Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multiple Attribute Decision Making Based on Neutrosophic Preference Relation

  • Published:
Cognitive Computation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The single-valued neutrosophic set (SVNS) performs well in retrieving indeterminate cognitive information for decision makers to solve problems from the perspective of multiple attribute decision making (MADM). Preference relation is used in decision-making as a fundamental tool for decision makers to express their preference. In this context, the SVNS-based preference relation is one of the most useful extensions in that it quantitatively reflects the preference degree. However, the previous studies have paid little attention to the preference degree between alternatives, making the outcomes of decision making inaccurate. Therefore, it is necessary and meaningful to propose the MADM method with SVNS based on the preference relation which takes into account preference information between alternatives. A neutrosophic preference relation is proposed by means of the full of utilization decision information to combine SVNS with preference relation. With respect to the proposed MADM method, the evaluation decision matrix is provided by decision makers and the weights of attribute are gained by using the entropy of SVNS. Then, the neutrosophic preference relation is utilized to obtain evaluation preference matrix. Finally, through full-order relation formed by aggregating the preference relation, the ranking order of all alternatives is obtained and the most desirable alternative is readily determined. By an illustrative example, the proposed method is validated, and its advantages are analyzed by comparison and contrast with the other methods. This method makes full use of decision makers’ cognitve information and takes into account the preference information between alternatives. The outcomes of decision-making demonstrate that the proposed method has the capacity to handle MADM issues.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jiang W, Cao Y, Deng X. A Novel Z-network Model Based on Bayesian Network and Z-number. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2019.2918999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Zhang X, Mahadevan S, Sankararaman S, Goebel K. Resilience-based network design under uncertainty. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 2018;169:364–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Liu P, You X, Fei L. Some linguistic neutrosophic hamy mean operators and their application to multi-attribute group decision making. Plos One. 2018;13(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193027

  4. Wang X, Wang J, Zhang H. Distance-based multicriteria group decision-making approach with probabilistic linguistic term sets. Expert Syst. 2019;36(2):1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Jiang W, Huang K, Geng J, Deng X. Multi-scale metric learning for few-shot learning. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSVT.2020.2995754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Deng X, Jiang W. Evaluating green supply chain management practices under fuzzy environment: a novel method based on D number theory. Int J Fuzzy Syst. 2019;21(5):1389–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wei G, Zhang Z. Some single-valued neutrosophic bonferroni power aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making. J Amb Int Humanized Comp. 2018;10(5):1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Jiang W. A correlation coefficient for belief functions. Int J Approximate Reasoning. 2018;103:94–106.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhang L, Wu X, Qin Y, Skibniewski MJ, Liu W. Towards a fuzzy bayesian network based approach for safety risk analysis of tunnel-induced pipeline damage. Risk Anal. 2016;3(2):278–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets. Information & Control. 1965;8(3):338–53.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Wang Y, Zhang K, Deng Y. Base belief function: an efficient method of conflict management. J Amb Intell Humanized Comp. 2019;10(9):3427–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Zhang H, Deng Y. Weighted belief function of sensor data fusion in engine fault diagnosis. Soft Computing. 2019;24(7).

  13. Capuano N, Chiclana F, Fujita H, Herrera-Viedma E, Loia V. Fuzzy group decision making with incomplete information guided by social influence. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst. 2018;26(3):1704–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Deng X, Jiang W. A total uncertainty measure for d numbers based on belief intervals. Int J Intell Syst. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Li Y, Shu N. Transformer fault diagnosis based on fuzzy clustering and complete binary tree support vector machine. Trans China Electrotech Soc. 2016;31(4):50–7.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Zhou H, Wang JQ, Zhang HY, Chen XH. Linguistic hesitant fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method based on evidential reasoning. Int J Syst Sci. 2016;47(2):14–20.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Atanassov K. More on intuitionistic fuzzy-sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1989;33(1):37–45.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Liu JC, Li DF. Corrections to topsis-based nonlinear-programming methodology for multi-attribute decision making with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst. 2018;26(1):391–391.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Garg H, Kumar K. Correction to: Some aggregation operators for linguistic intuitionistic fuzzy set and its application to group decision-making process using the set pair analysis. Arabian J Sci Eng. 2018;3(1):1–12.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Zeng S, Llopis-Albert C, Zhang Y. A novel induced aggregation method for intuitionistic fuzzy set and its application in multiple attribute group decision making. Int J Intell Syst. 2018;33(11):345–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Xiao F. A novel multi-criteria decision making method for assessing health-care waste treatment technologies based on D numbers. Eng Appl Artif Intell. 2018;71(2018):216–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Smarandache F. A unifying field in logics: Neutrosophic logic. Multi Valued Logic An Int J. 2002;8(3):385–438.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Broumi S, Nagarajan D, Bakali A, Talea M, Smarandache F, Lathamaheswari M. The shortest path problem in interval valued trapezoidal and triangular neutrosophic environment. Compl Int Sys. 2019;5(4):391–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Broumi S, Nagarajan D, Bakali A, Talea M, Smarandache F, Lathamaheswari M, Kavikumar J. Implementation of neutrosophic function memberships using matlab program. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems. 2019;27:44–52.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Broumi S, Bakali A, Talea M, Smarandache F, Kishore K, Sahin R. Shortest path problem under interval valued neutrosophic setting. Int J Adv Trends Comp Sci Eng. 2019;8(1.1):216–222.

  26. Chakraborty A. A new score function of pentagonal neutrosophic number and its application in networking problem. Int J Neutro Sci. 2020;1(1):40–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wang H, Smarandache F, Zhang Y, Sunderraman R. Single valued neutrosophic sets. Rev Air Force Acad. 2010;10:247–77.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Broumi S, Talea M, Bakali A, Smarandache F. Energy and spectrum analysis of interval valued neutrosophic graph using matlab. Neutro Sets Sys. 2019;24:46–60.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Edalatpanah S. A direct model for triangular neutrosophic linear programming. Int J Neutro Sci. 2020;1(1):19–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sahin R, Liu P. Correlation coefficient of single-valued neutrosophic hesitant fuzzy sets and its applications in decision making. Neural Comp Appl. 2017;28(6):1387–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Cai Q, Deng Y. A fast bayesian iterative rule in amoeba algorithm. Int J Unconventional Computing. 2019;14(5,6):449–466

  32. He Z, Jiang W. An evidential dynamical model to predict the interference effect of categorization on decision making. Knowl-Based Syst. 2018;150:139–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Deng X, Jiang W. D number theory based game-theoretic framework in adversarial decision making under a fuzzy environment. Int J Approximate Reasoning. 2019;106:194–213.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Xiao F. A multiple criteria decision-making method based on D numbers and belief entropy. Int J Fuzzy Syst. 2019;21(4):1144–53.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  35. Ye J. Trapezoidal neutrosophic set and its application to multiple attribute decision-making. Neural Comp Appl. 2015;26(5):1157–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Pramanik S, Dey PP, Giri BC. Topsis for single valued neutrosophic soft expert set based multi-attribute decision making problems. Neutrosophic Sets Sys. 2015;10:235–42.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Hanliang H. New distance measure of single-valued neutrosophic sets and its application. Int J Intell Syst. 2016;10:1021–32.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Xiao F. Multi-sensor data fusion based on the belief divergence measure of evidences and the belief entropy. Information Fusion. 2019;46(2019):23–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Orlovsky SA. Decision-making with a fuzzy preference relation in a fuzzy set of alternatives. Curr Top Cybern Syst. 1978:375–376.

  40. Deng X, Han D, Dezert J, Deng Y, Shyr Y. Evidence combination from an evolutionary game theory perspective. IEEE Trans Cybernet. 2016;46(9):2070–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Fu C, Xu DL, Xue M. Determining attribute weights for multiple attribute decision analysis with discriminating power in belief distributions. Knowl-Based Syst. 2018;143:127–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Zhang L, Wu X, Zhu H, AbouRizk SM. Perceiving safety risk of buildings adjacent to tunneling excavation: An information fusion approach. Autom Constr. 2017;73:88–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Liu B, Yong D. Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects aynalysis based on d numbers theory. Int J Comp Comm Control. 2019;14(5):672–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Orlovsky. Decision-making with a fuzzy preference relation. Fuzzy Sets & Systems. 1978;1(3):155–167

  45. Fan ZP, Hu GF, Xiao SH. A method for multiple attribute decision-making with the fuzzy preference relation on alternatives. Comp Ind Eng. 2004;46(2):321–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Xu. Multiple-attribute group decision making with different formats of preference information on attributes. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man & Cybernetics Part B. 2008;37(6):1500–1511.

  47. Deng X, Jiang W, Wang Z. Zero-sum polymatrix games with link uncertainty: A dempster-shafer theory solution. Appl Math Comput. 2019;340:101–12.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Geng J, Ma X, Zhou X, Wang H. Saliency-guided deep neural networks for sar image change detection. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing. 2019:1–13 (2019)

  49. Fu C, Chang W, Xue M, Yang S. Multiple criteria group decision making with belief distributions and distributed preference relations. Euro J Oper Res. 2019;273(2):623–33.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  50. Zhao J, Yong D. Preformer selection in human reliability analysis d numbers appraoch. Inte J Comp Comm Control. 2019;14(3):437–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Yang H, Deng Y, Mayne R. A bio-inspired network design method for intelligent transportation. Int J Unconventional Comp. 2019;14(3,4):199–215

  52. Majumdar P, Samanta SK. On similarity and entropy of neutrosophic sets. J Int Fuzzy Sys. 2014;26(3):1245–52.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. Qiu GF, Zu H. An information aggregation method of fuzzy preference relation models. Chinese J Eng Math. 2003;2(2):72–6.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  54. Xu Z. Ranking alternatives based on intuitionistic preference relation. Int J Info Tech Dec Making. 2014;13(6):1259–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Tan R, Zhang W, Chen S. Some generalized single valued neutrosophic linguistic operators and their application to multiple attribute group decision making. J Syst Sci Info. 2017;5(2):54–68.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Biswas P, Pramanik S, Giri BC. Topsis method for multi-attribute group decision-making under single-valued neutrosophic environment. Neural Comp Appl. 2016;27(3):727–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Zeng S, Luo D, Zhang C, Li X. A correlation-based topsis method for multiple attribute decision making with single-valued neutrosophic information. Int J Info Tech Dec Making. 2020;19(1):343–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study is funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Program No. 61671384,61703338).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Electronics and Information, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an, Shaanxi, 710072, China

    Wen Jiang, Meijuan Wang & Xinyang Deng

  2. Peng Cheng Laboratory, Shenzhen, 518055, China

    Wen Jiang

Authors
  1. Wen Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Meijuan Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xinyang Deng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wen Jiang.

Ethics declarations

Human and Animal Rights

This article does not involve any studies on human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the authors have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jiang, W., Wang, M. & Deng, X. Multiple Attribute Decision Making Based on Neutrosophic Preference Relation. Cogn Comput 13, 1061–1069 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-021-09893-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-021-09893-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation