Shortest path problem using Bellman algorithm under neutrosophic environment

  • Said BroumiEmail author
  • Arindam Dey
  • Mohamed Talea
  • Assia Bakali
  • Florentin Smarandache
  • Deivanayagampillai Nagarajan
  • Malayalan Lathamaheswari
  • Ranjan Kumar
Open Access
Original Article


An elongation of the single-valued neutrosophic set is an interval-valued neutrosophic set. It has been demonstrated to deal indeterminacy in a decision-making problem. Real-world problems have some kind of uncertainty in nature and among them; one of the influential problems is solving the shortest path problem (SPP) in interconnections. In this contribution, we consider SPP through Bellman’s algorithm for a network using interval-valued neutrosophic numbers (IVNNs). We proposed a novel algorithm to obtain the neutrosophic shortest path between each pair of nodes. Length of all the edges is accredited an IVNN. Moreover, for the validation of the proposed algorithm, a numerical example has been offered. Also, a comparative analysis has been done with the existing methods which exhibit the advantages of the new algorithm.


Interval-valued neutrosophic numbers Ranking methods Shortest path problem Bellman’s algorithm Directed graph network 

Introduction and review of the literature

A tool which represents the partnership or relationship function is called a Fuzzy Set (FS) and handles the real-world problems in which generally some type of uncertainty exists [1]. This concept was generalized by Atanassov [2] to intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS) which is determined in terms of membership (MS) and non-membership (NMS) functions, the characteristic functions of the set. Beside this, several theories have been developed for uncertainties, including generalized orthopair FSs [3], Pythagorean FSs [4], picture FSs [5], hesitant interval-based neutrosophic linguistic sets [6], N-valued interval neutrosophic sets (NVINSs) [7], generalized interval-valued triangular intuitionistic FSs [8], interval-valued trapezoidal intuitionistic FSs [9], interval-valued Pythagorean FSs [10], interval-valued IFSs [11], and interval type 2 FSs [12].

In 1995, Smarandache [13] premises the theme of neutrosophic sets (NS). The NS is to be a set of elements having a membership degree, indeterminate membership and also non-membership with the criterion less than or equal to 3. The neutrosophic number is an exceptional type of neutrosophic sets that extend the domain of numbers from those of real numbers to neutrosophic numbers. By generalizing SVNSs [14], Wang et al. premised the idea of IVNS. The IVNS [15] is a more general database to generalize the concept of different types of sets to express membership degrees’ truth, indeterminacy, and a false degree in terms of intervals. Thus, several papers are published in the field of fuzzy and neutrosophic sets [46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62].

Harish [16] proposed and analyzed an extension of the score function by incorporating hesitance. The authors presented an algorithm for the function including qualitative examples. Jun et al. [17] discuss INSs in algebra of BCK/BCI. Mehmet [18] put forward for analyzing the concept of the interval cut set (ICS) and strong ICS (α, β, γ) of IVNSs with proof and examples. Also, there are other several extensions of NSs described in the literature including interval-valued bipolar neutrosophic sets [19], hesitant interval neutrosophic linguistic set [20], and interval neutrosophic hesitant fuzzy sets [21]; for more details of neutrosophic set and their extensions, we refer the reader to [22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28].

Among humanistic problems of computer science, finding the shortest path is one of the significant problems. Many of the algorithms existing for optimization assumed the edge weights as the absolute real numbers. Despite this, we need to deal inexplicit parameters such as scope, costs, time and requirements in real-world problems. For example, a substantial length of any road is permanent; still, traveling time along the road varies according to weather and traffic conditions. An uncertain fact of those cases directs us to adopt fuzzy logic, fuzzy numbers, intuitionistic fuzzy and so on. The SPP using fuzzy numbers is called fuzzy shortest path problem (FSPP). Several researchers are paying attention in fuzzy shortest path (FSP) and intuitionistic FSP algorithms.

Das and De [29] employed Bellman dynamic programming problem for solving FSP based on value and ambiguity of trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. De and Bhincher [30] have studied the FSP in a network under triangular fuzzy number (TFN) and trapezoidal fuzzy number (TpFN) using two approaches such as influential programming of Bellman and linear programming with multi-objective. Kumar et al. [31] proposed a model to find the SP of the network under intuitionistic trapezoidal fuzzy number based on interval value. Meenakshi and Kaliraja [32] formulated interval-valued FSPP for interval-valued type and developed a technique to solve SPP.

Elizabeth and Sujatha [33] solved FSPP using interval-valued fuzzy matrices. Based on traditional Dijkstra algorithm, Enayattabar et al. [34] solved SPP in the interval-valued pythagorean fuzzy setting. Dey et al. [35] formulated fuzzy shortest path problem with interval type 2 fuzzy numbers. But, if the indeterminate information has appeared, all these kinds of shortest path problems failed. For this reason, some new approaches have been developed using neutrosophic numbers. Then neutrosophic shortest path was first developed by Broumi et al. [36]. The authors in [36] constructed an extension of Dijkstra algorithm to solve neutrosophic SPP. Then they used the extended version to treat the NSPP where the edge weight is characterized by IVNNs [37].

Broumi et al. [38, 39, 40] first introduced a technique of finding SP under SV-trapezoidal and triangular fuzzy neutrosophic environment. In [41], the authors proposed another approach to solve SPP on a network using trapezoidal neutrosophic numbers. Broumi et al. [42] developed a new algorithm to solve SPP using bipolar neutrosophic setting. In another paper, Broumi et al. [43] discussed an algorithmic approach based on a score function defined in [44] for solving NSPP on a network with IVNN as the edges. Liu and You proposed interval neutrosophic Muirhead mean operators and their applications in multiple-attribute group decision-making [45]. Thus, several papers are published in the field of neutrosophic sets [46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55]. Table 1 summarizes some contributions towards NSPP. Based on the idea of Bellman’s algorithm, SPP is solved for fuzzy network [29, 30, 31, 32]. This algorithm is not applied yet on neutrosophic network. Therefore, there is a need to establish a neutrosophic version of Bellman’s algorithm for neutrosophic shortest path problems.
Table 1

Authors’ contributions towards neutrosophic shortest path problem

Author and references



Broumi et al. [36]


Solved NSPP using Dijkstra algorithm

Broumi et al. [37]


Solved NSPP for interval-based data using Dijkstra algorithm

Broumi et al. [38]


Discovered the SP using SV-TpNNs

Broumi et al. [40]


Worked out SPP using single-valued neutrosophic graphs

Broumi et al. [41]


Solved SPP under neutrosophic setting as well as trapezoidal fuzzy

Broumi et al. [42]


Solved SPP under bipolar neutrosophic environment.

Broumi et al. [43]


Dealt SPP under interval-valued neutrosophic setting

Broumi et al. [44]


Proposed maximizing deviation method with partial weight in a decision-making problem under the neutrosophic environment

This paper

Introduction of the neutrosophic version of a Bellman’s algorithm

IVN interval-valued neutrosophic, PA proposed algorithm

The main motivation of this study is to introduce an algorithmic approach for SPP in an uncertain environment which will be simple enough and effective in real-life problem. The main contributions of this paper are as follows.
  • We concentrate on a NSP on a neutrosophic graph in which an IVNN, instead of a real number/fuzzy number, is assigned to each arc length.

  • A modified Bellman’s algorithm is introduced to deal the shortest path problem in an uncertain environment.

  • Based on the idea discussed in [15], we use an addition operation for adding the IVNNs corresponding to the edge weights present in the path. It is used to find the path length between source and destination nodes. We also use a ranking method to choose the shortest path associated with the lowest value of rank.

In this work, we are motivated to solve SPP by introducing a new version of BA where the edge weight is represented by IVNNs. The remaining part of the paper is presented as follows. The next section contains a few of the ideas and theories as overview of interval neutrosophic set followed by which the Bellman algorithm is discussed. In the subsequent section, an analytical illustration is presented, where our algorithm is applied. Then contingent study has been done with existing methods. Before the concluding section, advantages of the proposed algorithm are presented. Finally, conclusive observations are given.

Overview on interval-valued neutrosophic set

In this part, we recall few primary notions pertaining to NSs, SVNSs, IVNSs and some existing ranking functions for IVNNs which are the background of this study and will help us to further research.

Definition 1 [13]

Let X be a set of elements and its universal elements denoted by x; we define the neutrosophic set A (NS A) by A = {< x: \( T_{A} (x) \), \( {I_{A}} (x) \), \( {F_{A}} {(x)} \) > , x \( \in \) X}, where the functions T, I, F: X → ]0,1+[ are called the truth, indeterminate and false MS functions, respectively, and they satisfy the following condition:
$$ ^{ - } 0 \, \le T_{A} (x) + I_{A} (x) + F_{A} (x) \le 3^{ + } . $$

The values of the three MS functions are taken from ]0,1+[. As we have difficulty of applying NSs to real-time issues, Wang et al. [14] put forward the approach of a SVNS, which is the simplification of a NS and can be applied to any real-world topic.

Definition 2 [14]

\( \dddot A \) is the SVNS in X and is described by the set:
$$ \dddot A = \left\{ {\left\langle {x:T_{\dddot A} \left( x \right),I_{\dddot A} \left( x \right),F_{\dddot A} \left( x \right)} \right\rangle ,\,\,x \in X} \right\}, $$
where \( T_{\dddot A} \left( x \right),I_{\dddot A} \left( x \right),F_{\dddot A} \left( x \right) \in \left[ {0,{ 1}} \right] \) satisfying the condition:
$$ 0 \le T_{A} (x) + I_{A} (x) + F_{A} (x) \le 3. $$

Definition 3 [15]

An IVNS in X, which represented by:
$$ \dddot A = \left\{ {\langle {x:\tilde{T}_{\dddot A} \left( x \right),\tilde{I}_{\dddot A} \left( x \right),\tilde{F}_{\dddot A} \left( x \right)} \rangle ,x \in X} \right\}, $$
$$ \dddot A = \left\{ { \langle x:[T_{\dddot A}^{L} \left( x \right),T_{\dddot A}^{U} \left( x \right)\left] {,[I_{\dddot A}^{L} \left( x \right),I_{\dddot A}^{U} \left( x \right)} \right],[F_{\dddot A}^{L} \left( x \right),F_{\dddot A}^{U} \left( x \right)]\rangle ,x \in X} \right\}, $$
where \( [T_{\dddot A}^{L} \left( x \right),T_{\dddot A}^{U} \left( x \right)\left] {, [I_{\dddot A}^{L} \left( x \right),I_{\dddot A}^{U} \left( x \right)} \right], [F_{\dddot A}^{L} \left( x \right),F_{\dddot A}^{U} (x)] \subseteq [0,\;1] \) are the interval numbers satisfying the condition:
$$ 0 \le \sup T_{A} (x) + \sup I_{A} (x) + \sup F_{A} (x) \le 3. $$

Now we consider a few mathematical operations on interval-valued neutrosophic numbers (IVNNs)s.

Definition 4 [15]

$$ \dddot A = \left\langle {\left[ {T_{a}^{L} ,T_{a}^{U} } \right],\left[ {I_{a}^{L} ,I_{a}^{U} } \right],\left[ {F_{a}^{L} ,F_{a}^{U} } \right]} \right\rangle \;{\text{and}}\;\dddot B = \left\langle {\left[ {T_{b}^{L} ,T_{b}^{U} } \right],\left[ {I_{b}^{L} ,I_{b}^{U} } \right],\left[ {F_{b}^{L} ,F_{b}^{U} } \right]} \right\rangle , $$
be two IVNNs and \( \eta > 0 \).
$$ \dddot A \oplus \dddot B = \left\langle {\left[ {T_{a}^{L} + T_{b}^{L} - T_{a}^{L} T_{b}^{L} ,T_{a}^{U} + T_{b}^{U} - T_{a}^{U} T_{b}^{U} } \right],\left[ {I_{a}^{L} I_{b}^{L} ,I_{a}^{U} I_{b}^{U} } \right],\left[ {F_{a}^{L} F_{b}^{L} ,F_{a}^{U} F_{b}^{U} } \right]} \right\rangle , $$
$$ \dddot A \otimes \dddot B = \left\langle {\left[ {T_{a}^{L} T_{b}^{L} ,T_{a}^{U} T_{b}^{U} } \right],} \right.\left[ {I_{a}^{L} + I_{b}^{L} - I_{a}^{L} I_{b}^{L} ,I_{a}^{U} + I_{b}^{U} - I_{a}^{U} I_{b}^{U} } \right]\left. {\left[ {F_{a}^{L} + F_{b}^{L} - F_{a}^{L} F_{b}^{L} ,F_{a}^{U} + F_{b}^{U} - F_{a}^{U} F_{b}^{U} } \right]} \right\rangle , $$
$$ \eta \dddot A = \left\langle {\left[ {1 - \left( {1 - T_{a}^{L} } \right)^{\eta } ,1 - \left( {1 - T_{a}^{U} } \right)^{\eta } } \right],\left[ {\left( {I_{a}^{L} } \right)^{\eta } ,\left( {I_{a}^{U} } \right)^{\eta } } \right],\left[ {\left( {F_{a}^{L} } \right)^{\eta } ,\left( {F_{a}^{U} } \right)^{\eta } } \right]} \right\rangle , $$
$$ \dddot A^{\eta } = \left\langle {\left[ {\left( {T_{a}^{L} } \right)^{\eta } ,\left( {T_{a}^{U} } \right)^{\eta } } \right],\left[ {1 - \left( {1 - I_{a}^{L} } \right)^{\eta } ,1 - \left( {1 - I_{a}^{U} } \right)^{\eta } } \right],\left[ {1 - \left( {1 - F_{a}^{L} } \right)^{\eta } ,1 - \left( {1 - F_{a}^{U} } \right)^{\eta } } \right]} \right\rangle , $$
where \( \eta > 0. \)

Deneutrosophication formulas for interval-valued neutrosophic numbers

To compare two IVNNs \( \dddot A_{1} \) and \( \dddot A_{2} \), a map from [N (R)] to real line called score function has been used here. In the review of the literature, there are some formulas for deneutrosophication; in this paper, the following formulas have been focused [44, 45] and defined as follows:
$$ S_{\text{Ridvan }} \left( {\dddot A_{1} } \right) = \left( {\frac{1}{4}} \right) \times \left[ {2 + T_{x}^{L} + T_{x}^{U} - 2I_{x}^{L} - 2I_{x}^{U} - F_{x}^{L} - F_{x}^{U} } \right], $$
$$ S_{\text{Liu}} \left( {\dddot A_{1} } \right) = \left[ {2 + \frac{{T_{x}^{L} + T_{x}^{U} }}{2} - \frac{{I_{x}^{L} + I_{x}^{U} }}{2} - \frac{{F_{x}^{L} + F_{x}^{U} }}{2}} \right]. $$
Using score function (SF), the ranking technique is defined as below:
  1. (i)

    \( \dddot A_{1} < \dddot A_{2} \) if \( {\text{SF}}(\dddot A_{1} ) < {\text{SF}}(\dddot A_{2} ). \)

  2. (ii)

    \( \dddot A_{1} > \dddot A_{2} \) if \( {\text{SF}}(\dddot A_{1} ) > {\text{SF}}(\dddot A_{2} ). \)

  3. (iii)

    \( \dddot A_{1} = \dddot A_{2} \) if \( {\text{SF}}(\dddot A_{1} ) = {\text{SF}}(\dddot A_{2} ). \)


Computation of the shortest path based on neutrosophic numbers

In this section, the new algorithmic approach to solve IVNSP is provided. It is pretended that there are \( n \) nodes with the source node (SN), node 1 and destination node (DN), node n. The neutrosophic length between nodes \( i \) and \( j \) is denoted by \( d_{ij} \) and the set of all nodes having a connection with the node \( i \) is denoted by \( M_{N\left( i \right)} \).

Mathematical formulation of BELLMAN dynamic programming

Consider a directed connected graph \( G = \left( {V,E} \right) \) from SN ‘1’ and the DN ‘n’ which is acyclic and they are organized by topological ordering \( \left( {E_{ij} ;\,i < j} \right) \). Using the Bellman powerful programming system, the shortest path can be determined by forward pass computation method. The Bellman powerful programming system is defined as follows:
$$ f\left( i \right) = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {0,} & {i = 1} \\ {\mathop {\hbox{min} }\limits_{i < j} \left[ {f\left( i \right) + d_{ij} } \right],} & {\text{otherwise}} \\ \end{array} } \right., $$
where \( d_{ij} \) is the weight the directed edge \( E_{ij} \), \( f\left( i \right) \) is the length of SP node i from the SN 1.
Neutrosophic Bellman–Ford algorithm:

In the posterior section, we present a simple illustration to show the brevity of our method.

Illustrative example

This part is based on a numerical problem adapted from [43] to show the potential application of the proposed algorithm.

Example 1

Consider an interval-valued neutrosophic network whose edge weights are represented by IVNNs with SN, node 1 and DN, node 6 (Fig. 1). Table 2 represents interval-valued neutrosophic distance.
Fig. 1

Interval-valued neutrosophic network

Table 2

The details of edge information in terms of interval-valued neutrosophic numbers


IVN distance


IVN distance


\( \left( {\left[ {0.1,0.2} \right],\left[ {0.2,0.3} \right],\left[ {0.4,0.5} \right]} \right) \)


\( \left( {\left[ {0.2,0.3} \right],\left[ {0.2,0.5} \right],\left[ {0.4,0.5} \right]} \right) \)


\( \left( {\left[ {0.2,0.4} \right],\left[ {0.3,0.5} \right],\left[ {0.1,0.2} \right]} \right) \)


\( \left( {\left[ {0.3,0.6} \right],\left[ {0.1,0.2} \right],\left[ {0.1,0.4} \right]} \right) \)


\( \left( {\left[ {0.3,0.4} \right],\left[ {0.1,0.2} \right],\left[ {0.3,0.5} \right]} \right) \)


\( \left( {\left[ {0.4,0.6} \right],\left[ {0.2,0.4} \right],\left[ {0.1,0.3} \right]} \right) \)


\( \left( {\left[ {0.1,0.3} \right],\left[ {0.3,0.4} \right],\left[ {0.2,0.3} \right]} \right) \)


\( \left( {\left[ {0.2,0.3} \right],\left[ {0.3,0.4} \right],\left[ {0.1,0.5} \right]} \right) \)

Here we need to find the shortest distance from node 1 to node 6 (Table 3).
Table 3

The details of deneutrosophication value of edge (i, j)


\( S_{\text{Ridvan }} \)

\( S_{\text{Liu }} \)

























Using the proposed algorithm in previous section, the SP from SN and DN is calculated as follows:
$$ {{f}}\left( 1\right) = 0, $$
$$ {{f}}\left( 2\right) = \mathop {\hbox{min} }\limits_{i < 2} \left\{ {f\left( 1 \right) + c_{12} } \right\} = c_{12}^{*} = 0, 1 , $$
$$ {{f}}\left( 3\right) = \mathop {\hbox{min} }\limits_{i < 3} \left\{ {f\left( i \right) + c_{i3} } \right\} = \hbox{min} \left\{ {f\left( 1 \right) + c_{13} ,f\left( 2 \right) + c_{23} } \right\} = \left\{ {0 + 0, 1 7 5,0, 1+ 0, 2 3 5} \right\} = \left\{ {0, 1 7 5,0, 3 3 5} \right\} = 0, 1 7 5 , $$
$$ {{f}}\left( 4\right) = \mathop {\hbox{min} }\limits_{i < 4} \left\{ {f\left( i \right) + c_{i4} } \right\} = \hbox{min} \left\{ {f\left( 3 \right) + c_{34} } \right\} = \left\{ {0, 1 7 5+ 0,0 5} \right\} = 0, 2 2 5 , $$
$$ {{f}}\left( 5\right) = \mathop {\hbox{min} }\limits_{i < 5} \left\{ {f\left( i \right) + c_{i5} } \right\} = \hbox{min} \left\{ {f\left( 2 \right) + c_{25} ,f\left( 3 \right) + c_{35} } \right\} = \left\{ {0. 1+ 0, 1 2 5,0, 1 7 5+ 0, 4 5 5} \right\} = \left\{ {0. 2 2 5,0, 6 2 5} \right\} = 0. 2 2 5 , $$
$$ {{f}}\left( 6\right) = \mathop {\hbox{min} }\limits_{i < 6} \left\{ {f\left( i \right) + c_{i6} } \right\} = \hbox{min} \left\{ {f\left( 4 \right) + c_{46} ,f\left( 5 \right) + c_{56} } \right\} = \left\{ {0. 2 2 5+ 0, 3 5,0, 2 2 5+ 0, 1 2 5} \right\} = \left\{ {0. 5 7 5,0, 3 50} \right\} = 0. 3 50, $$
$$ {f}\left( 6\right) = f\left( 5 \right) + c_{56} = f\left( 2 \right) + c_{25} + c_{56} = f\left( 1 \right) + c_{12} + c_{25} + c_{56} = c_{12} + c_{25} + c_{56} . $$

Therefore, the path P: 1 → 2 → 5 → 6 is recognized as the neutrosophic shortest path, and the crisp shortest path is 0.35.

Contingent study

In this section, the analysis of contingency for the proposed algorithm with existing approaches has been analyzed. A comparison of the results between the existing and new technique is shown in Table 4.
Table 4

Comparison of the sequence of nodes using neutrosophic shortest path and our proposed algorithm

Possible path

Sequence of nodes

Crisp shortest path length

Neutrosophic shortest path with interval-valued neutrosophic numbers [43]

1 → 2 → 5 → 6

\( \left( {\left[ {0.35, 0.60} \right], \left[ {0.01, 0.04} \right], \left[ {0.008, 0.075} \right]} \right) \)

PA based on \( S_{\text{Ridvan }} \)

1 → 2 → 5 → 6

\( 0.35 \)

PA based on \( S_{\text{Liu }} \)

1 → 2 → 5 → 6

\( 4.65 \)

From the result, it is shown that the introduced algorithm contributes sequence of visited nodes which shown to be similar to neutrosophic shortest path presented in [43].

The neutrosophic shortest path (NSP) remains the same, namely 1 → 2 → 5 → 6, but the neutrosophic shortest path length (NSPL) differs, namely \( \left( {\left[ {0.424, 0.608} \right], \left[ {0.012, 0.06} \right], \left[ {0.016, 0.125} \right]} \right), \) respectively. From here we come to the conclusion that there exists no unique method for comparing neutrosophic numbers and different methods may satisfy different desirable criteria.

Advantages and limitations of the proposed algorithm


By correlating our PA with Broumi et al. [43] to solve the same problem, we conclude that the proposed approach leads to the same path 1 → 2 → 5 → 6. The extended Bellman’s algorithm operates on neutrosophic directed graphs with negative weight edges whereas the extended Dijkstra algorithm proposed in [37] cannot deal with. This approach can be easily extended and applied to other neutrosophic networks with the edge weight as
  1. 1.

    Single-value neutrosophic numbers.

  2. 2.

    Bipolar neutrosophic numbers.

  3. 3.

    Trapezoidal neutrosophic numbers.

  4. 4.

    Cubic neutrosophic numbers.

  5. 5.

    Interval bipolar neutrosophic numbers.

  6. 6.

    Triangular neutrosophic numbers and so on.



  1. 1.

    Slow response will be observed when there is a change in the network as this change will spread node-by-node.

  2. 2.

    If node failure occurs then routing loops may exist.



In this study, we describe the NSP, where edge weights are represented by IVNS. The advantage of using IVNSs in NSP is discussed in this paper. The classical Bellman’s algorithm is modified by incorporating the uncertainty using IVNSs for NPP between source and destination nodes. We use a numerical example to illustrate the efficiency of our proposed algorithm. The main goal of this work is to describe an algorithm for NSP in the neutrosophic environment using IVNS as edge weight. The proposed algorithm is very effective for real-life problem. In this paper, we have used a simple numerical example to illustrate our proposed algorithm. Therefore, as future work, we need to consider a large-scale practical shortest path problem using our proposed algorithm and to compare our proposed algorithm with the existing algorithm in terms of strictness of optimality, efficiency, computational time, and other aspects.



  1. 1.
    Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf control 8(3):338–353zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atanassov KT (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 20(1):87–96MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yager RR (2017) Generalized orthopair fuzzy sets. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 25(5):1222–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yager RR (2013) Pythagorean fuzzy subsets. In: IFSA world congress and NAFIPS annual meeting (IFSA/NAFIPS). In: IEEE international conference, pp 57–61Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cuong BC (2013) Picture fuzzy sets first results. part 1, Seminar neuro-fuzzy systems with applications, Preprint 03/2013, Institute of Mathematics, Hanoi, May 2013Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ye J (2017) Hesitant interval neutrosophic linguistic set and its application in multiple attribute decision making. Int J Mach Learn Cybern. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Broumi S, Deli I, Smarandache (2015) N-valued interval neutrosophic sets and their application in medical diagnosis. In: Critical review, vol 10, pp 45–69. Center for Mathematics of Uncertainty, Creighton University, OmahaGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dutta P, Talukdar P (2018) A novel arithmetic technique for generalized interval-valued triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and its application in decision making. Open Cybern Syst 12:72–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dong JY, Wan SP (2015) Interval-valued trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy generalized aggregation operators and application to multi-attribute group decision making. Cientia Iranica Trans E Ind Eng 22:2702–2715Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garg H (2016) A novel accuracy function under interval–valued Pythagorean fuzzy environment for solving multicriteria decision making problem. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 31(1):529–540zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Atanassov K, Gargov K (1989) Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 31:343–349MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mendel JM, John R, Liu F (2006) Interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems made simple. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 14(6):808–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smarandache F (1998) Neutrosophy. Neutrosophic probability, set, and logic. ProQuest Information & Learning, Ann Arbor, p 105zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang H, Smarandache F, Zhang Y, Sunderraman R (2010) Single valued neutrosophic sets. Multispace Multistruct 4:410–413zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang H, Smarandache F, Sunderraman R, Zhang Y (2005) interval neutrosophic sets and logic: theory and applications in computing: theory and applications in computing. Infinite Study, Hexis, p 97Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nancy Garg H (2016) An improved score function for ranking neutrosophic sets and its application to decision making process. Int J Uncertain Quantif 6(5):377–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jun YB, Kim SJ, Smarandache F (2018) Interval neutrosophic sets with applications in BCK/BCI-Algebra. Axioms 7:1–23Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sahin M, Ulucay V, Menekse M (2018) Some new operations of (α, β, γ) interval cut set of interval valued neutrosophic sets. J Math Fundam Sci 50(2):103–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Deli I, Yusuf S, Smarandache F, Ali M (2016) Interval valued bipolar neutrosophic sets and their application in pattern recognition. In: IEEE world congress on computational intelligence, pp 2460–2467Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu P, Shi L (2015) The generalized hybrid weighted average operator based on interval neutrosophic hesitant set and its application to multiple attribute decision making. Neural Comput Appl 26(2):457–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liu PD, Shi LL (2015) The generalized hybrid weighted average operator based on interval neutrosophic hesitant set and its application to multiple attribute decision making. Neural Comput Appl 26:457–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Broumi S, Smarandache F (2014) Cosine similarity measure of interval valued neutrosophic sets. Infinite Study. zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Broumi S, Smarandache F, Talea M, Bakali A (2016) Operations on interval valued neutrosophic graphs. In: Smarandache F, Pramanik S (eds) New trends in neutrosophic theory and applications, pp 231–254 (ISBN 978-1-59973-498-9) Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Peng X, Dai J (2017) Algorithms for interval neutrosophic multiple attribute decision-making based on MABAC, similarity measure, and EDAS. Int J Uncertain Quantif 7(5):395–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bhattacharyya S, Roy BK, Majumdar P (2018) On distances and similarity measures between two interval neutrosophic sets. J New Theory 20:27–47Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bolturk E, Kahraman C (2018) A novel interval-valued neutrosophic AHP with cosine similarity measure. Soft Comput. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Broumi S, Bakali A, Talea M, Smarandache F, Verma R (2017) Computing minimum spanning tree in interval valued bipolar neutrosophic environment. Int J Model Optim 7(5):300–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Broumi S, Bakali A, Talea M, Smarandache F, Son LH, Kishore K (2018) New matrix algorithm for minimum spanning tree with undirected interval valued neutrosophic graph. Neutrosophic Oper Res II:54–69Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Das D, De PK (2014) Shortest path problem under intuitionistic fuzzy setting. Int J Comput Appl 105(1):1–4Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    De PK, Bhincher A (2011) Dynamic programming and multi objective linear programming approaches. Appl Math Inf Sci 5:253–263MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kumar G, Bajaj RK, Gandotra N (2015) Algorithm for shortest path problem in a network with interval-valued intuitionistic trapezoidal fuzzy number. Proc Comput Sci 70:123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Meenakshi AR, Kaliraja M (2012) Determination of the shortest path in interval valued fuzzy networks. Int J Math Arch 3(6):2377–2384Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Elizabethand S, Sujatha L (2014) Fuzzy shortest path problem based on interval valued Fuzzy number matrices. Int J Math Sci Eng Appl 8(1):325–335Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Enayattabar M, Ebrahimnejad A, Motameni H (2018) Dijkstra algorithm for shortest path problem under interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy environment. Complex Intell Syst. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dey A, Pal A, Pal T (2016) Interval type 2 fuzzy set in fuzzy shortest path problem. Mathematics 4:62. zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Broumi S, Bakal A, Talea M, Smarandache F, Vladareanu L (2016) Applying Dijkstra algorithm for solving neutrosophic shortest path problem. In: IEEE international conference on advanced mechatronic systems (ICAMechS), pp 412–416Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Broumi S, Talea M, Bakali A, Smarandache F (2016) Application of Dijkstra algorithm for solving interval valued neutrosophic shortest path problem. In: 2016 IEEE symposium series on computational intelligence (SSCI), pp 1–6Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Broumi S, Bakali A, Talea M, Smarandache F, Vladareanu L (2016) Computation of shortest path problem in a network with SV-trapezoidal neutrosophic numbers. In: IEEE international conference on advanced mechatronic systems (ICAMechS), pp 417–422Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Broumi S, Bakali A, Mohamed T, Smarandache F, Vladareanu L (2016) Shortest path problem under triangular fuzzy neutrosophic information. In: 10th international conference on software, knowledge, information management & applications (SKIMA), pp 169–174Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Broumi S, Bakali A, Talea M, Smarandache F (2017) Shortest path problem on single valued neutrosophic graphs. In: 2017 international symposium on networks, computers and communications (ISNCC), pp 1–8Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Broumi S, Bakali A, Talea M, Smarandache F (2017) Shortest path problem under trapezoidal neutrosophic information. In: Computing conference 2017, 18–20 July 2017, London, pp 142–148Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Broumi S, Bakali A, Talea M, Smarandache F, Ali M (2017) Shortest path problem under bipolar neutrosophic setting. Appl Mech Mater 2017:859Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Broumi S, Bakali A, Talea M, Smarandache F, Kishore KK, Sahin R (2018) Shortest path problem under interval valued neutrosophic setting. J Fundam Appl Sci 10(4S):168–174Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sahin R, Liu P (2015) Maximizing deviation method for neutrosophic multiple attribute decision making with incomplete weight information. Neural Comput Appl 27(7):2017–2029. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Liu P, You X (2017) Interval neutrosophic Muirhead mean operators and their applications in multiple-attribute group decision making. Int J Uncertain Quantif 7:303–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Basset MA, Gunasekaran M, Mohamed M, Chilamkurti N (2019) A framework for risk assessment, management and evaluation: economic tool for quantifying risks in supply chain. Future Gener Comput Syst 90:489–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Basset MA, Mohamed M, Sangaiah AK, Jain V (2018) An integrated neutrosophic AHP and SWOT method for strategic planning methodology selection. Benchmarking 25(7):2546–2564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Basset MA, Mohamed M, Smarandache F (2018) A hybrid neutrosophic group ANP-TOPSIS framework for supplier selection problems. Symmetry 10(6):226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Basset MA, Mohamed M, Smarandache F (2018) An extension of neutrosophic AHP–SWOT analysis for strategic planning and decision-making. Symmetry 10(4):116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Basset MA, Mohamed M, Smarandache F, Chang V (2018) Neutrosophic association rule mining algorithm for big data analysis. Symmetry 10(4):106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Basset MA, Mohamed M, Chang V (2018) NMCDA: a framework for evaluating cloud computing services. Future Gener Comput Syst 86:12–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Basset MA, Zhou Y, Mohamed M, Chang V (2018) A group decision making framework based on neutrosophic VIKOR approach for e-government website evaluation. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 34(6):4213–4224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Basset MA, Mohamed M, Zhou Y, Hezam I (2017) Multi-criteria group decision making based on neutrosophic analytic hierarchy process. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 33(6):4055–4066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Basset MA, Mohamed M (2018) The role of single valued neutrosophic sets and rough sets in smart city: imperfect and incomplete information systems. Measurement 124:47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Basset MA, Gunasekaram M, Gamal A, Smarandache F (2018) A hybrid approach of neutrosophic sets and DEMATEL method for developing supplier selection criteria. Des Autom Embed Syst 22(3):257–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Dey A, Pal A (2019) Computing the shortest path with words. Int J Adv Intell Paradigms 12(3–4):355–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Dey A, Pal A (2016) Prim’s algorithm for solving minimum spanning tree problem. Ann Fuzzy Math Inform 12(3):419–430MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Dey A, Broumi S, Son LH, Bakali A, Talea M, Smarandache F (2018) A new algorithm for finding minimum spanning trees with undirected neutrosophic graphs. Granul Comput 4(1):63–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Broumi A, Dey A, Bakali A, Talea M, Smarandache F, Son LH, Koley D (2017) Uniform single valued neutrosophic graphs. Neutrosophic Sets Syst 17:42–49Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Dey A, Pal A, Pal T (2016) Interval type 2 fuzzy set in fuzzy shortest path problem. Mathematics 4:62zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Dey A, Pradhan R, Pal A, Pal T (2018) A genetic algorithm for solving fuzzy shortest path problems with interval type-2 fuzzy arc lengths. Malays J Comput Sci 31(4):1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Kumar R, Edaltpanah SA, Jha S, Broumi S, Dey A (2018) Neutrosophic shortest path problem. Neutrosophic Sets Systems 23:5–15Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Said Broumi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Arindam Dey
    • 2
  • Mohamed Talea
    • 1
  • Assia Bakali
    • 3
  • Florentin Smarandache
    • 4
  • Deivanayagampillai Nagarajan
    • 5
  • Malayalan Lathamaheswari
    • 5
  • Ranjan Kumar
    • 6
  1. 1.Laboratory of Information ProcessingFaculty of Science Ben M’Sik, University Hassan IICasablancaMorocco
  2. 2.Saroj Mohan Institute of TechnologyHooghlyIndia
  3. 3.Ecole Royale NavaleCasablancaMorocco
  4. 4.Department of MathematicsUniversity of New MexicoGallupUSA
  5. 5.Department of MathematicsHindustan Institute of Technology and ScienceChennaiIndia
  6. 6.Department of MathematicsNational Institute of TechnologyJamshedpurIndia

Personalised recommendations