You are on page 1of 14

Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol.

20, 2018 12

University of New Mexico

Hybrid Binary Logarithm Similarity Measure for MAGDM


Problems under SVNS Assessments
Kalyan Mondal1, Surapati Pramanik2, and Bibhas C. Giri3
1
Department of Mathematics, Jadavpur University, Kolkata: 700032, West Bengal, India. E mail:kalyanmathematic@gmail.com
²Department of Mathematics, Nandalal Ghosh B.T. College, Panpur, P O - Narayanpur, and District: North 24 Parganas, Pin Code: 743126, West
Bengal, India. Email: sura_pati@yahoo.co.in,
3
Department of Mathematics, Jadavpur University, Kolkata: 700032, West Bengal, India. Email: bibhasc.giri@jadavpuruniversity.in

Abstract: Single valued neutrosophic set is an important math- Then, we define a new entropy function for determining
ematical tool for tackling uncertainty in scientific and engineer- unknown attribute weights. We develop a novel multi attribute
ing problems because it can handle situation involving indeter- group decision making strategy for single valued neutrosophic
minacy. In this research, we introduce new similarity measures sets based on the weighted hybrid binary logarithm similarity
for single valued neutrosophic sets based on binary logarithm measure. We present an illustrative example to demonstrate the
function. We define two type of binary logarithm similarity effectiveness of the proposed strategy. We conduct a sensitivity
measures and weighted binary logarithm similarity measures analysis of the developed strategy. We also present a
for single valued neutrosophic sets. Then we define hybrid comparison analysis between the obtained results from
binary logarithm similarity measure and weighted hybrid binary proposed strategy and different existing strategies in the
logarithm similarity measure for single valued neutrosophic literature.
sets. We prove the basic properties of the proposed measures.

Keywords: single valued neutrosophic set; binary logarithm function; similarity measure; entropy function; ideal solution;
MAGDM

1 Introduction

Smarandache [1] introduced neutrosophic sets (NSs) to ‘improved cosine similarity measures’ based on cosine
pave the way to deal with problems involving uncertainty, function. Biswas et al. [34] studied cosine similarity
indeterminacy and inconsistency. Wang et al. [2] grounded measure based MCDM with trapezoidal fuzzy
the concept of single valued neutrosophic sets (SVNSs), a neutrosophic numbers. Pramanik and Mondal [35]
subclass of NSs to tackle engineering and scientific proposed weighted fuzzy similarity measure based on
problems. SVNSs have been applied to solve various tangent function. Mondal and Pramanik [36] proposed
problems in different fields such as medical problems [3– intuitionistic fuzzy similarity measure based on tangent
5], decision making problems [6–18], conflict resolution function. Mondal and Pramanik [37] developed tangent
[19], social problems [20–21] engineering problems [22- similarity measure of SVNSs and applied it to MADM.
23], image processing problems [24–26] and so on. Ye and Fu [38] studied medical diagnosis problem using a
The concept of similarity measure is very significant in SVNSs similarity measure based on tangent function. Can
studying almost every practical field. In the literature, few and Ozguven [39] studied a MADM problem for adjusting
studies have addressed similarity measures for SNVSs the proportional-integral-derivative (PID) coefficients
[27–30]. Peng et al. [31] developed SVNSs based multi based on neutrosophic Hamming, Euclidean, set-theoretic,
attribute decision making (MADM) strategy employing Dice, and Jaccard similarity measures.
MABAC (Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Several studies [40–42] have been reported in the literature
Comparison and similarity measure), TOPSIS (Technique for multi-attribute group decision making (MAGDM) in
for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution) neutrosophic environment. Ye [43] studied the similarity
and a new similarity measure. measure based on distance function of SVNSs and applied
Ye [32] proposed cosine similarity measure based it to MAGDM. Ye [44] developed several clustering
neutrosophic multiple attribute decision making (MADM) methods using distance-based similarity measures for
strategy. In order to overcome some disadvantages in the SVNSs.
definition of cosine similarity measure, Ye [33] proposed

Kalyan Mondal, Surapati Pramanik, and Bibhas C. Giri. Hybrid Binary Logarithm Similarity Measure for MAGDM Problems under
SVNS Assesments
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018 13

Mondal et al. [45] proposed sine hyperbolic similarity environment. Section 4 proposes a new entropy measure to
measure for solving MADM problems. Mondal et al. [46] calculate unknown attribute weights and proves basic
also proposed tangent similarity measure to deal with properties of entropy function. Section 5 presents a
MADM problems for interval neutrosophic environment. MAGDM strategy based weighted hybrid binary logarithm
Lu and Ye [47] proposed logarithmic similarity similarity measure. Section 6 presents an illustrative
measure for interval valued fuzzy set [48] and applied it in example to demonstrate the applicability and feasibility of
fault diagnosis strategy. the proposed strategies. Section 7 presents a sensitivity
analysis for the results of the numerical example. Section 8
Research gap:
conducts a comparative analysis with the other existing
MAGDM strategy using similarity measure based on strategies. Section 9 presents the key contribution of the
binary logarithm function under single valued neutrosophic paper. Section 10 summarizes the paper and discusses
environment is yet to appear. future scope of research.
Research questions:
2 Preliminaries
 Is it possible to define a new similarity measure
In this section, the concepts of NSs, SVNSs, operations on
between single valued neutrosophic sets using binary NSs and SVNSs and binary logarithm function are
logarithm function? outlined.
 Is it possible to define a new entropy function for
2.1 Neutrosophic set (NS)
single valued neutrosophic sets for determining un-
known attribute weights? Assume that X be an universe of discourse. Then a
 Is it possible to develop a new MAGDM strategy neutrosophic sets [1] N can be defined as follows:
based on the proposed similarity measures in single N = {< x: TN(x), IN(x), FN(x) > | x  X}.
valued neutrosophic environment?
Here the functions T, I and F define respectively the
The objectives of the paper: membership degree, the indeterminacy degree, and the
non-membership degree of the element x  X to the set N.
 To define binary logarithm similarity measures for The three functions T, I and F satisfy the following the
SVNS environment and prove the basic properties.
conditions:
 To define a new entropy function for determining
 T, I, F: X → ]−0,1+[
unknown weight of attributes.
 To develop a multi-attribute droup decision making  −
0 ≤ supTN(x) + supIN( x) + supFN(x) ≤ 3+
model based on proposed similarity measures. For two neutrosophic sets M = {< x: TM (x), IM(x),
 To present a numerical example for the efficiency FM(x) > | x  X} and N = {< x, TN(x), IN(x), FN(x) > | x  X
and effectiveness of the proposed strategy. }, the two relations are defined as follows:
 M  N if and only if TM(x)  TN(x), IM(x)  IN(x),
Having motivated from the above researches on
neutrosophic similarity measures, we introduce the concept FM(x )  FN(x)
of binary logarithm similarity measures for SVNS  M = N if and only if TM(x) = TN(x), IM(x) = IN(x),
environment. The properties of binary logarithm similarity FM(x) = FN(x).
measures are established. We also propose a new entropy 2.2. Single valued Neutrosophic sets (SVNSs)
function to determine unknown attribute weights. We
develope a MAGDM strategy using the proposed hybrid Assume that X be an universe of discourse. A SVNS
binary logarithm similarity measures. The proposed [2] P in X is formed by a truth-membership function TP(x),
similarity measure is applied to a MAGDM problem. an indeterminacy membership function IP(x), and a falsity
membership function FP(x). For each point x in X, TP(x),
The structure of the paper is as follows. Section 2
IP(x), and FP(x)  [0, 1].
presents basic concepts of NSs, operations on NSs, SVNSs
For continuous case, a SVNS P can be expressed as
and operations on SVNSs. Section 3 proposes binary
logarithm similarity measures and weighted binary follows:
logarithm similarity measures, hybrid binary logarithm  ( x), I P ( x), F P ( x) 
P  x T P :x  X ,
similarity measure (HBLSM), weighted hybrid binary x
logarithm similarity measure (WHBLSM) in SVNSs

