5 views

Uploaded by Mia Amalia

Single valued neutrosophic set is an important mathematical tool for tackling uncertainty in scientific and engineering problems because it can handle situation involving indeterminacy.
In this research, we introduce new similarity measures for single valued neutrosophic sets based on binary logarithm function.

- hmw3
- bdc70076b25540009072e41f2ff19293.pdf
- B.Arch.pdf
- tanzania portfolio
- lesson2theunitcircle
- STPM 2010
- kang syllabus pre-calculus
- Model
- Chapter 1 - Sets and Inequalities
- Math
- Printable Semester 1 Study Guide
- 100 Midterm 2 Sol
- Grade 11 Trigonometry Test
- 586 Joint Inversion Overview
- calculus
- Topology-as-Fluid-Geometry-Two-Dimensional-Spaces-Volume-2.pdf
- New EM Quiz5
- datasheet33s
- 2015-12-06 Syllabus of IPhO
- Mathematics Syllabus for JEE Advanced

You are on page 1of 14

20, 2018 12

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

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

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

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

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 in1 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

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

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 nj1 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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 .

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

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

Determination of the relation between

alternatives and attributes Step-1

Step- 2

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

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

- hmw3Uploaded byNectaria Gizani
- bdc70076b25540009072e41f2ff19293.pdfUploaded byNdou DB
- B.Arch.pdfUploaded bymchakra72
- tanzania portfolioUploaded byapi-248543905
- lesson2theunitcircleUploaded byapi-242127878
- STPM 2010Uploaded byShu Nee
- kang syllabus pre-calculusUploaded byapi-367420906
- ModelUploaded byLuis Alberto Fuentes
- Chapter 1 - Sets and InequalitiesUploaded byJosh Pham
- MathUploaded byManoj Kr
- Printable Semester 1 Study GuideUploaded byjnewman85
- 100 Midterm 2 SolUploaded byEric Zhang
- Grade 11 Trigonometry TestUploaded byingroy
- 586 Joint Inversion OverviewUploaded byMustapha Chettouh
- calculusUploaded by邱俊祥
- Topology-as-Fluid-Geometry-Two-Dimensional-Spaces-Volume-2.pdfUploaded bykamal
- New EM Quiz5Uploaded bySingh Karan
- datasheet33sUploaded byeffettopicardi
- 2015-12-06 Syllabus of IPhOUploaded bylordheisenbergpoirot
- Mathematics Syllabus for JEE AdvancedUploaded bymakkunda
- ContSys1 L4 FOS AllUploaded byUmer Abbas
- Btec16 Nat Eng Sow 1 FinalUploaded bynjenns
- ALGEBRA 1040 Practice Problems 2012Uploaded byThalia Sanders
- 1285214061 5.CommonErrorsHowToAvoid ChTrigonometry X Math0Uploaded byRohan Kamath
- 4.Problems on Trignometric FunctionsUploaded byShubham
- Tutorial 2Uploaded byKhalifatullah Izwan
- Math(T) Paper 1 Trial 2012(Acs Ipoh)Uploaded bySathia Kdms
- All Class Xii Papers _ Cbse Board_ 2010-2011 (1)Uploaded byBasant Mishra
- Geo_TrigUploaded byAml Aml
- solvingTrigoFunc[1].docxUploaded byZarini Ahmad

- Multi-Objective Portfolio Selection Model with Diversification by Neutrosophic Optimization TechniqueUploaded byMia Amalia
- Single Valued Neutrosophic Numbers and Analytic Hierarchy Process for Project SelectionUploaded byMia Amalia
- Neutrosophic Crisp Bi-Topological SpacesUploaded byMia Amalia
- Rough Neutrosophic Multisets Relation with Application in Marketing StrategyUploaded byMia Amalia
- Fuzzy Neutrosophic Alpha m-Closed Sets in Fuzzy NeutrosophicTopological SpacesUploaded byMia Amalia
- Neutrosophic Triplet Normed Ring SpaceUploaded byMia Amalia
- Bi-level Linear Programming Problem with Neutrosophic NumbersUploaded byMia Amalia
- On Smarandache Curves of Involute-evolute Curve According to Frenet Frame in Minkowski 3-spaceUploaded byMia Amalia
- On Geodesics of the Tangent and Normal Surfaces Defined by TN-Smarandache Curve According to Frenet FrameUploaded byMia Amalia
- Smarandache Curves According to q-Frame in Euclidean 3-SpaceUploaded byMia Amalia
- Neutrosophic Units of Neutrosophic Rings and FieldsUploaded byMia Amalia
- Pest Analysis Based on Neutrosophic Cognitive Maps: A Case Study for Food IndustryUploaded byMia Amalia
- A Revisit to NC-VIKOR Based MAGDM Strategy in Neutrosophic Cubic Set EnvironmentUploaded byMia Amalia
- On Neutrosophic Crisp Semi Alpha Closed SetsUploaded byMia Amalia
- An Inventory Model under Space Constraint in Neutrosophic Environment: A Neutrosophic Geometric Programming ApproachUploaded byMia Amalia
- Smarandache Curves of Bertrand Curves Pair According to Frenet FrameUploaded byMia Amalia
- A Forecasting Model Based on Multi-Valued Neutrosophic Sets and Two-Factor, Third-Order Fuzzy Fluctuation Logical RelationshipsUploaded byMia Amalia
- A Generalization of Surfaces Family with Common Smarandache Asymptotic Curves in Galilean SpaceUploaded byMia Amalia
- SINGLE-VALUED NEUTROSOPHIC HYPERGRAPHSUploaded byMia Amalia
- Different Forms of Triangular Neutrosophic Numbers, De-Neutrosophication Techniques, and their ApplicationsUploaded byMia Amalia
- Fixed Point Theorem for Neutrosophic Triplet Partial Metric SpaceUploaded byMia Amalia
- An OWA Distance-Based, Single-Valued Neutrosophic Linguistic TOPSIS Approach for Green Supplier Evaluation and Selection in Low-Carbon Supply ChainsUploaded byMia Amalia
- Dual Generalized Nonnegative Normal Neutrosophic Bonferroni Mean Operators and Their Application in Multiple Attribute Decision MakingUploaded byMia Amalia
- Design of Fuzzy Cognitive Model of Mutual Influence and Connectivity of Innovative TechnologiesUploaded byMia Amalia
- Fundamental Homomorphism Theorems for Neutrosophic Extended Triplet GroupsUploaded byMia Amalia
- Some Generalized Dice Measures for Double-Valued Neutrosophic Sets and Their ApplicationsUploaded byMia Amalia
- Research on Construction Engineering Project Risk Assessment with Some 2-Tuple Linguistic Neutrosophic Hamy Mean OperatorsUploaded byMia Amalia
- Different Methodologies in Treating UncertaintyUploaded byMia Amalia
- Some Generalized Dice Measures for Double-Valued Neutrosophic Sets and Their ApplicationsUploaded byMia Amalia
- A Neutrosophic Set Based Fault Diagnosis Method Based on Multi-Stage Fault Template DataUploaded byMia Amalia

- hw3solUploaded bymasfenix1
- Process.Dynamics.and.Control.Seborg.2nd.Ch06.pdfUploaded byUtkarsh Jain
- An Introduction to Digital Image Processing With Matlab Notes for SCM2511 Image ProcessingUploaded byPedro Ped
- Projetion of Straight Line ProblemUploaded byRajesh Junghare
- Winters PreviewUploaded bycqpresscustom
- proposal inquiryUploaded byapi-242332537
- APM263-GrossmanSolutionManualUploaded byJared Allen
- A Review of Optimization Methods for Short-term Scheduling of Batch ProcessesUploaded bykhabini
- Generalisation of Varignon and Wittenbauer FINAL.pdfUploaded bysoleb
- An Inclusion Exclusion Fuzzy Hyperbox ClassifierUploaded byr_davtalab
- Presentation3.pptUploaded bySwaroop Ranjan Baghar
- Math Problems for Future UseUploaded byJanette Pacuribot
- user test memoUploaded byapi-316135682
- Deming RegressionUploaded byscjofyWFawlroa2r06YFVabfbaj
- Subgroups of S4Uploaded byPramod Govind Salunkhe
- Real NumbersUploaded byAbby Lumanglas
- Verbal Arithmetic CryptarithmUploaded byRishi Karthikeyan
- Bio Data KapilaUploaded byapi-3839680
- Ch10 Momentum and CollisionsUploaded bySpike Chingyen
- 264Uploaded bySuraj Dahal
- Advanced Finite-difference Methods for Seismic ModelingUploaded bydiearz
- Samvida Grade-I RULEUploaded byAman Gupta
- Midterm Preparation - V.2Uploaded byMohamed Dakheel
- 2461059 Computer Vision Solution ManualUploaded byChoi SeongJun
- 1934015040Uploaded byOscar Trujillo Rodriguez
- 09_Principles_of_Optimal_Control.pdfUploaded byMona Ali
- Relational Algebra DivisionUploaded byguyinthewindmill
- Numerical Solution of Initial Value ProblemsUploaded bylambdaStudent_epl
- Vectors Notes & ExerciseUploaded byTreeicicles
- c++ ProgramsUploaded bySugandh Gupta