Abstract
Seikh and Dutta (Soft Comput 26: 921–936, 2022) claimed that there does not exist any approach to solve single-valued trapezoidal neutrosophic (SVTrN) matrix games (matrix games in which each payoff is represented by a SVTrN number). To fill this gap, Seikh and Dutta, firstly, proposed SVTrN non-linear programming problems (NLPPs) corresponding to Player-I and Player-II. Then, Seikh and Dutta proposed two different approaches to transform the proposed SVTrN NLPPs into crisp linear programming problems (CLPPs). Finally, Seikh and Dutta claimed that an optimal solution of the transformed CLPPs also represents an optimal solution of SVTrN NLPPs. Brikaa (Soft Comput 26: 9137–9139, 2022) pointed out that a mathematically incorrect result is considered in Seikh and Dutta’s first approach to transform SVTrN NLPPs into CLPPs. Therefore, the transformed CLPPs are not equivalent to SVTrN NLPPs. Hence, it is mathematically incorrect to assume that an optimal solution of the transformed CLPPs also represents an optimal solution of SVTrN NLPPs. Brikaa also proposed an approach to transform the SVTrN NLPPs into CLPPs. In this paper, it is pointed out that on solving the CLPPs, obtained by Brikaa’s approach corresponding to SVTrN NLPPs of Player-I and Player-II, different optimal value is obtained. Also, it is pointed out that on solving the CLPPs, obtained by Seikh and Dutta’s second approach corresponding to SVTrN NLPPs of Player-I and Player-II, a different optimal value is obtained. However, in the actual case, the obtained optimal value should be the same as in the literature; it is proved that the CLPPs corresponding to Player-I and Player-II represent a primal–dual pair. This indicates that neither the CLPPs, obtained by Brikaa’s approach nor the CLPPs, obtained by Seikh and Dutta’s second approach, are equivalent to the SVTrN NLPPs of Player-I and Player-II. Hence, it is inappropriate to use the CLPPs, obtained by Brikaa’s approach as well as Seikh and Dutta’s second approach to find an optimal solution for the SVTrN NLPPs of Player-I and Player-II. Also, Brikaa’s approach as well as Seikh and Dutta’s second approach is modified to transform SVTrN NLPPs into their equivalent CLPPs. Furthermore, it is proved that the CLPPs corresponding to SVTrN NLPPs of Player-I and Player-II, obtained by the proposed modified approaches, represent a primal–dual pair. Finally, the correct result of a SVTrN matrix game, considered by Seikh and Dutta to illustrate their approaches, is obtained by the proposed modified approaches.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abbasi S, Daneshmand-Mehr M, Kanafi AG (2021) The sustainable supply chain of CO2 emissions during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. J Ind Eng Int 17(4):83–108
Abbasi S, Sicakyuz C, Erdebilli B (2023) Designing the home healthcare supply chain during a health crisis. J Eng Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jer.2023.100098
Atanassov K, Gargov G (1989) Interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 31(3):343–349
Bector CR, Chandra S (2005) Fuzzy mathematical programming and fuzzy matrix games, vol 169. Springer, Berlin
Bhaumik A, Roy SK (2021) Intuitionistic interval-valued hesitant fuzzy matrix games with a new aggregation operator for solving management problem. Granul Comput 6(3):359–375
Brikaa MG (2022) A Note on “Solution of matrix games with payoffs of single-valued trapezoidal neutrosophic numbers.” Soft Comput 26:9137–9139
Brikaa MG, Zheng Z, Ammar ES (2022) Mehar approach for solving matrix games with triangular dual hesitant fuzzy payoffs. Granul Comput 7(1):731–750
Chen ZH, Wu DF, Luo W (2023) A hybrid emergency decision-making technique based on trapezoidal fuzzy best-worst method and zero-sum game. Expert Syst Appl. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120990
Ishibuchi H, Tanaka H (1990) Multiobjective programming in optimization of the interval objective function. Eur J Op Res 48(2):219–225
Jana J, Roy SK (2019) Dual hesitant fuzzy matrix games: based on new similarity measure. Soft Comput 23(18):8873–8886
Jana J, Roy SK (2023) Linguistic Pythagorean hesitant fuzzy matrix game and its application in multi-criteria decision making. Appl Intell 53(1):1–22
Jangid V, Kumar G (2021) Matrix games with single-valued triangular neutrosophic numbers as payoffs. Neutrosophic Sets Syst 45:197–217
Karmakar S, Seikh MR (2023) Bimatrix games under dense fuzzy environment and its application to natural disaster management. Artif Intell Rev 56(3):2241–2278
Li DF, Hong FX (2013) Alfa-cut based linear programming methodology for constrained matrix games with payoffs of trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Optim Decis Mak 12(2):191–213
Li Z, Li S, Luo X (2021) An overview of calibration technology of industrial robots. IEEE/CAA J Autom Sin 8(1):23–36
Li DF, Liu JC (2015) A parameterized nonlinear programming approach to solve matrix games with payoffs of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 23(4):885–896
Li DF, Nan JX (2009) A nonlinear programming approach to matrix games with payoffs of Atanassov’s intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowledge-Based Syst 17(4):585–607
Li S, Zhou M, Luo X (2017) Modified primal-dual neural networks for motion control of redundant manipulators with dynamic rejection of harmonic noises. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst 29(10):4791–4801
Liu FB, Hu CF (2023) Fuzzy game approach network data envelopment analysis models for the waste management performance evaluation. Int J Fuzzy Syst. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-023-01565-3
Naqvi DR, Verma R, Aggarwal A, Sachdev G (2023) Solutions of matrix games involving linguistic interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Soft Comput 27(1):783–808
Seikh MR, Dutta S (2022) Solution of matrix games with payoffs of single-valued trapezoidal neutrosophic numbers. Soft Comput 26(3):921–936
Seikh MR, Karmakar S, Xia M (2020) Solving matrix games with hesitant fuzzy payoffs. Iran J Fuzzy Syst 17(4):25–40
Sharma G, Das SK, Kumar G (2023) Solving zero-sum two-person game with triangular fuzzy number payoffs using new fully fuzzy linear programming models. Opsearch. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-023-00642-3
Singla N, Kaur P, Gupta UC (2023) A new approach to solve intuitionistic fuzzy bi-matrix games involving multiple opinions. Iran J Fuzzy Syst 20(1):185–197
Torra V (2010) Hesitant fuzzy sets. Int J Intell Syst 25(6):529–539
Verma T (2021) A novel method for solving constrained matrix games with fuzzy payoffs. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 40(1):191–204
Verma R, Aggarwal A (2021a) Matrix games with linguistic intuitionistic fuzzy payoffs: basic results and solution methods. Artif Intell Rev 54(4):5127–5162
Verma R, Aggarwal A (2021b) On matrix games with 2-tuple intuitionistic fuzzy linguistic payoffs. Iran J Fuzzy Syst 18(4):149–167
Verma R, Singla N, Yager RR (2023) Matrix games under a Pythagorean fuzzy environment with self-confidence levels: formulation and solution approach. Soft Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-08785-7
Xue W, Xui Z, Mi X (2021) Solving hesitant fuzzy linguistic matrix game problems for multiple attribute decision making with prospect theory. Comput Ind Eng 161(1):107619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107619
Yang Z, Song Y (2020) Matrix game with payoffs represented by triangular dual hesitant fuzzy numbers. Int J Comput Commun Control 15(3):3854. https://doi.org/10.15837/ijccc.2020.3.3854
Yang J, Xu Z (2022) Matrix game-based approach for MADM with probabilistic triangular intuitionistic hesitant fuzzy information and its application. Comput Ind Eng 163(1):107787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107787
Yang J, Xu Z, Dia Y (2021) Simple non-cooperative games with intuitionistic fuzzy information and application in ecological management. Appl Intell 51(2):1–13
Yu N, Yang R, Huang M (2022) Deep common spatial pattern based motor imagery classification with improved objective function. Int J Netw Dyn Intell 1(1):73–84
Acknowledgements
Authors would like to thank to Associate Editor “Professor Xin Luo” and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable and constructive suggestions to improve the quality of the paper.
Funding
The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix A
It is obvious from Sect. 6.1 that the base of the first proposed modified approach is the CLPPs (P41) and (P42). These CLPPs are obtained as follows:
Step 1: Using the expressions (11) and (12) (named as expressions (E.1) and (E.2), respectively), proved in Sect. 4.2.1, to find an optimal solution of the interval-valued NLPPs (P15) and (P16) is equivalent to find an optimal solution of the interval-valued NLPPs (A-1) and (A-2) respectively.
where,
Problem (A-1)
Subject to
Problem (A-2)
Subject to
Step 2: Using the expression (E.3) to find an optimal solution of the interval-valued NLPPs (A-1) and (A-2) is equivalent to find an optimal solution of the interval-valued NLPPs (A-3) and (A-4) respectively.
Problem (A-3)
Subject to
Problem (A-4)
Subject to
Step 3: Aggregating the objective function of the interval-valued NLPPs (A-3) and (A-4), to find an optimal solution of the interval-valued NLPPs (A-3) and (A-4) is equivalent to find an optimal solution of the interval-valued NLPPs (A-5) and (A-6) respectively.
Problem (A-5)
Subject to
Problem (A-6)
Subject to
Step 4: To find an optimal solution of the interval-valued NLPPs (A-5) and (A-6) is equivalent to find an optimal solution of the crisp bi-objective NLPPs (A-7) and (A-8) respectively.
Problem (A-7)
Subject to
Problem (A-8)
Subject to
Step 5: Using the weighted average method, to find an optimal solution of the crisp bi-objective NLPPs (A-7) and (A-8) is equivalent to find an optimal solution of the crisp NLPPs (A-9) and (A-11) or the equivalent crisp NLPPs (A-10) and (A-12) respectively.
Problem (A-9)
Subject to
Problem (A-10)
Subject to
Problem (A-11)
Subject to
Problem (A-12)
Subject to
Step 6: Since
is a convex linear combination of
and
is a convex linear combination of
. So, to find an optimal solution of the crisp NLPPs (A-10) and (A-12) is equivalent to find an optimal solution of the CLPPs (A-13) and (A-14).
Problem (A-13)
Subject to
Problem (A-14)
Subject to
Step 7: Assuming
and
to find an optimal solution of the CLPPs (A-13) and (A-14) is equivalent to find an optimal solution of the CLPPs (P41) and (P42) respectively.
Appendix B
It is obvious from Sect. 6.2 that the base of the second proposed modified approach is the CLPPs (P43) and (P44). These CLPPs are obtained as follows:
Step 1: Using the expressions (23) and (24) (named as (F.1) and (F.2) respectively) proved in Sect. 5.2, to find an optimal solution of the crisp NLPPs (P31) and (P32) is equivalent to find an optimal solution of the crisp NLPPs (B-1) and (B-2), respectively.
where,
\({\gamma }_{i}=\left[\alpha {\left({minimum}_{1\le j\le n}\left\{{l}_{ij}\right\}\right)}^{2}+\left(1-\alpha \right){\left(1-{maximum}_{1\le j\le n}\left\{{m}_{ij}\right\}\right)}^{2}+\left(1-\alpha \right){\left(1-{maximum}_{1\le j\le n}\left\{{n}_{ij}\right\}\right)}^{2}\right],\) \({\gamma }_{j}=\left[\alpha {\left({minimum}_{1\le i\le m}\left\{{l}_{ij}\right\}\right)}^{2}+\left(1-\alpha \right){\left(1-{maximum}_{1\le i\le m}\left\{{m}_{ij}\right\}\right)}^{2}+\left(1-\alpha \right){\left(1-{maximum}_{1\le i\le m}\left\{{n}_{ij}\right\}\right)}^{2}\right]\) and
Problem (B-1)
Subject to
Problem (B-2)
Subject to
Step 2: Since,
is a convex linear combination of
and
is a convex linear combination of
. So, to find an optimal solution of the crisp NLPPs (B-1) and (B-2) is equivalent to find an optimal solution of the crisp NLPPs (B-3) and (B-4), respectively.
Problem (B-3)
Subject to
Problem (B-4)
Subject to
Step 3: Assuming,
and
to find an optimal solution of the crisp NLPPs (B-3) and (B-4) is equivalent to find an optimal solution of the CLPPs (B-5) and (B-6), respectively.
Problem (B-5)
Subject to
Problem (B-6)
Subject to
Step 4: To find an optimal solution of the crisp NLPPs (B-5) and (B-6) is equivalent to find an optimal solution of the CLPPs (B-7) and (B-8) respectively.
Problem (B-7)
Subject to
Problem (B-8)
Subject to
Step 5: Using the expressions (F.3) and (F.4), to find an optimal solution of the crisp NLPPs (B-7) and (B-8) is equivalent to find an optimal solution of the CLPPs (B-43) and (B-44) respectively.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Kirti, Verma, T. & Kumar, A. Modified approaches to solve matrix games with payoffs of single-valued trapezoidal neutrosophic numbers. Soft Comput 28, 1–50 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-09133-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-09133-5