Abstract
Neutrosophic multicriteria is a method of decision-making that uses indeterminacy to combine several criteria or elements, frequently with incomplete or ambiguous information, to find a solution. The neutrosophic multicriteria analysis enables the assessment of qualitative and subjective aspects and can assist in resolving conflicting goals and preferences. In the Neutrosophic Multi-Attribute Group Decision Making (NMAGDM) problems, all the information provided by the decision makers (DMs) is expressed as single value neutrosophic triangular and trapezoidal numbers examined in this study which can provide more flexibility and accuracy in capturing uncertainty and aggregating preferences. We offer a novel approach for determining the neutrosophic possibility degree of two and three trapezoidal and triangular neutrosophic sets and the concepts of neutrosophic possibility mean value. The trapezoidal and triangular neutrosophic Bonferroni mean (TITRNBM) operator and the trapezoidal and triangular neutrosophic weighted Bonferroni mean (TITRNWBM) operator are two aggregation methods we then create. Further, we examine the TITRNBM and TITRNWBM attributes and their uniqueness. The NMAGDM approach with trapezoidal and triangular information is suggested based on the TITRNWBM operator and possibility degree. Finally, a concrete example of manufacturing companies searching for the best supplier for assembling the critical parts is provided to validate the established strategies and show their practical applicability and efficacy.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
The problem of group decision-making in multi-attributes using Fuzzy (FMAGDM) is the method used to find the feasible alternative when the group decision makers' information is uncertain because of the complication in the social environment, economic environment, and unclear subject thinking of human nature. In past years several methods were used to solve the above problem (FMAGDM) with the help of type-1 fuzzy sets. Chen1 used the extension of the TOPSIS method. Chen2 explained the evaluation of aggregative risk rate utilizing the development of software of fuzzy sets in the fuzzy group decision-making environment. Wang and Lin3 developed a method of selecting the configuration items using the software. The compromise programming method solves the above problem (FMAGDM) by taking the aggregating function as Li4 introduces fuzzy weighted Minkowski distance. A maximizing deviation method is used to solve the above problem (FMAGDM) in the linguistic atmosphere by Wu and Chen5. The practical, interactive procedure used for solving the above method (FMAGDM), where the attribute weights are given partially, is explained by Xu6. Lin and Wu7 use a simple analytical method. Also, a computing coordination method was proposed to solve the above method (FMAGDM) was explained by Tsai and Wang8. A multi-granularity linguistic method is used to solve the above problem (FMAGDM) is explained in Fan and Liu9. Using the non-homogenous information, different distance values have been measured, and a different method is developed to solve the above (FMAGDM) presented in Li10. However, all the above method is based on type-1 fuzzy sets.
Zadeh11 first initiated the extension of type-1 fuzzy sets to type-2 fuzzy sets. The type-2 fuzzy set solved more uncertainty compared to the type-1 fuzzy set by crisp the numbers of the type-1 fuzzy set as used as the membership value for type-2 fuzzy sets introduced in Wu and Mendel12. Because of the complexity of using type-2 fuzzy sets, the interval type-2 fuzzy sets were presented by Mendal et al.13 and applied in many practical applications, as given in Mendal and Wu14,15,16,17. A new Linguistic weighted average method is imposed in interval type-2 fuzzy sets to solve the above problem (FMAGDM) given in Wu and Mendal18,19. The FMAGDM is solved using the ranking method and arithmetic operations in interval type-2 fuzzy sets, as provided by Chen and Lee20. Also, the TOPSIS method is applied to solve. FMAGDM uses interval type-2 fuzzy sets, which is explained in Chen and Lee21. Even though the attribute weights are partially known, the interval type-2 fuzzy set used in characterizing the attribute values is clearly explained in Wang and Liu22. A ranking method in interval type-2 fuzzy set to solve the FMAGDM method is introduced by Chen and Yang23. A new method was introduced to solve FMAGDM using a trapezoidal interval type-2 fuzzy set by Zhang and Zhang24. A technique of possibility degree used to solve the FMAGDM problem is explained in Hu et al.25.
The Bonferroni operator is a mathematical operator used in decision-making and statistical analysis. Its advantages make it a valuable tool in specific contexts, such as conservatism, simplicity, broad applicability, flexibility and control of Type I errors. FMAGDM models can capture and handle the uncertainty and ambiguity inherent in decision-making processes by employing the neutrosophic Bonferroni operator. The Neutrosophic Bonferroni operator considers each attribute's membership, indeterminacy, and non-membership degrees, providing a comprehensive and balanced aggregation of the decision-maker's opinions. The scope of the neutrosophic Bonferroni operator in FMAGDM lies in its ability to handle uncertain and indeterminate information. It enables decision-makers to express their preferences more nuancedly, leading to more accurate and reliable decision outcomes. However, it is essential to note that the neutrosophic Bonferroni operator is just one of many methods available for FMAGDM, and its suitability depends on the specific context and requirements of the decision problem at hand. A Bonferroni26 mean operator is used in interval type-2 fuzzy set to solve the FMAGDM problem, as explained in Gong et al.27. Using the weighted geometric Bonferroni operator and the possible degree of interval type-2 fuzzy set, an FMAGDM problem is solved. Peng and Smarandache28 examined the single-valued neutrosophic Dombi Bonferroni mean operator, single-valued neutrosophic weighted Dombi Bonferroni mean operator, single-valued neutrosophic Dombi geometric Bonferroni mean operator and single-valued neutrosophic weighted Dombi geometric Bonferroni mean operator mobile to illustrate the cloud computing industry decision making problem. Awang et al.29 proposed an interval-valued neutrosophic Shapley normalized weighted Bonferroni mean (INSNWBM) operator and explored the applicability of the INSNWBM in decision-making. Banerjee et al.30 introduced the generalized partitioned Bonferroni mean (GPBM) in an interval-valued fuzzy set based on the strict t-conorms additive generators. They developed the interval valued GPBM (IVGPBM) and the weighted IVGPBM (WIVGPBM) aggregation operators to study multi-attribute decision-making problems. Deli31 developed the generalized trapezoidal hesitant fuzzy Bonferroni arithmetic mean operator and generalized trapezoidal hesitant fuzzy Bonferroni geometric mean operator for aggregating the generalized trapezoidal hesitant fuzzy information in order to discuss the multi-attributes decision-making problems. Further, the multi-attribute group decision-making problems analysed by Bonferroni mean operators in the picture hesitant fuzzy numbers environments32. Ali et al.33 derived complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy Archimedean Bonferroni mean and weighted Bonferroni mean operators and examined the interrelationship among the finite number of attributes in modern data fusion theory. Chakraborty and Saha34 studied the Fermatean fuzzy multi-criteria group decision making with the help of Bonferroni mean and weighted Bonferroni mean operators for the healthcare industry. In order to improve the possibility degree and a better solution in this paper, we use the single value neutrosophic method. The accuracy has been increased when using the neutrosophic rather than the interval type-2 fuzzy sets and other generalizations. Hence, we present a new method to solve the FMAGDM problem by using two aggregate methods, such as the trapezoidal and triangular neutrosophic Bonferroni mean (TITRNBM) operator and the trapezoidal and triangular neutrosophic weighted Bonferroni mean (TITRNWBM) operator. FMAGDM problem is to find the most desirable alternative from a set of feasible alternatives, where the information provided by a group of decision makers is usually uncertain or fuzzy due to the increasing complexity of the socio-economic environment and the vagueness of inherent subjective nature of human thinking. Hence, the significant advantage of the proposed operator is that they have considered the interrelationships of aggregated values. Hence, we have employed an illustration related to a manufacturing company searching for the best supplier for assembling the critical parts to validate the proposed operators' practical applicability and effectiveness.
Thus, the paper is formulated in “Introduction” section, where the basic definitions and operations of single value neutrosophic are given. In “Preliminaries” section, the neutrosophic possibility mean has been introduced for both the lower and upper mean. Here a new method is presented for deriving the above mean values. In “Single value neutrosophic possibility mean value and possibility degree” section, the triangular single value neutrosophic operator and weighted mean have been found. In “Neutrosophic Bonferroni operators” section, The trapezoidal single value neutrosophic Bonferroni operator and weighted mean have been found with some related properties, and different approaching cases are also discussed. “Proposed method” section discusses steps for solving the FMAGDM problem using a trapezoidal single value neutrosophic operator and weighted mean. In “Illustrative example” section, the above steps were imposed with the help of an illustrative example, and a comparison with the previous results is given. Finally, in “Conclusion”, the conclusion is given.
Preliminaries
In this section, we define some definitions and arithmetic operations for a neutrosophic set used in forthcoming sections.
Definition 1
(Smarandache35) Let \(U\) be the universal set, then neutrosophic set is defined as \(A=\{\left({T}_{A}\left(x\right), {I}_{A}\left(x\right),{F}_{A}\left(x\right)\right),x\in U\}\) where \({T}_{A}\left(x\right), {I}_{A}\left(x\right),{F}_{A}\left(x\right)\in ]{0}^{-},{1}^{+}[\) and \({{0}^{-}\le T}_{A}\left(x\right)+{I}_{A}\left(x\right)+{F}_{A}\left(x\right)\le {3}^{+}\).
Definition 2
(Wang36) Let \(U\) be the universal set, then SVNS is defined as \(\dot{A}=\{\left({T}_{\dot{A}}\left(x\right), {I}_{\dot{A}}\left(x\right),{F}_{\dot{A}}\left(x\right)\right),x\in U\}\) where \({T}_{\dot{A}}\left(x\right), {I}_{\dot{A}}\left(x\right),{F}_{\dot{A}}\left(x\right)\in [\mathrm{0,1}]\) and \({0\le T}_{\dot{A}}\left(x\right)+{I}_{\dot{A}}\left(x\right)+{F}_{\dot{A}}\left(x\right)\le 3\).
The proposed definition of this paper are defined as follows,
Definition 3
The proposed score function for the neutrosophic triangular set is given by,
Definition 4
The proposed score function for the neutrosophic trapezoidal set is given by,
where \(n\) represents number of terms in the matrices.
Single value neutrosophic possibility mean value and possibility degree
Here, the single value neutrosophic possibility mean value and the single value neutrosophic possibility degree are explained. In the beginning, the lower and upper neutrosophic possibility mean, are defined as follows.
Definition 5
If a single value neutrosophic number is
where \(\left(T{N}^{U},I{N}^{U},F{N}^{U}\right)\) and \(\left(T{N}^{L},I{N}^{L},F{N}^{L}\right)\) are the upper and lower neutrosophic member function having the level set as
\(\left(T{N}_{\alpha }^{U},I{N}_{\alpha }^{U},F{N}_{\alpha }^{U}\right)=\left[\left(T{N}_{1}^{U}\left(\alpha \right),I{N}_{1}^{U}\left(\alpha \right),{FN}_{1}^{U}\left(\alpha \right)\right),\left({TN}_{2}^{U}\left(\alpha \right),{IN}_{2}^{U}\left(\alpha \right),F{N}_{2}^{U}\left(\alpha \right)\right)\right], \alpha \in \left[\left(\mathrm{0,0},0\right),\left(T{h}_{U},I{h}_{U},F{h}_{U}\right)\right]\) and \(\left(T{N}_{\beta }^{L},I{N}_{\beta }^{L},F{N}_{\beta }^{L}\right)=\left[\left(T{N}_{1}^{L}\left(\beta \right),I{N}_{1}^{L}\left(\beta \right),{FN}_{1}^{L}\left(\beta \right)\right),\left(T{N}_{2}^{L}\left(\beta \right),{IN}_{2}^{L}\left(\beta \right),{FN}_{2}^{L}\left(\beta \right)\right)\right],\alpha \in \left[\left(\mathrm{0,0},0\right),\left(T{h}_{L},I{h}_{L},F{h}_{L}\right)\right]\)
where \(\left(T{h}_{U},I{h}_{U},F{h}_{U}\right)\) and \(\left(T{h}_{L},I{h}_{L},F{h}_{L}\right)\) are the highest and lower membership neutrosophic function of \({N}^{U}\) and \({N}^{L}\).
Definition 6
The lower neutrosophic possibility mean for \(N=\left({N}^{U},{N}^{L}\right)\) is given by,
where \(\left(T{\widetilde{M}}_{*}\left(N\right),I{\widetilde{M}}_{*}\left(N\right),F{\widetilde{M}}_{*}\left(N\right)\right)\) is the arithmetic mean of members of the neutrosophic membership function.
Definition 7
The upper neutrosophic possibility mean for \(\left(TN,IN,FN\right)=\left(\left(T{N}^{U},I{N}^{U},F{N}^{U}\right),\left(T{N}^{L},I{N}^{L},F{N}^{L}\right)\right)\) is given by,
where \(\left({T\widetilde{M}}^{*}\left(N\right),I{\widetilde{M}}^{*}\left(N\right),F{\widetilde{M}}^{*}\left(N\right)\right)\) is the arithmetic mean of members of the neutrosophic membership function.
Definition 8
The notation gives the closed bounded interval of the neutrosophic lower and upper mean value \(\left(T\widetilde{M}\left(N\right),I\widetilde{M}\left(N\right),F \widetilde{M}\left(N\right)\right)=\left[\left(T{\widetilde{M}}_{*}\left(N\right),I{\widetilde{M}}_{*}\left(N\right),F{\widetilde{M}}_{*}\left(N\right)\right),\left({T\widetilde{M}}^{*}\left(N\right),I{\widetilde{M}}^{*}\left(N\right),F{\widetilde{M}}^{*}\left(N\right)\right)\right]\).
Definition 9
Similarly, the neutrosophic mean value of \(\left(T{N}_{1},I{N}_{1},F{N}_{1}\right)\) and \(\left(T{N}_{2},I{N}_{2},F{N}_{2}\right)\) is given by,
\(\left(T\widetilde{M}\left({N}_{1}\right),I\widetilde{M}\left({N}_{1}\right),F \widetilde{M}\left({N}_{1}\right)\right)=\left[\left(T{\widetilde{M}}_{*}\left({N}_{1}\right),I{\widetilde{M}}_{*}\left({N}_{1}\right),F{\widetilde{M}}_{*}\left({N}_{1}\right)\right),\left({T\widetilde{M}}^{*}\left({N}_{1}\right),I{\widetilde{M}}^{*}\left({N}_{1}\right),F{\widetilde{M}}^{*}\left({N}_{1}\right)\right)\right]\) and
\(\left(T\widetilde{M}\left({N}_{2}\right),I\widetilde{M}\left({N}_{2}\right),F \widetilde{M}\left({N}_{2}\right)\right)=\left[\left(T{\widetilde{M}}_{*}\left({N}_{2}\right),I{\widetilde{M}}_{*}\left({N}_{2}\right),F{\widetilde{M}}_{*}\left({N}_{2}\right)\right),\left({T\widetilde{M}}^{*}\left({N}_{2}\right),I{\widetilde{M}}^{*}\left({N}_{2}\right),F{\widetilde{M}}^{*}\left({N}_{2}\right)\right)\right]\).
Definition 10
The possibility neutrosophic degree is given as \(\left(p\left({TN}_{1}\succcurlyeq {TN}_{2}\right),p\left({IN}_{1}\succcurlyeq {IN}_{2}\right),p\left(F{N}_{1}\succcurlyeq {FN}_{2}\right)\right)\)
Definition 11
The possibility neutrosophic degree \(\left(p\left({TN}_{1}\succcurlyeq {TN}_{2}\right),p\left({IN}_{1}\succcurlyeq I{N}_{2}\right),p\left({FN}_{1}\succcurlyeq {FN}_{2}\right)\right)\) has to satisfy the following property.
-
i.
\((\mathrm{0,0},0)\le \left(p\left({TN}_{1}\succcurlyeq {TN}_{2}\right),p\left({IN}_{1}\succcurlyeq I{N}_{2}\right),p\left({FN}_{1}\succcurlyeq {FN}_{2}\right)\right)\le (\mathrm{1,1},1)\) and \(\left(\mathrm{0,0},0\right)\le \left(p\left({TN}_{2}\succcurlyeq T{N}_{1}\right),p\left({IN}_{2}\succcurlyeq I{N}_{1}\right),p\left({FN}_{2}\succcurlyeq F{N}_{1}\right)\right)\le \left(\mathrm{1,1},1\right).\)
-
ii.
If \(\left(T{\widetilde{M}}_{*}\left({N}_{1}\right),I{\widetilde{M}}_{*}\left({N}_{1}\right),F{\widetilde{M}}_{*}\left({N}_{1}\right)\right)=\left(T{\widetilde{M}}_{*}\left({N}_{2}\right),I{\widetilde{M}}_{*}\left({N}_{2}\right),F{\widetilde{M}}_{*}\left({N}_{2}\right)\right)\) and \(\left({T\widetilde{M}}^{*}\left({N}_{1}\right),I{\widetilde{M}}^{*}\left({N}_{1}\right),F{\widetilde{M}}^{*}\left({N}_{1}\right)\right)=\left({T\widetilde{M}}^{*}\left({N}_{2}\right),I{\widetilde{M}}^{*}\left({N}_{2}\right),F{\widetilde{M}}^{*}\left({N}_{2}\right)\right)\), then \(\left(p\left(T{N}_{1}\succcurlyeq {TN}_{1}\right),p\left({IN}_{1}\succcurlyeq I{N}_{1}\right),p\left({FN}_{1}\succcurlyeq F{N}_{1}\right)\right)=\left(\mathrm{0.5,0.5,0.5}\right)\).
-
iii.
For a neutrosophic member \(\left({TN}_{1},{IN}_{1},F{N}_{1}\right),\left(T{N}_{2},I{N}_{2},F{N}_{2}\right),\left(T{N}_{3},I{N}_{3},F{N}_{3}\right)\), if \(\left(p\left({TN}_{1}\succcurlyeq {TN}_{2}\right),p\left({IN}_{1}\succcurlyeq I{N}_{2}\right),p\left({FN}_{1}\succcurlyeq {FN}_{2}\right)\right)=(\mathrm{0.5,0.5,0.5})\) and \(\left(p\left(T{N}_{2}\succcurlyeq {TN}_{3}\right),p\left({IN}_{2}\succcurlyeq {IN}_{3}\right),p\left(F{N}_{2}\succcurlyeq F{N}_{3}\right)\right)=(\mathrm{0.5,0.5,0.5})\) then \(\left(p\left({TN}_{1}\succcurlyeq {TN}_{3}\right),p\left(I{N}_{1}\succcurlyeq {IN}_{3}\right),p\left(F{N}_{1}\succcurlyeq F{N}_{3}\right)\right)=(\mathrm{0.5,0.5,0.5})\).
-
iv.
For a neutrosophic member \(\left({TN}_{1},{IN}_{1},F{N}_{1}\right),\left(T{N}_{2},I{N}_{2},F{N}_{2}\right),\left(T{N}_{3},I{N}_{3},F{N}_{3}\right)\), if \(\left(p\left({TN}_{1}\succcurlyeq {TN}_{2}\right),p\left({IN}_{1}\succcurlyeq I{N}_{2}\right),p\left({FN}_{1}\succcurlyeq {FN}_{2}\right)\right)=(\mathrm{0.5,0.5,0.5})\) and \(\left(p\left(T{N}_{2}\succcurlyeq {TN}_{3}\right),p\left({IN}_{2}\succcurlyeq {IN}_{3}\right),p\left(F{N}_{2}\succcurlyeq F{N}_{3}\right)\right)=(\mathrm{0.5,0.5,0.5})\) then \(\left(p\left({TN}_{1}\succcurlyeq {TN}_{2}\right),p\left({IN}_{1}\succcurlyeq I{N}_{2}\right),p\left({FN}_{1}\succcurlyeq {FN}_{2}\right)\right)+\left(p\left(T{N}_{2}\succcurlyeq {TN}_{3}\right),p\left({IN}_{2}\succcurlyeq {IN}_{3}\right),p\left(F{N}_{2}\succcurlyeq F{N}_{3}\right)\right)=2\left(p\left({TN}_{1}\succcurlyeq {TN}_{3}\right),p\left(I{N}_{1}\succcurlyeq {IN}_{3}\right),p\left(F{N}_{1}\succcurlyeq F{N}_{3}\right)\right)\).
Definition 12
For the neutrosophic trapezoidal number \(\left(TN,IN,FN\right)=\left(\left(T{N}^{U},I{N}^{U},F{N}^{U}\right),\left(T{N}^{L},I{N}^{L},F{N}^{L}\right)\right)=\left(\left(\left(T{a}_{1}^{U},I{a}_{1}^{U},F{a}_{1}^{U}\right),\left(T{a}_{2}^{U},I{a}_{2}^{U},F{a}_{2}^{U}\right),\left(T{a}_{3}^{U},I{a}_{3}^{U},F{a}_{3}^{U}\right),\left(T{a}_{4}^{U},I{a}_{4}^{U},F{a}_{4}^{U}\right),\left(T{h}^{U},I{h}^{U},F{h}^{U}\right)\right)\right.\), \(\left.\left(\left(T{a}_{1}^{L},I{a}_{1}^{L},F{a}_{1}^{L}\right), \left(T{a}_{2}^{L},I{a}_{2}^{L},F{a}_{2}^{L}\right), \left(T{a}_{3}^{L},I{a}_{3}^{L},F{a}_{3}^{L}\right),\left(T{a}_{4}^{L},I{a}_{4}^{L},F{a}_{4}^{L}\right),\left(T{h}^{L},I{h}^{L},F{h}^{L}\right)\right)\right)\), the lower neutrosophic possibility mean is calculated by,
Definition 13
For the neutrosophic trapezoidal number \(\left(TN,IN,FN\right)=\left(\left(T{N}^{U},I{N}^{U},F{N}^{U}\right),\left(T{N}^{L},I{N}^{L},F{N}^{L}\right)\right)=\left(\left(\left(T{a}_{1}^{U},I{a}_{1}^{U},F{a}_{1}^{U}\right),\left(T{a}_{2}^{U},I{a}_{2}^{U},F{a}_{2}^{U}\right),\left(T{a}_{3}^{U},I{a}_{3}^{U},F{a}_{3}^{U}\right),\left(T{a}_{4}^{U},I{a}_{4}^{U},F{a}_{4}^{U}\right),\left(T{h}^{U},I{h}^{U},F{h}^{U}\right)\right)\right.,\) \(\left.\left(\left(T{a}_{1}^{L},I{a}_{1}^{L},F{a}_{1}^{L}\right),\left(T{a}_{2}^{L},I{a}_{2}^{L},F{a}_{2}^{L}\right),\left(T{a}_{3}^{L},I{a}_{3}^{L},F{a}_{3}^{L}\right),\left(T{a}_{4}^{L},I{a}_{4}^{L},F{a}_{4}^{L}\right),\left(T{h}^{L},I{h}^{L},F{h}^{L}\right)\right)\right),\) the upper neutrosophic possibility mean is calculated by,
Definition 14
The neutrosophic preference matrix \(\left(TP,IP,FP\right)\) is given as
Definition 15
The neutrosophic ranking value \(\mathcal{R}\left(TN,IN,FN\right)\) is given by,
where \(\oplus\) is an additive operator.
Neutrosophic Bonferroni operators
Bonferroni37 first introduced the aggregation operator for mean. Yagar38 was generalized with the help of the OWA operator and the Choquet integral. Beliakov39 also gives a reformed generalized above method. In Gong et al.27, the interval type-2 Bonferroni mean operator is defined. This can be extended in this paper; a proposed neutrosophic Bonferroni operator is defined, and its aggregating operations will be defined.
Definition 16
Let
where \((i=\mathrm{1,2},\dots ,n)\) be the set of neutrosophic member and for \(s,t\ge 0\), we define neutrosophic Bonferroni mean as
where \(\otimes\) is a multiplicative operator.
The proposed neutrosophic Bonferroni operator has the enormous advantage of high flexibility with adjustable parameters. The neutrosophic Bonferroni operator combines the membership values and indeterminacy values of two neutrosophic sets to determine the membership and indeterminacy of the resulting set. To some extent, the neutrosophic Bonferroni operator aims to preserve the indeterminacy of the input sets. The operator tends to propagate or retain the indeterminacy in the resulting set by taking the maximum indeterminacy values. This property distinguishes it from other operators that may not explicitly address indeterminacy preservation.
Proposed method
In order to handle the problem of group decision making of multi attributes in the environment of single value neutrosophic trapezoidal and triangular member. We start the problem with \(Y\) alternatives with G attributes where \(Y=\left\{{y}_{1},{y}_{2},\dots ,{y}_{n}\right\}\) and G = \(\left\{{g}_{1},{g}_{2},\dots ,{g}_{m}\right\}\). Now we assume that there are \(l\) number of decision makers say \({D}_{1},{D}_{2},\dots ,{D}_{l}.\) Let \(\left(T{\mathcal{R}}^{(k)},I{\mathcal{R}}^{(k)},F{\mathcal{R}}^{(k)}\right)={\left({TA}_{ij}^{(k)},{IA}_{ij}^{(k)},{FA}_{ij}^{(k)}\right)}_{nXm}\) be an single value neutrosophic decision matrix, where \(\left({TA}_{ij}^{(k)},{IA}_{ij}^{(k)},{FA}_{ij}^{(k)}\right)\) is a neutrosophic member given by the decision makers \({D}_{i}\) to the alternatives \({y}_{j}\) whose corresponding attributes is \({g}_{k}\). Two types of attributes depend on benefits and cost. The attributes are divided into two sets of attributes and depend on benefit and cost, respectively. Also, it satisfies the condition \({G}_{1}\cup {G}_{2}=G\) and \({G}_{1}\cap {G}_{2}=\varnothing\). After that normalization should be done for \(\left(T{\mathcal{R}}^{(k)},I{\mathcal{R}}^{(k)},F{\mathcal{R}}^{(k)}\right)\) depends on the attributes \({g}_{k}\left(k=\mathrm{1,2},\dots ,m\right)\). In this paper we start with the given neutrosophic member
where \(\left({\left({TA}_{ij}^{(k)}\right)}^{c},{\left({IA}_{ij}^{(k)}\right)}^{c},{\left({FA}_{ij}^{(k)}\right)}^{c}\right)\) is the complement value of \(\left({TA}_{ij}^{(k)},{IA}_{ij}^{(k)},{FA}_{ij}^{(k)}\right)\). Thus, we finally reached the normalized neutrosophic decision matrix \(\left(T{\mathcal{R}}^{(k)},I{\mathcal{R}}^{(k)},F{\mathcal{R}}^{(k)}\right)={\left({TA}_{ij}^{(k)},{IA}_{ij}^{(k)},{FA}_{ij}^{(k)}\right)}_{nXm}\). In this problem, the final opinion is obtained by considering individual decisions in the group decision. We use the additive and scalar multiplicative operation to convert the normalized neutrosophic individual decision matrix \(\left(T{\mathcal{R}}^{(k)},I{\mathcal{R}}^{(k)},F{\mathcal{R}}^{(k)}\right)={\left({TA}_{ij}^{(k)},{IA}_{ij}^{(k)},{FA}_{ij}^{(k)}\right)}_{nXm}\) into the joint normalized neutrosophic collective decision matrix given as \(\left(T\mathcal{R},I\mathcal{R},F\mathcal{R}\right)={\left(T{A}_{ij},{IA}_{ij},F{A}_{ij}\right)}_{nXm}\) where \(\left(T{A}_{ij},{IA}_{ij},F{A}_{ij}\right)=\left(\sum_{k=1}^{l}T{\lambda }_{k}{A}_{ij}^{(k)},\sum_{k=1}^{l}I{\lambda }_{k}{A}_{ij}^{(k)},\sum_{k=1}^{l}F{\lambda }_{k}{A}_{ij}^{(k)}\right)\).If the weight of the attribute is clearly known, that is, the neutrosophic weight vector \(\left(Tw,Iw,Fw\right)={\left(T{w}_{i},I{w}_{i},F{w}_{i}\right)}_{lXm}\) of the attributes \(\left(T{g}_{j},I{g}_{j},F{g}_{j}\right)\) which can be obtained in advance. Then we use the neutrosophic Bonferroni mean to solve the group decision making of multi attributes, which can be given in Algorithm 1.
Algorithm 1:
Step 1: Convert the given problem attributes into a neutrosophic trapezoidal or triangular member. |
Step 2: With the help of neutrosophic collective decision matrix \(\left(T\mathcal{R},I\mathcal{R},F\mathcal{R}\right)={\left(T{A}_{ij},{IA}_{ij},F{A}_{ij}\right)}_{nXm}\) and the neutrosophic weight vector \(\left(Tw,Iw,Fw\right)={\left(T{w}_{i},I{w}_{i},F{w}_{i}\right)}_{lXm}\) The neutrosophic weighted Bonferroni mean is given by \(\left(T{d}_{k},I{d}_{k},F{d}_{k}\right)={NWBM}_{w}^{(s,t)}\left(\left(T{N}_{k,1},I{N}_{k,1},F{N}_{k,1}\right),\left(T{N}_{k,2},I{N}_{k,2},F{N}_{k,2}\right),\dots ,\left(T{N}_{k,n},I{N}_{k,n},F{N}_{k,m}\right)\right)=\left(\frac{1}{s+t}{\left({\otimes }_{\begin{array}{c}i,j=1\\ i\ne j\end{array}}^{m}\left(s{\left(T{N}_{ki}\right)}^{{w}_{i}}\oplus t{\left(T{N}_{kj}\right)}^{{w}_{j}}\right)\right)}^{\frac{1}{m(m-1)}},\frac{1}{s+t}{\left({\otimes }_{\begin{array}{c}i,j=1\\ i\ne j\end{array}}^{m}\left(s{\left(I{N}_{ki}\right)}^{{w}_{i}}\oplus t{\left(I{N}_{kj}\right)}^{{w}_{j}}\right)\right)}^{\frac{1}{m(m-1)}}, \frac{1}{s+t}{\left({\otimes }_{\begin{array}{c}i,j=1\\ i\ne j\end{array}}^{m}\left(s{\left(F{N}_{ki}\right)}^{{w}_{i}}\oplus t{\left(F{N}_{kj}\right)}^{{w}_{j}}\right)\right)}^{\frac{1}{m(m-1)}}\right) \quad \quad \quad (14)\) where \(\left(k=\mathrm{1,2},\dots ,n\right)\) and \(s=t=1\). |
Step 3: Use additive and multiplicative operation to determine the neutrosophic lower and upper mean value is given as \(\left(T\widetilde{M}\left({d}_{k}\right),I\widetilde{M}\left({d}_{k}\right),F \widetilde{M}\left({d}_{k}\right)\right)\) |
Step 4: Use scalar multiplicative to determine the value of possibility neutrosophic degree, \(\left(p\left({TN}_{i}\succcurlyeq {TN}_{j}\right),p\left({IN}_{i}\succcurlyeq {IN}_{j}\right),p\left(F{N}_{i}\succcurlyeq {FN}_{j}\right)\right), i=\mathrm{1,2},3 \;\; and \;\; j=\mathrm{1,2},3\). |
Step 5: Then find the neutrosophic preference matrix \(\left(TP,IP,FP\right)\) using (10). |
Step 6: Find the neutrosophic ranking value \(\mathcal{R}\left(T{N}_{i},I{N}_{i},F{N}_{i}\right)\) using (11). |
Step 7: Finally using (2), the rank of the alternatives \(\mathcal{R}({N}_{i})\) is obtained. |
Step 8: The ranking of alternatives will be given in the descending order. |
Step 9: Comparison with the previous results. |
Illustrative example
- Step 1::
-
Consider the problem given in Gong et al.27; first, the given problem will be fully defined as a neutrosophic trapezoidal or triangular member. In this section, we give an example to solve the problem of group decision-making of multi attributes. Table 1 will give the neutrosophic linguistic terms “Very Small” (VS), “Small” (S), “Intermediate Small” (IS), “Intermediate” (I), “Intermediate Large” (IL), “Large” (L), “Very Large.”
Here the problem deals with the manufacturing company, which is searching for the best supplier for assembling the critical parts. In this problem, there are three suppliers \({y}_{1},{y}_{2},{y}_{3}\) with the four attributes (\({g}_{1}:\) product quality, \({g}_{2}:\) factors risk, \({g}_{3}:\) Supplier service performance, \({g}_{4}:\) profile of the supplier) whose corresponding neutrosophic weight vector is given by \(\left(T{w}_{i},I{w}_{i},F{w}_{i}\right)=\left(((\mathrm{0.21,0.06,0.03}),(\mathrm{0.105,0.03,0.015}),(\mathrm{0.14,0.04,0.02}),(\mathrm{0.245,0.07,0.035}))\right)\). A group is formed with expert members, with three members say \({D}_{1},{D}_{2}\) and \({D}_{3}\) an weight vectors \(\left(T{\lambda }_{i},I{\lambda }_{i},F{\lambda }_{i}\right)=\left((\mathrm{0.21,0.06,0.03}),(\mathrm{0.315,0.09,0.045}),(\mathrm{0.175,0.05,0.025})\right)\) in each decision area. With the help of the different attributes \({g}_{i}, (i=\mathrm{1,2},\mathrm{3,4})\) to the global suppliers \({y}_{1, }{y}_{2},{y}_{3}\) potential, the uses of linguistic terms by the experts \({D}_{1},{D}_{2}\) and \({D}_{3}\) is shown in Table 2.
