(0.358, 0.134, 0.529) | (0.197, 0.275, 0.528) | |
(0.398, 0.160, 0.513) | (0.280, 0.178, 0.511) | |
(0.281, 0.168, 0.556) | (0.210, 0.235, 0.556) | |
(0.265, 0.183, 0.551) | (0.349, 0.148, 0.504) |
The separation measures of each alternative
Table 29
Separation measures.
Alter. | ||
0.078 | 0.091 | |
0.104 | 0.038 | |
0.087 | 0.070 | |
0.104 | 0.051 | |
0.100 | 0.032 |
The relative closeness coefficient of each alternative
Table 30
Relative closeness coefficient and ranking of each alternative.
Alter. | CC | Ranking |
0.462 | 5 | |
0.732 | 2 | |
0.554 | 4 | |
0.671 | 3 | |
0.758 | 1 |
Rank the alternatives
So, the most suitable alternative is
Clearly, the result obtained from intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method is different from the result of the proposed method (see Figure 2). The difference in the alternative ranking is due to the fact that IFNs only consider positive-membership degrees and negative-membership degrees and ignore neutral-membership degrees, which may result in information loss, giving rise to a difference in the accuracy of data; it will have an effect on the final result. Obviously, our proposed approach is more suitable than IF-TOPSIS method because in PHFNs we consider neutral-membership degrees.
[figure omitted; refer to PDF]5. Conclusion
The main goal of this manuscript is to present a real-world multiattribute decision-making problem for supplier selection utilizing PHF- TOPSIS approach. PHFTOPSIS methodis an appropriate way to deal with unreliable information, as solving real-world DM issue expressed by crisp data under uncertain environment.. We defined PHF distance formula between picture hesitant fuzzy values. In the rating procedure aggregation of attributes the weight of decision makers and the impact of alternatives on attributes under the notion of DMs is most necessary to suitably perform 4 evaluation process. In order to do that, the ratings of each alternative under each attribute and the weights of each attribute were given as a linguistic terms expressed by picture fuzzy numbers. Also, PHFWA operator is applied to aggregate notions of DMs. After picture hesitant fuzzy positive-ideal solution and picture hesitant fuzzy negative-ideal solution were obtained by using distance formula, the relative closeness coefficients of each alternative were calculated and then the alternatives were ranked utilizing the closeness coefficient. Finally, the appropriateness of the planned algorithm has been illuminated with an example. At the end, we compared the planned algorithm with picture fuzzy TOPSIS algorithm and intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method and proved the appropriateness of the proposed method.
In the future, the proposed TOPSIS algorithm can be utilized for dealing with unpredictability in multiattribute decision-making issues such as selecting manufacturing system, selecting project, and many other areas of management decision issues and marketing research problems. Also, we used Maclaurin Symmetric Mean Operator under picture cubic fuzzy value and its application to multiattribute decision-making issue.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the Spanish Government for Grant RTI2018-094336-B-100 (MCIU/AEI/FEDER, UE) and to the Basque Government for Grant IT1207-19.
Appendix
A. Detail of Aggregated Weighted Picture Hesitant Fuzzy Decision Matrix with respect to Attributes for Example 2
Table 31.
Step 1: Calculation of aggregated weighted picture hesitant fuzzy decision matrix with respect to attributes.
Table 31
Pessimistic aggregated weighted picture hesitant fuzzy decision matrix.
Supp. | ||||
To calculate the aggregated weighted picture fuzzy decision matrix, we utilize equation (15) and give it in Table 31.
We have
B. Detail of Picture Hesitant Fuzzy Positive-Ideal Solution and Picture Hesitant Fuzzy Negative-Ideal Solution for Example 2
The details of PHF-PIS and HF-NIS.
[1] L. A. Zadeh, "Fuzzy sets," Information and Control, vol. 8 no. 3, pp. 338-353, DOI: 10.1016/s0019-9958(65)90241-x, 1965.
[2] R. R. Yager, "Multiple objective decision-making using fuzzy sets," International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, vol. 9 no. 4, pp. 375-382, DOI: 10.1016/s0020-7373(77)80008-4, 1977.
[3] M. Xia, Z. Xu, "Hesitant fuzzy information aggregation in decision making," International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, vol. 52 no. 3, pp. 395-407, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijar.2010.09.002, 2011.
[4] Z. Xu, X. Zhang, "Hesitant fuzzy multi-attribute decision making based on TOPSIS with incomplete weight information," Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 52, pp. 53-64, DOI: 10.1016/j.knosys.2013.05.011, 2013.
[5] D. Yu, Y. Wu, W. Zhou, "Multi-criteria decision making based on Choquet integral under hesitant fuzzu environment," Journal of Computational Information Systems, vol. 7 no. 12, pp. 4506-4513, 2011.
[6] R. E. Bellman, L. A. zadeh, "Decision making in a fuzzy environment," Management Science, vol. 17 no. 4, pp. 141-164, DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.17.4.b141, 1970.
[7] D. Dubois, D. Dubois, "The role of fuzzy sets in decision sciences: old techniques and new directions," Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 184 no. 1,DOI: 10.1016/j.fss.2011.06.003, 2011.
[8] K. T. Atanassov, "Intuitionistic fuzzy sets," Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 20 no. 1, pp. 87-96, DOI: 10.1016/s0165-0114(86)80034-3, 1986.
[9] K. T. Atanassov, “Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets”, Theory and Applications, 1999.
[10] I. Beg, T. Rashid, "Multi-criteria trapezoidal valued intuitionistic fuzzy decision making with Choquet integral based TOPSIS," Opsearch, vol. 51 no. 1, pp. 98-129, DOI: 10.1007/s12597-013-0134-5, 2014.
[11] F. E. Boran, S. Genç, M. Kurt, D. Akay, "A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method," Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 36 no. 8, pp. 11363-11368, DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2009.03.039, 2009.
[12] S. K. De, R. Biswas, A. R. Roy, "An application of intuitionistic fuzzy sets in medical diagnosis," Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 117 no. 2, pp. 209-213, DOI: 10.1016/s0165-0114(98)00235-8, 2001.
[13] D.-F. Li, "Multiattribute decision making models and methods using intuitionistic fuzzy sets," Journal of Computer and System Sciences, vol. 70 no. 1, pp. 73-85, DOI: 10.1016/j.jcss.2004.06.002, 2005.
[14] V. Torra, "Hesitant fuzzy sets," International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 25 no. 6, pp. 529-539, 2010.
[15] J. Liu, M. Sun, "Generalized power average operator of hesitant fuzzy numbers and its application in multiple-attribute decision making," Journal of Computational Information Systems, vol. 9 no. 8, pp. 3051-3058, 2013.
[16] X. U. Zhu, Z. S. Xu, M. M. Xia, "Dual hesitant fuzzy sets," Journal of Applied Mathematics, vol. 13, 2012.
[17] B. C. Coung, "Picture fuzzy sets-first results," Part 2 Seminor Neuro-Fuzzy Systems with Applications, 2013.
[18] P. H. Phong, D. T. Hieu, R. T. Ngan, P. T Them, "Some composition of picture fuzzy relations," Proceedings of the 7th National Conference on Fundamental and Applied Information Technology Research (FAIR’7), pp. 19-20, .
[19] B. C. Coung, P. Van Hai, "Some fuzzy logic operators for picture fuzzy sets," Proceedings of the 2015 Seventh International Conference on Knowledge and Systems Engineering (KSE), .
[20] L. H. Son, "Generalized picture distance measure and applications to picture fuzzy clustering," Applied Soft Computing, vol. 46 no. C, pp. 284-295, DOI: 10.1016/j.asoc.2016.05.009, 2016.
[21] G. Wei, "Picture fuzzy cross-entropy for multiple attribute decision making problems," Journal of Business Economics and Management, vol. 17 no. 4, pp. 491-502, DOI: 10.3846/16111699.2016.1197147, 2016.