Kalyan Mondal, Surapati Pramanik, and Bibhas C. Giri. Hybrid Binary Logarithm Similarity Measure for MAGDM Problems under
SVNS Assesments
14 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018

For discrete case, a SVNS P can be expressed as 3.1. Binary logarithm similarity measures of SVNSs
follows: (type-I)
n  ( x ), ( x ), (x ) 
P   TP i IP i FP i : xi  X Definition 2. Let A = <x(TA(xi), IP(xi), FP(xi))> and B =
i 1 xi <x(TB(xi), IB(xi), FB(xi))> be any two SVNSs. The binary
For two SVNSs P = {< x: TP(x), IP(x), FP(x)> | x  X} logarithm similarity measure (type-I) between SVNSs A
and B are defined as follows:
and Q = {< x: TQ(x), IQ(x), FQ(x)> | x  X}, some definitions
are stated below: BL1 ( A, B) =
 P  Q if and only if TP(x)  TQ(x), IP(x)  IQ(x), and
FP(x)  FQ(x). n   1  TA ( xi )  TB ( xi )  I A ( xi )  I B ( xi )   
 log 2  2    
1
 P  Q if and only if TP(x)  TQ(x), IP(x)  IQ(x), and n   3   FA ( xi )  FB ( xi )   
i 1
  
FP(x)  FQ(x).
 P = Q if and only if TP(x) = TQ(x), IP(x) = IQ(x), (1)
and FP(x) = FQ(x) for any x  X. Theorem 1. The binary logarithm similarity
 Complement of P i.e. Pc ={< x: FP(x), 1− IP(x), measure BL 1 ( A, B) between any two SVNSs A and B
TP(x)> | x  X }. satisfy the following properties:
2.3. Some arithmetic operations on SVNSs P 1. 0  BL 1 ( A, B)  1
P 2. BL 1 ( A, B) 1 , if and only if A = B
Definition 1 [49]
P 3. BL 1 ( A, B)  BL 1 ( B, A)
Let P  T P( x), I P( x), F P ( x) and Q  T Q( x), I Q( x), F Q( x) be P4. If C is a SVNS in X and A  B  C then

any two SVNSs in a universe of discourse then arithmetic BL 1 ( A, C )  BL 1 ( A, B) and BL 1 ( A, C )  BL 1 ( B, C ) .

operations are stated as follows. Proof 1.


From the definition of SVNS, we write,
 T P( x)  T Q( x)  T P( x)T Q( x) , I P( x) I Q( x) ,  0 ≤ TA(x) + IA( x) + FA(x) ≤ 3 and
 P  Q  
 F P ( x) F Q ( x)  0 ≤ TB(x) + IB(x) + FB(x) ≤ 3
 

 T P ( x ) T Q ( x ) , I P ( x )  I Q ( x )  I P ( x ) I Q( x ) , 
 P  Q   0  TA ( xi )  TB ( xi )  I A ( xi )  I B ( xi )  FA ( xi )  FB ( xi )  3 ,
 F P ( x)  F Q ( x)  F P ( x) F Q ( x) 
 
  
 P  1  1 T P( x)  , I P( x)  , F P ( x)  ;   0  TA ( xi )  TB ( xi ) , I A ( xi )  I B ( xi ) , 
0  max   1
 P   T P( x)  , 1  1  I P( x)  , 1  1  F P( x)  ;   0  F (x )  F (x )
 A i B i

2.4. Binary logarithm function  0  BL 1 ( A, B )  1 .

In mathematics, the logarithm of the form log2x , x > 0 is Proof 2.


called binary logarithm function [50]. For example, the
For any two SVNSs A and B,
binary logarithm of 1 is 0, the binary logarithm of 4 is 2,
the binary logarithm of 16 is 4, and the binary logarithm A=B
of 64 is 6.  TA(x) = TB(x), IA(x) = IB(x), FA(x) = FB(x)
 T A ( x)  T B ( x)  0 , I A ( x)  I B ( x)  0 ,
3. Binary logarithm similarity measures for
SVNSs F A ( x )  F B ( x)  0
 BL 1 ( A, B) 1 .
In this section, we define two types of binary logarithm
Conversely,
similarity measures and their hybrid and weighted hybrid
similarity measures. for BL 1 ( A, B) 1 , we have,
 T A ( x)  T B ( x)  0 , I A ( x)  I B ( x)  0 ,

Kalyan Mondal, Surapati Pramanik, and Bibhas C. Giri. Hybrid Binary Logarithm Similarity Measure for MAGDM Problems under
SVNS Assesments
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018 15

F A ( x)  F B ( x)  0 Proof.
 T A ( x)  T B ( x) , I A ( x)  I B ( x) , F A ( x)  F B ( x) Proofs of the properties are shown in [51].
 A = B.
3.3. Weighted binary logarithm similarity measures of
Proof 3. SVNSs for type-I
We have, Definition 4. Let A = <x(TA(xi), IP(xi), FP(xi))> and
T A ( x)  T B ( x)  T B ( x)  T A ( x) , B = <x(TB(xi), IB(xi), FB(xi))> be any two SVNSs. Then the
weighted binary logarithm similarity measure for type-I
I A ( x)  I B ( x)  I B ( x)  I A ( x) ,
between SVNSs A and B are defined as follows:
F A ( x)  F B ( x)  F B ( x)  F A ( x) w
 BL 1 ( A, B)  BL 1 ( B, A) .
BL1 ( A, B) =

  1  TA ( x i )  TB ( x i )  I A ( x i )  I B ( x i )   
 w i log 2  2    
Proof 4. n

 3  FA ( x i )  FB ( x i ) 
For A  B  C, we have, i 1
   
TA(x)  TB(x)  TC(x), IA(x)  IB(x)  IC(x),
(3)
FA(x)  FB(x)  FC(x) for x  X. n
 T A ( x)  T B ( x)  T A ( x)  T C ( x) , Here, 0  wi  1 and  wi 1 .
i 1

T B ( x)  T C ( x)  T A ( x)  T C ( x) ; Theorem 3. The weighted binary logarithm similarity


I A ( x)  I B ( x)  I A ( x)  I C ( x) , measures BL1w ( A, B) between SVNSs A and B satisfy the
I B ( x)  I C ( x)  I A ( x)  I C ( x) ; following properties:
P 1. 0  BL 1w ( A, B )  1
F A ( x)  F B ( x)  F A ( x)  F C ( x) ,
P 2. BL 1w ( A, B)  1 , if and only if A = B
F B ( x)  F C ( x)  F A ( x)  F C ( x) .
P 3. BL 1w ( A, B)  BL 1w ( B, A)
 BL 1 ( A, C )  BL 1 ( A, B) and BL 1 ( A, C )  BL 1 ( B, C ) .
P4. If C is a SVNS in X and A  B  C, then
3.2. Binary logarithm similarity measures of SVNSs ( BL1w ( A, C )  BL1w ( A, B ) and BL1w ( A, C )  BL1w ( B, C ) ;
type-II) n
 wi 1 .
i 1
Definition 3. [51] Let A = <x(TA(xi), IP(xi), FP(xi))> and B
= <x(TB(xi), IB(xi), FB(xi))> be any two SVNSs. The binary Proof 1.
logarithm similarity measure (type-II) between SVNSs A
From the definition of SVNSs A and B, we write,
and B are defined as follows:
0 ≤ TA(x) + IA( x) + FA(x) ≤ 3 and
BL 2 ( A, B) = 0 ≤ TB(x) + IB( x) + FB(x) ≤ 3
n   TA ( xi )  TB ( xi ) , I A ( xi )  I B ( xi ) ,    TA ( xi )  TB ( xi ) , I A ( xi )  I B ( xi ) , 
 log 2  2  max    (2)  0  max   1
1
  F (x )  F (x )   F (x )  F (x ) 
n i 1
  A i B i   A i B i 
 0  TA ( xi )  TB ( xi )  I A ( xi )  I B ( xi )  FA ( xi )  FB ( xi )  3 ,
n
Theorem 2. The binary logarithm similarity  0  BL1 ( A, B)  1 . since,  wi  1 .
w
measure BL 2 ( A, B) between any two SVNSs A and B i 1

satisfy the following properties: Proof 2.

P 1. 0  BL 2 ( A, B )  1 For any two SVNSs A and B if A = B, then we have,


TA(x) = TB(x), IA(x) = IB(x), FA(x) = FB(x)
P 2. BL 2 ( A, B) 1 , if and only if A = B
 T A ( x )  T B ( x)  0 , I A ( x)  I B ( x)  0 ,
P 3. BL 2 ( A, B)  BL 2 ( B, A)
P4. If C is a SVNS in X and A  B  C then F A ( x)  F B ( x)  0
BL 2 ( A, C )  BL 2 ( A, B) and BL 2 ( A, C )  BL 2 ( B, C ) .

Kalyan Mondal, Surapati Pramanik, and Bibhas C. Giri. Hybrid Binary Logarithm Similarity Measure for MAGDM Problems under
SVNS Assesments
16 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018

n w
 BL1w ( A, B )  1 , (t = 1, 2), since  wi  1 . BL 2 ( A, B) =
i 1

Conversely, n   TA ( xi )  TB ( xi ) , I A ( xi )  I B ( xi ) ,  
For BL1w ( A, B )  1 , then we have,
 w log  2  max F ( x )  F ( x )
i 2



i 1  A i B i

 T A ( x )  T B ( x )  0 , I A ( x)  I B ( x)  0 ,
(4)
F A ( x)  F B ( x)  0 n
 T A ( x)  T B ( x) , I A ( x )  I B ( x ) , F A ( x )  F B ( x ) Here, 0  wi  1 and  wi 1 .
i 1
n
 A = B, since  wi  1 .
i 1
Proof.
For proof, see [51].
Proof 3.
For any two SVNSs A and B, we have, 3.3. Hybrid binary logarithm similarity measures
T A ( x)  T B ( x)  T B ( x)  T A ( x) , (HBLSM) for SVNSs
I A ( x)  I B ( x)  I B ( x )  I A ( x ) , Definition 6. Let A = <x(TA(xi), IP(xi), FP(xi))> and B =
F A ( x)  F B ( x)  F B ( x)  F A ( x) <x(TB(xi), IB(xi), FB(xi))> be any two SVNSs. The hybrid
binary logarithm similarity measure between SVNSs A and
 BL1w ( A, B )  BL1w ( B, A) for.
B is defined as follows:
BL Hyb  A, B  =
Proof 4.
For A  B  C, we have,
TA(x)  TB(x)  TC(x), IA(x)  IB(x)  IC(x),      TA ( xi )  TB ( xi )    
  n       
  log  2   1   I ( x )  I ( x )    
FA(x)  FB(x)  FC(x) for x  X.
 T A ( x)  T B ( x)  T A ( x)  T C ( x) ,   i 1 2 3 A i B i
 
      FA ( xi )  FB ( xi )    
1      
  
T B ( x)  T C ( x)  T A ( x)  T C ( x) ; (5)
n   TA ( xi )  TB ( xi ) ,  
I A ( x)  I B ( x)  I A ( x)  I C ( x) ,  n   
I B (x)  I C (x)  I A (x)  I C (x) ;  2
 
 (1  ) log  2  max  I ( x )  I ( x ) ,  

A i B i
 
 i 1
  F ( x )  F ( x )  
F A ( x)  F B ( x)  F A ( x)  F C ( x) ,    A i B i 

F B ( x)  F C ( x)  F A ( x)  F C ( x) . Here, 0    1 .
 BL1w ( A, C )  BL1w ( A, B ) and BL1w ( A, C )  BL1w ( B, C ) Theorem 4. The hybrid binary logarithm similarity
measure BL Hyb  A, B  between any two SVNSs A and B
since in1 wi 1 .
satisfy the following properties:
3.4. Weighted binary logarithm similarity measures of
P 1. 0  BL Hyb ( A, B)  1
SVNSs for type-II
P 2. BL Hyb ( A, B) 1 , if and only if A = B
Definition 5. [51] Let A = <x(TA(xi), IP(xi), FP(xi))> and
P 3. BL Hyb ( A, B)  BLHyb ( B, A)
B = <x(TB(xi), IB(xi), FB(xi))> be any two SVNSs. Then the
weighted binary logarithm similarity measure (type-II P4. If C is a SVNS in X and A  B  C then
between SVNSs A and B is defined as follows: BL Hyb ( A, C )  BL Hyb ( A, B)
and BL Hyb ( A, C )  BL Hyb ( B, C ) .

Proof 1.
From the definition of SVNS, we write,
0 ≤ TA(x)+ IA( x)+ FA(x) ≤ 3 and
0 ≤ TB(x) + IB(x) + FB(x) ≤ 3

Kalyan Mondal, Surapati Pramanik, and Bibhas C. Giri, Hybrid Binary Logarithm Similarity Measure for MAGDM Problems under
SVNS Assesments
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018 17

 TA ( xi )  TB ( xi ) , I A ( xi )  I B ( xi ) ,  and BL Hyb ( A, C )  BL Hyb ( B, C ) .


 0  max   1
 F (x )  F (x ) 
 A i B i 
3.4. Weighted hybrid binary logarithm similarity
0  TA ( xi )  TB ( xi )  I A ( xi )  I B ( xi ) measures (WHBLSM) for SVNSs
 ;
 FA ( xi )  FB ( xi )  3
Definition 7. Let A = <x(TA(xi), IP(xi), FP(xi))> and B =
 0  BL Hyb ( A, B) 1 . <x(TB(xi), IB(xi), FB(xi))> be any two SVNSs. The
weighted hybrid binary logarithm similarity measure
Proof 2.
between SVNSs A and B is defined as follows:
BL wHyb  A, B  =
For any two SVNSs A and B,
for A = B, we have,
 TA(x) = TB(x), IA(x) = IB(x), FA(x) = FB(x)      TA ( xi )  TB ( xi )    
  n       
 T A ( x )  T B ( x )  0 , I A ( x)  I B ( x)  0 ,   w log  2   1   I ( x )  I ( x )   


  i 1 i 2
 3 A i B i



F A ( x)  F B ( x)  0      FA ( xi )  FB ( xi )   
 
        
 BL Hyb ( A, B)  1 . (6)
   TA ( xi )  TB ( xi ) ,  

 n   
 (1  )
  
Conversely, 
wi log 2 2  max  I A ( xi )  I B ( xi ) ,
    
for BL Hyb ( A, B)  1 , we have,  i 1
  F (x )  F (x )  
   A i B i  
T A ( x )  T B ( x )  0 , I A ( x)  I B ( x)  0 ,
Here, 0    1 .
F A ( x)  F B ( x)  0
 T A ( x)  T B ( x) , I A ( x )  I B ( x ) , F A ( x )  F B ( x ) Theorem 5. The weighted hybrid binary logarithm
similarity measure BL wHyb ( A, B) between any two SVNSs
 A = B.
A and B satisfy the following properties:
Proof 3.
P1. 0  BL wHyb ( A, B) 1
For any two SVNSs A and B, we have, P 2. BL wHyb ( A, B)  1 , if and only if A = B
T A ( x)  T B ( x)  T B ( x)  T A ( x) , P 3. BL wHyb ( A, B)  BL wHyb ( B, A)
I A ( x)  I B ( x)  I B ( x )  I A ( x ) , P4. If C is a SVNS in X and A  B  C,
F A ( x)  F B ( x)  F B ( x)  F A ( x) then BL wHyb ( A, C )  BL wHyb ( A, B)
 BL Hyb ( A, B)  BL Hyb ( B, A) . and BL wHyb ( A, C )  BL wHyb ( B, C ) .

Proof 4. Proof 1.
For A  B  C, we have, From the definition of SVNS, we write,
TA(x)  TB(x)  TC(x), IA(x)  IB(x)  IC(x), 0 ≤ TA(x)+ IA( x)+ FA(x) ≤ 3 and
FA(x)  FB(x)  FC(x) for x  X. 0 ≤ TB(x) + IB(x) + FB(x) ≤ 3
 T A ( x)  T B ( x)  T A ( x)  T C ( x) ,  TA ( xi )  TB ( xi ) , I A ( xi )  I B ( xi ) , 
 0  max   1
T B ( x)  T C ( x)  T A ( x)  T C ( x) ;  F (x )  F (x ) 
 A i B i 
I A ( x)  I B ( x)  I A ( x)  I C ( x) , 0  TA ( xi )  TB ( xi )  I A ( xi )  I B ( xi )
 ;
I B ( x)  I C ( x)  I A ( x)  I C ( x) ;  FA ( xi )  FB ( xi )  3
F A ( x)  F B ( x)  F A ( x)  F C ( x) ,  0  BL wHyb ( A, B) 1 .
F B ( x)  F C ( x)  F A ( x)  F C ( x) . Proof 2.
 BL Hyb ( A, C )  BL Hyb ( A, B )
For any two SVNSs A and B,

Kalyan Mondal, Surapati Pramanik, and Bibhas C. Giri. Hybrid Binary Logarithm Similarity Measure for MAGDM Problems under
SVNS Assesments
18 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018

for A = B, we have, paper, we define an entropy measure for determining


 TA(x) = TB(x), IA(x) = IB(x), FA(x) = FB(x) unknown attribute weights.
 T A ( x )  T B ( x )  0 , I A ( x)  I B ( x)  0 ,
Definition 8. The entropy function of a SVNS P
F A ( x)  F B ( x)  0 = T ijP ( x), I ijP ( x), F ijP ( x) (i = 1, 2, ..., m; j = 1, 2, ..., n) is
 BL wHyb ( A, B )  1 .
defined as follows:
Conversely, E j ( P)  1 
1 m P
 
 T ( x)  F ijP ( x) 1 2 I ijP ( x)
n i 1 ij
2 (7)
for BL wHyb ( A, B )  1 , we have, 1  E j ( P)
wj  (8)
T A ( x)  T B ( x)  0 , I A ( x)  I B ( x)  0 , n  nj1 E j ( P )
F A ( x)  F B ( x)  0 n
Here,  w j  1
 T A ( x)  T B ( x) , I A ( x )  I B ( x ) , F A ( x )  F B ( x ) j 1

 A = B. Theorem 6. The entropy function E j (P) satisfies the

Proof 3. following properties:


For any two SVNSs A and B, we have, P1. E j ( P )  0 , if T ij 1, F ij  I ij  0 .
T A ( x)  T B ( x)  T B ( x)  T A ( x) , P2. E j ( P )  1 , if T ij , I ij , F ij  0.5, 0.5, 0.5 .
I A ( x)  I B ( x)  I B ( x )  I A ( x ) ,
P3. E j ( P)  E j (Q) , if T ijP  F ijP  T Qij  F Qij ; I ijP  I Qij .
F A ( x)  F B ( x)  F B ( x)  F A ( x) P4. E j ( P)  E j ( P c ) .
 BL wHyb ( A, B )  BL wHyb ( B, A) .
Proof 4. Proof 1.

For A  B  C, we have, T ij 1, F ij  I ij  0

 E j ( P )  1   1  0   1   0
TA(x)  TB(x)  TC(x), IA(x)  IB(x)  IC(x), 1 n n
FA(x)  FB(x)  FC(x) for all x  X. n i 1 n
 T A ( x)  T B ( x)  T A ( x)  T C ( x) , Proof 2.
T B ( x)  T C ( x)  T A ( x)  T C ( x) ; T ij , I ij , F ij  0.5, 0.5, 0.5 .
I A ( x)  I B ( x)  I A ( x)  I C ( x) ,
 0.5  0.5  0  1  0  1
1 n
 E j ( P)  1 
I B ( x)  I C ( x)  I A ( x)  I C ( x) ; n i 1
F A ( x)  F B ( x)  F A ( x)  F C ( x) , Proof 3.

F B ( x)  F C ( x)  F A ( x)  F C ( x) . T ij  F ij  T ij  F ij , I ij  I ij
P P Q Q P Q

 T ijP  F ijP 1 2 I ijP    T Qij  F Qij 1 2 I Qij 


 BL wHyb ( A, C )  BL wHyb ( A, B ) and m 2 m 2

BL wHyb ( A, C )  BL wHyb ( B, C ) . i 1 i 1

 T ij  F ijP 1 2 I ijP    T Qij  F Qij 1 2 I Qij 


1 m P 2 1 m 2

n i 1 n i 1
4. A new entropy measure for SVNSs
 1   T ij  F ij 1 2 I ij   1   T ij  F ij 1 2 I ij 
1 m P P P
2 1 m Q Q Q
2

Entropy strategy [52] is an important contribution for n i 1 n i 1


determining indeterminate information. Zhang et al. [53]  E j ( P )  E j (Q) .
introduced the fuzzy entropy. Vlachos and Sergiadis [54]
Proof 4.
proposed entropy function for intuitionistic fuzzy sets.
Since T ij , I ij , F ij  F ij ,1  I ij , T ij , we have
c
Majumder and Samanta [55] developed some entropy
measures for SVNSs. When attribute weights are
E j ( P)  E j ( P c ) .
completely unknown to decision makers, the entropy
measure is used to calculate attribute weights. In this

Kalyan Mondal, Surapati Pramanik, and Bibhas C. Giri. Hybrid Binary Logarithm Similarity Measure for MAGDM Problems under
SVNS Assesments
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018 19

5. MAGDM strategy based on weighted hybrid bi-  C1 C2  Cn 


 r r r 
nary logarithm similarity measure for SVNSs   Dt Dt
, I 11 Dt
, F 11  Dt Dt
, I 11 Dt
, F 11  Dt Dt
, I 11 Dt
, F 11 
 T 11 T 11 T 11 
t 1 t 1 t 1
 P1  
Assume that (P1, P2, ..., Pm) be the alternatives, (C1, C2, ..., r r r
 r r r 
Cn) be the attributes of each alternative, and {D1, D2, ...,   T 11
Dt , Dt , Dt
I 11 F 11  T 11
D t , Dt , Dt
I 11 F 11  T 11
D t , Dt , Dt
I 11 F 11 
P t 1 t 1
 t 1 
Dr} be the decision makers. Decision makers provide the  2 r r r 
      
rating of alternatives based on the predefined attribute.  r r r 
Each decision maker constructs a neutrosophic decision   T 11
Dt , Dt , Dt
I 11 F 11  T 11
D t , Dt , Dt
I 11 F 11  T 11
D t , Dt , Dt
I 11 F 11 
P t 1 t 1
 t 1 
matrix associated with the alternatives based on each at-  m 
 r r r 
tribute shown in Equation (9). Using the following steps, (10)
we present the MAGDM strategy (see figure 1) based on
weighted hybrid binary logarithm similarity measure Step 3: Determine the ideal solution
(WHBLSM). The evaluation of attributes can be categorized into benefit
Step 1: Determine the relation between the alternatives attribute and cost attribute. An ideal alternative can be de-
and the attributes termined by using a maximum operator for the benefit at-
tributes and a minimum operator for the cost attributes for
At first, each decision maker prepares decision matrix. The determining the best value of each attribute among all the
relation between alternatives Pi (i = 1, 2, ..., m) and the at- alternatives. An ideal alternative [42] is presented as fol-
tribute Cj (j = 1, 2, ..., n) corresponding to each decision lows:
maker is presented in the Equation (9).
P* = {C1*, C2*, … , Cm*}.
Dr [ P | C ] =
where the benefit attribute is
C*j  maxT C j i , min I C j i , min F C j i
(P ) (P ) (P )
 C1 C2  Cn  (11)
 D  i i i

P1  T 11r ,
Dr
I 11 , Dr
F11 Dr
T 12 , Dr
I 12 , Dr
F12  T 1Dnr , I 1Dnr , F 1Dnr  and the cost attribute is
 Dr 
P 2  T 21 , D
I 21r , D
F 21r
Dr
T 22 ,
Dr
I 22 ,
D
F 22r  D
T 2 nr ,
D
I 2 nr ,
D
F 2 nr 
C*j  min T C j i , max I C j i , max F C j i
(P ) (P ) (P )
       (12)
  i i i
P m  T mD1r , I mD1r , F mD1r T mD2r , I mD2r , F mD2r  Dr
T mn Dr
, I mn Dr
, F mn 

Step 4: Determine the attribute weights
(9)
Using Equation (8), determine the weights of the attribute.
Here, T ijDr , I ijDr , F ijDr (i = 1, 2, ..., m; j = 1, 2, ..., n) is the Step 5: Determine the WHBLSM values
single valued neutrosophic rating value of the alternative Pi Using Equation (6), calculate the weighted similarity
with respect to the attribute Cj corresponding to the deci- measures for each alternative.
sion maker Dr.
Step 6: Ranking the priority
Step 2: Determine the core decision matrix
All the alternatives are preference ranked based on the de-
We form a new decision matrix, called core decision creasing order of calculated measure values. The highest
matrix to combine all the decision maker’s opinions into a value reflects the best alternative.
group opinion. Core decision matrix minimizes the
biasness which is imposed by different decision makers Step 7: End.
and hence credibility to the final decision increases. The
core decision matrix is presented in Equation (10). 6. An illustrative example

D[ P | C ] = Suppose that a state government wants to construct an eco-


tourism park for the development of state tourism and
especially for mental refreshment of children. After initial
screening, three potential spots namely, spot-1 (P1), spot-2
(P2), and spot-3 (P3) remain for further selection. A team

Kalyan Mondal, Surapati Pramanik, and Bibhas C. Giri. Hybrid Binary Logarithm Similarity Measure for MAGDM Problems under
SVNS Assesments
20 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018

of three decision makers, namely, D1, D2, and D3 has been D3 [ P | C ] 


constructed for selecting the most suitable spot with  C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 
 
respect to the following attributes.  0.7, 0.8, 0.6, 0.7, 0.5, 
 Ecology (C1),  P1 0.4, 0.2, 0.3, 0.2, 0.6, 
 
 Costs (C2),  0.3 0.1 0.3 0,5 0.5 
 
 Technical facility (C3), 
0.6, 0.5, 0.7, 0.5, 0.3,
 (15)
 Transport (C4),  P2 0.2, 0.1, 0.4, 0.3, 0.4, 
 
 Risk factors (C5)  0 .3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 
The steps of decision-making strategy to select the  0.6, 0.6, 0.5, 0.7, 0.5, 
 
best potential spot to construct an eco-tourism park based  P3 0.2, 0.4, 0.3, 0.4, 0.6, 
on the proposed strategy are stated below:  0 .3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 
 
6.1. Steps of MAGDM strategy Step 2: Determine the core decision matrix
We present MAGDM strategy based on the proposed Using Equation (10), we construct the core decision matrix
WHBLSM using the following steps. for all decision makers shown in Equation (16).
Step 1: Determine the relation between alternatives and
D[ P | C ]
attributes
 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 
The relation between alternatives P1, P2 and P3 and the at-  
 0.984, 0.988, 0.989, 0.956, 0.961, 
tribute set {C1, C2, C3, C4, C5} corresponding to the set of P 
0.324, 0.324, 0.184, 0.203, 0.452,
decision makers {D1, D2, D3} are presented in Equations  1 
 0.332 0.232 0.184 0.219 0.219 
(13), (14), and (15).  0.938, 0.956, 0.979, 0.989, 0.908, 
 
D1[ P | C ]   P2 0.292, 0.162, 0.292, 0.304, 0.232, 
 
 0.420 0.395 0.292 0.334 0.404  (16)
 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 
   0.949, 0.994, 0.956, 0.984, 0.984, 
 0.7, 0.7, 0.8, 0.7, 0.6,   
 P1   P3 0.203, 0.203, 0.334, 0.255, 0.420, 
0.4, 0.4, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5,  
   0.359 0.232 0.334 0.203 0.255 
 0 .4 0.3 0.1 0,1 0.5 
 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.4,  (13)
 
 P2 0.3, 0.2, 0.2, 0.3, 0.3,  Step 3: Determine the ideal solution
 0 .6 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.4 
  Here, C3 and C4 denote benefit attributes and C1, C2 and C5
 0.4, 0.8, 0.5, 0.5, 0.7,  denote cost attributes. Using Equations (11) and (12), we
 
 P3 0.2, 0.1, 0.4, 0.2, 0.3,  calculate the ideal solutions as follows:
 0 .3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 
   0.938, 0.324, 0.420 , 0.956 , 0.324, 0.395 ,

 

D2 [ P | C ]  P *   0.989, 0.184, 0.184 , 0.989, 0.203, 0.203 ,.
 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5   
  
 0.908, 0.452, 0.404 

 0.5, 0.7, 0.8, 0.5, 0.5, 
 P1 0.2, 0.4, 0.2, 0.2, 0.5,  Step 4: Determine the attribute weights
 
 0.3 0.4 0.2 0,2 0.4 
  Using Equation (8), we calculate the attribute weights as
0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.8, 0.4, (14)
  follows:
 P2 0.4, 0.2, 0.3, 0.3, 0.1, 
 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4  [w1, w2, w3, w4, w5] =
  [0.1680, 0.3300, 0.2285, 0.2485, 0.0250]
 0.4, 0.8, 0.5, 0.7, 0.7, 
 
 P3 0.2, 0.2, 0.3, 0.2, 0.4,  Step 5: Determine the weighted hybrid binary logarithm
 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2  similarity measures
 
Using Equation (6), we calculate similarity values for
alternatives shown in Table 1.

Kalyan Mondal, Surapati Pramanik, and Bibhas C. Giri. Hybrid Binary Logarithm Similarity Measure for MAGDM Problems under
SVNS Assesments
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018 21

Step 6: Ranking the alternatives


Ranking order of alternatives is prepared as the descending 10. Conclusion
order of similarity values. Highest value indicates the best
alternative. Ranking results are shown in Table 1 for dif- Conclusions in the paper are concise as follows:
ferent values of  .
1. We have proposed hybrid binary logarithm similarity
Step 7. End.
measure and weighted hybrid binary logarithm
similarity measure for dealing indeterminacy in
7. Sensitivity analysis
decision making situation.
In this section, we discuss the variation of ranking results 2. We have defined a new entropy function to determine
(see Table 1) for different values of  . From the results unknown attribute weights.
shown in Tables 1, we observe that the proposed strategy 3. We have developed a new MAGDM strategy based
provides the same ranking order for different values of  . on the proposed weighted hybrid binary logarithm
similarity measure.
8. Comparison analysis 4. We have presented a numerical example to illustrate
the proposed strategy.
In this section, we solve the problem with different 5. We have conducted a sensitivity analysis
existing strategies [33, 37, 38, 56]. Outcomes are furnished 6. We have presented comparative analyses between the
in the Table 2 and figure 2. obtained results from the proposed strategies and
different existing strategies in the literature. The
9. Contributions of the proposed strategy
proposed weighted hybrid binary logarithm similarity
 We propose two types of binary logarithm similarity measure can be applied to solve MAGDM problems
measures and their hybrid similarity measure for in clustering analysis, pattern recognition, personnel
SVNS environment. We have proved their basic selection, etc.
properties. 7. Future research can be continued to investigate the
 To calculate unknown weights structure of attributes proposed similarity measures in neutrosophic hybrid
in SVNS environment, we have proposed a new en- environment for tackling uncertainty, inconsistency
tropy function. and indeterminacy in decision making. The concept
 We develop a decision making strategy based on the of the paper can be applied in practical decision-
proposed weighted hybrid binary logarithm similarity making, supply chain management, data mining, clus-
measure (WHBLSM). ter analysis, teacher selection etc.
 We have solved a illustrative example to show the
feasibility, applicability, and effectiveness of the
proposed strategy.
Table 1 Ranking order for different values of  .

Similarity () Measure values Ranking


measures order
BLwHyb ( P*, Pi ) 0.10 BL wHyb ( P*, P1)  0.9426 ; BL wHyb ( P*, P 2)  0.9233 ; BL wHyb ( P*, P 3)  0.9101 P1  P2  P3
BLwHyb ( P*, Pi ) 0.25 BL wHyb ( P*, P1)  0.9479 ; BL wHyb ( P*, P 2)  0.9296 ; BL wHyb ( P*, P 3)  0.9153 P1  P2  P3
BLwHyb ( P*, Pi ) 0.40 BL wHyb ( P*, P1)  0.9532 ; BL wHyb ( P*, P 2)  0.9357 ; BL wHyb ( P*, P 3)  0.9207 P1  P2  P3
BLwHyb ( P*, Pi ) 0.55 BL wHyb ( P*, P1)  0.9585 ; BL wHyb ( P*, P 2)  0.9419 ; BLwHyb ( P*, P3)  0.9260 P1  P2  P3
BLwHyb ( P*, Pi ) 0.70 BL wHyb ( P*, P1)  0.9638 ; BLwHyb ( P*, P2)  0.9482 ; BL wHyb ( P*, P 3)  0.9313 P1  P2  P3
BLwHyb ( P*, Pi ) 0.90 BL wHyb ( P*, P1)  0.9708 ; BL wHyb ( P*, P 2)  0.9565 ; BL wHyb ( P*, P 3)  0.9384 P1  P2  P3

Kalyan Mondal, Surapati Pramanik, and Bibhas C. Giri. Hybrid Binary Logarithm Similarity Measure for MAGDM Problems under
SVNS Assesments
22 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018

Table 2 Ranking order for different existing strategies


Similarity measures Measure values for P1, P2 and P3 Ranking order
Mondal and Pramanik [37] 0.8901, 0.8679, 0.8093 P1  P2  P3
Ye [33] 0.8409, 0.8189, 0.7766 P1  P2  P3
Biswas et al. [56] (  0.55) 0.9511, 0.9219, 0.9007 P1  P2  P3
Ye and Fu [38] 0.9161, 0.8758, 0.7900 P1  P2  P3
Proposed strategy (  0.55) 0.9585, 0.9419, 0.9260 P1  P2  P3

WHBLSM based decision making strategy

Decision making analysis phase


Determination of the relation between
alternatives and attributes Step-1

Determine the core decision matrix


Step- 2

Determine ideal solution Step- 3

Determine the attribute weights Step-4

Calculate the WHBLSM values Step-5

Ranking the alternatives Step- 6

Fig. 1: Decision making phases of the proposed approach

Kalyan Mondal, Surapati Pramanik, and Bibhas C. Giri. Hybrid Binary Logarithm Similarity Measure for MAGDM Problems under
SVNS Assesments
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018 23

Fig. 2: Ranking order of different strategies

References decision-making problems. International Journal of Compu-


tational Intelligence Systems, 8(2) (2015), 345–363.
[1] F. Smarandache, A unifying field in logics, neutrosophy:
[8] R. Şahin, and P. Liu. Maximizing deviation strategy for
neutrosophic probability, set and logic. Rehoboth, American
Research Press, 1998. neutrosophic multiple attribute decision making with
[2] H. Wang, F. Smarandache, Y. Q. Zhang, and R. incomplete weight information. Neural Computing and Ap-
Sunderraman. Single valued neutrosophic sets. Multispace plications, 27(7) (2017), 2017–2029.
and Multistructure, 4(2010), 410–413. [9] J. Ye. Simplified neutrosophic harmonic averaging
[3] Y. Guo, C. Zhou, H. P. Chan, A. Chughtai, J. Wei, L. M. projection-based strategy for multiple attribute decision
Hadjiiski, E. A. Kazerooni. Automated iterative making problems. International Journal of Machine
neutrosophic lung segmentation for image analysis in Learning and Cybernetics, 8(3) (2017), 981–987.
thoracic computed tomography. Medical Physics. 40(8) [10] P. Chi, P. Liu. An extended TOPSIS method for the multiple
(2013), 081912. doi: 10.1118/1.4812679 attribute decision making problems based on interval
[4] K. M. Amin, A. I. Shahin, Y. Guo. A novel breast tumor neutrosophic set, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 1 (2013),
classification algorithm using neutrosophic score 63–70.
features. Measurement, 81 (2016), 210–220. [11] P. Biswas, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. Entropy based grey
[5] Y. X. Ma, J. Q. Wang, J. Wang, X. H. Wu. An interval relational analysis method for multi-attribute decision
neutrosophic linguistic multi-criteria group decision-making making under single valued neutrosophic assessments.
strategy and its application in selecting medical treatment Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 2(2014), 102–110.
options. Neural Computing and Applications, 28(9) (2017), [12] P. Biswas, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. A new methodology
2745–2765. for neutrosophic multi-attribute decision making with
[6] J. Ye. Improved cross entropy measures of single valued unknown weight information. Neutrosophic Sets and
neutrosophic sets and interval neutrosophic sets and their Systems 3 (2014), 42–52.
multicriteria decision making strategies. Cybernetics and [13] P. Biswas, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. Aggregation of
Information Technologies, 15(4) (2015), 13–26. triangular fuzzy neutrosophic set information and its
[7] J. J. Peng, J. Q. Wang, X. H. Wu, J. Wang, X. H. Chen. application to multi-attribute decision making. Neutrosophic
Multi-valued neutrosophic sets and power aggregation Sets and Systems, 12 (2016), 20–40.
operators with their applications in multi-criteria group [14] P. Biswas, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. Value and ambiguity
index based ranking method of single-valued trapezoidal

Kalyan Mondal, Surapati Pramanik, and Bibhas C. Giri. Hybrid Binary Logarithm Similarity Measure for MAGDM Problems under
SVNS Assesments
24 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018

neutrosophic numbers and its application to multi-attribute environment. International Journal of General
decision making. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 12 (2016), Systems, 42(4) (2013), 386–394.
127–138.
[28] J. Ye. Single valued neutrosophic clustering algorithms
[15] P. Biswas, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. Multi-attribute group
based on similarity measures. Journal of Classification,
decision making based on expected value of neutrosophic
34(1) (2017), 148–162.
trapezoidal numbers. New Trends in Neutrosophic Theory
and Applications-Vol-II. Pons Editions, Brussells (2017). In [29] S. Broumi, F. Smarandache. Neutrosophic refined similarity
Press. measure based on cosine function. Neutrosophic Sets and
[16] P. Biswas, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. Non-linear Systems, 6 (2014), 41–47.
programming approach for single-valued neutrosophic [30] S. Pramanik, P. Biswas, B. C. Giri. Hybrid vector similarity
TOPSIS method. New Mathematics and Natural measures and their applications to multi-attribute decision
Computation, (2017). In Press. making under neutrosophic environment. Neural Computing
[17] S. Pramanik, S. Dalapati, and T. K. Roy. Logistics center and Applications, 28(5) (2017), 1163–1176.
location selection approach based on neutrosophic multi- [31] X. Peng, J. Dai. Approaches to single-valued neutrosophic
criteria decision making. New Trends in Neutrosophic MADM based on MABAC, TOPSIS and new similarity
Theories and Applications, Pons-Edtitons, Brussels, 2016, measure with score function. Neural Computing and Appli-
161–174. cations, 2016, 1–16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-
[18] K. Mondal, and S. Pramanik. Neutrosophic decision making 016-2607-y
model of school choice. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 7
[32] J. Ye. Vector similarity measures of simplified neutrosophic
(2015), 62–68.
sets and their application in multicriteria decision
[19] S. Pramanik, T. K. Roy. Neutrosophic game theoretic
making. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 16(2)
approach to Indo-Pak conflict over Jammu-Kashmir.
(2014), 204–211.
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 2 (2014), 82–101.
[20] S. Pramanik, and S. N. Chackrabarti. A study on problems [33] J. Ye. Improved cosine similarity measures of simplified
of construction workers in West Bengal based on neutro- neutrosophic sets for medical diagnosis. Artificial intelli-
sophic cognitive maps. International Journal of Innovative gence in medicine, 63(3) (2015), 171–179.
Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, 2(11) [34] P. Biswas, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. Cosine similarity
(2013), 6387–6394.
measure based multi-attribute decision-making with
[21] K. Mondal, and S. Pramanik. A study on problems of Hijras
in West Bengal based on neutrosophic cognitive maps. trapezoidal fuzzy neutrosophic numbers. Neutrosophic Sets
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 5(2014), 21–26. Systems, 2015, 8 (2015), 47–57.
[22] J. Ye. Fault diagnoses of steam turbine using the exponential [35] S. Pramanik and K. Mondal. Weighted Fuzzy Similarity
similarity measure of neutrosophic numbers. Journal of Measure Based on Tangent Function and its Application to
Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 30(4) (2016), 1927–1934. Medical Diagnosis. International Journal of Innovative
[23] K. Hu, J. Ye, E. Fan, S. Shen, L. Huang, J. Pi. A novel Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, 4(2)
object tracking algorithm by fusing color and depth (2015), 158–164.
information based on single valued neutrosophic cross- [36] K. Mondal and S. Pramanik. Intuitionistic fuzzy similarity
entropy. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 32(3) measure based on tangent function and its application to
(2017), 1775–1786. multi-attribute decision making. Global Journal of Advanced
[24] Y. Guo, A. Şengür. A novel image segmentation algorithm Research, 2(2) (2015), 464–471.
based on neutrosophic similarity clustering. Applied Soft [37] K. Mondal, S. Pramanik. Neutrosophic tangent similarity
Computing, 25 (2014), 391–398. measure and its application to multiple attribute decision
making. Neutrosophic sets and systems, 9 (2015), 80–87.
[25] D. Koundal, S. Gupta, S. Singh. Automated delineation of
[38] J. Ye, J. Fu. Multi-period medical diagnosis strategy using a
thyroid nodules in ultrasound images using spatial
single valued neutrosophic similarity measure based on
neutrosophic clustering and level set. Applied Soft Compu-
tangent function. Computer Methods and Programs in
ting, 40 (2016), 86–97.
Biomedicine, 123 (2016), 142–149.
[26] D. Koundal, S. Gupta, S. Singh. Speckle reduction strategy
[39] M. S. Can, O. F. Ozguven. PID tuning with neutrosophic
for thyroid ultrasound images in neutrosophic domain. IET
similarity measure. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems,
Image Processing, 10(2) (2016), 167–75.
19(2) (2016), 489–503.
[27] J. Ye. Multicriteria decision-making strategy using the
[40] K. Mondal, S. Pramanik. Multi-criteria group decision
correlation coefficient under single-valued neutrosophic
making approach for teacher recruitment in higher education

Kalyan Mondal, Surapati Pramanik, and Bibhas C. Giri. Hybrid Binary Logarithm Similarity Measure for MAGDM Problems under
SVNS Assesments
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018 25

[41] under simplified neutrosophic environment. [53] C. E. Shannon Prediction and entropy of printed
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 6 (2014), 28–34. English. Bell Labs Technical Journal, 30(1) (1951), 50–
[42] P. Liu, F. Teng. An extended TODIM strategy for 64.
multiple attribute group decision-making based on 2- [54] H. Zhang, W. Zhang, C. Mei. Entropy of interval-valued
dimension uncertain linguistic variable. Complexity, fuzzy sets based on distance and its relationship with
21(5) (2016), 20–30. similarity measure. Knowledge-Based Systems, 22(6)
[43] S. Pramanik, S. Dalapati, S. Alam, F. Smarandache, T. (2009), 449–454.
K. Roy. NS-Cross Entropy-Based MAGDM under [55] I. K. Vlachos, G. D. Sergiadis. Intuitionistic fuzzy
Single-Valued Neutrosophic Set Environment. information–applications to pattern recognition. Pattern
Information, 9(2) (2018), 37; doi:10.3390/info9020037 Recognition Letters, 28(2) (2007), 197–206.
[44] J. Ye. Multiple attribute group decision-making strategy [56] P. Majumdar, S. K. Samanta. On similarity and entropy
with completely unknown weights based on similarity of neutrosophic sets. Journal of Intelligence and Fuzzy
measures under single valued neutrosophic Systems, 26 (2014), 1245–1252.
environment. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy [57] P. Biswas, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. TOPSIS method
Systems, 27(6) (2014), 2927–2935. for multi-attribute group decision-making under single-
[45] J. Ye. Clustering methods using distance-based similarity valued neutrosophic environment. Neural Computing and
measures of single-valued neutrosophic sets. Journal of Applications, 27(3) (2016), 727–737.
Intelligent Systems, 23(4) (2014), 379–389. [58] Abdel-Basset, M., Mohamed, M., Smarandache, F., &
Chang, V. (2018). Neutrosophic Association Rule Mining
[46] K. Mondal, S Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. Single valued
Algorithm for Big Data Analysis. Symmetry, 10(4), 106.
neutrosophic hyperbolic sine similarity measure based
[59] Abdel-Basset, M., & Mohamed, M. (2018). The Role of
strategy for MADM problems. Neutrosophic Sets and
Single Valued Neutrosophic Sets and Rough Sets in Smart
Systems, 19 (2018) (ACCEPTED). City: Imperfect and Incomplete Information Systems.
[47] K. Mondal, S Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. Interval Measurement. Volume 124, August 2018, Pages 47-55
neutrosophic tangent similarity measure and its
[60] Abdel-Basset, M., Gunasekaran, M., Mohamed, M., &
application to MADM problems. Neutrosophic Sets and Smarandache, F. A novel method for solving the fully
Systems, 19 (2018) (ACCEPTED). neutrosophic linear programming problems. Neural
Computing and Applications, 1-11.
[48] Z. Lu, J. Ye. Logarithmic similarity measure between
interval-valued fuzzy sets and its fault diagnosis [61] Abdel-Basset, M., Manogaran, G., Gamal, A., &
method. Information, 9(2) (2018), 36. doi: Smarandache, F. (2018). A hybrid approach of neutrosophic
sets and DEMATEL method for developing supplier selection
10.3390/info9020036 criteria. Design Automation for Embedded Systems, 1-22.
[49] B. Ashtiani, F. Haghighirad, A. Makui. G. A. Montazer.
Extension of fuzzy TOPSIS method based on interval- [62] Abdel-Basset, M., Mohamed, M., & Chang, V. (2018).
NMCDA: A framework for evaluating cloud computing
valued fuzzy sets. Applied Soft Computing, 9(2) (2009), services. Future Generation Computer Systems, 86, 12-29.
457–461.
[63] Abdel-Basset, M., Mohamed, M., Zhou, Y., & Hezam, I.
[50] J. Ye. A multi-criteria decision-making method using (2017). Multi-criteria group decision making based on
aggregation operators for simplified neutrosophic sets. neutrosophic analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Intelligent
Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 26(5) (2014), & Fuzzy Systems, 33(6), 4055-4066.
2459–2466.
[51] J. N. Mitchell. Computer multiplication and division [64] Abdel-Basset, M.; Mohamed, M.; Smarandache, F. An
Extension of Neutrosophic AHP–SWOT Analysis for
using binary logarithms. IRE Transactions on Electronic
Strategic Planning and Decision-Making. Symmetry 2018, 10,
Computers, (4) (1962), 512–517. 116.
[52] K. Mondal, S. Pramanik, B. C. Giri, F. Smarandache, J.
Ye. Hybrid logarithm similarity measure based MAGDM
strategy under SVNS environment. Preprints 2018,
2018030231 (doi:10.20944/preprints201803.0231.v1)
Received : March 19, 2018. Accepted : April 9, 2018.

Kalyan Mondal, Surapati Pramanik, and Bibhas C. Giri. Hybrid Binary Logarithm Similarity Measure for MAGDM Problems
under SVNS Assesments