1. Introduction
To deal with imprecise and uncertain events has always been a challenging task as imprecision and vagueness lie in almost every field of science. To serve the goal, Zadeh [
1] proposed the notion of a fuzzy set (FS) where he described the uncertainty of an object/event by a membership grade
that has a value from the interval
. Atanassov [
2] proposed the notion of the intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS) based on two grades
and
representing the membership and non-membership degree of an object. Yager [
3] proposed the idea of Pythagorean fuzzy set (PyFS) based on two grades
and
with the condition that the sum of squares of
and
must be less than or equal to 1. PyFS provides a considerably larger range for the values of
and
to be chosen but still, it has limited space. To obtain a space of membership and non-membership grades with no limitation, Yager [
4] proposed the framework of q-rung orthopair fuzzy set (q-ROPFS) with the condition that the sum of the qth power of
and
must be less than or equal to 1, for a positive integer q. The constraints of these mentioned fuzzy frameworks are discussed in
Table 1.
All fuzzy models described in [
1,
2,
3,
4] either use one or two membership grades to model an event, but not all real-life events can always be modeled using these types of fuzzy frameworks. In 2013, Cuong [
5] considered the situation of voting in which one may have four types of opinions including membership, abstinence, non-membership, and refusal degree. Cuong [
5] used the four grades to model such events and developed the concept of the picture fuzzy set (PFS) with a restriction. The restriction on Cuong’s structure of PFS left no choice for decision makers to choose values of their consent for three functions
and
denoting membership, abstinence, and non-membership degree respectively. Realizing this problem, Mahmood et al. [
6] developed the important concept of the spherical fuzzy set (SFS) and consequently the T-spherical fuzzy set (T-SFS). A T-SFS allows the decision makers to choose any value from closed unit interval regardless of any restriction. A description of the constraints of PFS, SFS and T-SFS is provided in
Table 2.
A geometrical comparison among the ranges of PFSs, SFSs and T-SFSs is depicted in
Figure 1 which is based on the constraints discussed in
Table 2. All the numbers within and on the space of PFSs represent picture fuzzy numbers; all the numbers on and within the space of SFSs represent spherical fuzzy numbers; and all the numbers on and within space of T-SFSs represent T-spherical fuzzy numbers for
.
From
Figure 1, it is easy to observe that T-SFS is much more generalized and diverse than PFS and SFS. The space for T-SFS increases with any increment in the value of
. This enables the experts to have much more values to assign to each membership, abstinence and non-membership grades.
Multi-attribute decision making (MADM) is one of the most discussed problems in FS theory due to its influence in engineering, economics and management sciences. The study of MADM started in 1970 [
7] to use the concept of FS in a decision-making problem. Later, the concept of IFS and its aggregation tools have been greatly used in decision making problems. Xu [
8] developed some aggregation operators (AOs) for IFSs and studied their applications in MADM. Klement and Mesiar [
9] proposed some triangular norms. PyFSs also have been greatly utilized in MADM problems through some averaging and geometric aggregation tools developed by [
10,
11]. Cuong’s Structure of PFS has been utilized in MADM problems using the weighted geometric and averaging AOs of PFSs which have been developed by [
12,
13]. Mahmood at al. [
6] developed some T-spherical fuzzy weighted geometric AOs and investigated their applications in MADM. Ullah et al. [
14] solved a financial policy evaluation problem using interval-valued T-spherical fuzzy AOs. Ullah et al. [
15] proposed some averaging AOs for T-SFSs and applied those operators to MADM problems. Liu et al. [
16] introduced T-SF power Muirhead mean operators and utilized those operators in MADM problems. Garg et al. [
17] dealt with MADM problems by introducing some T-spherical fuzzy interactive geometric AOs. For other notable work on the AOs of these fuzzy structures and their applications in MADM, one is referred to [
18,
19,
20,
21,
22,
23].
In the theory of aggregation, weighted geometric and averaging operators are the widely used operators and these are based on some t-norms and t-conorms. Literature survey witnessed some other types of t-norms and t-conorms, respectively—among them Einstein t-norm and t-conorms have got some serious attention. Based on Einstein t-conorms and t-norms, several aggregation tools have been proposed for various fuzzy algebraic structures. The Einstein weighted averaging (EWA) and Einstein weighted geometric (EWG) operators of IFSs and interval valued IFSs have been investigated in [
24,
25]. For PyFSs, EWA and Einstein interactive aggregation operators are developed by [
26,
27], respectively. For further interesting work on Einstein aggregation operators and their applications in MADM, one is referred to [
28,
29,
30].
The continuous growth of interest has occurred in order to meet the requirements in needs of fertile applications of these inequalities. Such inequalities had been studied by many researchers who in turn used various techniques for the sake of exploring and offering these inequalities [
31,
32,
33,
34,
35,
36,
37,
38,
39,
40,
41,
42] and the references cited therein.
By analyzing the literature, no significant work can be found on EWA and EWG operators in the environment of PFSs, q-ROPFS, SFSs and T-SFSs. Keeping in mind the developments of Einstein aggregation operators, in this manuscript, some averaging, as well as geometric AOs, are produced based on Einstein operations for T-SFSs. Using the Einstein operations of T-SFSs, the same concepts are also defined for q-ROPFSs, PFSs, and SFSs as consequences of new proposed work. Furthermore, the generalization of new proposed work has also been discussed.
The remaining article is organized as section one provides a brief history of the fuzzy structure and theory of aggregation operators.
Section 2 provides some initial concepts related to T-SFSs, SFSs, PFSs, q-ROPFSs, PyFSs and IFSs. In
Section 3, we proposed the Einstein sum and Einstein product for T-SFSs. We also defined the Einstein sum and product for SFSs, q-ROPFS, and PFSs in a remark.
Section 4 is based on the weighted averaging, ordered weighted averaging and hybrid averaging operators for T-SFSs based on Einstein sum; while
Section 5 is based on the weighted geometric, ordered weighted geometric and hybrid geometric operators for T-SFSs based on Einstein product. In
Section 6, the defined aggregation tools have used MADM.
Section 7 provides the advantages of the proposed work. Further, with the help of some useful conditions, EWA and EWG operators are also defined for q-ROPFSs, SFSs and PFSs. A comparative analysis is also discussed with the help of examples. In
Section 8, we summarized the article by pointing out some future study. The list of abbreviations adopted hereafter is given in
Table 3:
4. T-Spherical Fuzzy Einstein Hybrid Averaging Operators
In this section, by using Einstein operations, T-SF Einstein weighted averaging (T-SFEWA) operators, T-SF Einstein ordered weighted averaging (T-SFEOWA) operators, T-SF Einstein hybrid averaging (T-SFEHA) operators are defined and some of their properties are also discussed.
Definition 5. For any collection, for all of T-SFS,
is called operator with weighting vector of , where and . Theorem 1. (Idempotency) If for all , then .
Proof. Since
for all
and
. Then
□
Theorem 2. (Boundedness) For a collection of T-SFNs and , and . Then Proof. As
and
. Then
Now,
Similarly,
□
Theorem 3. (Monotonicity) For any two T-SFNs and such that for all . Then As, As, Similarly, Definition 6. For any collection of T-SFS. Thenthen is called operator with associated weight vector of , where and . is the permutation with respect to score value such that . In next theorems, idempotency, boundedness, and monotonicity properties are proved for the above operator.
Theorem 4. If for all , then .
Proof. Since
for all
and
. Then
□
Theorem 5. For a collection of T-SFNs for all and , and . Then Proof. As
and
. Then
Now,
Similarly,
□
Theorem 6. For any two T-SFNs and such that for all . Then Proof. As which means , and .
As,
As,
Similarly,
□
Definition 7. For any collection for all of T-SFNs. The mappingis called T-SFEHA operator, where . Let is the weight vector and is the associated weight vector of with and , . The T-SFEHA operator first weights the T-spherical fuzzy values, then rearranges them and measures the ordered T-spherical fuzzy values, so the T-SFEHA operator is a generalization of the T-SFEWA and T-SFEOWA operators. For this reason, the T-SFEHA operator will also be idempotent, monotone, and bounded.
5. T-Spherical Fuzzy Einstein Hybrid Geometric Operators
In this section, using Einstein operations, T-SF Einstein weighted geometric (T-SFEWG) operators, T-SF Einstein ordered weighted geometric (T-SFEOWG) operators, and T-SF Einstein hybrid geometric (T-SFEHG) operators are defined and some of their properties are also discussed.
Definition 8. For any collection for all of T-SFNs. The mappingwhere is the weight vector of for all such that and . In next theorems, idempotency, boundedness, and monotonicity properties are proved for the above operator.
Theorem 7. If for all , then .
Proof. Since
for all
and
. Then
□
Theorem 8. For a collection of T-SFNs for all and , and . Then Proof. As
and
. Then
Now,
Similarly,
□
Theorem 9. For any two T-SFNs and such that for all . Then Proof. As , which means , and .
As,
As,
Similarly,
□
Definition 9. For any collection for all of T-SFNs. The mappingwhere is the associated weight vector of for all such that and and is permutation with respect to score value such that . In next theorems, idempotency, boundedness, and monotonicity properties are proved for the above operator.
Theorem 10. If for all , then .
Proof. Can be follow using Theorems 4 and 7. □
Theorem 11. For a collection of T-SFNs for all and , and . Then Proof. Can be follow using Theorems 5 and 8. □
Theorem 12. For any two T-SFNs and such that for all . Then Definition 10. For any collection for all of T-SFNs. The mappingis called T-SFEHG operator, where . Let is the weight vector and is the associated weight vector of with and , . The T-SFEHG operator first weighs the T-spherical fuzzy values, then rearranges them and measures the ordered T-spherical fuzzy values, so the T-SFEHG operator is a generalization of the T-SFEWG and T-SFEOWG operators. For this reason, T-SFEHG operator will also be idempotent, monotone, and bounded.
6. An Approach to Multi-Attribute Decision Making with T-Spherical Fuzzy Information
Let be a set of alternatives and be a set of attributes. The selection of best alternative is carried out using the aggregation tools proposed under the weight vector , such that and . The weight vector is chosen to weigh the arguments of decision makers. The detailed steps of the decision-making process are illustrated as follows.
Step 1. Find a value of for which the values lie in T-SF information means that find the exponent (which is finite natural number), such that the sum of the power of all membership, abstinence and non-membership values belong to [0, 1].
Step 2. Find (or ).
Step 3. Find scores values and by using these score values we reorder them in a descending order.
Step 4. Aggregate these ordered values using T-SFEHA (or T-SFEHG) operators.
Step 5. By finding scores we choose the best option.
These steps of MADM method are demonstrated in the following flow chart.
Example 1. A company wants to extend his business and board of governors decided to invest their money in one of the best options from three business options:
They assess the given companies on the basis of the following attributes.
Growth analysis
Risk analysis
Environmental impact analysis
Development of society
Social-political impact
The experts evaluate the given attributes under the consideration of given attributes as given in
Table 4:
Step 1: As,
but
. Similarly, the sum of the cube of all other values lies in [0, 1]. Therefore, for
, all values in
Table 1 are T-SFNs. This clearly indicates that the given information cannot be handled by the existing AOs of IFSs, PyFSs, PFSs as well as SFSs.
Step 2: By taking the weight vector w
and using Equation (1), we find
Similarly, we can find all other values as given in
Table 5.
Step 3. Scores of each attribute of all alternatives using
are given in
Table 6:
Based on above score analysis, we order the values of
Table 5 as given in
Table 7:
Step 4. With the help of normal distribution-based method, we get
and by using Equation (3), we have
Similarly, all other values can also be found as follows:
Step 5. Now we have to find the score values
,
,
Since the score value of is highest, Food Company is the best option for investment.
Now, we check their validity by using Einstein hybrid geometric operators.
By taking weight vector
and using Equation (4), we find T-SFEWG values as given in
Table 8:
Scores of each attribute of all alternatives is listed in
Table 9Based on above score analysis, we find the ordered values of
Table 8 as in
Table 10:
With the help of normal distribution-based method, we get
. and by using Equation (6), we have
Step 5. Now we have to find the score values
,
,
Here again, the score value of alternative
is high. Therefore, Food Company is the best option for investment. Here it is important to discuss that the information given in
Table 3 is purely T-SFNs; therefore, it cannot be aggregated using the existing approaches of IFSs [
24,
25], PyFSs [
26,
27], q-ROPFSs [
23] as well as PFSs [
12,
13]. On the other hand, the work proposed in this manuscript can deal with all the existing problems that lie in the environment of IFSs, PyFSs, q-ROPFSs and PFSs, which is clearly demonstrated in
Section 7.
7. Comparative Analysis
In this section, a comparative study is conducted in which it is shown that the proposed operators can be reduced to existing operators under some condition which proves the superiority of the proposed operators. An example is taken from [
28] and it is proven that the proposed operators provide the same result.
Consider the T-SFEHA defined as
For
the above equation reduces to spherical fuzzy Einstein hybrid averaging operators (SFEHA operator), i.e.,
For
the above equation reduces to picture fuzzy Einstein hybrid averaging operators (PFEHA operator), i.e.,
For
the above equation reduces to q-ROPF Einstein hybrid averaging operators (q-ROPFEHA operator), i.e.,
For
and
the above equation reduces to PyF Einstein hybrid averaging operators (PyFEHA operator), i.e.,
For
and
the above equation reduces to IF Einstein hybrid averaging operators (IFEHA operator), i.e.,
Similarly, we can reduce the T-SFEWA, T-SFEOWA, T-SFEWG, T-SFEOWG and T-SFEHG operators.
Example 2. Consider a decision matrix having five alternatives and evaluate under four attributes
The experts evaluate the alternatives on the basis of given attributes as in
Table 11.
The above decision matrix can be written in the T-SFSs environment as in
Table 12with a weighting vector
. Then, by using Equation (1) we get T-SFEWA values as in
Table 13.
Then, by using score function we order them as listed in
Table 14:
By using Equation (3), we get
The score values of aggregated values will be , , , , .
This shows that is most desirable alternative. Similarly, the above example can be aggregated by using T-SFEHG operator.
Example 3. Consider the information is given in T-spherical fuzzy environment for as given in Table 15: Then some aggregation operators, e.g., T-spherical fuzzy weighted averaging (T-SFWA) operators, T-spherical fuzzy hybrid geometric (T-SFHG) operators, T-spherical fuzzy weighted interactive averaging (T-SFWIA), T-spherical fuzzy hybrid interactive geometric (T-SFHIG) operators, T-SFEWA operators, and T-SFEWG operators are used to solve given data. The aggregated values for these operators are given in
Table 16:
The scores of the aggregated data obtained in
Table 16 are given in
Table 17 as follows:
The geometrical comparison of the score values obtained using different aggregation techniques is depicted in
Figure 2 where the blue stars denote the score values of the
using different AOs while the orange and grey stars denote the score values of the alternatives
and
, respectively.
The demonstration of the ranking results observed in
Figure 2 are described in
Table 18.
Advantages
The advantages of proposed work over existing work are discussed in this section. The advantages of our work are as follows: