Advertisement

A Novel Trapezoidal Bipolar Fuzzy TOPSIS Method for Group Decision-Making

  • Muhammad Akram
  • Maham Arshad
Article

Abstract

In this research article, the notions of bipolar fuzzy numbers, trapezoidal bipolar fuzzy numbers, triangular bipolar fuzzy numbers and bipolar fuzzy linguistic variables are introduced. Ranking function on the set of all bipolar fuzzy numbers, and the expressions for the ranking of trapezoidal and triangular bipolar fuzzy numbers are derived. A group decision making method based on trapezoidal bipolar fuzzy TOPSIS method is proposed, and the implementation of the proposed method in the selection of best project proposal is presented. Finally, a theoretical comparison of the proposed trapezoidal bipolar fuzzy TOPSIS method with other multi-criteria decision making methods such as TOPSIS, bipolar fuzzy TOPSIS and bipolar fuzzy ELECTRE I is discussed.

Keywords

Bipolar fuzzy numbers Trapezoidal bipolar fuzzy numbers Triangular bipolar fuzzy numbers Bipolar fuzzy linguistic values Trapezoidal bipolar fuzzy TOPSIS 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are highly thankful to the Associate Editor, and the anonymous referees for their valuable comments and suggestions.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest regarding the publication of the research article.

References

  1. Akram M (2011) Bipolar fuzzy graphs. Inf Sci 181:5548–5564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akram M (2013) Bipolar fuzzy graphs with applications. Knowl Based Syst 39:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akram M, Alshehri NO, Davvaz B, Ashraf A (2016) Bipolar fuzzy digraphs in decision support systems. J Mult Valued Log Soft Comput 27(5–6):531–551Google Scholar
  4. Akram M, Adeel A (2016) m-Polar fuzzy labeling graphs with application. Math Comput Sci 10(3):387–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Akram M, Adeel A, Alcantud JCR (2019) Group decision-making methods based on hesitant \(N\)-soft sets. Expert Syst Appl 115:95–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Akram M, Feng F, Borumand Saeid A, Fotea V (2017) A new multiple criteria decision-making method based on bipolar fuzzy soft graphs. Iran J Fuzzy Syst 15(4):73–92Google Scholar
  7. Akram M, Waseem N (2018) Novel applications of bipolar fuzzy graphs to decision making problems. J Appl Math Comput 56(1–2):73–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Alghamdi MA, Alshehri NO, Akram M (2018) Multi-criteria decision-making methods in bipolar fuzzy environment. Int J Fuzzy Syst 20(6):2057–2064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bellman RE, Zadeh LA (1970) Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Manag Sci 4(17):141–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Benayoun R, Roy B, Sussman N (1966) Manual de Reference du Programme Electre. Note de Synthese et Formation, No. 25 Direction Scientific SEMA Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  11. Boran FE, Gen S, Kurt M, Akay D (2009) A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method. Expert Syst Appl 36(8):11363–11368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burillo P, Bustince H, Mohedano V (1994) Some definition of intuitionistic fuzzy number. Fuzzy based expert systems, fuzzy Bulgarian enthusiasts, Sofia, Bulgaria, 28–30Google Scholar
  13. Chang SS, Zadeh LA (1972) On fuzzy mapping and control. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 2(1):30–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen CT (2000) Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 1(114):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen TY, Tsao CY (2008) The interval-valued fuzzy TOPSIS method and experimental analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst 159(11):1410–1428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chu TC (2002) Selecting plant location via a fuzzy TOPSIS approach. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 20(11):859–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chu TC (2002) Facility location selection using fuzzy TOPSIS under group decisions. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 10(6):687–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dey PP, Pramanik S, Giri BC (2016) TOPSIS for solving multi-attribute decision making problems under bipolar neutrosophic environment. In: Smarandache F, Pramanik S (eds) New trends in neutrosophic theory and applications. Pons Editions, Brussels, pp 65–77Google Scholar
  19. Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Methods for multiple attribute decision-making. In: Fandel G, Trockel W (eds) Multiple attribute decision making. Springer, Berlin, pp 58–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Joshi D, Kumar S (2014) Intuitionistic fuzzy entropy and distance measure based TOPSIS method for multi-criteria decision making. Egypt Inf J 15:97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lee KM (2000) Bipolar-valued fuzzy sets and their operations. In: Proceheeding the international conference on intelligent technologies, Bangkok, Thailand, pp 307–312Google Scholar
  22. Li DF, Nan JX (2011) Extension of the TOPSIS for muti-attribute group decision making under atanassov IFS environments. Int J Fuzzy Syst Appl 1(4):47–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Roszkowska E, Wachowicz T (2015) Application of fuzzy TOPSIS to scoring the negotiation offers in ill-structured negotiation problems. Eur J Oper Res 242(3):920–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Roszkowska E (2011) Multi-criteria decision making models by applying the TOPSIS method to crisp and interval data. Mult Crit Decis Mak Univ Econ Katow 6:200–230Google Scholar
  25. Sarwar M, Akram M (2017a) Novel concepts of bipolar fuzzy competition graphs. J Appl Math Comput 54:511–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sarwar M, Akram M (2017b) Certain algorithms for computing strength of competition in bipolar fuzzy graphs. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 25(6):877–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Selvachandran G, Salleh AR (2014) Intuitionistic fuzzy linguistic variables and intuitionistic fuzzy hedges. Far East J Math Sci 95(2):221–233Google Scholar
  28. Xia M, Xu Z, Chen N (2013) Some hesitant fuzzy aggregation operators with their application in group decision making. Group Decis Negot 22:259–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zadeh LA (1975a) Fuzzy logic and approximate reasoning. Synthese 30(3–4):407–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zadeh LA (1975b) The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning-I. Inf Sci 8(3):199–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhang WR (1994) Bipolar fuzzy sets and relations. A computational framework for cognitive modeling and multiagent decision analysis. In: Proceedings of IEEE conference fuzzy information processing society biannual conference, pp 305–309Google Scholar
  33. Zhang WR (1996) NPN fuzzy sets and NPN qualitative algebra: A computational framework for bipolar cognitive modeling and multiagerit decision analysis. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernet Part B Cybern 26(4):561–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhang WR (1998) Bipolar fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Syste Proc IEEE World Congr Comput Intell 1:835–840Google Scholar
  35. Zhang Y, Li KW, Wang ZJ (2017) Prioritization and aggregation of intuitionistic preference relations: a multiplicative-transitivity-based transformation from intuitionistic judgment data to priority weights. Group Decis Negot 26:409–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsUniversity of the PunjabLahorePakistan

Personalised recommendations