[22] G. Wei, "Picture fuzzy aggregation operators and their application to multiple attribute decision making," Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, vol. 33 no. 2, pp. 713-724, DOI: 10.3233/jifs-161798, 2017.
[23] G. Wei, F. E. Alsaadi, T. Hayat, A. Alsaedi, "Projection models for multiple attribute decision making with picture fuzzy information," International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, vol. 9 no. 4, pp. 713-719, DOI: 10.1007/s13042-016-0604-1, 2018.
[24] A. Zeb, M. S. A. Khan, M. Ibrar, "Approaches to multi-attribute decision making with risk preference under extended Pythagorean fuzzy environment," Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, vol. 36 no. 1, pp. 325-335, DOI: 10.3233/jifs-181385, 2019.
[25] W. Ullah, M. Ibrar, A. Khan, M. Khan, "Multiple attribute decision making problem using GRA method with incomplete weight information based on picture hesitant fuzzy setting," International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 124, 2020.
[26] L. Wang, J.-j. Peng, J.-q. Wang, "A multi-criteria decision-making framework for risk ranking of energy performance contracting project under picture fuzzy environment," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 191, pp. 105-118, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.169, 2018.
[27] L. Wang, H.-y. Zhang, J.-q. Wang, L. Li, "Picture fuzzy normalized projection-based VIKOR method for the risk evaluation of construction project," Applied Soft Computing, vol. 64, pp. 216-226, DOI: 10.1016/j.asoc.2017.12.014, 2018.
[28] R. Wang, y. Li, "Picture hesitant fuzzy set and its application to multiple criteria decision-making," Symmetry, vol. 10 no. 7,DOI: 10.3390/sym10070295, 2018.
[29] Z. S. Xu, "Intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators," IEEE Trans, Fuzzy System., vol. 15, pp. 1179-1187, 2007.
[30] Y.-H. Hung, S.-C. T. Chou, G.-H. Tzeng, "Knowledge management adoption and assessment for SMEs by a novel MCDM approach," Decision Support Systems, vol. 51 no. 2, pp. 270-291, DOI: 10.1016/j.dss.2010.11.021, 2011.
[31] S. Sakhuja, V. Jain, F. Dweiri, "Application of an integrated MCDM approach in selecting outsourcing strategies in hotel industry," International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, vol. 20 no. 3, pp. 304-324, DOI: 10.1504/ijlsm.2015.068430, 2015.
[32] T. G, "An engineering approach to human resources performance evaluation: hybrid MCDM application with interactions," Applied Soft Computing, vol. 21, pp. 365-375, 2014.
[33] S. Hashemkhani Zolfani, R. Maknoon, E. K. Zavzdskas, "Multiple nash equilibriums and evaluation of strategies. NEW application of MCDM methods," Journal of Business Economics and Management, vol. 16 no. 2, pp. 290-306, 2015.
[34] E. Mulliner, N. Malys, V. Maliene, "Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability," Omega, vol. 59, pp. 146-156, DOI: 10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.013, 2016.
[35] A. Rabbani, M. Zamani, A. Yazdani-Chamzini, E. K. Zavadskas, "Proposing a new integrated model based on sustainability balanced scorecard (SBSC) and MCDM approaches by using linguistic variables for the performance evaluation of oil producing companies," Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 41 no. 16, pp. 7316-7327, DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2014.05.023, 2014.
[36] C. L. Hwang, K. S. Yoon, Multiple Attribute Decision Methods and Applications, 1981.
[37] B. Roy, P. Bertier, La methode ELECTRE II: Une methode de classement en predence decriteres multiples, 1971.
[38] B. Mareschal, J. P. Brans, P. Vincke, Promethee: A New Family of Outranking Methods in Multicriteria Analysis, 1984.
[39] J. S. Dyer, P. C. Fishburn, R. E. Steuer, J. Wallenius, S. Zionts, "Multiple criteria decision making, multiattribute utility theory: the next ten years," Management Science, vol. 38 no. 5, pp. 645-654, DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.38.5.645, 1992.
