Next Article in Journal
Analytic Combinatorics for Computing Seeding Probabilities
Previous Article in Journal
Iteration Scheme for Solving the System of Coupled Integro-Differential Equations for Excited and Ionized States of Molecular Systems
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Models for Multiple Attribute Decision-Making with Dual Generalized Single-Valued Neutrosophic Bonferroni Mean Operators

School of Business, Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu 610101, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Algorithms 2018, 11(1), 2; https://doi.org/10.3390/a11010002
Submission received: 4 December 2017 / Revised: 26 December 2017 / Accepted: 27 December 2017 / Published: 5 January 2018

Abstract

:
In this article, we expand the dual generalized weighted BM (DGWBM) and dual generalized weighted geometric Bonferroni mean (DGWGBM) operator with single valued neutrosophic numbers (SVNNs) to propose the dual generalized single-valued neutrosophic number WBM (DGSVNNWBM) operator and dual generalized single-valued neutrosophic numbers WGBM (DGSVNNWGBM) operator. Then, the multiple attribute decision making (MADM) methods are proposed with these operators. In the end, we utilize an applicable example for strategic suppliers selection to prove the proposed methods.

1. Introduction

Smarandache [1,2] introduced a neutrosophic set (NS) from a philosophical point of view to express indeterminate and inconsistent information. In an NS A, its truth–membership function T A ( x ) , indeterminacy–membership I A ( x ) and falsity–membership function F A ( x ) are represented independently, which lie in real standard or nonstandard subsets of ] 0 , 1 + [ , that is, T A ( x ) : X ] 0 , 1 + [ , I A ( x ) : X ] 0 , 1 + [ and F A ( x ) : X ] 0 , 1 + [ . The main advantage of NSs is to depict inconsistent and indeterminate information. An NS has more potential power than other fuzzy mathematical modeling tools, such as fuzzy set [3], intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS) [4] and interval valued neutrosophic fuzzy set (IVIFS) [5]. However, it is not easy to use NSs in solving practical problems. Therefore, Smarandache [2] and Wang et al. [6,7] defined the single-valued neutrosophic set (SVNS) and an interval neutrosophic set (INS). Hence, SVNSs and INSs can express much more information than fuzzy sets, IFSs and IVIFSs. Ye [8] presented the correlation and correlation coefficient of single-valued neutrosophic sets (SVNSs) based on the extension of the correlation of intuitionistic fuzzy sets and demonstrates that the cosine similarity measure is a special case of the correlation coefficient in SVNS. Broumi and Smarandache [9] investigated the correlation coefficient with interval neutrosophic numbers(INNs). Biswas et al. [10] proposed a new approach for multi-attribute group decision-making problems by extending the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution to single-valued neutrosophic environment. Liu et al. [11] proposed the generalized neutrosophic number Hamacher weighted averaging (GNNHWA) operator, generalized neutrosophic number Hamacher ordered weighted averaging (GNNHOWA) operator, and generalized neutrosophic number Hamacher hybrid averaging (GNNHHA) operator, and explored some properties of these operators and analyzed some special cases of them. Sahin and Liu [12] proposed the maximizing deviation models for solving the multiple attribute decision-making problems with the single-valued neutrosophic information or interval neutrosophic information. Ye [13] developed the Hamming and Euclidean distances between interval neutrosophic sets (INSs) and proposed the similarity measures between INSs based on the relationship between similarity measures and distances. Zhang et al. [14] developed the interval neutrosophic number weighted averaging (INNWA) operator and interval neutrosophic number weighted geometric (INNWG) operator. Ye [15] proposed a simplified neutrosophic set (SNS) as a more general concept including SVNS and INS. Many researchers have given them attention to SNSs. For example, Peng et al. [16] defined some basic operational laws for SNNs and developed simplified neutrosophic information aggregation operators. Additionally, Peng et al. [17] developed a new outranking approach for multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problems in the context of a simplified neutrosophic environment, where the truth-membership degree, indeterminacy-membership degree and falsity-membership degree for each element are singleton subsets in [0, 1], and then Zhang et al. [18] gave an extended version of Peng’s approach to interval neutrosophic environment. Liu and Liu [19] developed generalized weighted power operators with SVNNs. Deli and Subas [20] discussed a method to rank SVNNs. Peng et al. [21] introduced the multi-valued neutrosophic sets (MVNSs), which allowed the truth-membership, indeterminacy–membership and falsity-membership degree have a set of crisp values between zero and one, respectively, and then defined the operations of multi-valued neutrosophic numbers (MVNNs) based on Einstein operations, the multi-valued neutrosophic power weighted average (MVNPWA) operator and the multi-valued neutrosophic power weighted geometric (MVNPWG) operator. Zhang et al. [22] presented a new correlation coefficient measure that satisfies the requirement of this measure equaling one if and only if two interval neutrosophic sets (INSs) are the same and presented an objective weight of INSs. Chen and Ye [23] proposed the Dombi operations of single-valued neutrosophic numbers (SVNNs) based on the operations of the Dombi T-norm and T-conorm and then proposed the single-valued neutrosophic Dombi weighted arithmetic average (SVNDWAA) operator and the single-valued neutrosophic Dombi weighted geometric average (SVNDWGA) operator to deal with the aggregation of SVNNs and investigates their properties. Liu and Wang [24] proposed a single-valued neutrosophic normalized weighted Bonferroni mean (SVNNWBM) operator on the basis of Bonferroni mean, the weighted Bonferroni mean (WBM), and the normalized WBM and developed the models solve the multiple attribute decision-making problems with SVNNs based on the SVNNWBM operator. Wu et al. [25] defined the prioritized weighted average operator and prioritized weighted geometric operator for simplified neutrosophic numbers (SNNs) and then proposed two novel effective cross-entropy measures for SNSs and proposed the ranking methods for SNSs to solve MADM problems based on the proposed prioritized aggregation operators and cross-entropy measures. Li et al. [26] proposed the improved generalized weighted Heronian mean (IGWHM) operator and improved generalized weighted geometric Heronian mean (IGWGHM) operator based on crisp numbers, and prove that they can satisfy some desirable properties, such as reducibility, idempotency, monotonicity and boundedness and proposed the single valued neutrosophic number improved generalized weighted Heronian mean (NNIGWHM) operator and single valued the neutrosophic number improved generalized weighted geometric Heronian mean (NNIGWGHM) operator for multiple attribute group decision-making (MAGDM) problems in which attribute values take the form of SVNNs.
Obviously, these established SVNN aggregation operators cannot be used to fuse the arguments that are correlated. Meanwhile, the Bonferroni mean (BM) [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34] is a very practical tool to tackle the arguments that are correlated. How to effectively extend the mature BM mean to the SVNN environment is a significant research task.
The structure of this manuscript is given. Section 2 reviews SVNSs and basic definitions. Section 3 introduces the extended DGWBM and DGWGBM, which can be used to fuse the SVNNs, and describes some properties of these operators. Section 4 illustrates the functions of the proposed operators with an example for strategic supplier selection in supply chain management area. Section 5 presents the conclusions.

2. Basic Concepts

Smarandache [1,2] proposed Neutrosophic sets (NSs). Wang et al. [6,7] further proposed the SVNSs.
Definition 1 [6,7].
Let X be a space of points (objects) with a generic element in fix set X , named by x . An SVNS A in X is depicted as the following:
A = { ( x , T A ( x ) , I A ( x ) , F A ( x ) ) | x X } ,
where T A ( x ) ( 0 T A ( x ) 1 ) is truth–membership function, I A ( x ) ( 0 I A ( x ) 1 ) is indeterminacy–membership and F A ( x ) ( 0 F A ( x ) 1 ) is falsity–membership function, and 0 T A ( x ) + I A ( x ) + F A ( x ) 3 .
Zhang et al. [14] gave the order between two SVNNs.
Definition 2 [14].
Let A 1 = ( T A 1 , I A 1 , F A 1 ) and A 2 = ( T A 2 , I A 2 , F A 2 ) be two SVNNs, s ( A 1 ) = ( 2 + T A 1 I A 1 F A 1 ) 3 and s ( A 2 ) = ( 2 + T A 2 I A 2 F A 2 ) 3 be the scores of A 1 and A 2 , respectively, and let H ( A 1 ) = T A 1 F A 1 and H ( A 2 ) = T A 2 F A 2 be the accuracy degrees of A 1 and A 2 , respectively, then if S ( A 1 ) < S ( A 2 ) , A 1 < A 2 ; if S ( A 1 ) = S ( A 2 ) , then (1) if H ( A 1 ) = H ( A 2 ) , A 1 = A 2 ; (2) if H ( A 1 ) < H ( A 2 ) , A 1 < A 2 .
Definition 3 [6].
Let A = ( T A 1 , I A 1 , F A 1 ) and A 2 = ( T A 2 , I A 2 , F A 2 ) be two SVNNs and λ be a positive real number, some operations of SVNNs are defined:
1.
A 1 A 2 = ( T A 1 + T A 2 T A 1 T A 2 , I A 1 I A 2 , F A 1 F A 2 ) ;
2.
A 1 A 2 = ( T A 1 T A 2 , I A 1 + I A 2 I A 1 I A 2 , F A 1 + F A 2 F A 1 F A 2 ) ;
3.
λ A 1 = ( 1 ( 1 T A 1 ) λ , ( I A 1 ) λ , ( F A 1 ) λ ) , λ > 0 ;
4.
( A 1 ) λ = ( ( T A 1 ) λ , 1 ( 1 I A 1 ) λ , 1 ( 1 F A 1 ) λ ) , λ > 0 .
Zhang et al. [34] develop the dual generalized WBM (DGWBM) operator and dual generalized WGBM (DGWGBM) operator.
Definition 4 [34].
Let b i ( i = 1 , 2 , , n ) be a set of nonnegative crisp numbers with the weight w = ( w 1 , w 2 , , w n ) T , w i [ 0 , 1 ] ( i = 1 , 2 , , n ) and i = 1 n w i = 1 , if
DGWBM w R ( b 1 , b 2 , , b n ) = ( i 1 , i 2 , , i n = 1 n ( j = 1 n w i j b i j r j ) ) 1 / j = 1 n r j ,
where R = ( r 1 , r 2 , , r n ) T is the parameter vector with r i 0 ( i = 1 , 2 , , n ) .
Several special cases can be obtained given the change of the parameter vector.
If R = ( λ , 0 , 0 , , 0 ) , then we obtain
DGWBM ( λ , 0 , 0 , , 0 ) ( b 1 , b 2 , , b n ) = ( i = 1 n w i b i λ ) 1 / λ ,
which is the generalized weighted averaging operator.
If R = ( s , t , 0 , 0 , , 0 ) , then we obtain
DGWBM ( s , t , 0 , 0 , , 0 ) ( b 1 , b 2 , , b n ) = ( i , j = 1 n w i w j b i s b j t ) 1 / ( s + t ) ,
which is the weighted BM.
If R = ( s , t , r , 0 , 0 , , 0 ) , then we obtain
DGWBM ( s , t , r , 0 , 0 , , 0 ) ( b 1 , b 2 , , b n ) = ( i , j , k = 1 n w i w j w k b i s b j t b k r ) 1 / ( s + t + k ) .
Definition 5 [34].
Let b i ( i = 1 , 2 , , n ) be a set of nonnegative crisp numbers with weight being w = ( w 1 , w 2 , , w n ) T , w i [ 0 , 1 ] ( i = 1 , 2 , , n ) and i = 1 n w i = 1 , if
DGWBGM R ( b 1 , b 2 , , b n ) = 1 j = 1 n r j ( 1 , i 2 , , i n = 1 n ( j = 1 n ( r j b i j ) ) ) j = 1 n w i j ,
where R = ( r 1 , r 2 , , r n ) T is the parameter vector with r i 0 ( i = 1 , 2 , , n ) .
Similar to the DGWBM, we can consider some special cases given the change of the parameter vector.
(1) If R = ( λ , 0 , 0 , , 0 ) , then we obtain
DGWBGM ( λ , 0 , 0 , , 0 ) ( b 1 , b 2 , , b n ) = 1 λ ( i = 1 n ( λ b i ) w i ) .
(2) If R = ( s , t , 0 , 0 , , 0 ) , then we obtain
DGWBGM ( s , t , 0 , 0 , , 0 ) ( b 1 , b 2 , , b n ) = 1 s + t i , j = 1 n ( s b i + t b j ) w i w j .
(3) If R = ( s , t , r , 0 , 0 , , 0 ) , then we obtain
DGWBGM ( s , t , r , 0 , 0 , , 0 ) ( b 1 , b 2 , , b n ) = 1 s + t + r i . j . k = 1 n ( s b i + t b j + r b k ) w i w j w k .

3. DGSVNNWBM Operator and DGSVNNWGBM Operator

This section extends DGWBM and DGWGBM to fuse the SVNNs, and proposes the dual generalized SVNN weighted BM (DGSVNNWBM) operator and dual generalized SVNN weighted GBM (DGSVNNWGBM) operator.
Definition 6.
Let a i = ( T i , I i , F i )   ( i = 1 , 2 , , n ) be a set of SVNNs with weight w i = ( w 1 , w 2 , , w n ) T , w i [ 0 , 1 ] and i = 1 n w i = 1 .
Thereafter, the dual generalized SVNN weighted BM (DGSVNNWBM) operator is defined as
DGSVNNWBM w R ( a 1 , a 2 , , a n ) = ( i 1 , i 2 , , i n = 1 n ( j = 1 n w i j a i j r j ) ) 1 / i = 1 n r j ,
where R = ( r 1 , r 2 , , r n ) T is the parameter vector with r i 0   ( i = 1 , 2 , , n ) . We can get Theorem 1.
Theorem 1.
Let a i = ( T i , I i , F i )   ( i = 1 , 2 , , n ) be a set of SVNNs. Hence, the aggregated result of DGSVNNWBM is a SVNN and
DGSVNNWBM w R ( a 1 , a 2 , , a n ) = ( ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 T i j r j ) w i j ) ) ) 1 / i = 1 n r j , 1 ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 I i j ) r j ) w i j ) ) ) 1 / i = 1 n r j , 1 ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 F i j ) r j ) w i j ) ) ) 1 / i = 1 n r j )
Proof. 
a i j r j = ( T i j r j , 1 ( 1 I i j ) r j , 1 ( 1 F i j ) r j ) .
Thus,
w i j a i j r j = ( 1 ( 1 T i j r j ) w i j , ( 1 ( 1 I i j ) r j ) w i j , ( 1 ( 1 F i j ) r j ) w i j ) .
Thereafter,
j = 1 n w i j a i j r j = ( j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 T i j r j ) w i j ) , 1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 I i j ) r j ) w i j ) , 1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 F i j ) r j ) w i j ) ) .
Furthermore,
i 1 , i 2 , , i n = 1 n ( j = 1 n w i j a i j r j ) = ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 T i j r j ) w i j ) ) , i 1 , i 2 , , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 I i j ) r j ) w i j ) ) , i 1 , i 2 , , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 F i j ) r j ) w i j ) ) . ) .
Therefore,
( i 1 , i 2 , , i n = 1 n ( j = 1 n w i j a i j r j ) ) 1 / i = 1 n r j = ( ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 T i j r j ) w i j ) ) ) 1 / i = 1 n r j , 1 ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 I i j ) r j ) w i j ) ) ) 1 / i = 1 n r j , 1 ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 F i j ) r j ) w i j ) ) ) 1 / i = 1 n r j . ) .
Hence, Label (11) is maintained.
Thereafter,
0 ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 T i j r j ) w i j ) ) ) 1 / i = 1 n r j 1 , 0 1 ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 I i j ) r j ) w i j ) ) ) 1 / i = 1 n r j 1 , 0 1 ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 F i j ) r j ) w i j ) ) ) 1 / i = 1 n r j 1 .
In addition,
0 ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 T i j r j ) w i j ) ) ) 1 / i = 1 n r j + 1 ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 I i j ) r j ) w i j ) ) ) 1 / i = 1 n r j + 1 ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 F i j ) r j ) w i j ) ) ) 1 / i = 1 n r j 3 ,
thereby completing the proof. ☐
Moreover, DGSVNNWBM has the following properties.
Property 1. (Monotonicity).
Let a i = ( T a i , I a i , F a i ) ( i = 1 , 2 , , n ) and b i = ( T b i , I b i , F b i ) ( i = 1 , 2 , , n ) be two sets of SVNNs. If T a i T b i a n d I a i I b i a n d F a i F b i holds for all i , then
DGSVNNWBM w R ( a 1 , a 2 , , a n ) DGSVNNWBM w R ( b 1 , b 2 , , b n ) .
Proof. 
Let DGSVNNWBM w R ( a 1 , a 2 , , a n ) = ( T a , I a , F a ) , DGSVNNWBM w R ( b 1 , b 2 , , b n ) = ( T b , I b , F b ) .
Given that T a i T b i , we can obtain
( 1 T a i j r j ) w i j ( 1 T a i j r j ) w i j .
Therefore,
1 ( 1 T a i j r j ) w i j 1 ( 1 T b i j r j ) w i j .
Thus,
1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 T a i j r j ) w i j ) 1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 T b i j r j ) w i j ) .
Thereafter,
1 i 1 , i 2 , , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 T a i j r j ) w i j ) ) 1 i 1 , i 2 , , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 T b i j r j ) w i j ) ) .
Then,
( 1 i 1 , i 2 , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 T a i j r j ) w i j ) ) ) 1 / i = 1 n r j ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 T b i j r j ) w i j ) ) ) 1 / i = 1 n r j ,
which means T a T b . Similarly, we can obtain I a I b a n d F a F b .
If T a < T b a n d I a I b a n d F a F b , then
DGSVNNWBM w R ( a 1 , a 2 , , a n ) < DGSVNNWBM w R ( b 1 , b 2 , , b n ) ;
If T a = T b a n d I a > I b a n d F a > F b , then
DGSVNNWBM w R ( a 1 , a 2 , , a n ) < DGSVNNWBM w R ( b 1 , b 2 , , b n ) ;
If T a = T b a n d I a = I b a n d F a = F b , then
DGSVNNWBM w R ( a 1 , a 2 , , a n ) = DGSVNNWBM w R ( b 1 , b 2 , , b n ) .
Therefore, the proof of property 1 is completed. ☐
Property 2. (Boundedness).
Let a i = ( T a i , I a i , F a i ) ( i = 1 , 2 , , n ) be a set of SVNNS. If a + = ( max i ( T i ) , min i ( I i ) , min i ( F i ) ) and a = ( min i ( T i ) , max i ( I i ) , max i ( F i ) ) , then
DGSVNNWBM w R ( a 1 , a 2 , , a n ) DGSVNNWBM w R ( a 1 , a 2 , , a n ) DGSVNNWBM w R ( a 1 + , a 2 + , , a n + ) .
Proof. 
From Theorem 1, we can obtain
DGSVNNWBM w R ( a , a , , a ) = ( ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 min T i j r j ) w i j ) ) ) 1 / i = 1 n r j , 1 ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 min I i j ) r j ) w i j ) ) ) 1 / i = 1 n r j , 1 ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 min F i j ) r j ) w i j ) ) ) 1 / i = 1 n r j . )
DGSVNNWBM w R ( a , a , , a ) = ( ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 T i j r j ) w i j ) ) ) 1 / i = 1 n r j , 1 ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 I i j ) r j ) w i j ) ) ) 1 / i = 1 n r j , 1 ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 F i j ) r j ) w i j ) ) ) 1 / i = 1 n r j . )
DGSVNNWBM w R ( a + , a + , , a + ) = ( ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 max T i j r j ) w i j ) ) ) 1 / i = 1 n r j , 1 ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 max I i j ) r j ) w i j ) ) ) 1 / i = 1 n r j , 1 ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 max F i j ) r j ) w i j ) ) ) 1 / i = 1 n r j . )
From Property 1, we can obtain
DGSVNNWBM w R ( a , a , , a ) DGSVNNWBM w R ( a 1 , a 2 , , a n ) DGSVNNWBM w R ( a + , a + , , a + ) .
Evidently, the DGSVNNWBM operator lacks the property of idempotency.
Furthermore, we extend DGWBGM to SVNNS and propose the dual generalized SVNN weighted GBM (DGSVNNWGBM) operator. ☐
Definition 7.
Let a i = ( T i , I i , F i )   ( i = 1 , 2 , , n ) be a set of SVNNs with their weight vector being w i = ( w 1 , w 2 , , w n ) T , thereby satisfying w i [ 0 , 1 ] and i = 1 n w i = 1 . If
DGSVNNWGBM w R ( a 1 , a 2 , a n ) = 1 j = 1 n r j ( i 1 , i 2 , , i n = 1 n ( j = 1 n ( r j a i j ) ) j = 1 n w i j ) ,
where R = ( r 1 , r 2 , , r n ) T is the parameter vector with r i 0 ( i = 1 , 2 , , n ) . Then, DGSVNNWGBM w R is called DGSVNNWGBM.
We can derive Theorem 2.
Theorem 2.
Let a i = ( T i , I i , F i ) ( i = 1 , 2 , , n ) be a set of SVNNs. The aggregated value by DGSVNNWGBM is also a SVNN and
DGSVNNWGBM w R ( a 1 , a 2 , a n ) = ( 1 ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 T i j ) r j ) j = 1 n w i j ) 1 j = 1 n r j , ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n I i j r j ) j = 1 n w i j ) 1 j = 1 n r j , ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n F i j r j ) j = 1 n w i j ) 1 j = 1 n r j . )
Proof. 
r j a i j = ( 1 ( 1 T i j ) r j , I i j r j , F i j r j ) ,
j = 1 n ( r j a i j ) = ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 T i j ) r j , j = 1 n I i j r j , j = 1 n F i j r j ) .
Thereafter,
( j = 1 n ( r j a i j ) ) j = 1 n w i j = ( ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 T i j ) r j ) j = 1 n w i j , 1 ( 1 j = 1 n I i j r j ) j = 1 n w i j , 1 ( 1 j = 1 n F i j r j ) j = 1 n w i j . )
Therefore,
i 1 , i 2 , , i n = 1 n ( j = 1 n ( r j a i j ) ) j = 1 n w i j = ( i 1 , i 2 , , i n n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 T i j ) r j ) j = 1 n w i j , 1 i 1 , i 2 , , i n n ( ( 1 j = 1 n I i j r j ) j = 1 n w i j ) , 1 i 1 , i 2 , , i n n ( ( 1 j = 1 n F i j r j ) j = 1 n w i j ) . )
Thus,
1 j = 1 n r j ( i 1 , i 2 , , i n = 1 n ( j = 1 n ( r j a i j ) ) j = 1 n w i j ) = ( 1 ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 T i j ) r j ) j = 1 n w i j ) 1 j = 1 n r j , ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , i n = 1 n ( ( 1 j = 1 n I i j r j ) j = 1 n w i j ) ) 1 j = 1 n r j , ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , i n = 1 n ( ( 1 j = 1 n F i j r j ) j = 1 n w i j ) ) 1 j = 1 n r j . )
Hence, Label (31) is maintained.
Thereafter,
0 1 ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 T i j ) r j ) j = 1 n w i j ) 1 j = 1 n r j 1 , 0 ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , i n = 1 n ( ( 1 j = 1 n I i j r j ) j = 1 n w i j ) ) 1 j = 1 n r j 1 , 0 ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , i n = 1 n ( ( 1 j = 1 n F i j r j ) j = 1 n w i j ) ) 1 j = 1 n r j 1 .
Therefore,
0 1 ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , i n = 1 n ( 1 j = 1 n ( 1 T i j ) r j ) j = 1 n w i j ) 1 j = 1 n r j + ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , i n = 1 n ( ( 1 j = 1 n I i j r j ) j = 1 n w i j ) ) 1 j = 1 n r j + ( 1 i 1 , i 2 , i n = 1 n ( ( 1 j = 1 n F i j r j ) j = 1 n w i j ) ) 1 j = 1 n r j 3 ,
thereby completing the proof. ☐
Similar to DGSVNNWBM, DGSVNNWGBM has the same properties. The proofs are omitted to save space.
Property 3.
Let a i = ( T i , I i , F i )   ( i = 1 , 2 , , n ) be a set of SVNNs.
(1) 
(Monotonicity). Let a i = ( T a i , I a i , F a i )   ( i = 1 , 2 , , n ) and b i = ( T b i , I b i , F b i ) ( i = 1 , 2 , , n ) be two sets of SVNNs. If T a i T b i a n d I a i I b i a n d F a i F b i holds for all i , then
DGSVNNWGBM w R ( a 1 , a 2 , , a n ) DGSVNNWGBM w R ( b 1 , b 2 , , b n ) .
(2) 
(Boundedness). Let a i = ( T i , I i , F i ) ( i = 1 , 2 , , n ) be a set of SVNNS. If
a + = ( max i ( T i ) , min i ( I i ) , min i ( F i ) ) ,
a = ( min i ( T i ) , max i ( I i ) , max i ( F i ) ) .
Then,
a DGSVNNWGBM w R ( a 1 , a 2 , , a n ) a + .

4. Numerical Example and Comparative Analysis

4.1. Applicable Example

In this section, we shall present a numerical example to select strategic suppliers under supply chain risk with SVNNs in order to illustrate the method proposed in this paper. There is a panel with five possible strategic suppliers O i ( i = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ) to select. The experts select four attributes to evaluate the five possible strategic suppliers: ① C1 is the technology level; ② C2 is the service level; ③ C3 is the risk managing ability; and ④ C4 is the enterprise environment risk. The five possible strategic suppliers O i ( i = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ) are to be evaluated using the SVNNs by the decision-maker under the four above attributes (whose weighting vector ω = ( 0.10 , 0.40 , 0.35 , 0.15 ) T ), as listed in the following matrix:
R ˜ = [ ( 0.6 , 0.9 , 0.2 ) ( 0.7 , 0.4 , 0.4 ) ( 0.4 , 0.7 , 0.2 ) ( 0.6 , 0.8 , 0.3 ) ( 0.8 , 0.5 , 0.2 ) ( 0.8 , 0.6 , 0.3 ) ( 0.8 , 0.5 , 0.5 ) ( 0.9 , 0.6 , 0.2 ) ( 0.7 , 0.8 , 0.3 ) ( 0.6 , 0.8 , 0.4 ) ( 0.6 , 0.4 , 0.2 ) ( 0.7 , 0.4 , 0.3 ) ( 0.9 , 0.2 , 0.4 ) ( 0.7 , 0.4 , 0.5 ) ( 0.5 , 0.5 , 0.3 ) ( 0.6 , 0.7 , 0.3 ) ( 0.7 , 0.6 , 0.5 ) ( 0.5 , 0.9 , 0.2 ) ( 0.8 , 0.7 , 0.3 ) ( 0.6 , 0.9 , 0.4 ) ] .
Then, we utilize the proposed operators to select the best strategic suppliers under supply chain risk.
Step 1. According to w and SVNNs O i j ( i = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , j = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) , we can aggregate all SVNNs O i j by using the DGSVNNWBM (DGSVNNWGBM) operator to derive the SVNNs O i ( i = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ) of the alternative O i . The aggregating results are in Table 1.
Step 2. According to Table 1, the scores of the strategic suppliers are shown in Table 2.
Step 3. According to the Table 2 and the scores, the order of the strategic suppliers is listed in Table 3, and the best strategic suppliers is O2.

4.2. Influence Analysis

To show the effects on the ranking results by altering the parameters of DGSVNNWBM (DGSVNNWGBM) operators, the corresponding results are shown in Table 4 and Table 5.

4.3. Comparative Analysis

Then, we compare our proposed operators with single valued neutrosophic weighted averaging (SVNWA) operator and single valued neutrosophic weighted geometric (SVNWG) operator [35]. The comparative results are depicted in Table 6.
From above, we can we get the same results to show the effectiveness and practicality of the proposed operators. However, the existing aggregation operators, such as SVNWA operator and SVNWG operators, don’t take into account the relationship between aggregated arguments, and thus cannot eliminate the influence of unfair arguments on decision results. Our proposed DGSVNNWBM and DGSVNNWGBM operators consider the information about the relationship among multiple arguments being aggregated.

5. Conclusions

In this paper, we focused on SVNN information aggregation operators, as well as their application in MADM. To aggregate the SVNNs, the DGSVNNWBM and DGSVNNWGBM operators have been developed. We have conducted further research into these two operator’s several desirable properties. In addition, we demonstrated the effectiveness of the DGSVNNWBM and DGSVNNWGBM operators in practical MADM problems. At the end of this study, we use an applicable example for supplier selection in the supply chain management process to show applicability of these two operators; meanwhile, the analysis of the comparison as the parameters take different values have also been studied. In our future studies, we shall expand the proposed models to other uncertain environments [36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57] and fuzzy MADM problems [58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80].

Acknowledgments

The work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 61174149 and 71571128, the Humanities and Social Sciences Foundation of Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (17XJA630003), and the Construction Plan of Scientific Research Innovation Team for Colleges and Universities in Sichuan Province (15TD0004).

Author Contributions

Jie Wang, Xiyue Tang and Guiwu Wei conceived and worked together to achieve this work, Jie Wang compiled the computing program by Matlab and analyzed the data, Jie Wang and Guiwu Wei wrote the paper. Finally, all the authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Smarandache, F. Neutrosophy: A Unifying Field in Logics. Neutrosophy: Neutrosophic Probability, Set and Logic; American Research Press: Rehoboth, NM, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  2. Smarandache, F. Neutrosophy: Neutrosophic Probability, Set, and Logic: Analytic Synthesis & Synthetic Analysis, 4th ed.; American Research Press: Rehoboth, DE, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  3. Zadeh, L.A. Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 1965, 8, 338–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Atanassov, K. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1986, 20, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Atanassov, K.; Gargov, G. Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1989, 31, 343–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wang, H.; Smarandache, F.; Zhang, Y.Q.; Sunderraman, R. Single valued neutrosophic set. Rev. Air Force Acad. 2010, 1, 410–413. [Google Scholar]
  7. Wang, H.; Smarandache, F.; Zhang, Y.Q.; Sunderraman, R. Interval Neutrosophic Sets and Logic: Theory and Applications in Computing, 5th ed.; Hexis: Phoenix, AZ, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  8. Ye, J. Multicriteria decision-making method using the correlation coefficient under single-valued neutrosophic environment. Int. J. Gen. Syst. 2013, 42, 386–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Broumi, S.; Smarandache, F. Correlation coefficient of interval neutrosophic set. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2013, 436, 511–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Biswas, P.; Pramanik, S.; Giri, B.C. TOPSIS method for multi-attribute group decision-making under single-valued neutrosophic environment. Neural Comput. Appl. 2016, 27, 727–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Liu, P.D.; Chu, Y.C.; Li, Y.W.; Chen, Y.B. Some generalized neutrosophic number Hamacher aggregation operators and their application to Group Decision Making. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 2014, 16, 242–255. [Google Scholar]
  12. Sahin, R.; Liu, P.D. Maximizing deviation method for neutrosophic multiple attribute decision making with incomplete weight information. Neural Computer. Appl. 2016, 27, 2017–2029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ye, J. Similarity measures between interval neutrosophic sets and their applications in multicriteria decision-making. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2014, 26, 165–172. [Google Scholar]
  14. Zhang, H.Y.; Wang, J.Q.; Chen, X.H. Interval neutrosophic sets and their application in multicriteria decision making problems. Sci. World J. 2014, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Ye, J. A multicriteria decision-making method using aggregation operators for simplified neutrosophic sets. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2014, 26, 2459–2466. [Google Scholar]
  16. Peng, J.J.; Wang, J.Q.; Wang, J.; Zhang, H.Y.; Chen, X.H. Simplified neutrosophic sets and their applications in multicriteria group decision-making problems. Int. J. Syst. Sci. 2016, 47, 2342–2358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Peng, J.J.; Wang, J.Q.; Zhang, H.Y.; Chen, X.H. An outranking approach for multi-criteria decision-making problems with simplified neutrosophic sets. Appl. Soft Comput. 2014, 25, 336–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhang, H.; Wang, J.Q.; Chen, X.H. An outranking approach for multi-criteria decision-making problems with interval-valued neutrosophic sets. Neural Comput. Appl. 2016, 27, 615–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Liu, P.D.; Liu, X. The neutrosophic number generalized weighted power averaging operator and its application in multiple attribute group decision making. Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Deli, I.; Subas, Y. A ranking method of single valued neutrosophic numbers and its applications to multi-attribute decision making problems. Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cyber. 2017, 8, 1309–1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Peng, J.J.; Wang, J.Q.; Wu, X.H.; Wang, J.; Chen, X.H. Multi-valued neutrosophic sets and power aggregation operators with their applications in multi-criteria group decision-making problems. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst. 2015, 8, 345–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhang, H.Y.; Ji, P.; Wang, J.Q.; Chen, X.H. An improved weighted correlation coefficient based on integrated weight for interval neutrosophic sets and its application in multi-criteria decision-making problems. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst. 2015, 8, 1027–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chen, J.Q.; Ye, J. Some Single-Valued Neutrosophic Dombi Weighted Aggregation Operators for multiple attribute decision-making. Symmetry 2017, 9, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Liu, P.D.; Wang, Y.M. Multiple attribute decision making method based on single-valued neutrosophic normalized weighted Bonferroni mean. Neural Comput. Appl. 2014, 25, 2001–2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wu, X.H.; Wang, J.Q.; Peng, J.J.; Chen, X.H. Cross-entropy and prioritized aggregation operator with simplified neutrosophic sets and their application in multi-criteria decision-making problems. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 2016, 18, 1104–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Li, Y.; Liu, P.; Chen, Y. Some single valued neutrosophic number heronian mean operators and their application in multiple attribute group Decision Making. Informatica 2016, 27, 85–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Beliakov, G.; James, S.; Mordelova, J.; Rückschlossová, T.; Yager, R.R. Generalized Bonferroni mean operators in multicriteria aggregation. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 2010, 161, 2227–2242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bonferroni, C. Sulle medie multiple di potenze. Bollettino dell’Unione Matematica Italiana 1950, 5, 267–270. (In Italian) [Google Scholar]
  29. Wei, G.W. Picture uncertain linguistic Bonferroni mean operators and their application to multiple attribute decision making. Kybernetes 2017, 46, 1777–1800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wei, G.W. Picture 2-tuple linguistic Bonferroni mean operators and their application to multiple attribute decision making. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 2017, 19, 997–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jiang, X.P.; Wei, G.W. Some Bonferroni mean operators with 2-tuple linguistic information and their application to multiple attribute decision making. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2014, 27, 2153–2162. [Google Scholar]
  32. Wei, G.W.; Zhao, X.F.; Lin, R.; Wang, H.J. Uncertain linguistic Bonferroni mean operators and their application to multiple attribute decision making. Appl. Math. Model. 2013, 37, 5277–5285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Xia, M.; Xu, Z.; Zhu, B. Generalized intuitionistic fuzzy Bonferroni means. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 2012, 27, 23–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhang, R.T.; Wang, J.; Zhu, X.M.; Xia, M.M.; Yu, M. Some generalized pythagorean fuzzy bonferroni mean aggregation operators with their application to multiattribute group decision-making. Complexity 2017, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sahin, R. Multi-criteria neutrosophic decision making method based on score and accuracy functions under neutrosophic environment. arXiv, 2014; arXiv:1412.5202. [Google Scholar]
  36. Wei, G.W.; Lu, M. Pythagorean hesitant fuzzy Hamacher aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making. J. Intell. Syst. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. We, G.W.; Lu, M. Pythagorean fuzzy maclaurin symmetric mean operators in multiple attribute decision making. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wei, G.W.; Lu, M. Pythagorean fuzzy power aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 2018, 33, 169–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wei, G.W. Some cosine similarity measures for picture fuzzy sets and their applications to strategic decision making. Informatica 2017, 28, 547–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wei, G.W.; Lu, M. Dual hesitant Pythagorean fuzzy hamacher aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making. Arch. Control Sci. 2017, 27, 365–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wei, G.W. Pythagorean fuzzy interaction aggregation operators and their application to multiple attribute decision making. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2017, 33, 2119–2132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wei, G.W.; Alsaadi, F.E.; Hayat, T.; Alsaedi, A. Picture 2-tuple linguistic aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making. Soft Comput. 2016, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wei, G.W.; Alsaadi, F.E.; Hayat, T.; Alsaedi, A. Projection models for multiple attribute decision making with picture fuzzy information. Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wei, G.W. Interval-valued dual hesitant fuzzy uncertain linguistic aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2017, 33, 1881–1893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zhang, N.; Wei, G.W. Extension of VIKOR method for decision making problem based on hesitant fuzzy set. Appl. Math. Model. 2013, 37, 4938–4947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wei, G.W.; Lu, M.; Aaadi, F.E.; Hayat, T.; Alsaedi, A. Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2017, 33, 1129–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wei, G.W.; Alsaadi, F.E.; Hayat, T.; Alsaedi, A. Hesitant bipolar fuzzy aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2017, 33, 1119–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lu, M.; Wei, G.W.; Alsaadi, F.E.; Hayat, T.; Alsaedi, A. Hesitant pythagorean fuzzy hamacher aggregation operators and their application to multiple attribute decision making. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2017, 33, 1105–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lu, M.; Wei, G.W.; Alsaadi, F.E.; Hayat, T.; Alsaedi, A. Bipolar 2-tuple linguistic aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2017, 33, 1197–1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wei, G.W. Picture fuzzy aggregation operators and their application to multiple attribute decision making. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2017, 33, 713–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wei, G.W.; Alsaadi, F.E.; Hayat, T.; Alsaedi, A. A linear assignment method for multiple criteria decision analysis with hesitant fuzzy sets based on fuzzy measure. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2017, 19, 607–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wei, G.W.; Wang, J.M. A comparative study of robust efficiency analysis and data envelopment analysis with imprecise data. Expert Syst. Appl. 2017, 81, 28–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Huang, Y.H.; Wei, G.W.; Wei, C. VIKOR method for interval neutrosophic multiple attribute group decision-making. Information 2017, 8, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Xu, D.S.; Wei, C.; Wei, G.W. TODIM method for single-valued neutrosophic multiple attribute decision making. Information 2017, 8, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wei, G.W. Interval valued hesitant fuzzy uncertain linguistic aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making. Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern. 2016, 7, 1093–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wei, G.W. Picture fuzzy cross-entropy for multiple attribute decision making problems. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2016, 17, 491–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wei, G.W.; Alsaadi, F.E.; Hayat, T.; Alsaedi, A. Hesitant fuzzy linguistic arithmetic aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 2016, 13, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  58. Ran, L.G.; Wei, G.W. Uncertain prioritized operators and their application to multiple attribute group decision making. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2015, 21, 118–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wei, G.W. Approaches to interval intuitionistic trapezoidal fuzzy multiple attribute decision making with incomplete weight information. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 2015, 17, 484–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lin, R.; Zhao, X.F.; Wang, H.J.; Wei, G.W. Hesitant fuzzy linguistic aggregation operators and their application to multiple attribute decision making. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2014, 27, 49–63. [Google Scholar]
  61. Lin, R.; Zhao, X.F.; Wei, G.W. Models for selecting an ERP system with hesitant fuzzy linguistic information. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2014, 26, 2155–2165. [Google Scholar]
  62. Zhao, X.F.; Li, Q.X.; Wei, G.W. Some prioritized aggregating operators with linguistic information and their application to multiple attribute group decision making. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2014, 26, 1619–1630. [Google Scholar]
  63. Li, X.Y.; Wei, G.W. GRA method for multiple criteria group decision making with incomplete weight information under hesitant fuzzy setting. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2014, 27, 1095–1105. [Google Scholar]
  64. Wang, H.J.; Zhao, X.F.; Wei, G.W. Dual hesitant fuzzy aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2014, 26, 2281–2290. [Google Scholar]
  65. Wei, G.W.; Zhang, N. A multiple criteria hesitant fuzzy decision making with Shapley value-based VIKOR method. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2014, 26, 1065–1075. [Google Scholar]
  66. Wei, G.W.; Wang, J.M.; Chen, J. Potential optimality and robust optimality in multiattribute decision analysis with incomplete information: A comparative study. Dec. Support Syst. 2013, 55, 679–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Zhou, L.Y.; Lin, R.; Zhao, X.F.; Wei, G.W. Uncertain linguistic prioritized aggregation operators and their application to multiple attribute group decision making. Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowl. Syst. 2013, 21, 603–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Wei, G.W. Some linguistic power aggregating operators and their application to multiple attribute group decision making. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2013, 25, 695–707. [Google Scholar]
  69. Zhao, X.F.; Wei, G.W. Some intuitionistic fuzzy einstein hybrid aggregation operators and their application to multiple attribute decision making. Knowl. Syst. 2013, 37, 472–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Wei, G.W.; Zhao, X.F.; Lin, R. Some hesitant interval-valued fuzzy aggregation operators and their applications to multiple attribute decision making. Knowl. Syst. 2013, 46, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Wei, G.W. Hesitant fuzzy prioritized operators and their application to multiple attribute group decision making. Knowl. Syst. 2012, 31, 176–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Wei, G.W.; Zhao, X.F. Some dependent aggregation operators with 2-tuple linguistic information and their application to multiple attribute group decision making. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 5881–5886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wei, G.W.; Zhao, X.F. Some induced correlated aggregating operators with intuitionistic fuzzy information and their application to multiple attribute group decision making. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 2026–2034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Wei, G.W. Some generalized aggregating operators with linguistic information and their application to multiple attribute group decision making. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2011, 61, 32–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Wei, G.W. Grey relational analysis model for dynamic hybrid multiple attribute decision making. Knowl. Syst. 2011, 24, 672–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wei, G.W. Gray relational analysis method for intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute decision making. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 11671–11677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Wei, G.W. Grey relational analysis method for 2-tuple linguistic multiple attribute group decision making with incomplete weight information. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 4824–4828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Wei, G.W. A method for multiple attribute group decision making based on the ET-WG and ET-OWG operators with 2-tuple linguistic information. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37, 7895–7900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Wei, G.W. Some induced geometric aggregation operators with intuitionistic fuzzy information and their application to group decision making. Appl. Soft Comput. 2010, 10, 423–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Wei, G.W. Maximizing deviation method for multiple attribute decision making in intuitionistic fuzzy setting. Knowl. Syst. 2008, 21, 833–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. The aggregating results of strategic suppliers by the DGSVNNWBM and DGSVNNWGBM ( R = ( 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 ) . ).
Table 1. The aggregating results of strategic suppliers by the DGSVNNWBM and DGSVNNWGBM ( R = ( 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 ) . ).
DGSVNNWBMDGSVNNWGBM
O1(0.5720, 0.6135, 0.2929)(0.5692, 0.6209, 0.2951)
O2(0.8157, 0.5549, 0.3423)(0.8150, 0.5552, 0.3454)
O3(0.6253, 0.5980, 0.3033)(0.6249, 0.6066, 0.3051)
O4(0.6377, 0.4583, 0.3888)(0.6345, 0.4610, 0.3903)
O5(0.6431, 0.7999, 0.2927)(0.6395, 0.8064, 0.2951)
Table 2. The scores of the strategic suppliers.
Table 2. The scores of the strategic suppliers.
DGSVNNWBMDGSVNNWGBM
O10.55520.5511
O20.63950.6381
O30.57470.5711
O40.59690.5944
O50.51680.5127
Table 3. Order of the strategic suppliers.
Table 3. Order of the strategic suppliers.
Order
DGSVNNWBMO2 > O4 > O3 > O1 > O5
DGSVNNWGBMO2 > O4 > O1 > O3 > O5
Table 4. Order for different parameters of DGSVNNWBM.
Table 4. Order for different parameters of DGSVNNWBM.
R S ( O 1 ) S ( O 2 ) S ( O 3 ) S ( O 4 ) S ( O 5 ) Order
(1,1,1,1)0.55520.63950.57470.59690.5168O2 > O4 > O3 > O1 > O5
(2,2,2,2)0.77010.86040.78610.81580.7326O2 > O4 > O3 > O1 > O5
(3,3,3,3)0.82810.91270.83950.86600.8096A2 > A4 > A3 > A1 > A5
(4,4,4,4)0.85080.92900.85830.88310.8455O2 > O4 > O3 > O1 > O5
(5,5,5,5)0.86210.93510.86690.89150.8656O2 > O4 > O3 > O5 > O1
(6,6,6,6)0.86890.93780.87150.89710.8785O2 > O4 > O5 > O3 > O1
(7,7,7,7)0.87340.93920.87430.90150.8873O2 > O4 > O5 > O3 > O1
(8,8,8,8,)0.87670.94000.87630.90550.8938O2 > O4 > O5 > O1 > O3
(9,9,9,9)0.87920.94060.87780.90910.8987O2 > O4 > O5 > O1 > O3
(10,10,10,10)0.88110.94110.87890.91240.9026O2 > O4 > O5 > O1 > O3
Table 5. Order for different parameters of DGSVNNWGBM.
Table 5. Order for different parameters of DGSVNNWGBM.
R S ( O 1 ) S ( O 2 ) S ( O 3 ) S ( O 4 ) S ( O 5 ) Order
(1,1,1,1)0.55110.63810.57110.59440.5127O2 > O4 > O3 > O1 > O5
(2,2,2,2)0.41080.49960.42270.45170.3726O2 > O4 > O3 > O1 > O5
(3,3,3,3)0.36190.42910.36700.39850.3208O2 > O4 > O3 > O1 > O5
(4,4,4,4)0.33850.39200.34050.37280.2962O2 > O4 > O3 > O1 > O5
(5,5,5,5)0.32450.37020.32520.35720.2817O2 > O4 > O3 > O1 > O5
(6,6,6,6)0.31490.35620.31530.34620.2716O2 > O4 > O3 > O1 > O5
(7,7,7,7)0.30760.34670.30840.33770.2641O2 > O4 > O3 > O1 > O5
(8,8,8,8,)0.30180.33980.30320.33080.2582O2 > O4 > O3 > O1 > O5
(9,9,9,9)0.29780.33470.30020.32510.2531O2 > O4 > O3 > O1 > O5
(10,10,10,10)0.41500.33070.41820.32030.2505O3 > O1 > O2 > O4 > O5
Table 6. Order of the strategic suppliers.
Table 6. Order of the strategic suppliers.
Order
SVNWAO2 > O4 > O3 > O1 > O5
SVNWGO2 > O4 > O3 > O1 > O5

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, J.; Tang, X.; Wei, G. Models for Multiple Attribute Decision-Making with Dual Generalized Single-Valued Neutrosophic Bonferroni Mean Operators. Algorithms 2018, 11, 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/a11010002

AMA Style

Wang J, Tang X, Wei G. Models for Multiple Attribute Decision-Making with Dual Generalized Single-Valued Neutrosophic Bonferroni Mean Operators. Algorithms. 2018; 11(1):2. https://doi.org/10.3390/a11010002

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Jie, Xiyue Tang, and Guiwu Wei. 2018. "Models for Multiple Attribute Decision-Making with Dual Generalized Single-Valued Neutrosophic Bonferroni Mean Operators" Algorithms 11, no. 1: 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/a11010002

APA Style

Wang, J., Tang, X., & Wei, G. (2018). Models for Multiple Attribute Decision-Making with Dual Generalized Single-Valued Neutrosophic Bonferroni Mean Operators. Algorithms, 11(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/a11010002

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop