Advertisement

Neural Computing and Applications

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 221–234 | Cite as

A projection-based TODIM method under multi-valued neutrosophic environments and its application in personnel selection

  • Pu Ji
  • Hong-yu Zhang
  • Jian-qiang WangEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

The personnel selection is a vital activity for companies, and multi-valued neutrosophic sets (MVNSs) can denote the fuzziness and hesitancy in the processes of the personnel selection. The extant fuzzy TODIM (an acronym in Portuguese of interactive and multi-criteria decision-making) methods take advantage of distance to denote the difference between two fuzzy sets (FSs). Nevertheless, the distance measurement, which ignores the included angle between two FSs, cannot comprehensively reflect the difference between two FSs. To cover this defect, a projection-based TODIM method with MVNSs for personnel selection is established to consider the risk preference of decision-makers and overcome the defect of the extant fuzzy TODIM methods. The proposed TODIM method makes use of an improved comparison method which overcomes the deficiency of extant comparison method. Furthermore, a projection-based difference measurement is defined and utilized in the projection-based TODIM method. We conduct a numerical example of the personnel selection to explain the application of the projection-based TODIM method and discuss the influence of the parameter. Finally, the proposed method is compared with several extant methods to verify its feasibility.

Keywords

Multi-criteria decision-making Multi-valued neutrosophic sets Projection TODIM method The personnel selection 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 71501192 and 71571193).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Alguliyev RM, Aliguliyev RM, Mahmudova RS (2015) Multicriteria personnel selection by the modified fuzzy VIKOR method. Sci World J. doi: 10.1155/2015/612767 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liu HC, Qin JT, Mao LX, Zhang ZY (2015) Personnel selection using interval 2-tuple linguistic VIKOR method. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind 25(3):370–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dursun M, Karsak EE (2010) A fuzzy MCDM approach for personnel selection. Expert Syst Appl 37(6):4324–4330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Afshari RA, Nikolić M, Ćoćkalo D (2014) Applications of fuzzy decision making for personnel selection problem: a review. J Eng Manag Compet 4(2):68–77Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhang S-F, Liu S-Y (2011) A GRA-based intuitionistic fuzzy multi-criteria group decision making method for personnel selection. Expert Syst Appl 38(9):11401–11405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sang X, Liu X, Qin J (2015) An analytical solution to fuzzy TOPSIS and its application in personnel selection for knowledge-intensive enterprise. Appl Soft Comput 30:190–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–353zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhou H, Wang J-Q, Zhang H-Y (2015) Grey stochastic multi-criteria decision-making based on regret theory and TOPSIS. Int J Mach Learn Cybern. doi: 10.1007/s13042-015-0459-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang C, Wang J (2016) A multi-criteria decision-making method based on triangular intuitionistic fuzzy preference information. Intell Autom Soft Comput 22(3):473–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Atanassov KT (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 20(1):87–96MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Atanassov K, Gargov G (1989) Interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 31(3):343–349MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Torra V (2010) Hesitant fuzzy sets. Int J Intell Syst 25(6):529–539zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smarandache F (1998) Neutrosophy: neutrosophic probability, set, and logic. American Research Press, Rehoboth, pp 1–105zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smarandache F (1999) A unifying field in logics: neutrosophic logic. Neutrosophy, neutrosophic set, probability. American Research Press, Rehoboth, pp 1–141zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang H, Smarandache F, Zhang Y, Sunderraman R (2010) Single valued neutrosophic sets. Multispace Multistruct 4:410–413zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tian Z, Wang J, Wang J, Zhang H (2016) A likelihood-based qualitative flexible approach with hesitant fuzzy linguistic information. Cognit Comput. doi: 10.1007/s12559-016-9400-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhou H, Wang J-Q, Zhang H-Y (2016) Multi-criteria decision-making approaches based on distance measures for linguistic hesitant fuzzy sets. J Oper Res Soc. doi: 10.1057/jors.2016.41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wu X, Wang J, Peng J, Chen X (2016) Cross-entropy and prioritized aggregation operator with simplified neutrosophic sets and their application in multi-criteria decision-making problems. Int J Fuzzy Syst. doi: 10.1007/s40815-016-0180-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ye J (2014) A multicriteria decision-making method using aggregation operators for simplified neutrosophic sets. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 26(5):2459–2466MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tian ZP, Zhang HY, Wang J, Wang JQ, Chen XH (2016) Multi-criteria decision-making method based on a cross-entropy with interval neutrosophic sets. Int J Syst Sci 47(15):3598–3608zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhang H, Ji P, Wang J, Chen X (2015) An improved weighted correlation coefficient based on integrated weight for interval neutrosophic sets and its application in multi-criteria decision making problems. Int J Comput Intell Syst 8(6):1027–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhang H, Wang J, Chen X (2016) An outranking approach for multi-criteria decision-making problems with interval-valued neutrosophic sets. Neural Comput Appl 27(3):615–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Broumi S, Talea M, Bakali A, Smarandache F (2016) Single valued neutrosophic graphs. J New Theory 10:86–101Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Broumi S, Talea M, Bakali A, Smarandache F (2016) On bipolar single valued neutrosophic graphs. J New Theory 11:84–102Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Broumi S, Smarandache F, Talea M, Bakali A (2016) An introduction to bipolar single valued neutrosophic graph theory. Appl Mech Mater 841:184–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Broumi S, Bakali A, Talea M, Smarandache F (2016) Isolated single valued neutrosophic graphs. Neutrosophic Sets Syst 11:74–78Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Broumi S, Talea M, Smarandache F, Bakali A (2016) Single valued neutrosophic graphs: degree, order and size. In: IEEE world congress on computational intelligence (accepted) Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhou H, Wang J-q, Zhang H-y (2016) Grey stochastic multi-criteria decision-making approach based on prospect theory and distance measures (in press) Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tian Z, Wang J, Wang J, Chen X (2015) Multi-criteria decision-making approach based on gray linguistic weighted Bonferroni mean operator. Int Trans Oper Res. doi: 10.1111/itor.12220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhang H, Ji P, Wang J, Chen X (2016) A neutrosophic normal cloud and its application in decision-making. Cognit Comput. doi: 10.1007/s12559-016-9394-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tian Z-P, Wang J, Wang J-Q, Zhang H-Y (2016) An improved MULTIMOORA approach for multi-criteria decision-making based on interdependent inputs of simplified neutrosophic linguistic information. Neural Comput Appl. doi: 10.1007/s00521-016-2378-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tian Z, Wang J, Wang J, Zhang H (2016) Simplified neutrosophic linguistic multi-criteria group decision-making approach to green product development. Group Decis Negot. doi: 10.1007/s10726-016-9479-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tian Z, Wang J, Zhang H, Wang J (2016) Multi-criteria decision-making based on generalized prioritized aggregation operators under simplified neutrosophic uncertain linguistic environment. Int J Mach Learn Cybern. doi: 10.1007/s13042-016-0552-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ma Y, Wang J, Wang J, Wu X (2016) An interval neutrosophic linguistic multi-criteria group decision-making method and its application in selecting medical treatment options. Neural Comput Appl. doi: 10.1007/s00521-016-2203-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ye J, Fu J (2016) Multi-period medical diagnosis method using a single valued neutrosophic similarity measure based on tangent function. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 123:142–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ma H, Hu Z, Li K, Zhang H (2016) Toward trustworthy cloud service selection: a time-aware approach using interval neutrosophic set. J Parallel Distrib Comput 96:75–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Karsak EE, Dursun M (2015) An integrated fuzzy MCDM approach for supplier evaluation and selection. Comput Ind Eng 82:82–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Şahin R, Yiğider M (2014) A multi-criteria neutrosophic group decision making method based TOPSIS for supplier selection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.5077
  39. 39.
    Wang JQ, Li XE (2015) TODIM method with multi-valued neutrosophic sets. Control Decis 30(6):1139–1142MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Peng JJ, Wang JQ, Wu XH, Wang J, Chen XH (2015) Multi-valued neutrosophic sets and power aggregation operators with their applications in multi-criteria group decision-making problems. Int J Comput Intell Syst 8(2):345–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ye J (2015) Multiple-attribute decision-making method under a single-valued neutrosophic hesitant fuzzy environment. J Intell Syst 24(1):23–36MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Şahin R, Liu P (2016) Correlation coefficient of single-valued neutrosophic hesitant fuzzy sets and its applications in decision making. Neural Comput Appl. doi: 10.1007/s00521-015-2163-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Liu P, Zhang L (2015) The extended VIKOR method for multiple criteria decision making problem based on neutrosophic hesitant fuzzy set. arXiv preprint. arXiv:1512.0139
  44. 44.
    Zeng S, Baležentis T, Chen J, Luo G (2013) A projection method for multiple attribute group decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy information. Informatica 24(3):485–503MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yue Z (2013) An intuitionistic fuzzy projection-based approach for partner selection. Appl Math Model 37(23):9538–9551MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Xu Z, Hu H (2010) Projection models for intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute decision making. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 9(02):267–280zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zhang X, Jin F, Liu P (2013) A grey relational projection method for multi-attribute decision making based on intuitionistic trapezoidal fuzzy number. Appl Math Model 37(5):3467–3477MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gomes L, Lima M (1992) TODIM: basics and application to multicriteria ranking of projects with environmental impacts. Found Comput Decis Sci 16(4):113–127zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gomes L, Lima M (1992) From modeling individual preferences to multicriteria ranking of discrete alternatives: a look at prospect theory and the additive difference model. Found Comput Decis Sci 17(3):171–184zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econom J Econom Soc 47(2):263–292zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Krohling RA, Souza TTMd (2012) Combining prospect theory and fuzzy numbers to multi-criteria decision making. Expert Syst Appl 39(13):11487–11493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Liu P, Teng F (2014) An extended TODIM method for multiple attribute group decision-making based on 2-dimension uncertain linguistic variable. Complexity 21(5):20–30MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Tosun Ö, Akyüz G (2015) A fuzzy TODIM approach for the supplier selection problem. Int J Comput Intell Syst 8(2):317–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Gomes LFAM, Machado MAS, da Costa FF, Rangel LAD (2013) Criteria interactions in multiple criteria decision aiding: a Choquet formulation for the TODIM method. Procedia Comput Sci 17:324–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Tseng M-L, Lin Y-H, Tan K, Chen R-H, Chen Y-H (2014) Using TODIM to evaluate green supply chain practices under uncertainty. Appl Math Model 38(11):2983–2995MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Lourenzutti R, Krohling RA (2013) A study of TODIM in a intuitionistic fuzzy and random environment. Expert Syst Appl 40(16):6459–6468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Li Y, Shan Y, Liu P (2015) An extended TODIM method for group decision making with the interval intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Math Probl Eng. doi: 10.1155/2015/672140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Zhang X, Xu Z (2014) The TODIM analysis approach based on novel measured functions under hesitant fuzzy environment. Knowl-Based Syst 61:48–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Zhang M, Liu P, Shi L (2016) An extended multiple attribute group decision-making TODIM method based on the neutrosophic numbers. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 30(3):1773–1781zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Yue Z, Jia Y (2015) A direct projection-based group decision-making methodology with crisp values and interval data. Soft Comput. doi: 10.1007/s00500-015-1953-5 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Qin J, Liu X, Pedrycz W (2016) Frank aggregation operators and their application to hesitant fuzzy multiple attribute decision making. Appl Soft Comput 41:428–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Gomes LFAM (2009) An application of the TODIM method to the multicriteria rental evaluation of residential properties. Eur J Oper Res 193(1):204–211zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Natural Computing Applications Forum 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of BusinessCentral South UniversityChangshaChina

Personalised recommendations