Sie sind auf Seite 1von 13

Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol.

19, 2018 57

University of New Mexico

VIKOR Based MAGDM strategy under Bipolar


Neutrosophic Set Environment
Surapati Pramanik1, Shyamal Dalapati2, Shariful Alam3, Tapan Kumar Roy4,

1
Department of Mathematics, Nandalal Ghosh B.T. College, Panpur, P.O.-Narayanpur, District –North 24 Parganas, Pin code-743126, West Bengal, India.
E-mail: sura_pati@yahoo.co.in
2
Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur, P.O.-Botanic Garden, Howrah-711103, West Bengal,
India. E-mail: dalapatishyamal30@gmail.com
3
Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur, P.O.-Botanic Garden, Howrah-711103, West Bengal,
India. E-mail: salam50in@yahoo.co.in
4
Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur, West Bengal, India

Abstract. In this paper, we extend the VIKOR propose a new strategy for solving MAGDM. Finally, we
(VIsekriterijumska optimizacija i KOmpromisno Resenje) solve MAGDM problem using our newly proposed
strategy to multiple attribute group decision-making VIKOR strategy under bipolar neutrosophic set
(MAGDM) with bipolar neutrosophic set environment. In environment. Further, we present sensitivity analysis to
this paper, we first define VIKOR strategy in bipolar show the impact of different values of the decision
neutrosophic set environment to handle MAGDM making mechanism coefficient on ranking order of the
problems, which means we combine the VIKOR with alternatives.
bipolar neutrosophic number to deal with MAGDM. We

Keywords: Bipolar neutrosophic sets, VIKOR strategy, Multi attribute group decision making.

making in hybrid neutrosophic set environment have


1 Introduction
drawn much attention of the researches such as rough
In 1965, Zadeh [1] first introduced the fuzzy set to deal neutrosophic environment [57-73], neutrosophic soft set
with the vague, imprecise data in real life specifying the environment [74-80], neutrosophic soft expert set
membership degree of an element. Thereafter, in 1986 environment [81-82], neutrosophic hesitant fuzzy set
Atanassov [2] introduced intuitionistic fuzzy set to tackle environment [83-87], neutrosophic refined set environment
the uncertainity in data in real life expressing membership [88-93], neutrosophic cubic set environment [94-104], etc.
degree and non-membership degree of an element as In 2015, Deli et al. [105] proposed bipolar neutrosophic set
independent component. As a generalization of classical (BNS) using the concept of bipolar fuzzy sets [106, 107]
set, fuzzy set and intuitionistic fuzzy set, Smarandache [3] and neutrosophic sets [3]. A BNS consists of two fully
introduced the neutrosophic set by expressing the independent parts, which are positive membership degrees
membership degree (truth membership degree), T+  [0, 1], I+  [0, 1], F+  [0, 1], and negative
indeterminacy degree and non-membership degree (falsity membership degrees T-  [-1, 0], I-  [-1, 0], F-  [-1,
membership degree) of an element independently. For real 0] where the positive membership degrees T+, I+, F+
applications of neutrosophic set, Wang et al. [4] introduced represent truth membership degree, indeterminacy
the single valued neutrosophic set which is a sub class of membership degree and false membership degree
neutrosophic set. respectively of an element and the negative membership
Decision making process involves seleting the best degrees T-, I-, F- represent truth membership degree,
alternative from the set of feasible alternatives. There exist indeterminacy membership degree and false membership
many decision making strategies in crisp set degree respectively of an element to some implicit counter
environment[5-7], fuzzy [8-12], intuitionistic fuzzy set property corresponding to a BNS. Deli et al. [105] defined
environment [13-19]. vauge set environment [20, 21]. some operations namely, score function, accuracy function,
Theoretical as well as practical applications multi attribute and certainty function to compare BNSs and provided
decision making (MADM) of SVNS environment [22-42] some operators in order to aggregate BNSs. Deli and Subas
and interval neutrosophic set (INS) environment [43-56] [108] defined correlation coefficient similarity measure for
have been reported in the literaure. Recently, decision dealing with MADM problems under bipolar set

Surapati Pramanik, Shyamal Dalapati, Shariful Alam, Tapan Kumar Roy, VIKOR Based Multi Attribute Group Decision
Making strategy under Bipolar Neutrosophic Set Environment
58 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 19, 2018

environment. Şahin et al. [109] proposed Jaccard vector ii. Is it possible to develop a new VIKOR based MAGDM
similarity measure for MADM problems under bipolar strategy in BNS environment?
neutrosophic set environment. Uluçay et al. [110]
Motivation:
presented Dice similarity measure, weighted Dice
similarity measure, hybrid vector similarity measure, The above-mentioned analysis [118-126] describes the mo-
weighted hybrid vector similarity measure for BNSs and tivation behind proposing a novel VIKOR strategy for
established a MADM strategy by employing the proposed MAGDM in the BNS environment. This study develops a
similarity measures. Dey et al. [111] established TOPSIS novel VIKOR strategy for MAGDM that can deal with
strategy for MADM problems with bipolar neutrosophic multiple decision-makers.
information where the weights of the attributes are The objectives of the paper are:
completely unknown to the decision maker. Pramanik et i. To extend VIKOR strategy in BNS environment.
al. [112] defined projection, bidirectional projection and ii. To develop a new MAGDM strategy based on proposed
hybrid projection measures for BNSs and proved their VIKOR strategy in BNS environment.
basic properties. In the same study, Pramanik et al. [112], To fill the research gap, we propose VIKOR based
proposed three new MADM strategies based on the strategy, which is capable of dealing with MAGDM
proposed projection, bidirectional projection and hybrid problem in BNS environment.
projection measures with bipoar neutrosophic information.
Wang et al. [113] defined Frank operations of bipolar The main contributions of this paper are
neutrosophic numbers (BNNs) and proposed Frank bipolar summarized below:
neutrosophic Choquet Bonferroni mean operators by i. We extend VIKOR strategy in bipolar neutrosophic envi-
combining Choquet integral operators and Bonferroni ronment.
mean operators based on Frank operations of BNNs. In the ii. We introduce a bipolar neutrosophic weighted aggrega-
same study, Wang et al. [113] developed MADM strategy tion operator and prove its basic properties.
based on Frank Choquet Bonferroni operators of BNNs in iii. We develop a novel VIKOR based MAGDM strategy
bipolar neutrosophic environment. Recently, many in bipolar neutrosophic set environment to solve MAGDM
researcher has given attention to develop various strategies problems.
under bipolar neutrosophic set environment in various iv. In this paper, we solve a MAGDM problem based on
fields [114-117]. proposed VIKOR strategy.
Opricovic [118] proposed the VIKOR strategy for a
MCDM problem with conflicting attributes [119-120]. In The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: In the
2015, Bausys and Zavadskas [121] proposed VIKOR Section 2, we review some basic concepts and operations
strategy to solve multi criteria decision making problem in related to neutrosophic set, single valued neutrosophic set
interval neutrosophic set environment. Further, Hung et al. (SVNS), bipolar neutrosophic set. In Section 3, we propose
[122] proposed VIKOR strategy for interval neutrosophic the bipolar neutrosophic number weighted aggregation
multi attribute group decision making (MAGDM). (BNNWA) operator and prove its basic properties. In
Pouresmaeil et al. [123] proposed a MAGDM strategy section 4, we develop a novel MAGDM strategy based on
based on TOPSIS and VIKOR strategies in single valued VIKOR strategy to solve the MADGM problems with
neutrosophic set environment. Liu and Zhang [124] bipolar neutrosophic information. In Section 5, we present
extended VIKOR strategy in neutrosophic hesitant fuzzy an example to illustrate the proposed strategy. Then in
set environment. Hu et al. [125] proposed interval Section 6, we present the sensitivity analysis to show the
neutrosophic projection based VIKOR strategy and applied impact of different values of the decision making
it for doctor selection. Selvakumari et al. [126] proposed mechanism coefficient on ranking order of the
VIKOR strategy for decision making problem using alternatives.. In section 7, we present conclusion and
octagonal neutrosophic soft matrix. future direction of research.
VIKOR strategy in bipolar neutrosophic set is yet to ap- 2. Preliminaries
pear.
In this section, we describe the basic definitions related to
Research gap: neutrosophic sets, bipolar neutrosophic sets.
VIKOR based MAGDM strategy in BNS environ- Definition 2.1 Neutrosophic set
ment. This study answers the following research questions:
i. Is it possible to extend VIKOR strategy in BNS Let U be a space of points (objects), with a generic
environment? element in U denoted by u. A neutrosophic sets [3] A in U
is characterized by a truth-membership function T A ( u ) , an

Surapati Pramanik, Shyamal Dalapati, Shariful Alam, Tapan Kumar Roy, VIKOR Based Multi Attribute Group Decision
Making strategy under Bipolar Neutrosophic Set Environment
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 19, 2018 59

indeterminacy-membership function I A ( u ) and a falsity- Let



H1 { u,  T1 (u), I1 (u), F1 (u), T1 (u), I1 (u), F1 (u) :uU}
    
membership function FA ( u ) ,
and
where, TA (u) , IA (u) , FA (u ) : U  ] 0,1 [ .
H2  { u,  T2 (u ), I2 (u ), F2 (u ), T2 (u ), I2 (u ), F2 (u ) : u  U }
     

Neutrosophic set A can be written as:


be any two bipolar neutrosophic sets in U. Then,
A = { u, < TA (u ) , IA (u) , FA (u ) >: u ∈U},
H1  H 2 iff T1 ( u )  T 2 ( u ) , I1 (u )  I2 (u ) ,
 
where, TA (u) , I A ( u ) , FA (u) ∈ ] 0, 1 [ .
  

The sum of TA (u ) , IA (u) , FA (u ) is F1 ( u )  F2 ( u ) and


 
T1 (u )  T 2 (u ) ,
 
I1 (u )  I2 (u ) ,
 

0 ≤ TA (u ) + IA (u) + FA (u ) ≤ 3 .

F1 (u )  F2 (u ) for all uU.


 

Definition 2.2: Single valued neutrosophic set Definition 2.6 Union of any two bipolar
Let U be a space of points (objects) with a generic element neutrosophic sets [105]
in U denoted by u. A single valued neutrosophic set [4] J in Let H1 { u,  T1 (u ), I1 (u ), F1 (u ), T1 (u ), I1 (u ), F1 (u ) : u U } and
U is characterized by a truth-membership function TJ (u) ,
H2  { u,  T2 (u ), I2 (u ), F2 (u ), T2 (u ), I2 (u ), F2 (u ) : u  U } be any
     

an indeterminacy-membership function IJ (u ) and a falsity- two bipolar neutrosophic sets in U. Then, their union is
membership function FJ (u) , where, defined as follows:
TJ (u) , I J (u ) , FJ (u ) : U[ 0, 1] . A single valued H 3 (u )  H1 (u )  H 2 (u )  { u,  max (T1 (u ), T2 (u )) ,
neutrosophic set J can be expressed by min (I1 (u ), I2 (u )), min (F1 (u ), F2 (u )),
J = {u,< ( TJ (u) , I J (u ) , FJ (u ) )>: u  U}. min (T1 (u ), T2 (u )), max (I1 (u ), I2 (u )),
Therefore for each u U, TJ (u) , I J (u ) , FJ (u )  [0, 1] the max (F1 (u ), F2 (u )) : u  U}, for all u  U.
sum of three functions lies between 0 and 1, i.e. Definition 2.7 Intersection of two bipolar
0  TJ (u) + I J (u ) + FJ (u )  3. neutrosophic sets
Let H1 { u,  T1 (u ), I1 (u ), F1 (u ), T1 (u ), I1 (u ), F1 (u ) :uU } and
Definition 2.3: Bipolar neutrosophic set
H2  { u,  T2 (u ), I2 (u ), F2 (u ), T2 (u ), I2 (u ), F2 (u ) : u  U } be any
     

Let U be a space of points (objects) with a generic element two bipolar neutrosophic sets in U. Then, their intersection
in U denoted by u. A bipolar neutrosophic set [105] H in U [105] is defined as follows:
is defined as an object of the form
H 4 (u )  H1 (u )  H 2 (u ) { u,  min (T1 (u ), T2 (u )) ,
H { u,  TH (u), I H (u), FH (u), TH (u), TH (u), FH (u) : uU} , where,
max (I1 (u ), I2 (u )), max (F1 (u ), F2 (u )),
TH (u), IH (u), FH (u) : U [0,1] and
max (T1 (u ), T2 (u )), min (I1 (u ), I2 (u )),
T (u), I (u), F (u) : U [1, 0] .

H

H

H min (F1 (u ), F2 (u )) :uU}for all uU.
We denote Definition 2.8 Complement of a bipolar
H { u,  TH (u), I H (u), FH (u), TH (u), I H (u), FH (u) :uU} s neutrosophic set [105]
imply H =  TH , IH , FH , TH , IH , FH  as a bipolar Let H1  { u,  T1 (u ), I1 (u ), F1 (u ), T1 (u ), I1 (u ), F1 (u ) : u  U } be
neutrosophic number (BNN). a bipolar neutrosophic set in U. Then the complement of
Definition 2.4 Containment of two bipolar H1 is denoted by H1c and is defined by
neutrosophic sets [105]  
H1c { u, 1 T1 (u ),1 I1 (u ),1  F1 (u ),{1}  T1 (u ),
Let  
{1}  I1 (u ),{1}  F1 (u ) : uU }

H1 { u,  T1 (u), I1 (u), F1 (u), T1 (u), I1 (u), F1 (u) :uU}
    
for all u U.
and
H2 { u,  T2 (u ), I2 (u ), F2 (u ), T2 (u ), I2 (u ), F2 (u ) : u U } be
     
Definition 2.13 Hamming distance measure
any two bipolar neutrosophic sets in U. Then H 1  H 2 iff between two BNNs [115]

T1 ( u )  T 2 ( u ) ,
 
I1 ( u )  I2 ( u ) ,
 
F 1 (u )  F 2 (u ) and
 
Let h 1   T1 , I1 , F1 , T1 , I1 , F1  and
T1 (u )  T2 (u ) , I1 ( u )  I 2 (u ) , F1 ( u )  F2 ( u ) for all uU.
     
h 2   T2 , I2 , F2 , T2 , I2 , F2  be any two BNNs in U.
Definition 2.5 Equality of two bipolar Then Hamming distance measure between h1 and h2 is
neutrosophic sets [103]

Surapati Pramanik, Shyamal Dalapati, Shariful Alam, Tapan Kumar Roy, VIKOR Based Multi Attribute Group Decision
Making strategy under Bipolar Neutrosophic Set Environment
60 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 19, 2018

denoted by D(h1, h 2 ) and defined as follows: h ij  BNNWA  ( h 1ij , h ij2 ,... , h ijt ) 
D(h1 , h 2 ) 
(1) (1h1ij  2 h ij2  3h 3ij  ...   t h ijt ) =
1 
[ T1  T2  I1  I2  F1  F2  T1  T2  I1  I2  F1  F2 ]
6 (1h  2 h  3h  ... t h) =
Definition 2.14: Normalization procedure  t t t t t t 
  [T    p , I    p , F    p , T    p , I    p , F    p ]  
In decision making situation, cost type attribute and benefit  p  1 p  1 p  1 p  1 p  1 p  1 
type attribute may exist simultaneously. Assume that,

=  T  , I  ,F , T  , I  , F )   h.
h ij be a BNN to express the rating value of i-th alternative
Property: 3. Monotonicity
with respect to j-th attribute (cj). If cj belongs to the cost
type attributes, then h ij should be standardized by Assume that { h1ij , h ij2 , .. , h ijt } and { h *ij1 , h *ij2 , .. , h *ijt } be
employing the complement of BNN h ij . When the attribute any two set of collections of t bipolar neutrosophic nubers
cj belongs to benefit type attributes, h ij does not need to be with the condition t ijp  t *ijp (p = 1, 2, ..., t), then
standardized, we use the following formula of BNNWA  ( h1ij , h ij2 ,..., h ijt )  BNNWA  ( h *ij1 , h *ij2 ,..., h *ijt ).
normalization as follows: Proof:
h   {1}  T ,{1}  I ,{1}  F ,
*    From the given condition Tij ( p)  Tij*( p) , we have
ij ij ij ij
(2) (p)  *( p )
{1}  Tij ,{1}  Iij ,{1}  Fij   p Tij   p Tij
3. Bipolar neutrosophic number weighted t t  *( p )
aggregation operator
  p Tij( p )   p Tij .
p 1 p 1
Let {h1ij , h ij2 ,..., h ijt } be the set of t bipolar neutrosophic From the given condition Iij ( p)  Iij*( p) , we have
numbers and {1 , 2 , 3 , ..., t } be the set of corresponding  *( p )
 p Iij ( p )   p Iij
weights of t bipolar neutrosophic numbers with conditions
t t t  *( p )
 p  0 and  p 1 . Then the bipolar neutrosophic number   p Iij( p )   p Iij .
p 1 p 1 p 1

weighted aggregation (BNNWA) operator is defined as From the given condition Fij ( p )  Fij*( p ) , we have
follows:  *( p )
~ ~ ~  p Fij ( p )   p Fij
h ij  BNNWA  ( h1ij h ij2 ... h ijt ) 
~ ~ ~ ~ t
  p Fij( p )   p Fij
t  *( p )
.
(1 h 1ij   2 h ij2   3 h ij3  ...    h ijt ) =
p 1 p 1

t 
    p T~ij( p ) ,   p ~I ij( p ),   p ~Fij( p ),   p T~ij( p ) ,   p ~I ij( p ),   p ~Fij( p )  
t t t t t
From the given condition Tij( p)  Tij*( p) , we have
 p 1 p 1 p 1 p 1 p 1 p 1   p Tij ( p )   p Tij
 *( p )

(3)
t t
The BNNWA operator satisfies the following properties:   p Tij( p)   p Tij
*( p )
.
1. Idempotency p 1 p 1

2. Monotoncity From the given condition Iij( p)  Iij*( p) , we have


3. Boundedness  *( p )
 p Iij ( p )   p Iij
Property: 1. Idempotency
t t  *( p )
If all h1ij , h ij2 ,... , h ijt  h are equal, then   p Iij( p )   p Iij .
p 1 p 1

h ij  BNNWA  ( h1ij , h ij2 ,... , h ijt )  h From the given condition Fij( p)  Fij*( p) , we have
Proof:  *( p )
 p Fij ( p )   p Fij
Since h1ij  h ij2  ... t
 h  h , based on the Equation (3)
ij
t t *( p )
t   p Fij( p )   p Fij .
and with conditions, p  0 and   p 1 , we obtain p 1 p 1
p 1
From the above relations, we obtain
BNNWA  ( h1ij , h ij2 ,... , h ijt )  BNNWA  ( h *ij1 , h *ij2 ,..., h *ijt ).

Surapati Pramanik, Shyamal Dalapati, Shariful Alam, Tapan Kumar Roy, VIKOR Based Multi Attribute Group Decision
Making strategy under Bipolar Neutrosophic Set Environment
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 19, 2018 61

NCNWA  ( h1ij , h ij2 ,..., h ijt )  BNNWA  ( h *ij1 , h *ij2 ,..., h *ijt ).  
 
 c 1 c 2 ... c s 
Property: 2. Boundedness  A h p h p ... h p 
Mp  
1 11 12 1s
Let { h1ij , h ij2 , ..., h ijt } be any collection of t bipolar (4)
 A 2 h p21 h p22 h p2s 
neutrosophic numbers.  
If . . ... . 
 A h p h p ... .h p 
 ( p) ( p)
h   max {Tij }, min {Iij }, min {Fij }, min {Tij },
( p) ( p)  r r1 r2 rs 
p p p p
Here p = 1, 2, 3,…, t; i = 1, 2, 3,…, r; j = 1, 2, 3,…, s.
max {Iij ( p )}, max {Fij ( p )} 
p p Step: 2. Normalization of the decision matrix
 ( p)  ( p)
h   min {T }, max {I }, max {F }, max {T },
 (p) ( p)
p
ij
p
ij
p
ij
p
ij Cost type attributes and benefit type attributes are
generally existed in decision making process.
min {Iij ( p )}, min {Fij ( p )}  (p= 1, 2, 3, ....,t). Therefore the considered attribute values need to be
p p
normalized to aviod different physical dimensional
Then, h  BNNWA  ( h1ij , h ij2 ,..., h ijt )  h  .
-
unit. To normalize we can use the following equation:
Proof: h *ij   {1}  Tij , {1}  Iij , {1}  Fij ,
From Property 1 and Property 2, we obtain
{1}  Tij , {1}  Iij , {1}  Fij  .
BNNWA  ( h1ij , h ij2 ,..., h ijt )  BNNWA  ( h  , h  ,..., h  )  h 
Using the normalized method, we obtain the following
and normalized decision matrix (See eq. (5)):
BNNWA  ( h1ij , h ij2 ,..., h ijt )  BNNWA  ( h  , h  ,..., h  )  h  .  c1 c 2 ... cs 
So, we have
 ~p ~p ~ 
 A1 h11 h12 ... h1ps 
h -  BNNWA  ( h1ij , h ij2 ,..., h ijt )  h  .  ~p ~p ~p 
M p   A 2 h 21 h 22 h 2s  (5)
4. VIKOR strategy for solving MAGDM problem . . ... . 
under bipolar neutrosophic environment  ~p ~p ~ 
 A r h r1 h r 2 ... .h rsp 
 
In this section, we propose a MAGDM strategy under
Where,
bipolar neutrosophic set environment. Assume that,
~p 
p
A  {A1 , A 2 , A3 ,...,A r } be a set of r alternatives and h ij if c j is benefit type attribute.
h ij  
C {c1, c2 , c3 , ...,cs } be a set of s attributes. Assume that,  * p
 h ij if c j is cos type attribute.

 {1 ,  2 , 3 , ...,s } be the weight vector of the
s
Step: 3. Aggregation of the decision matrices
attributes, where  k  0 and   k 1. Let
k 1 Using BNNWA operator in eq. (3), we obtain the
DM  {DM1 , DM 2 , DM3 , ...,DM t } be the set of t decision aggregated decision matrix as follows:
makers and  {1, 2 , 3 , ...,t } be the set of weight vector
 c1 c 2 ... .c s
t  
of decision makers, where  p  0 and   p 1 .  A1 h 11 h 12 ... h 1s

M   A2 
p 1
h 21 h 22 h 2s (6)
In this section, we describe the VIKOR based MAGDM  
strategy under bipolar neutrosophic set environment. The . . ... . 
A 
h r1 h r2 ... h rs
proposed strategy consists of the following steps (see  r 
Figure 1): where, i = 1, 2, 3, …, r; j = 1, 2, 3, …, s; p=1, 2, ….t.
Step: 1. Construction of the decision matrix Step: 4. Define the positive ideal solution and
= (h )
p negative ideal solution
Let M p
ij r  s (p = 1, 2, 3, …, t) be the p-th decision

matrix, where information about the alternative Ai is h ij   max T ij , min
i
I , min Fij , min T ij , max Iij , max Fij 
ij
i i i i i
provided by the decision maker DM p with respect to (7)
attribute c j (j = 1, 2, 3, …, s). The p-th decision matrix 
h ij   min T ij , max I , max Fij , max T ij , min Iij , min Fij 
denoted by M p
(See eq. (4)) is constructed as follows: i i ij i i i i

Surapati Pramanik, Shyamal Dalapati, Shariful Alam, Tapan Kumar Roy, VIKOR Based Multi Attribute Group Decision
Making strategy under Bipolar Neutrosophic Set Environment
62 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 19, 2018

(8) Multi attribute group decision


making problem
Step: 5. Define and compute the value of i and Z i

(i = 1, 2, 3, ..., r)
Construction of the decision matrix
i and Z i represent the average and worst group
scores for the alternative Ai respectively, with the
relations
 ~
s  j  D (h ij , h ij ) Normalization of the decision
i   (9)
j 1 D (h ij , h ij ) matrices

  j  D (h ij , ~
 
h ij ) 
Zi  max     (10)
 D (h ij , h ij ) 
j
  Aggregation of the decision matrix
Here,  j is the weight of cj.
The smaller values of i and Z i correspond to the
better average and worse group scores for alternative Define the positive ideal solution and
Ai , respectively. negative ideal solution
Step: 6. Calculate the values of index VIKOR i (i
= 1, 2, 3, …, r) by the relation
(i    ) ( Zi  Z  ) Define i and Z i
i    
 (1   )  
(11)
(   ) (Z  Z )
 
Here,   min i ,   max i ,
i i
i i
Zi  min Zi , Zi  max Zi (12) Calculate the values of i
i i

and  depicts the decision making mechanism coefficient.


If   0.5 , it is for “the maximum group utility”; if   0.5 ,
it is “ the minimum regret”; it has been inferred that the Rank the priority of alternatives
decision making mechanism coefficient is mostly
taken as v = 0.5.
Step: 7. Rank the priority of alternatives Figure 1. Decision making procedure of proposed MAGDM
strategy.
We rank the alternatives by  i , i , and Z i according
5. Illustrative example
to the rule of traditional VIKOR strategy. The smaller
value indicates the better alternative. To demonstrate the applicability and fesibility of the
proposed strategy, we solve a MAGDM problem adapted
from [45]. We assume that an investment company wants
to invest a sum of money in the best option. The
investment company forms a decision making board
involving of three members (DM1, DM2, DM3) who
evaluate the four alternatives to invest money. The
alternatives are Car company ( A 1 ), Food company ( A 2 ),
Computer company ( A 3 ) and Arm company ( A 4 ).
Decision makers take decision to evaluate alternatives
based on the criteria namely, risk factor ( c 1 ), growth
factor ( c 2 ), environment impact ( c 3 ). We consider three
criteria as benefit type based on Zhang et al. [127].
Assume that the weight vector of attributes is

Surapati Pramanik, Shyamal Dalapati, Shariful Alam, Tapan Kumar Roy, VIKOR Based Multi Attribute Group Decision
Making strategy under Bipolar Neutrosophic Set Environment
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 19, 2018 63

  (0.37, 0.33, 0.3)T and weight vector of decision makers M=


 c1 C2 C3 
 
is   (0.38, 0.32, 0.3) . Now, we apply the proposed
T
 A1 (.22, .17, .17, - .16, - .14, - .13) (.22, .14, .15, - .14, - .13, - .13) (.16, .12, .18, - .10, - .10, - .20) 
 A 2 (.20, .10, .10, - .14, - .12, - .10) (.21, .10, .21, - .15, - .10, - .13) ( .21, .11, .13,  .17,  .12,  .16) 
MAGDM strategy to solve the problem using the  
following steps.  A3 (.21, .12, .16, - .17, - .12, - .20) (.13, .10, .13, - .10, - .12, - .13) (.21,.10,.18,  .13,  .10, - .11) 
 A 4 (.20, .17, .11, - .17, - .15, - .10) (.24, .18, .11, - .19, - .20, - .16) (.19, .11, .17,  .11,  .16,  .21) 
 
Step: 1. Construction of the decision matrix  

We construct the decision matrix information provided by Step: 4. Define the positive ideal solution and negative
the decision makers in terms of BNNs with respect to the ideal solution
criteria as follows:
Decision matrix for DM1 The positive ideal solution h ij =
M1 = 

c1 C2 C3 

 (.22, .10, .10, - .14, - .12, - .10) (.24, .10, .11, - .19, - .10, - .13) (.21, .10, .13, - .17, - .10, - .11) 
 c1 C2 C3  and the negative ideal solution
 
A
 1 (.5, .6, .7, - .3, - .6, - .3) (.8, .5, .6, - .4, - .6, - .3) (.9, .4, .6, - .1, - .6, - .5) 
 A2 (.6, .2, .2, - .4, - .5, - .3) (.6, .3, .7, - .4, - .3, - .5) ( .7, .5, .3,  .4,  .3,  .3)  h ij =
 
 A3 (.8, .3, .5, - .6, - .4, - .5) (.5, .2, .4, - .1, - .5, - .3) (.4,.2,.8,  .5,  .3, - .2)  

c1 C2 C3 

 A4 (.7, .5, .3, - .6, - .3, - .3) (.8, .7, .2, - .8, - .6, - .1) (.6, .3, .4,  .3,  .4,  .7)   (.20, .17, .17, - .14, - .15, - .20) (.13, .18, .21, - .10, - .20, - .16) (.16, .12, .18, - .10, - .16, - .11) 
 
  Step: 5. Compute i and Z i

Decision matrix for DM2 We have computed the values of i by eq. (9) and the
M2 = values of Z i by eq. (10), the values are presented as
 c1 C2 C3  follows:
 
 A1 (.6, .3, .4, - .5, - .3, - .7) (.5, .3, .4, - .3, - .3, - .4) (.1, .5, .7, - .5, - .2, - .6)  1 = 0.75, 2 = 0.38, 3 = 0.60, 4 = 0. 75 and Z1 =
 A2 (.7, .4, .5, - .3, - .2, - .1) (.8, .4, .5, - .7, - .3, - .2) ( .6, .2, .7,  .5,  .2,  .9) 
  0.34, Z 2 = 0.16, Z 3 = 0.33, Z 4 = 0.34
 A3 (.8, .3, .2, - .5, - .2, - .6) (.3, .2, .1, - .6, - .3, - .4) (.7,.5,.4,  .4,  .3, - .2) 
 A4 (.3, .5, .2, - .5, - .5, - .2) (.5, .6, .4, - .3, - .6, - .7) (.4, .3, .8,  .5,  .6,  .5)  Step: 6. Calculate the values of i
 
 
Using   0.5 , and eq. (11) and eq. (12), we obtain
Decision matrix for DM3 1 = 1,  2 = 0, 3 = 0.77,  4 = 1
M3 =
 c1 
Step: 7. Rank the priority of alternatives
C2 C3
 
A
 1 (.9, .6, .4, - .7, - .3, - .2) (.7, .5, .3, - .6, - .2, - .5) (.4, .2, .3, - .2, - .5, - .7)  The preference order of the alternatives based on the
 A2 (.5, .3, .2, - .6, - .4, - .1) (.5, .2, .7, - .3, - .2, - .5) ( .6, .3, .2,  .7,  .6,  .3)  traditional rules of the VIKOR strategy is
 
 A3 (.2, .5, .6, - .4, - .5, - .7) (.3, .2, .7, - .2, - .3, - .5) (.8,.2,.4,  .2,  .3, - .6)  A 2  A3 A 4  A 1 .
 A4 (.8, .5, .5, - .4, - .6, - .3) (.9, .3, .4, - .5, - .6, - .7) (.7, .4, .3,  .2,  .5,  .7) 
  6. The influence of parameter 
 
Step: 2. Normalization of the decision matrix In this section, we present sensitivity analysis to show
the impact of different values of the decision making
Since all the criteria are considered as benefit type, we do mechanism coefficient on ranking order of the
not need to normalize the decision matrices (M1, M2, M3). alternatives Figure 2 represents the graphical
Step: 3. Aggregated decision matrix representation of alternatives ( A i ) versus (i = 1, 2,
Using eq. (3), the aggregated decision matrix is 3, 4) for different values of  .
presented as follows:

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Table 1 shows that the ranking order of alternatives ( A i ) with the value of  changing from 0.1 to 0.9.
Values of Values of i Preference order of alternatives

Surapati Pramanik, Shyamal Dalapati, Shariful Alam, Tapan Kumar Roy, VIKOR Based Multi Attribute Group Decision
Making strategy under Bipolar Neutrosophic Set Environment
64 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 19, 2018

 = 0.1 1 = 1,  2 = 0,  3 = 0.915,  4 = 1 A 2  A3  A 4 = A1 .

 = 0.2 1 = 1,  2 = 0,  3 = 0.880,  4 = 1 A 2  A3  A 4 = A1 .

 = 0.3 1 = 1,  2 = 0,  3 = 0.845,  4 = 1 A 2  A3  A 4 = A1 .

 = 0.4 1 = 1,  2 = 0,  3 = 0.810,  4 = 1 A 2  A3  A 4 = A1 .

 = 0.5 1 = 1,  2 = 0,  3 = 0.770,  4 = 1 A 2  A3  A 4 = A1 .

 = 0.6 1 = 1,  2 = 0,  3 = 0.740,  4 = 1 A 2  A3  A 4 = A1 .

 = 0.7 1 = 1,  2 = 0,  3 = 0.700,  4 = 1 A 2  A3  A 4 = A1 .

 = 0.8 1 = 1,  2 = 0,  3 = 0.670,  4 = 1 A 2  A3  A 4 = A1 .

 = 0.9 1 = 1,  2 = 0,  3 = 0.640,  4 = 1 A 2  A3  A 4 = A1 .

Table 1. Values of i (i = 1, 2, 3, 4) and ranking of alternatives for different values of  .

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

1.0

0.8
Values of 

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
f
so

0.5
lue
Va

0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
A1 A2 A3 A4
Alternatives

Fig 2. Graphical representation of ranking order of alternatives for different values of  .

Surapati Pramanik, Shyamal Dalapati, Shariful Alam, Tapan Kumar Roy, VIKOR Based Multi Attribute Group Decision
Making strategy under Bipolar Neutrosophic Set Environment
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 19, 2018 65

7. Conclusion [12] T. Y. Chen. An ELECTRE-based outranking method


for multiple criteria group decision making using inter-
In this paper, we have extended the VIKOR strategy to val type-2 fuzzy sets. Information Sciences, 263 (2014),
MAGDM with bipolar neutrosophic environment. We have 1–21.
introduced bipolar neutrosophic numbers weighted aggre- [13] K. Mondal, and S. Pramanik. Intuitionistic fuzzy multi
gation operator and applied it to aggregate the individual criteria group decision making approach to quality-
opinion to one group opinion. We have developed a brick selection problem. Journal of Applied Quantita-
tive Methods 9 (2) (2014), 35–50.
VIKOR based MAGDM strategy with bipolar
[14] P. P. Dey, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. Multi-criteria
neutrosophic set. Finally, we have solved a MAGDM group decision making in intuitionistic fuzzy environ-
problem to show the feasibility and efficiency of the ment based on grey relational analysis for weaver selec-
proposed MAGDM strategy. We have presented a tion in Khadi institution. Journal of Applied and Quan-
sensitivity analysis to show the impact of different values titative Methods, 10 (4) (2015), 1-14.
of the decision making mechanism coefficient on ranking [15] K. Mondal, and S. Pramanik. Intuitionistic fuzzy simi-
order of the alternatives. The proposed VIKOR based larity measure based on tangent function and its appli-
MAGDM strategy can be employed to solve a variety of cation to multi-attribute decision making. Global Jour-
problems such as logistics center selection [128], teacher nal of Advanced Research, 2 (2) (2015), 464-471.
selection [19, 129], renewable energy selection [131], fault [16] J. Ren. Sustainability prioritization of energy storage
technologies for promoting the development of renew-
diagnosis [132], weaver selection [14, 54], brick selection
able energy: A novel intuitionistic fuzzy combinative
[13], school choice [130] etc. distance-based assessment approach. Renewable Ener-
gy, 121, (2018), 666-676.
References [17] F. E. Boran, S. Genç, M. Kurt, and D. Akay. A multi-
criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for
[1] Zadeh, L.A. Fuzzy sets. Information Control, 8 (1965), supplier selection with TOPSIS method. Expert Sys-
338–356. tems with Applications, 36 (2009), 11363–11368.
[2] K. T. Atanassov. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets [18] X. Zhao. TOPSIS method for interval-valued intuition-
and Systems, 20 (1986), 87-96. istic fuzzy multiple attribute decision making and its
[3] F. Smarandache. A unifying field in logics: Neutro- application to teaching quality evaluation. Journal of
sophic logic. Neutrosophy, neutrosophic set, neutro- Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 26 (2014), 3049–3055.
sophic probability, and neutrosophic statistics, Ameri- [19] S. Pramanik, and D. Mukhopadhyaya. Grey relational
can Research Press, Rehoboth, 1998. analysis based intuitionistic fuzzy multi criteria group
[4] H. Wang, F. Smarandache, Y. Zhang, and R. Sunder- decision-making approach for teacher selection in high-
raman. Single valued neutrosophic sets. Multi-space er education. International Journal of Computer Appli-
and Multi-structure, 4 (2010), 410-413. cations, 34(10) (2011), 21-29.
[5] E. Triantaphyllou. Multi-criteria decision making meth- [20] S. M. Chen, and J. M. Tan. Handling multicriteria fuzzy
ods. In Multi-criteria decision making methods: A com- decision-making problems based on vague set theory.
parative study (5-21). Springer US (2000). Fuzzy sets and systems, 67(2) (1994), 163-172.
[6] S. Opricovic, G. H. Tzeng. Extended VIKOR method in [21] D. H. Hong, and C. H. Choi. Multicriteria fuzzy deci-
comparison with outranking methods. European journal sion-making problems based on vague set theory. Fuzzy
of operational research, 178 (2) (2007), 514-529. sets and systems, 114(1) (2000), 103-113.
[7] S. Opricovic, G. H. Tzeng. Compromise solution by
MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR [22] P. Biswas, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. Entropy based
and TOPSIS. European journal of operational re- grey relational analysis method for multi-attribute deci-
search,156 (2004), 445–455. sion making under single valued neutrosophic assess-
[8] E. Cevikcan, S. Çebi, I. Kaya. Fuzzy VIKOR and ments. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 2(2014), 102–
Fuzzy Axiomatic Design Versus to Fuzzy Topsis: An 110.
Application of Candidate Assessment. Multi Valued [23] P. Biswas, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. A new method-
Logic and Soft Computing, 15 (2009), 181–208. ology for neutrosophic multi-attribute decision making
[9] S. J. Chen, and C.L. Hwang. Fuzzy multiple attribute with unknown weight information. Neutrosophic Sets
decision making. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg 1992. and Systems, 3 (2014), 42–52.
[10] Y. J. Wang, and H. S. Lee. Generalizing TOPSIS for [24] P. Biswas, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. TOPSIS meth-
fuzzy multiple-criteria group decision-making. Com- od for multi-attribute group decision-making under sin-
puters and Mathematics with Applications, 53 (2007), gle valued neutrosophic environment. Neural Compu-
1762–1772. ting and Applications, (2015), doi: 10.1007/s00521-
[11] S. Pramanik, and K. Mondal. Weighted fuzzy similarity 015-1891-2.
measure based on tangent function and its application [25] P. Biswas, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. Aggregation of
to medical diagnosis. International Journal of Innova- triangular fuzzy neutrosophic set information and its
tive Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, application to multi-attribute decision making. Neutro-
4 (2) (2015), 158-164. sophic Sets and Systems, 12 (2016), 20-40.

Surapati Pramanik, Shyamal Dalapati, Shariful Alam, Tapan Kumar Roy, VIKOR Based Multi Attribute Group Decision
Making strategy under Bipolar Neutrosophic Set Environment
66 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 19, 2018

[26] P. Biswas, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. Value and am- and their multi criteria decision making methods. Cy-
biguity index based ranking method of single-valued bernetics and Information Technologies, 15 (2015), 13-
trapezoidal neutrosophic numbers and its application to 26. doi: 10.1515/cait-2015-0051.
multi-attribute decision making. Neutrosophic Sets and [41] S. Pramanik, S. Dalapati, S. Alam, F. Smarandache,
Systems, 12 (2016), 127-138. and T. K. Roy. NS-cross entropy-based MAGDM un-
[27] P. Biswas, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. Multi-attribute der single-valued neutrosophic set environment. Infor-
group decision making based on expected value of neu- mation, 9 (2) (2018), 37.
trosophic trapezoidal numbers. New Trends in Neutro- [42] J. Ye. Projection and bidirectional projection measures
sophic Theory and Applications-Vol-II. Pons Editions, of single valued neutrosophic sets and their decision
Brussells (2017). In Press. making method for mechanical design scheme. Journal
[28] P. Biswas, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. Non-linear pro- of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence,
gramming approach for single-valued neutrosophic (2016), doi:10.1080/0952813X.2016.1259263.
TOPSIS method. New Mathematics and Natural Com- [43] R. Sahin, and M. Karabacak. A multi attribute decision
putation, (2017). In Press. making method based on inclusion measure for interval
[29] I. Deli, and Y. Subas. A ranking method of single val- neutrosophic sets. International Journal of Engineering
ued neutrosophic numbers and its applications to multi- and Applied Sciences, 2(2) (2014), 13–15.
attribute decision making problems. International Jour- [44] H.Y. Zhang, P. Ji, J. Wang, and X.H. Chen. An im-
nal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, (2016), proved weighted correlation coefficient based on inte-
doi:10.1007/s13042016-0505-3. grated weight for interval neutrosophic sets and its ap-
[30] P. Ji, J. Q. Wang, and H. Y. Zhang. Frank prioritized plication in multi-criteria decision-making problems.
Bonferroni mean operator with single-valued neutro- International Journal of Computational Intelligence
sophic sets and its application in selecting third-party Systems, 8 (2015), 1027–1043.
logistics providers. Neural Computing and Applica- [45] H.Y. Zhang, J. Q. Wang, and X.H. Chen. An outrank-
tions, (2016). doi:10.1007/s00521-016-2660-6. ing approach for multi-criteria decision-making prob-
[31] A. Kharal. A neutrosophic multi-criteria decision mak- lems with interval-valued neutrosophic sets. Neural
ing method. New Mathematics and Natural Computa- Computing and Applications, 17 (2016), 615–627.
tion, 10 (2014), 143–162. [46] Y. Huang, G. Wei, and C. Wei. VIKOR method for in-
[32] R. X. Liang, J. Q. Wang, and L. Li. Multi-criteria group terval neutrosophic multiple attribute group decision-
decision making method based on interdependent in- making. Information 8 (2017), 144;
puts of single valued trapezoidal neutrosophic infor- doi:10.3390/info8040144.
mation. Neural Computing and Applications, (2016), [47] J. Ye. Similarity measures between interval neutrosoph-
doi:10.1007/s00521-016-2672-2. ic sets and their applications in multi criteria decision-
[33] R. X. Liang, J. Q. Wang, and H. Y. Zhang. A multi- making. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 26
criteria decision-making method based on single-valued (2014), 165–172.
trapezoidal neutrosophic preference relations with [48] S. Pramanik, and K. Mondal. Interval neutrosophic
complete weight information. Neural Computing and multi-attribute decision-making based on grey relation-
Applications, (2017). Doi: 10.1007/s00521-017-2925- al analysis. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 9 (2015),
8. 13-22.
[34] P. Liu, and Y. Wang. Multiple attribute decision- [49] W. Zhao, J. G. Du, and H. J. Guan. Interval valued neu-
making method based on single-valued neutrosophic trosophic sets and multi-attribute decision-making
normalized weighted Bonferroni mean. Neural Compu- based on generalized weighted aggregation operator.
ting and Applications, 25 (7) (2014), 2001–2010. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 29 (2015),
[35] R. Sahin, and A. Kucuk. Subsethood measure for single 2697–2706.
valued neutrosophic sets. Journal of Intelligent and [50] H.Y. Zhang, J.Q. Wang, and X. H. Chen. Interval neu-
Fuzzy System, (2014), doi:10.3233/IFS-141304. trosophic sets and their application in multi-criteria de-
[36] J. Ye. Multi criteria decision-making method using the cision making problems. The Scientific World Journal,
correlation coefficient under single-valued neutrosophic 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/645953.
environment. International Journal of General Sys- [51] R. Sahin. Cross-entropy measure on interval neutro-
tems,42 (2013a), 386–394. sophic sets and its applications in multi criteria decision
[37] J. Ye. Single valued neutrosophic cross-entropy for making. Neural Computing and Applications, 2015, doi
multi criteria decision making problems. Applied 10.1007/s00521-015-2131-5.
Mathematical Modelling, 38 (3) (2013), 1170–1175. [52] Z. P. Tian, H. Y. Zhang, J. Wang, J. Q. Wang, and X.
[38] K. Mondal, and S. Pramanik. Neutrosophic decision H. Chen. Multi-criteria decision-making method based
making model of school choice. Neutrosophic Sets and on a cross-entropy with interval neutrosophic sets. In-
Systems, 7 (2015), 62-68. ternational Journal of Systems Science, 2015.
[39] J. Ye. Single valued neutrosophic cross-entropy for doi:10.1080/00207721.2015.1102359.
multi criteria decision making problems. Applied [53] S. Dalapati, S. Pramanik, S. Alam, F. Smarandache,
Mathematical Modelling, 38 (3) (2014), 1170 –1175. and T. K. Roy. IN-cross entropy based MAGDM strat-
[40] J. Ye. Improved cross entropy measures of single val- egy under interval neutrosophic set environment. Neu-
ued neutrosophic sets and interval neutrosophic sets trosophic Sets and Systems, 18 (2017), 43-57.

Surapati Pramanik, Shyamal Dalapati, Shariful Alam, Tapan Kumar Roy, VIKOR Based Multi Attribute Group Decision
Making strategy under Bipolar Neutrosophic Set Environment
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 19, 2018 67

[54] S. Pramanik, P. Biswas, and B. C. Giri. Hybrid vector [67] K. Mondal, and S. Pramanik. Tri-complex rough neu-
similarity measures and their applications to multi- trosophic similarity measure and its application in mul-
attribute decision making under neutrosophic environ- ti-attribute decision making. Critical Review, 11
ment. Neural Computing and Applications, 28 (2017), (2015), 26-40.
1163–1176. doi:10.1007/s00521-015-2125-3. [68] S. Broumi, and F. Smarandache. Interval neutrosophic
[55] P. P. Dey, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. Extended pro- rough sets. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 7 (2015),
jection-based models for solving multiple attribute de- 23-31.
cision making problems with interval valued neutro- [69] H. Wang, F. Smarandache, Y. Q. Zhang, and R. Sun-
sophic information. New Trends in Neutrosophic Theo- derraman. Interval neutrosophic sets and logic: theory
ries and Applications. Pons-Editions, Brussels, 2016, and applications in computing. Hexis, Phoenix, 2005.
127-140. [70] S. Pramanik, R. Roy, T. K. Roy, and F. Smarandache.
[56] P. P. Dey, S. Pramanik, and B. C. An extended grey Multi attribute decision making strategy on projection
relational analysis based interval neutrosophic multi- and bidirectional projection measures of interval rough
attribute decision making for weaver selection. Journal neutrosophic sets. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 19
of New Theory, 9 (2015), 82-93. (2018). Accepted for publication.
[57] K. Mondal, and S. Pramanik. Rough neutrosophic mul- [71] K. Mondal, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. Rough
ti-attribute decision-making based on grey relational neutrosophic aggregation operators for multi-criteria
analysis. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 7 (2015), 8- decision-making. Fuzzy Multicriteria Decision Making
17. Using Neutrosophic Sets Springer International
[58] S. Pramanik, and K. Mondal. Cosine similarity measure Publishing, (2018). Accepted for publication.
of rough neutrosophic sets and its application in medi- [72] S. Pramanik, R. Roy, T. K. Roy, and F. Smarandache.
cal diagnosis. Global Journal of Advanced Research, 2 Multi attribute decision making based on several trigo-
(1) (2015), 212-220. nometric hamming similarity measures under interval
[59] S. Pramanik, and K. Mondal. Some rough neutrosophic rough neutrosophic environment. Neutrosophic Sets
similarity measure and their application to multi attrib- and Systems, 19 (2018).
ute decision making. Global Journal of Engineering [73] S. Pramanik, R. Roy, T. K. Roy, and F. Smarandache.
Science and Research Management, 2 (7) (2015), 61- Multi attribute decision making strategy on projection
74. and bidirectional projection measures of interval rough
[60] K. Mondal, and S. Pramanik. Rough neutrosophic mul- neutrosophic sets. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 19
ti-attribute decision-making based on rough accuracy (2018).
score function. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 8 [74] P. K. Maji. Neutrosophic soft set. Annals of Fuzzy
(2015), 16-22. Mathematics and Informatics, 5 (2012), 157–168.
[61] S. Pramanik, and K. Mondal. Cotangent similarity [75] P. K. Maji. Neutrosophic soft set approach to a deci-
measure of rough neutrosophic sets and its application sion-making problem. Annals of Fuzzy Mathematics
to medical diagnosis. Journal of New Theory, 4 (2015), and Informatics, 3 (2013), 313–319.
90-102. [76] R. Sahin, and A. Kucuk. Generalized neutrosophic soft
[62] K. Mondal, S. Pramanik, and F. Smarandache. Several set and its integration to decision-making problem. Ap-
trigonometric hamming similarity measures of rough plied Mathematics and Information Science, 8 (2014),
neutrosophic sets and their applications in decision 2751–2759.
making. In F. Smarandache, & S. Pramanik (Eds), New [77] P. P. Dey, S. Pramanik, and B.C. Giri. Neutrosophic
trends in neutrosophic theory and applications (pp. 93- soft multi-attribute decision making based on grey rela-
103). Brussels: Pons Editions, 2016. tional projection method. Neutrosophic Sets and Sys-
[63] S. Pramanik, R Roy, T. K. Roy, and F. Smarandache. tems, 11 (2016), 98-106.
Multi criteria decision making using correlation coeffi- [78] P. P. Dey, S. Pramanik, and B.C. Giri. Neutrosophic
cient under rough neutrosophic environment. Neutro- soft multi-attribute group decision making based on
sophic Sets and Systems, 17 (2017), 29-38. grey relational analysis method. Journal of New Results
http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1012237. in Science, 10 (2016), 25-37.
[64] S. Pramanik, R. Roy, and T. K. Roy. Multi criteria de- [79] P. P. Dey, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. Generalized
cision making based on projection and bidirectional neutrosophic soft multi-attribute group decision making
projection measures of rough neutrosophic sets. In F. based on TOPSIS. Critical Review, 11 (2015), 41-55.
Smarandache, & S. Pramanik (Eds.), New Trends in [80] S. Pramanik, and S. Dalapati. GRA based multi criteria
Neutrosophic Theory and Applications, Vol. II. Brus- decision making in generalized neutrosophic soft set
sels: Pons Editions. In Press. environment. Global Journal of Engineering Science
[65] K. Mondal, S. Pramanik, and F. Smarandache. Multi at- and Research Management, 3 (2016), 153–169.
tribute decision making based on rough neutrosophic [81] M. Şahin, S. Alkhazaleh, and V. Uluçay. Neutrosophic
variational coefficient similarity measure. Neutrosophic soft expert sets. Applied Mathematics, 6 (2015), 116-
Sets and Systems, 13 (2016), 3-17. 127.
[66] K. Mondal, S. Pramanik, and F. Smarandache. Rough [82] S. Pramanik, P. P. Dey, and B. C. Giri. TOPSIS for sin-
neutrosophic TOPSIS for multi-attribute group decision gle valued neutrosophic soft expert set based multi-
making. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems,13 (2016), attribute decision making problems. Neutrosophic Sets
105-117. and Systems, 10 (2015), 88-95.

Surapati Pramanik, Shyamal Dalapati, Shariful Alam, Tapan Kumar Roy, VIKOR Based Multi Attribute Group Decision
Making strategy under Bipolar Neutrosophic Set Environment
68 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 19, 2018

[83] J. Ye. Multiple-attribute decision-making method under in neutrosophic cubic set environment. Neutrosophic
a single-valued neutrosophic hesitant fuzzy environ- Sets and Systems, 15 (2017), 60–69.
ment. Journal of Intelligence Systems, 24 (2015), 23– [97] S. Pramanik, S. Dalapati, S. Alam, T. K. Roy, and F.
36. Smarandache. Neutrosophic cubic MCGDM method
[84] R. Sahin, and P. D. Liu. Correlation coefficient of sin- based on similarity measure. Neutrosophic Sets and
gle-valued neutrosophic hesitant fuzzy sets and its ap- Systems, 16 (2017), 44–56.
plications in decision-making. Neural Computing and [98] S. Pramanik, P. P. Dey, B. C. Giri, and F.
Applications, 2016, DOI 10.1007/s00521-015-2163-x. Smarandache. An Extended TOPSIS for Multi-
[85] R. Sahin, and P. D. Liu. Distance and similarity Attribute Decision Making Problems with Neutrosoph-
measures for multiple attribute decision making with ic Cubic Information. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems,
single-valued neutrosophic hesitant fuzzy information. 17 (2017), 20–28.
In F. Smarandache, & S. Pramanik (Eds), New trends [99] J. Zhan, M. Khan, and M. Gulistan. Applications of
in neutrosophic theory and applications (pp. 35-54). neutrosophic cubic sets in multi-criteria decision-
Brussels: Pons Editions, 2016. making. International Journal for Uncertainty Quantifi-
[86] P. Biswas, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. Some distance cation, 7 (2017), 377–394.
measures of single valued neutrosophic hesitant fuzzy [100] J. Ye. Linguistic neutrosophic cubic numbers and their
sets and their applications to multiple attribute decision multiple attribute decision-making method. Information
making. In F. Smarandache, & S. Pramanik (Eds), New 8 (2017), 110.
trends in neutrosophic theory and applications (pp. 27- [101] Z. Lu, and J. Ye. Cosine measures of neutrosophic cu-
34). Brussels: Pons Editions, 2016. bic sets for multiple attribute decision-making. Sym-
[87] P. Biswas, S. Pramanik, and B. C. GRA method of mul- metry, 9 (2017), 121.
tiple attribute decision making with single valued neu- [102] S. Pramanik, S. Dalapati, S. Alam, and T. K. Roy. NC-
trosophic hesitant fuzzy set Information. In F. TODIM-based MAGDM under a neutrosophic cubic
Smarandache, & S. Pramanik (Eds), New trends in neu- set environment. Information, 8 (2017), 149.
trosophic theory and applications (pp. 55-63). Brussels: doi:10.3390/info8040149.
Pons Editions, 2016. [103] L. Shi, and J. Ye. Dombi aggregation operators of neu-
[88] S. Broumi, and F. Smarandache. Neutrosophic refined trosophic cubic sets for multiple attribute decision-
similarity measure based on cosine function. Neutro- making. Algorithms 11 (2018), 29.
sophic Sets and Systems, 6 (2014), 42-48. doi:10.3390/a11030029.
[89] S. Broumi, and I. Deli. Correlation measure for neutro- [104] S. Pramanik, S. Dalapati, S. Alam, F. Smarandache,
sophic refined sets and its application in medical diag- and T. K. Roy. NC-cross entropy based madm under
nosis. Palestine Journal of Mathematics, 5 (2016), 135– neutrosophic cubic set environment, 2018 - pre-
143. prints.org.
[90] K. Mondal, and S. Pramanik. Neutrosophic refined [105] I. Deli, M. Ali, and F. Smarandache. Bipolar neutro-
similarity measure based on tangent function and its sophic sets and their application based on multi-criteria
application to multi attribute decision making. Journal decision making Proceedings of the 2015 International
of New theory, 8 (2015), 41-50. Conference on Advanced Mechatronic Systems,
[91] K. Mondal, and S. Pramanik. Neutrosophic refined Beiging, China, August, 249-254.
similarity measure based on cotangent function and its [106] W. R. Zhang. Bipolar fuzzy sets. In Proceedings of the
application to multi-attribute decision making. Global IEEE World Congress on Computational Science
Journal of Advanced Research, 2 (2) (2015), 486-494. (FuzzIEEE), Anchorage, AK, USA, 4–9 May 1998; pp.
[92] S. Pramanik, D. Banerjee, and B.C. Giri. Multi criteria 835–840.
group decision making model in neutrosophic refined [107] W. R. Zhang. Bipolar fuzzy sets and relations: A com-
set and its application. Global Journal of Engineering putational framework for cognitive modeling and mul-
Science and Research Management, 3 (6) (2016), 1- 10. tiagent decision analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE
[93] S. Pramanik, D. Banerjee, and B.C. Giri. TOPSIS ap- Industrial Fuzzy Control and Intelligent Systems Con-
proach for multi attribute group decision making in re- ference, and the NASA Joint Technology Workshop on
fined neutrosophic environment. In F. Smarandache, & Neural Networks and Fuzzy Logic, Fuzzy Information
S. Pramanik (Eds), New trends in neutrosophic theory Processing Society Biannual Conference, San Antonio,
and applications (pp. 79-91). Brussels: Pons Editions, TX, USA, 18–21 December 1994; pp. 305–309.
2016. [108] I. Deli, and Y. A. Subas. Multiple criteria decision mak-
[94] M. Ali, I. Deli, and F. Smarandache. The theory of ing method on single valued bipolar neutrosophic set
neutrosophic cubic sets and their applications in pattern based on correlation coefficient similarity measure. In
recognition. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy System, International conference on mathematics and mathe-
30 (2016), 1957–1963. matics education (ICMME2016) (12-14).
[95] Y. B. Jun, F. Smarandache, C. S. Kim. Neutrosophic [109] M. Sahin, I. Deli, and V. Ulucay. Jaccard vector simi-
cubic sets. New Mathematics and Natural Computation, larity measure of bipolar neutrosophic set based on
13 (2017), 41–54. multi-criteria decision making. In: International confer-
[96] D. Banerjee, B. C. Giri, S. Pramanik, and F. ence on natural science and engineering (ICNASE’16),
Smarandache. GRA for multi attribute decision making March 19–20, Kilis.

Surapati Pramanik, Shyamal Dalapati, Shariful Alam, Tapan Kumar Roy, VIKOR Based Multi Attribute Group Decision
Making strategy under Bipolar Neutrosophic Set Environment
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 19, 2018 69

[110] V. Uluçay, I. Deli, and M. Şahin. Similarity measures [124] P. Liu, L. Zhang. The extended VIKOR method for
of bipolar neutrosophic sets and their application to multiple criteria decision making problem based on
multiple criteria decision making. Neural Computing neutrosophic hesitant fuzzy set, (2014).
and Applications, 29 (3) (2018), 739-748. [125] J. Hu, L. Pan, and X. Chen. An interval neutrosophic
[111] P. P. Dey, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. TOPSIS for projection-based VIKOR method for selecting doctors.
solving multi-attribute decision making problems under Cognitive Computation, 9(6) (2017), 801-816.
bi-polar neutrosophic environment. In F. Smarandache, [126] K. Selvakumari, and M. Ajitha Priyadharshini. VIKOR
& S. Pramanik (Eds), New trends in neutrosophic theo- method for decision making problem using octagonal
ry and applications (pp. 65-77). Brussels: Pons Edi- neutrosophic soft matrix. International Journal of Latest
tions, 2016. Engineering Research and Applications, 2 (7) (2017),
[112] S. Pramanik, P. P. Dey, B. C. Giri, and F. Smarandache. 41-45.
Bipolar Neutrosophic Projection Based Models for [127] M. Zhang, P. Liu, and L. Shi. An extended multiple at-
Solving Multi-attribute Decision Making Problems. tribute group decision-making TODIM method based
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 15 (2017), 70-79. on the neutrosophic numbers. Journal of Intelligent and
[113] L. Wang, H. Zhang,and J. Wang. Frank Choquet Bon- Fuzzy Systems, 30 (2016), 1773–1781. doi:
ferroni operators of bipolar neutrosophic sets and their 10.3233/IFS-151889.
applications to multi-criteria decision-making prob- [128] S. Pramanik, S. Dalapati, and T. K. Roy. Logistics cen-
lems. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 2017. ter location selection approach based on neutrosophic
[114] M. Akram, and M. Sarwar. Novel multiple criteria deci- multi-criteria decision making. In F. Smarandache, &
sion making methods based on bipolar neutrosophic S. Pramanik (Eds), New trends in neutrosophic theory
sets and bipolar neutrosophic graphs. Italian Journal Of and applications (pp. 161-174). Brussels: Pons Edi-
Pure And Applied Mathematics, 38 (2017), 368-389. tions, 2016.
[115] S. Pramanik, S. Dalapati, S. Alam, and T. K. [129] K. Mondal, and S. Pramanik. Multi-criteria group deci-
Roy.TODIM Method for Group Decision Making un- sion making approach for teacher recruitment in higher
der Bipolar Neutrosophic Set Environment. New education under simplified Neutrosophic environment.
Trends in Neutrosophic Theory and Applications-Vol- Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 6 (2014), 28-34.
II. Pons Editions, Brussells (2017). In Press. [130] K. Mondal, and S. Pramanik. Neutrosophic decision
[116] M. Ali, L. H. Son, I. Deli, and N. D. Tien. Bipolar neu- making model of school choice. Neutrosophic Sets and
trosophic soft sets and applications in decision making. Systems, 7 (2015), 62-68.
Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 33(6) (2017), [131] J. R. San Cristóbal. Multi-criteria decision-making in
4077-4087. the selection of a renewable energy project in Spain:
[117] S. Pramanik, and K. Mondal. Rough Bipolar Neutro- The VIKOR method. Renewable Energy, 36 (2011),
sophic Set. Global Journal of Engineering Science and 498-502.
Research Management, 3 (6) (2016), 71-81. doi. [132] J. Ye. Fault diagnoses of steam turbine using the expo-
10.5281/zenodo.55966. nential similarity measure of neutrosophic numbers.
[118] S. Opricovic, G. H. Tzeng. Compromise solution by Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy System 30 (2016),
MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR 1927–1934.
and TOPSIS. European journal of operational research,
156 (2004), 445–455. [133] Abdel-Basset, M., Mohamed, M., Smarandache, F., &
[119] S. Opricovic, G. H. Tzeng. Extended VIKOR method in Chang, V. (2018). Neutrosophic Association Rule Mining
comparison with outranking methods. European journal Algorithm for Big Data Analysis. Symmetry, 10(4), 106.
of operational research, 178 (2) (2007), 514-529. [134] Abdel-Basset, M., & Mohamed, M. (2018). The Role of
[120] E. Cevikcan, S. Çebi, I. Kaya. Fuzzy VIKOR and Single Valued Neutrosophic Sets and Rough Sets in Smart
Fuzzy Axiomatic Design Versus to Fuzzy Topsis: An City: Imperfect and Incomplete Information Systems.
Application of Candidate Assessment. Multi Valued Measurement. Volume 124, August 2018, Pages 47-55
Logic and Soft Computing, 15 (2009), 181–208.
[121] R. Bausys, and E. K. Zavadskas. Multicriteria decision [135] Abdel-Basset, M., Gunasekaran, M., Mohamed, M., &
making approach by VIKOR under interval neutrosoph- Smarandache, F. A novel method for solving the fully
ic set environment. Economic Computation and Eco- neutrosophic linear programming problems. Neural
nomic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 4 (2015), 33- Computing and Applications, 1-11.
48. [136] Abdel-Basset, M., Manogaran, G., Gamal, A., &
[122] Y. Huang, G. Wei, and C. Wei. VIKOR method for in- Smarandache, F. (2018). A hybrid approach of neutrosophic
terval neutrosophic multiple attribute group decision- sets and DEMATEL method for developing supplier selection
making. Information 8 (2017), 144. criteria. Design Automation for Embedded Systems, 1-22.
doi:10.3390/info8040144.
[123] H. Pouresmaeil, E. Shivanian, E. Khorram, and H. S. [137] Abdel-Basset, M., Mohamed, M., & Chang, V. (2018).
Fathabadi. An extended method using TOPSIS and NMCDA: A framework for evaluating cloud computing
VIKOR for multiple attribute decision making with services. Future Generation Computer Systems, 86, 12-29.
multiple decision makers and single valued neutrosoph-
ic numbers. Advances and Applications in Statistics, 50
(4) (2017), 261. Received : February 5, 2018. Accepted : March 23, 2018.

Surapati Pramanik, Shyamal Dalapati, Shariful Alam, Tapan Kumar Roy, VIKOR Based Multi Attribute Group Decision
Making strategy under Bipolar Neutrosophic Set Environment