Here all the attributes are considered to benefit attributes except factors risk \(\left({g}_{2}\right)\) by using Eq. (14) and Tables 2 and 3 is obtained by normalizing it.
Using Table 1, the individual normalized neutrosophic members were aggregated into the normalized neutrosophic decision matrix \(\left(T{\mathcal{R}}^{k},I{\mathcal{R}}^{k},F{\mathcal{R}}^{k}\right)={\left(T{A}_{ij}^{k},{IA}_{ij}^{k},F{A}_{ij}^{k}\right)}_{3X4}(k=\mathrm{1,2},3)\) into the collective neutrosophic matrices \(\left(T\mathcal{R},I\mathcal{R},F\mathcal{R}\right)={\left(T{A}_{ij},{IA}_{ij},F{A}_{ij}\right)}_{3X4}\) which is given as follows,
$$\left(T\mathcal{R},I\mathcal{R},F\mathcal{R}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\left(T{A}_{11},{IA}_{11},F{A}_{11}\right)& \left(T{A}_{12},{IA}_{12},F{A}_{12}\right)& \begin{array}{cc}\left(T{A}_{13},{IA}_{13},F{A}_{13}\right)& \left(T{A}_{14},{IA}_{14},F{A}_{14}\right)\end{array}\\ \left(T{A}_{21},{IA}_{21},F{A}_{21}\right)& \left(T{A}_{22},{IA}_{22},F{A}_{22}\right)& \begin{array}{cc}\left(T{A}_{23},{IA}_{23},F{A}_{23}\right)& \left(T{A}_{24},{IA}_{24},F{A}_{24}\right)\end{array}\\ \left(T{A}_{31},{IA}_{31},F{A}_{31}\right)& \left(T{A}_{32},{IA}_{32},F{A}_{32}\right)& \begin{array}{cc}\left(T{A}_{33},{IA}_{33},F{A}_{33}\right)& \left(T{A}_{34},{IA}_{34},F{A}_{34}\right)\end{array}\end{array}\right)$$ - Step 2::
-
By taking \(s=t=1\). Using Eq. (14), the neutrosophic weighted Bonferroni mean is given by the following value:
$$\left(T{d}_{1},I{d}_{1},F{d}_{1}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\left(\left(\mathrm{0.86,0.75,0.73}\right),\left(\mathrm{1.17,1.05,1.03}\right),\left(\mathrm{1.17,1.05,1.03}\right),\left(\mathrm{1.19,1.06,1.03}\right),\left(\mathrm{1.2,1.06,1.03}\right)\left(\mathrm{1.2,1.06,1.03}\right)\right),\\ \left((\mathrm{1.16,1.05,1.03}),(\mathrm{1.17,1.05,1.03}),(1.17,\mathrm{1.05,1.03}),(\mathrm{1.18,1.05,1.03}),(\mathrm{1.2,1.06,1.03})(\mathrm{1.2,1.06,1.03})\right)\end{array}\right)$$$$\left(T{d}_{2},I{d}_{2},F{d}_{2}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\left(\left(\mathrm{1.14,1.05,1.03}\right),\left(\mathrm{1.17,1.05,1.03}\right),\left(\mathrm{1.17,1.05,1.03}\right),\left(\mathrm{1.19,1.06,1.03}\right),\left(\mathrm{1.2,1.06,1.03}\right)\left(\mathrm{1.2,1.06,1.03}\right)\right),\\ \left((\mathrm{1.16,1.05,1.03}),(\mathrm{1.17,1.05,1.03}),(\mathrm{1.17,1.05,1.03}),(\mathrm{1.19,1.06,1.03}),(\mathrm{1.2,1.06,1.03})(\mathrm{1.2,1.06,1.03})\right)\end{array}\right)$$$$\left(T{d}_{3},I{d}_{3},F{d}_{3}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\left(\left(\mathrm{0.85,0.75,0.73}\right),\left(\mathrm{1.15,1.05,1.03}\right),\left(\mathrm{1.15,1.05,1.03}\right),\left(\mathrm{1.19,1.05,1.03}\right),\left(\mathrm{1.2,1.06,1.03}\right)\left(\mathrm{1.2,1.06,1.03}\right)\right),\\ \left((\mathrm{1.15,1.05,1.03}),(\mathrm{1.15,1.05,1.03}),(\mathrm{1.15,1.05,1.03}),(\mathrm{1.18,1.05,1.03}),(\mathrm{1.2,1.06,1.03})(\mathrm{1.2,1.06,1.03})\right)\end{array}\right)$$ - Step 3::
-
By using Eqs. (3) and (4), neutrosophic lower and upper mean value is given as
$$\left(T\widetilde{M}\left({d}_{1}\right),I\widetilde{M}\left({d}_{1}\right),F \widetilde{M}\left({d}_{1}\right)\right)=\left((\mathrm{0.440,0.422,0.377}),(\mathrm{0.222,0.197,0})\right)$$$$\left(T\widetilde{M}\left({d}_{2}\right),I\widetilde{M}\left({d}_{2}\right),F \widetilde{M}\left({d}_{2}\right)\right)=\left((\mathrm{0.441,0.422,0.377}),(\mathrm{0.222,0.197,0})\right)$$$$\left(T\widetilde{M}\left({d}_{3}\right),I\widetilde{M}\left({d}_{3}\right),F \widetilde{M}\left({d}_{3}\right)\right)=\left((\mathrm{0.444,0.417,0.375}),(\mathrm{0.215,0.195,0})\right)$$ - Step 4::
-
Then use (5) to determine the value of possibility neutrosophic degree is given as follows:
$$\left(p\left({TN}_{1}\succcurlyeq {TN}_{1}\right),p\left({IN}_{1}\succcurlyeq {IN}_{1}\right),p\left(F{N}_{1}\succcurlyeq {FN}_{1}\right)\right)=\left(\mathrm{0.5,0.5,0.5}\right).$$$$\left(p\left({TN}_{1}\succcurlyeq {TN}_{2}\right),p\left({IN}_{1}\succcurlyeq {IN}_{2}\right),p\left(F{N}_{1}\succcurlyeq {FN}_{2}\right)\right)=(\mathrm{0.4987,0.5002,0.5})$$$$\left(p\left({TN}_{1}\succcurlyeq {TN}_{3}\right),p\left({IN}_{1}\succcurlyeq {IN}_{3}\right),p\left(F{N}_{1}\succcurlyeq {FN}_{3}\right)\right)=(\mathrm{0.5036,0.5083,0.5016})$$$$\left(p\left({TN}_{2}\succcurlyeq {TN}_{1}\right),p\left({IN}_{2}\succcurlyeq {IN}_{1}\right),p\left(F{N}_{2}\succcurlyeq {FN}_{1}\right)\right)=\left(\mathrm{0.5013,0.4998,0.49997}\right)$$$$\left(p\left({TN}_{2}\succcurlyeq {TN}_{2}\right),p\left({IN}_{2}\succcurlyeq {IN}_{2}\right),p\left(F{N}_{2}\succcurlyeq {FN}_{2}\right)\right)=(\mathrm{0.5,0.5,0.5})$$$$\left(p\left({TN}_{2}\succcurlyeq {TN}_{3}\right),p\left({IN}_{2}\succcurlyeq {IN}_{3}\right),p\left(F{N}_{2}\succcurlyeq {FN}_{3}\right)\right)=\left(\mathrm{0.5048,0.5081,0.5016}\right)$$$$\left(p\left({TN}_{3}\succcurlyeq {TN}_{1}\right),p\left({IN}_{3}\succcurlyeq {IN}_{1}\right),p\left(F{N}_{3}\succcurlyeq {FN}_{1}\right)\right)=(\mathrm{0.4964,0.4917,0.4984})$$$$\left(p\left({TN}_{3}\succcurlyeq {TN}_{2}\right),p\left({IN}_{3}\succcurlyeq {IN}_{2}\right),p\left(F{N}_{3}\succcurlyeq {FN}_{2}\right)\right)=(\mathrm{0.4952,0.4919,0.4984})$$$$\left(p\left({TN}_{3}\succcurlyeq {TN}_{3}\right),p\left({IN}_{3}\succcurlyeq {IN}_{3}\right),p\left(F{N}_{3}\succcurlyeq {FN}_{3}\right)\right)=(\mathrm{0.5,0.5,0.5})$$ - Step 5::
-
Then find the neutrosophic preference matrix \(\left(TP,IP,FP\right)\) using (10) which is:
$$\left(TP,IP,FP\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(\mathrm{0.5,0.5,0.5})& (\mathrm{0.4987,0.5002,0.5})& (\mathrm{0.5036,0.5083,0.5016})\\ (\mathrm{0.5013,0.4998,0.49997})& (\mathrm{0.5,0.5,0.5})& (\mathrm{0.5048,0.5081,0.5016})\\ (\mathrm{0.4964,0.4917,0.4984})& (\mathrm{0.4952,0.4919,0.4984})& (\mathrm{0.5,0.5,0.5})\end{array}\right)$$ - Step 6::
-
By using Eq. (11) the neutrosophic ranking value \(\mathcal{R}\left(T{d}_{i},I{d}_{i},F{d}_{i}\right)\) is:
$$\mathcal{R}\left(T{d}_{1},I{d}_{1},F{d}_{1}\right)=\left(\mathrm{1.1227,1.1233,1.1226}\right)$$$$\mathcal{R}\left(T{d}_{2},I{d}_{2},F{d}_{2}\right)=(\mathrm{1.1230,1.1232,1.1226})$$$$\mathcal{R}\left(T{d}_{3},I{d}_{3},F{d}_{3}\right)=(\mathrm{1.1217,1.1209,1.1222})$$ - Step 7::
-
Finally using (2), the rank of the alternatives \(\mathcal{R}({d}_{i})\) are obtained as
$$\mathcal{R}\left({d}_{1}\right)=5.5517,\mathcal{R}\left({d}_{2}\right)=5.5533,\mathcal{R}\left({d}_{3}\right)=5.5481.$$ - Step 8::
-
The ranking will be given in the descending order \(\mathcal{R}\left({d}_{2}\right)=5.5533>\mathcal{R}\left({d}_{1}\right)=5.5517>\mathcal{R}\left({d}_{3}\right)=5.5481\), therefore, the order will be given to \({y}_{2}\) has first preference. For this the proposed method does not have any complication in the calculation of identifying the best supplier.
- Step 9::
-
Now we will give a comparative study with the previous methods in Table 4. Even though the ranking order is the same as the previous methods, the proposed method will overcome the drawbacks of the previous methods. For the same problem, method 1 has the disadvantage of calculating the upper and lower value of the preference matrix, but in the proposed method, it was calculated simultaneously. Similarly, the possibility degree is also calculated twice in method 1, whereas it was a single calculation in the proposed method. In method 2, the computation of the possibility degree value is complicated, whereas, in the proposed method, it is simpler to calculate. Here TITRWAA operator is used in method 2, which is comparatively lengthier than the proposed method. Hence it is better than the previous method. In method 3, it failed to apply to other types of decision-making problems, such as choice in investment making, problems without the information of the weights of the attributes the decision-makers will provide. However, we can apply the neutrosophic formula to the above situations in the proposed method.
Conclusion
The conventional Bonferroni mean operator and possibility degree have been extended to the trapezoidal and triangular neutrosophic environment to better organize and model the uncertainties and indeterminacy inside multi-attribute decision analysis. In FMAGDM, the neutrosophic Bonferroni operator can aggregate individual preferences or evaluations of multiple decision-makers. Neutrosophic environments, as opposed to trapezoidal and triangular ones, can convey the decision-makers' uncertainty, indeterminacy, and ambiguity. We have introduced a novel approach for NMAGDM based on the neutrosophic possibility degree and the TITRNWBM operator. We also offer numerical examples to show how the proposed method's NMAGDM process works for a manufacturing company searching for the best supplier for assembling the critical parts. The outcome demonstrates that the suggested approach gives us a practical means of resolving NMAGDM issues based on trapezoidal and triangular neutrosophic environments. Future work will apply the proposed techniques to other decision-making issues involving Plithogenic environments.
Data availability
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.
Abbreviations
- NMAGDM:
-
Neutrosophic Multi-Attribute Group Decision Making
- DMs:
-
Decision makers
- TITENBM:
-
Trapezoidal and triangular neutrosophic Bonferroni mean
- TITRNWBM:
-
Trapezoidal and triangular neutrosophic weighted Bonferroni mean
- FMAGDM:
-
Fuzzy multi-attributes group decision-making
- TITRWAA:
-
Trapezoidal and triangular neutrosophic weighted arithmetic
- TOPSIS:
-
The Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution
References
Chen, C. T. Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 114, 1–9 (2000).
Chen, S. M. Fuzzy group decision making for evaluating the rate of aggregative risk in software development. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 118, 75–88 (2001).
Wang, J. & Lin, Y. I. A fuzzy multi-criteria group decision making approach to select configuration items for software development. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 134, 343–363 (2003).
Li, D. F. A fuzzy closeness approach to fuzzy multi-attribute decision making. Fuzzy Optim. Decis. Mak. 6, 237–254 (2007).
Wu, Z. & Chen, Y. The maximizing deviation method for group multiple attribute decision making under linguistic environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 158, 1608–1617 (2007).
Xu, Z. S. An interactive procedure for linguistic multiple attribute decision making with in complete weight information. Fuzzy Optim. Decis. Mak. 6, 17–27 (2007).
Lin, C. J. & Wu, W. A causal analytical method for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst. Appl. 34, 205–213 (2008).
Tsai, M. J. & Wang, C. S. A computing coordination based fuzzy group decision-making for web service oriented architecture. Expert Syst. Appl. 34, 2921–2936 (2008).
Fan, Z. P. & Liu, Y. A method for group decision-making based on multigranularity uncertain linguistic information. Expert Syst. Appl. 37, 4000–4008 (2010).
Li, D. F. A new methodology for fuzzy multi-attribute group decision making with multi-granularity and non-homogeneous information. Fuzzy Optim. Decis. Mak. 9, 83–103 (2010).
Zadeh, L. The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning, Part 1. Inf. Sci. 8, 199–249 (1975).
Wu, D. R. & Mendel, J. M. Aggregation using the linguistic weighted average and intervaltype-2 fuzzy sets. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 15, 1145–1161 (2007).
Mendel, J. M., John, R. I. & Liu, F. Interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems made simple. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 14, 808–821 (2006).
Mendel, J. M. Uncertain Rule-Based Fuzzy Logic Systems: Introduction and New Directions (Prentice-Hall, 2001).
Mendel, J. M. & Wu, H. W. Type-2 fuzzistics for symmetric interval type-2 fuzzy sets: Part 1, forward problems. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 14, 781–792 (2006).
Mendel, J. M. & Wu, H. W. Type-2 fuzzistics for symmetric interval type-2 fuzzy sets: Part 2, inverse problems. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 15, 301–308 (2007).
Wu, D. R. & Mendel, J. M. A vector similarity measure for linguistic approximation: Intervaltype-2 and type-1 fuzzy sets. Inf. Sci. 178, 381–402 (2008).
Wu, D. R. & Mendel, J. M. A comparative study of ranking methods, similarity measures and uncertainty measures for interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Inf. Sci. 179, 1169–1192 (2009).
Wu, D. R. & Mendel, J. M. Corrections to aggregation using the linguistic weighted average and interval type-2 fuzzy sets. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 16, 1664–1666 (2008).
Chen, S. M. & Lee, L. W. Fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on the ranking values and the arithmetic operations of interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Expert Syst. Appl. 37, 824–833 (2010).
Chen, S. M. & Lee, L. W. Fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on the interval type-2 TOPSIS method. Expert Syst. Appl. 37, 2790–2798 (2010).
Wang, W. Z. & Liu, X. W. Multi-attribute group decision making models under interval type-2 fuzzy environment. Knowl.-Based Syst. 30, 121–128 (2012).
Chen, S. M. & Yang, M. W. Fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on ranking interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Expert Syst. Appl. 39, 5295–5308 (2012).
Zhang, Z. M. & Zhang, S. H. A novel approach to multi attribute group decision making based on trapezoidal interval type-2 fuzzy soft sets. Appl. Math. Model. 37, 4948–4971 (2013).
Hu, J. H., Zhang, Y., Chen, X. H. & Liu, Y. M. Multi-criteria decision-making method based on possibility degree of interval type-2 fuzzy number. Knowl.-Based Syst. 43, 21–29 (2013).
Bonferroni, C. Sullemedie multiple di potenze. Bollettinodell’Unione MatematicaItaliana 5, 267–270 (1950).
Gong, Y., Hu, N., Zhang, J., Liu, G. & Deng, J. Multi-attribute group decision making method based on geometric Bonferroni mean operator of trapezoidal interval type-2 fuzzy numbers. Comput. Ind. Eng. 81, 167–176 (2015).
Peng, X. & Smarandache, F. Novel neutrosophic Dombi Bonferroni mean operators with mobile cloud computing industry evaluation. Expert. Syst. 36(4), e12411 (2019).
Awang, A., Aizam, N. A. H., Ab Ghani, A. T., Othman, M. & Abdullah, L. A normalized weighted Bonferroni mean aggregation operator considering Shapely fuzzy measure under interval-valued neutrosophic environment for decision-making. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 22, 321–336 (2020).
Banerjee, D., Dutta, B., Guha, D. & Goh, M. Constructing interval-valued generalized partitioned Bonferroni mean operator with several extensions for MAGDM. Neural Comput. Appl. 32, 13537–13564 (2020).
Deli, I. Bonferroni mean operators of generalized trapezoidal hesitant fuzzy numbers and their application to decision-making problems. Soft. Comput. 25, 4925–4949 (2021).
Mahmood, T., Ahsen, M. & Ali, Z. Multi-attribute group decision-making based on Bonferroni mean operators for picture hesitant fuzzy numbers. Soft. Comput. 25, 13315–13351 (2021).
Ali, Z., Mahmood, T., Gwak, J. & Jan, N. A novel extended Portuguese of interactive and multi-criteria decision making and Archimedean Bonferroni mean operators based on prospect theory to select green supplier with complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy information. CAAI Trans. Intell. Technol. 8(1), 177–191 (2023).
Chakraborty, S. & Saha, A. K. Novel Fermatean fuzzy Bonferroni mean aggregation operators for selecting optimal health care waste treatment technology. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 119, 105752 (2023).
Smarandache, F. A Unifying Felid in Logic. Neutrosophy: Neutrosophic Probability, Set, Logic 4th edn. (American Research Press, 2005).
Wang, H., Smarandache, F., Zhang, Y. & Sunderraman, R. Single valued neutrosophic sets. Multiset Multistructure 4, 410–413 (2010).
Bonferroni, C. Sulle medie multiple di potenze. Bollettino dell’Unione Matematica Italiana 5, 267–270 (1950).
Yager, R. R. On generalized Bonferroni mean operators for multi-criteria aggregation. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 50, 1279–1286 (2009).
Beliakov, G., James, S., Mordelova, J., Ruckschlossova, T. & Yager, R. R. Generalized Bonferroni mean operators in multi-criteria aggregation. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 161, 2227–2242 (2010).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors have contributed to this research equally.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Nagarajan, D., Kanchana, A., Jacob, K. et al. A novel approach based on neutrosophic Bonferroni mean operator of trapezoidal and triangular neutrosophic interval environments in multi-attribute group decision making. Sci Rep 13, 10455 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-37497-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-37497-z
- Springer Nature Limited
This article is cited by
-
Group decision making in the analytic hierarchy process by hesitant fuzzy numbers
Scientific Reports (2023)
-
Vikor method based on the entropy measure for generalized trapezoidal hesitant fuzzy numbers and its application
Soft Computing (2023)