[40] T. Stewart, "A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice," Omega, vol. 20 no. 5-6, pp. 569-586, DOI: 10.1016/0305-0483(92)90003-p, 1992.
[41] K. Nakamura, "Preference relations on a set of fuzzy utilities as a basis for decision making," Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 20 no. 2, pp. 147-162, DOI: 10.1016/0165-0114(86)90074-6, 1986.
[42] Z. Ali, T. Mahmood, M.-S. Yang, "TOPSIS method based on complex spherical fuzzy sets with Bonferroni mean operators," Mathematics, vol. 8 no. 10,DOI: 10.3390/math8101739, 2020.
[43] T. Mahmood, Z. Ali, "Aggregation operators and VIKOR method based on complex q-rung orthopair uncertain linguistic informations and their applications in multi-attribute decision making," Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol. 39 no. 4,DOI: 10.1007/s40314-020-01332-2, 2020.
[44] T. Mahmood, Z. Ali, "Entropy measure and TOPSIS method based on correlation coefficient using complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy information and its application to multi-attribute decision making," Soft Computing, vol. 25 no. 2, 2020.
[45] N. Jan, Z. Ali, T. Mahmood, K. Ullah, "Some generalized distance and similarity measures for picture hesitant fuzzy sets and their applications in building material recognition and multi-attribute decision making," Punjab University Journal of Mathematics, vol. 51 no. 7, pp. 51-70, 2019.
[46] K. Ullah, Z. Ali, N. Jan, T. Mahmmod, S. Maqsood, "Multi-attribute decision making based on averaging aggregation operators for picture hesitant fuzzy sets," Technical Journal, vol. 23 no. 04, pp. 84-95, 2018.
[47] T. Mahmood, Z. Ali, "The fuzzy cross-entropy for picture hesitant fuzzy sets and their application in multi criteria decision making," Punjab University Journal of Mathematics, vol. 52 no. 10, 2020.
[48] L. Wang, H. Garg, N. Li, "Pythagorean fuzzy interactive Hamacher power aggregation operators for assessment of express service quality with entropy weight," Soft Computing, vol. 25 no. 2, 2020.
[49] H. Garg, "Some picture fuzzy aggregation operators and their applications to multicriteria decision-making," Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, vol. 42 no. 12, pp. 5275-5290, DOI: 10.1007/s13369-017-2625-9, 2017.
[50] C.-T. Chen, "Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment," Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 114 no. 1,DOI: 10.1016/s0165-0114(97)00377-1, 2000.
[51] T.-C. Chu, Y.-C. Lin, "A fuzzy TOPSIS method for robot selection," The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 21 no. 4, pp. 284-290, DOI: 10.1007/s001700300033, 2003.
[52] R. Sahin, M. Yigider, "A multi-criteria neutrosophic group decision making method based TOPSIS for supplier selection," Applied Mathematics & Information Sciences, vol. 10 no. 5, pp. 1843-1852, DOI: 10.18576/amis/100525, 2016.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Copyright © 2021 Rabia Ambrin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Abstract
The main purpose of this planned manuscript is to establish an algorithm for the solution of multiattribute decision-making (MADM) issues, where the experts utilizing linguistic variables provide the information about attributes in the form of picture hesitant fuzzy numbers. So, for the solution of these kinds of issues, we develop the TOPSIS algorithm under picture hesitant fuzzy environment using linguistic variables, which plays a vital role in practical applications, notably MADM issues, where the decision information is arranged by the decision-makers (DMs) in the form of picture hesitant fuzzy numbers. Finally, a sample example is given as an application and appropriateness of the planned method. At the end, we conduct comparison analysis of the planned method with picture fuzzy TOPSIS method and intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details


1 Department of Mathematics, University of Science and Technology, Bannu, Pakistan
2 Institute of Research and Development of Processes, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of the Basque Country, Campus of Leioa, Bizkaia 48940, Leioa, Spain
3 Department of Computer Science, University of Science and Technology, Bannu, Pakistan
4 Department of Mathematics, Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan, Pakistan