[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
Neutrosophic N-Structures Applied to BCK/BCI-Algebras
Previous Article in Journal
Car-to-Pedestrian Communication Safety System Based on the Vehicular Ad-Hoc Network Environment: A Systematic Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Neutrosophic Similarity Score Based Weighted Histogram for Robust Mean-Shift Tracking
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Information
Volume 8
Issue 4
10.3390/info8040125
information-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

TODIM Method for Single-Valued Neutrosophic Multiple Attribute Decision Making

by
Dong-Sheng Xu
1,
Cun Wei
1,* and
Gui-Wu Wei
2,*
1
School of Science, Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu 610500, China
2
School of Business, Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu 610101, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Information 2017, 8(4), 125; https://doi.org/10.3390/info8040125
Submission received: 20 September 2017 / Revised: 9 October 2017 / Accepted: 11 October 2017 / Published: 16 October 2017
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Neutrosophic Information Theory and Applications)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Recently, the TODIM has been used to solve multiple attribute decision making (MADM) problems. The single-valued neutrosophic sets (SVNSs) are useful tools to depict the uncertainty of the MADM. In this paper, we will extend the TODIM method to the MADM with the single-valued neutrosophic numbers (SVNNs). Firstly, the definition, comparison, and distance of SVNNs are briefly presented, and the steps of the classical TODIM method for MADM problems are introduced. Then, the extended classical TODIM method is proposed to deal with MADM problems with the SVNNs, and its significant characteristic is that it can fully consider the decision makers’ bounded rationality which is a real action in decision making. Furthermore, we extend the proposed model to interval neutrosophic sets (INSs). Finally, a numerical example is proposed.

1. Introduction

Multiple attribute decision making (MADM) is a hot research area of the decision theory domain, which has had wide applications in many fields, and attracted increasing attention [1,2]. Due to the fuzziness and uncertainty of the alternatives in different attributes, attribute values in decision making problems are not always represented as real numbers, and they can be described as fuzzy numbers in more suitable occasions, such as interval-valued numbers [3,4], triangular fuzzy variables [5,6,7,8], linguistic variables [9,10,11,12,13] or uncertain linguistic variables [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21], intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (IFSs) [22,23,24,25,26,27] or interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (IVIFSs) [28,29,30,31], and SVNSs [32] or INSs [33]. Since Fuzzy set (FS), which is a very useful tool to process fuzzy information, was firstly proposed by Zadeh [34], it has been regarded as an useful tool to solve MADM [35,36], fuzzy logic [37], and patterns recognition [38]. Atanassov [22] introduced IFSs with the membership degree and non-membership degree, which were extended to IVIFSs [28]. Smarandache [39,40] proposed a neutrosophic set (NS) with truth-membership function, indeterminacy-membership function, and falsity-membership function. Furthermore, the concepts of a SVNS [32] and an INS [33] were presented for actual applications. Ye [41] proposed a simplified neutrosophic set (SNS), including the SVNS and INS. Recently, SNSs (INSs, and SVNSs) have been utilized to solve many MADM problems [42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67].
In order to depict the increasing complexity in the actual world, the DMs’ risk attitudes should be taken into consideration to deal with MADM [68,69,70]. Based on the prospect theory, Gomes and Lima [71] established TODIM (an acronym in Portuguese for Interactive Multi-Criteria Decision Making) method to solve the MADM problems with the DMs’ psychological behaviors are considered. Some scholars have paid attention to depict the DMs’ attitudinal characters in the MADM [72,73,74]. Also, some scholars proposed fuzzy TODIM models [75,76], intuitionistic fuzzy TODIM models [77,78], the Pythagorean fuzzy TODIM approach [68], the multi-hesitant fuzzy linguistic TODIM approach [79,80], the interval type-2 fuzzy TODIM model [81], the intuitionistic linguistic TODIM method [82], and the 2-dimension uncertain linguistic TODIM method [83]. However, there is no scholar to investigate the TODIM model with SVNNS. Therefore, it is very necessary to pay abundant attention to this novel and worthy issue. The aim of this paper is to extend the TODIM idea to solve the MADM with the SVNNs, to fill up this vacancy. In Section 2, we give the basic concepts of SVNSs and the classical TODIM method for MADM problems. In Section 3, we propose the TODIM method for SVN MADM problems. In Section 4, we extend the proposed SVN TODIM method to INNs. In Section 5, an illustrative example is pointed out and some comparative analysis is conducted. We give a conclusion in Section 6.

2. Preliminaries

Some basic concepts and definitions of NSs and SVNSs are introduced.

2.1. NSs and SVNSs

Definition 1 
[39,40]. Let X be a space of points (objects) with a generic element in fix set X , denoted by x . NSs A in X is characterized by a truth-membership function T A ( x ) , an indeterminacy-membership I A ( x ) and a falsity-membership function F A ( x ) , where T A ( x ) : X → ] − 0 , 1 + [ , I A ( x ) : X → ] − 0 , 1 + [ and F A ( x ) : X → ] − 0 , 1 + [ and 0 − ≤ sup T A ( x ) + sup I A ( x ) + sup F A ( x ) ≤ 3 + .
The NSs was difficult to apply to real applications. Wang [32] develop the SNSs.
Definition 2 
[32]. Let X be a space of points (objects); a SVNSs A in X is characterized as the following:
A = { ( x , T A ( x ) , I A ( x ) , F A ( x ) ) | x ∈ X }
where the truth-membership function T A ( x ) , indeterminacy-membership I A ( x ) and falsity-membership function F A ( x ) , T A ( x ) : X → [ 0 , 1 ] , I A ( x ) : X → [ 0 , 1 ] and F A ( x ) : X → [ 0 , 1 ] , with the condition 0 ≤ T A ( x ) + I A ( x ) + F A ( x ) ≤ 3 .
For convenience, a SVNN can be expressed to be A = ( T A , I A , F A ) , T A ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] , I A ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] , F A ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] , and 0 ≤ T A + I A + F A ≤ 3 .
Definition 3 
[50]. Let A = ( T A , I A , F A ) be a SVNN, a score function S ( A ) is defined:
S ( A ) = ( 2 + T A − I A − F A ) 3 ,   S ( A ) ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] .
Definition 4 
[50]. Let A = ( T A , I A , F A ) be a SVNN, an accuracy function H ( A ) of a SVNN is defined:
H ( A ) = T A − F A ,   H ( A ) ∈ [ − 1 , 1 ] .
to evaluate the degree of accuracy of the SVNN A = ( T A , I A , F A ) , where H ( A ) ∈ [ − 1 , 1 ] . The larger the value of H ( A ) is, the higher the degree of accuracy of the SVNN A .
Zhang et al. [50] gave an order relation between two SVNNs, which is defined as follows:
Definition 5 
[50]. Let A = ( T A , I A , F A ) and B = ( T B , I B , F B ) be two SVNNs, if S ( A ) < S ( B ) , then A < B ; if S ( A ) = S ( B ) , then
(1)
if H ( A ) = H ( B ) , then A = B ;
(2)
if H ( A ) < H ( B ) , then A < B .
Definition 6 
[32]. Let A and B be two SVNNs, the basic operations of SVNNs are:
(1)
A ⊕ B = ( T A + T B − T A T B , I A I B , F A F B ) ;
(2)
A ⊗ B = ( T A T B , I A + I B − I A I B , F A + F B − F A F B ) ;
(3)
λ A = ( 1 − ( 1 − T A ) λ , ( I A ) λ , ( F A ) λ ) , λ > 0 ;
(4)
( A ) λ = ( ( T A ) λ , ( I A ) λ , 1 − ( 1 − F A ) λ ) , λ > 0 .
Definition 7 
[42]. Let A and B be two SVNNs, then the normalized Hamming distance between A and B is:
d ( A , B ) = 1 3 ( | T A − T B | + | I A − I B | + | F A − F B | )

2.2. The TODIM Approach

The TODIM approach [71], developed to consider the DM’s psychological behavior, can effectively solve the MADM problems. Based on the prospect theory, this approach depicts the dominance of each alternative over others by constructing a function of multi-attribute values [69].
Let G = { G 1 , G 2 , ⋯ , G n } be the attributes, w = ( w 1 , w 2 , ⋯ , w n ) be the weight of G j , 0 ≤ w j ≤ 1 , and ∑ j = 1 n w j = 1 . A = { A 1 , A 2 , ⋯ , A m } are alternatives. Let A = ( a i j ) m × n be a decision matrix, where a i j is given for the alternative A i under the G j , i = 1 , 2 , ⋯ , m , and j = 1 , 2 , ⋯ , n . We set w j r = w j / w r ( j , r = 1 , 2 , ⋯ , n ) are relative weight of G j to G r , and w r = max { w j | j = 1 , 2 , ⋯ , n } , and 0 ≤ w j r ≤ 1 .
Then the traditional TODIM model concludes the following computing steps:
Step 1. 
Normalizing A = ( a i j ) m × n into B = ( b i j ) m × n .
Step 2. 
Computing the dominance degree of A i over every alternative A t under attribute G j :
δ ( A i , A t ) = ∑ j = 1 n ϕ j ( A i , A t ) ,   ( i , t = 1 , 2 , ⋯ , m )
where
ϕ j ( A i , A t ) = { w j r ( b i j − b t j ) / ∑ j = 1 n w j r ,                i f   b i j − b t j > 0 0 ,                                i f   b i j − b t j = 0 − 1 θ ( ∑ j = 1 n w j r ) ( b t j − b i j ) / w j r ,          i f    b i j − b t j < 0
and the parameter θ shows the attenuation factor of the losses. If b i j − b t j > 0 , then ϕ j ( A i , A t ) represents a gain; if b i j − b t j < 0 , then ϕ j ( A i , A t ) signifies a loss.
Step 3. 
Deriving the overall dominance value of A i by the Equation (7):
ϕ ( A i ) = ∑ t = 1 m δ ( A i , A t ) − min i { ∑ t = 1 m δ ( A i , A t ) } max i { ∑ t = 1 m δ ( A i , A t ) } − min i { ∑ t = 1 m δ ( A i , A t ) } ,    i = 1 , 2 , ⋯ , m .
Step 4. 
Ranking all alternatives and selecting the most desirable alternative in accordance with ϕ ( A i ) . The alternative with minimum value is the worst. Inversely, the maximum value is the best one.

3. TODIM Method for SVN MADM Problems

Let A = { A 1 , A 2 , ⋯ , A m } be alternatives, and G = { G 1 , G 2 , ⋯ , G n } be attributes. Let w = ( w 1 , w 2 , ⋯ , w n ) be the weight of attributes, where w j ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] , ∑ j = 1 n w j = 1 . Suppose that R = ( r i j ) m × n = ( T i j , I i j , F i j ) m × n be a SVN matrix, where r ˜ i j = ( T i j , I i j , F i j ) , which is an attribute value, given by an expert, for the alternative A i under G j , T i j ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] , I i j ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] , F i j ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] , 0 ≤ T i j + I i j + F i j ≤ 3 , i = 1 , 2 , ⋯ , m , j = 1 , 2 , ⋯ , n .
To solve the MADM problem with single-valued neutrosophic information, we try to present a single-valued neutrosophic TODIM model based on the prospect theory and can depict the DMs’ behaviors under risk.
Firstly, we calculate the relative weight of each attribute G j as:
w j r = w j / w r ,   j , r = 1 , 2 , ⋯ , n .
where w j is the weight of the attribute of G j , w r = max { w j | j = 1 , 2 , ⋯ , n } , and 0 ≤ w j r ≤ 1 .
Based on the Equation (8), we can derive the dominance degree of A i over each alternative A t with respect to the attribute G j :
ϕ j ( A i , A t ) = { w j r d ( r i j , r t j ) / ∑ j = 1 n w j r , i f   r i j > r t j 0 , i f   r i j = r t j − 1 θ ( ∑ j = 1 n w j r ) d ( r i j , r t j ) / w j r , i f   r i j < r t j
d ( r i j , r t j ) = 1 3 ( | T i j − T t j | + | I i j − I t j | + | F i j − F t j | ) .
where the parameter θ shows the attenuation factor of the losses, and d ( r i j , r t j ) is to measure the distances between the SVNNs r i j and r t j by Definition 7. If r i j > r t j , then ϕ j ( A i , A t ) represents a gain; if r i j < r t j , then ϕ j ( A i , A t ) signifies a loss.
For indicating functions ϕ j ( A i , A t ) clearly, a dominance degree matrix ϕ j = [ ϕ j ( A i , A t ) ] m × m under G j is expressed as:
                                 A 1                    A 2       ⋯            A m ϕ j = [ ϕ j ( A i , A t ) ] m × m = A 1 A 2 ⋮ A m [ o ϕ j ( A 1 , A 2 ) ⋯ ϕ j ( A 1 , A m ) ϕ j ( A 2 , A 1 ) 0 ⋯ ϕ j ( A 2 , A m ) ⋮ ⋮ ⋯ ⋮ ϕ j ( A m , A 1 ) ϕ j ( A m , A 2 ) ⋯ 0 ] ,   j = 1 , 2 , ⋯ , n .
On the basis of Equation (11), the overall dominance degree δ ( A i , A t ) of the A i over each A t can be calculated:
δ ( A i , A t ) = ∑ j = 1 n ϕ j ( A i , A t ) ,     ( i , t = 1 , 2 , ⋯ , m ) .
Thus, the overall dominance degree matrix δ = [ δ ( A i , A t ) ] m × m can be derived by Equation (12):
                               A 1                 A 2      ⋯         A m δ = [ δ ( A i , A t ) ] m × m = A 1 A 2 ⋮ A m [ o δ ( A 1 , A 2 ) ⋯ δ ( A 1 , A m ) δ ( A 2 , A 1 ) 0 ⋯ δ ( A 2 , A m ) ⋮ ⋮ ⋯ ⋮ δ ( A m , A 1 ) δ ( A m , A 2 ) ⋯ 0 ] .
Then, the overall value of each A i can be calculated Equation (14):
δ ( A i ) = ∑ t = 1 m δ ( A i , A t ) − min i { ∑ t = 1 m δ ( A i , A t ) } max i { ∑ t = 1 m δ ( A i , A t ) } − min i { ∑ t = 1 m δ ( A i , A t ) } ,    i = 1 , 2 , ⋯ , m .
Also the greater the overall value δ ( A i ) , the better the alternative A i .
In general, single-valued neutrosophic TODIM model includes the computing steps:
(Procedure one)
Step 1. 
Identifying the single-valued neutrosophic matrix R = ( r i j ) m × n = ( T i j , I i j , F i j ) m × n in the MADM, where r i j is a SVNN.
Step 2. 
Calculating the relative weight of G j by using Equation (8).
Step 3. 
Calculating the dominance degree ϕ j ( A i , A t ) of A i over each alternative A t under attribute G j by Equation (9).
Step 4. 
Calculating the overall dominance degree δ ( A i , A t ) of A i over each alternative A t by using Equation (12).
Step 5. 
Deriving the overall value δ ( A i ) of each alternative A i using Equation (14).
Step 6. 
Determining the order of the alternatives in accordance with δ ( A i ) ( i = 1 , 2 , ⋯ , m ) .

4. TODIM Method for Interval Neutrosophic MADM Problems

Furthermore, Wang et al. [33] defined INSs.
Definition 8 
[33]. Let X be a space of points (objects) with a generic element in fix set X , an INSs A ˜ in X is characterized as follows:
A ˜ = { ( x , T A ˜ ( x ) , I A ˜ ( x ) , F A ˜ ( x ) ) | x ∈ X }
where truth-membership function T A ˜ ( x ) , indeterminacy-membership I A ˜ ( x ) and falsity-membership function F A ˜ ( x ) are interval values, T A ( x ) ⊆ [ 0 , 1 ] , I A ( x ) ⊆ [ 0 , 1 ] and F A ( x ) ⊆ [ 0 , 1 ] , and 0 ≤ sup ( T A ˜ ( x ) ) + sup ( I A ˜ ( x ) ) + sup ( F A ˜ ( x ) ) ≤ 3 .
An interval neutrosophic number (INN) can be expressed as A ˜ = ( T A ˜ , I A ˜ , F A ˜ ) = ( [ T A ˜ L , T A ˜ R ] , [ I A ˜ L , I A ˜ R ] , [ F A ˜ L , F A ˜ R ] ) , where [ T A ˜ L , T A ˜ R ] ⊆ [ 0 , 1 ] , [ I A ˜ L , I A ˜ R ] ⊆ [ 0 , 1 ] , [ F A ˜ L , F A ˜ R ] ⊆ [ 0 , 1 ] , and 0 ≤ T A ˜ R + I A ˜ R + F A ˜ R ≤ 3 .
Definition 9 
[84]. Let A ˜ = ( [ T A ˜ L , T A ˜ R ] , [ I A ˜ L , I A ˜ R ] , [ F A ˜ L , F A ˜ R ] ) be an INN, a score function S of an INN can be represented as follows:
S ( A ˜ ) = ( 2 + T A ˜ L − I A ˜ L − F A ˜ L ) + ( 2 + T A ˜ R − I A ˜ R − F A ˜ R ) 6 ,   S ( A ˜ ) ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] .
Definition 10 
[84]. Let A ˜ = ( [ T A ˜ L , T A ˜ R ] , [ I A ˜ L , I A ˜ R ] , [ F A ˜ L , F A ˜ R ] ) be an INN, an accuracy function H ( A ˜ ) is defined:
H ( A ˜ ) = ( T A ˜ L + T A ˜ R ) − ( F A ˜ L + F A ˜ R ) 2 ,   H ( A ˜ ) ∈ [ − 1 , 1 ] .
Tang [84] defined an order relation between two INNs.
Definition 11 
[84]. Let A ˜ = ( [ T A ˜ L , T A ˜ R ] , [ I A ˜ L , I A ˜ R ] , [ F A ˜ L , F A ˜ R ] ) and B ˜ = ( [ T B ˜ L , T B ˜ R ] , [ I B ˜ L , I B ˜ R ] , [ F B ˜ L , F B ˜ R ] ) be two INNs, S ( A ˜ ) = ( 2 + T A ˜ L − I A ˜ L − F A ˜ L ) + ( 2 + T A ˜ R − I A ˜ R − F A ˜ R ) 6 and S ( B ˜ ) = ( 2 + T B ˜ L − I B ˜ L − F B ˜ L ) + ( 2 + T B ˜ R − I B ˜ R − F B ˜ R ) 6 be the scores, and H ( A ˜ ) = ( T A ˜ L + T A ˜ R ) − ( F A ˜ L + F A ˜ R ) 2 and H ( B ˜ ) = ( T B ˜ L + T B ˜ R ) − ( F B ˜ L + F B ˜ R ) 2 be the accuracy function, then if S ( A ˜ ) < S ( B ˜ ) , then A ˜ < B ˜ ; if S ( A ˜ ) = S ( B ˜ ) , then
(1)
if H ( A ˜ ) = H ( B ˜ ) , then A ˜ = B ˜ ;
(2)
if H ( A ˜ ) < H ( B ˜ ) , A ˜ < B ˜ .
Definition 12 
[33,61]. Let A ˜ 1 = ( [ T 1 L , T 1 R ] , [ I 1 L , I 1 R ] , [ F 1 L , F 1 R ] ) and A ˜ 2 = ( [ T 2 L , T 2 R ] , [ I 2 L , I 2 R ] , [ F 2 L , F 2 R ] ) be two INNs, and some basic operations on them are defined as follows:
(1)
A ˜ 1 ⊕ A ˜ 2 = ( [ T 1 L + T 1 L − T 1 L T 1 L , T 1 R + T 1 R − T 1 R T 1 R ] , [ I 1 L I 2 L , I 1 R I 2 R ] , [ F 1 L F 2 L , F 1 R F 2 R ] ) ;
(2)
A ˜ 1 ⊗ A ˜ 2 = ( [ T 1 L T 2 L , T 1 R T 2 R ] , [ I 1 L + I 1 L − I 1 L I 1 L , I 1 R + I 1 R − I 1 R I 1 R ] , [ F 1 L + F 1 L − F 1 L F 1 L , F 1 R + F 1 R − F 1 R F 1 R ] ) ;
(3)
λ A ˜ 1 = ( [ 1 − ( 1 − T 1 L ) λ , 1 − ( 1 − T 1 R ) λ ] , [ ( I 1 L ) λ , ( I 1 R ) λ ] , [ ( F 1 L ) λ , ( F 1 R ) λ ] ) , λ > 0 ;
(4)
( A ˜ 1 ) λ = ( [ ( T 1 L ) λ , ( T 1 R ) λ ] , [ ( I 1 L ) λ , ( I 1 R ) λ ] , [ 1 − ( 1 − F 1 L ) λ , 1 − ( 1 − F 1 R ) λ ] ) , λ > 0 .
Definition 13 
[84]. Let A ˜ 1 = ( [ T 1 L , T 1 R ] , [ I 1 L , I 1 R ] , [ F 1 L , F 1 R ] ) and A ˜ 2 = ( [ T 2 L , T 2 R ] , [ I 2 L , I 2 R ] , [ F 2 L , F 2 R ] ) be two INNs, then the normalized Hamming distance between A ˜ 1 = ( [ T 1 L , T 1 R ] , [ I 1 L , I 1 R ] , [ F 1 L , F 1 R ] ) and A ˜ 2 = ( [ T 2 L , T 2 R ] , [ I 2 L , I 2 R ] , [ F 2 L , F 2 R ] ) is defined as follows:
d ( A ˜ 1 , A ˜ 2 ) = 1 6 ( | T 1 L − T 2 L | + | T 1 R − T 2 R | + | I 1 L − I 2 L | + | I 1 R − I 2 R | + | F 1 L − F 2 L | + | F 1 R − F 2 R | )
Let A , G and w be presented as in Section 3. Suppose that R ˜ = ( r ˜ i j ) m × n = ( [ T i j L , T i j R ] , [ I i j L , I i j R ] , [ F i j L , F i j R ] ) m × n is the interval neutrosophic decision matrix, where [ T i j L , T i j R ] , [ I i j L , I i j R ] , [ F i j L , F i j R ] is truth-membership function, indeterminacy-membership function and falsity-membership function, [ T i j L , T i j R ] ⊆ [ 0 , 1 ] , [ I i j L , I i j R ] ⊆ [ 0 , 1 ] , [ F i j L , F i j R ] ⊆ [ 0 , 1 ] , 0 ≤ T i j R + I i j R + F i j R ≤ 3 , i = 1 , 2 , ⋯ , m , j = 1 , 2 , ⋯ , n .
To cope with the MADM with INNs, we develop interval neutrosophic TODIM model.
Firstly, we calculate the relative weight of each attribute G j as:
w j r = w j / w r , j , r = 1 , 2 , ⋯ , n
where w j is the weight of the attribute of G j , w r = max { w j | j = 1 , 2 , ⋯ , n } , and 0 ≤ w j r ≤ 1 .
Based on the Equation (20), we can derive the dominance degree of A i over each alternative A t with respect to the attribute G j :
ϕ j ( A i , A t ) = { w j r d ( r ˜ i j , r ˜ t j ) / ∑ j = 1 n w j r , i f   r ˜ i j > r ˜ t j 0 , i f   r ˜ i j = r ˜ t j − 1 θ ( ∑ j = 1 n w j r ) d ( r ˜ i j , r ˜ t j ) / w j r , i f   r ˜ i j < r ˜ t j
d ( r ˜ i j , r ˜ t j ) = 1 6 ( | T i j L − T t j L | + | T i j R − T t j R | + | I i j L − I t j L | + | I i j R − I t j R | + | F i j L − F t j L | + | F i j R − F t j R | ) .
where the parameter θ shows the attenuation factor of the losses, and d ( r ˜ i j , r ˜ t j ) is to measure the distances between the INNs r ˜ i j and r ˜ t j by Definition 13. If r ˜ i j > r ˜ t j , then ϕ j ( A i , A t ) represents a gain; if r ˜ i j < r ˜ t j , then ϕ j ( A i , A t ) signifies a loss.
For indicating functions ϕ j ( A i , A t ) clearly, a dominance degree matrix ϕ j = [ ϕ j ( A i , A t ) ] m × m under G j is expressed as:
                A 1                  A 2         ⋯            A m ϕ j = [ ϕ j ( A i , A t ) ] m × m = A 1 A 2 ⋮ A m [ o ϕ j ( A 1 , A 2 ) ⋯ ϕ j ( A 1 , A m ) ϕ j ( A 2 , A 1 ) 0 ⋯ ϕ j ( A 2 , A m ) ⋮ ⋮ ⋯ ⋮ ϕ j ( A m , A 1 ) ϕ j ( A m , A 2 ) ⋯ 0 ] , j = 1 , 2 , ⋯ , n
On the basis of Equation (22), the overall dominance degree δ ( A i , A t ) of the A i over each A t can be calculated:
δ ( A i , A t ) = ∑ j = 1 n ϕ j ( A i , A t ) ,     ( i , t = 1 , 2 , ⋯ , m )
Thus, the overall dominance degree matrix δ = [ δ ( A i , A t ) ] m × m can be derived by Equation (23):
                                               A 1              A 2        ⋯       A m δ = [ δ ( A i , A t ) ] m × m = A 1 A 2 ⋮ A m [ o δ ( A 1 , A 2 ) ⋯ δ ( A 1 , A m ) δ ( A 2 , A 1 ) 0 ⋯ δ ( A 2 , A m ) ⋮ ⋮ ⋯ ⋮ δ ( A m , A 1 ) δ ( A m , A 2 ) ⋯ 0 ]
Then, the overall value of each A i can be calculated Equation (25):
δ ( A i ) = ∑ t = 1 m δ ( A i , A t ) − min i { ∑ t = 1 m δ ( A i , A t ) } max i { ∑ t = 1 m δ ( A i , A t ) } − min i { ∑ t = 1 m δ ( A i , A t ) } ,    i = 1 , 2 , ⋯ , m .
Also the greater the overall value δ ( A i ) , the better the alternative A i .
In general, interval neutrosophic TODIM model includes the computing steps:
(Procedure two)
Step 1. 
Identifying the interval neutrosophic matrix R ˜ = ( r ˜ i j ) m × n = ( [ T i j L , T i j R ] , [ I i j L , I i j R ] , [ F i j L , F i j R ] ) m × n in the MADM, where r ˜ i j is an INN.
Step 2. 
Calculating the relative weight of G j by using Equation (19).
Step 3. 
Calculating the dominance degree ϕ j ( A i , A t ) of A i over each alternative A t under attribute G j by Equation (20).
Step 4. 
Calculating the overall dominance degree δ ( A i , A t ) of A i over each alternative A t by using Equation (23).
Step 5. 
Deriving the overall value δ ( A i ) of each alternative A i using Equation (25).
Step 6. 
Determining the order of the alternatives in accordance with δ ( A i ) ( i = 1 , 2 , ⋯ , m ) .

5. Numerical Example and Comparative Analysis

5.1. Numerical Example 1

In this part, a numerical example is given to show potential evaluation of emerging technology commercialization with SVNNs. Five possible emerging technology enterprises (ETEs) A i ( i = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ) are to be evaluated and selected. Four attributes are selected to evaluate the five possible ETEs: ① G1 is the employment creation; ② G2 is the development of science and technology; ③ G3 is the technical advancement; and ④ G4 is the industrialization infrastructure. The five ETEs A i ( i = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ) are to be evaluated by using the SVNNs under the above four attributes (whose weighting vector ω = ( 0.2 , 0.1 , 0.3 , 0.4 ) T ), as listed in the following matrix.
                           G 1                   G 2                  G 3                  G 4 R ˜ = A 1 A 2 A 3 A 4 A 5 [ ( 0.5 , 0.8 , 0.1 ) ( 0.6 , 0.3 , 0.3 ) ( 0.3 , 0.6 , 0.1 ) ( 0.5 , 0.7 , 0.2 ) ( 0.7 , 0.2 , 0.1 ) ( 0.7 , 0.2 , 0.2 ) ( 0.7 , 0.2 , 0.4 ) ( 0.8 , 0.2 , 0.1 ) ( 0.6 , 0.7 , 0.2 ) ( 0.5 , 0.7 , 0.3 ) ( 0.5 , 0.3 , 0.1 ) ( 0.6 , 0.3 , 0.2 ) ( 0.8 , 0.1 , 0.3 ) ( 0.6 , 0.3 , 0.4 ) ( 0.3 , 0.4 , 0.2 ) ( 0.5 , 0.6 , 0.1 ) ( 0.6 , 0.4 , 0.4 ) ( 0.4 , 0.8 , 0.1 ) ( 0.7 , 0.6 , 0.1 ) ( 0.5 , 0.8 , 0.2 ) ]
Then, we use Procedure One to select the best ETE.
Firstly, since w 4 = max { w 1 , w 2 , w 3 , w 4 } , then G 4 is the reference attribute and the reference attribute’s weight is w r = 0.4 . Then, we can calculate the relative weights of the attributes G j ( j = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) as w 1 r = 0.50 , w 2 r = 0.25 , w 3 r = 0.75 and w 4 r = 1.00 . Let θ = 2.5 , then the dominance degree matrix ϕ j ( A i , A t ) ( j = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) with respect to G j can be calculated:
                   A 1          A 2          A 3           A 4           A 5 ϕ 1 = A 1 A 2 A 3 A 4 A 5 [ 0.0000 − 0.4619 − 0.2828 − 0.5657 − 0.4619 0.2309 0.0000 0.2160 0.1633 0.2000 0.1414 − 0.4320 0.0000 − 0.4899 − 0.3651 0.2828 − 0.3266 0.2449 0.0000 0.2000 0.2309 − 0.4000 0.1826 − 0.4000 0.0000 ]
                   A 1           A 2          A 3          A 4          A 5 ϕ 2 = A 1 A 2 A 3 A 4 A 5 [ 0.0000 − 0.4000 0.1291 0.0577 0.1732 0.1000 0.0000 0.1633 0.1155 0.1826 − 0.5164 − 0.6532 0.0000 − 0.5657 − 0.4619 − 0.2309 − 0.4619 0.1414 0.0000 0.1826 − 0.6928 − 0.7303 0.1155 − 0.7303 0.0000 ]                    A 1          A 2          A 3            A 4          A 5 ϕ 3 = A 1 A 2 A 3 A 4 A 5 [ 0.0000 − 0.4422 − 0.2981 − 0.2309 − 0.2667 0.3317 0.0000 − 0.3266 0.2828 0.2646 0.2236 0.2449 0.0000 0.2000 0.2236 0.1732 − 0.3771 − 0.2667 0.0000 − 0.3528 0.2000 − 0.3528 − 0.2981 0.2646 0.0000 ]                    A 1          A 2           A 3            A 4          A 5 ϕ 4 = A 1 A 2 A 3 A 4 A 5 [ 0.0000 − 0.3464 − 0.2582 − 0.1633 0.1155 0.3464 0.0000 0.2309 0.3055 0.3651 0.2582 − 0.2309 0.0000 0.2582 0.2828 0.1633 − 0.3055 − 0.2582 0.0000 0.2000 − 0.1155 − 0.3651 − 0.2828 − 0.2000 0.0000 ]
The overall dominance degree δ ( A i , A t ) of the candidate A i over each candidate A t can be derived by Equation (13):
                   A 1          A 2           A 3           A 4           A 5 δ = A 1 A 2 A 3 A 4 A 5 [ 0.0000 − 1.6505 − 0.7100 − 0.9022 − 0.4399 1.0090 0.0000 0.2836 0.8671 1.01234 0.1068 − 1.0712 0.0000 − 0.5974 − 0.3206 0.3884 − 1.4711 − 0.1386 0.0000 0.2298 − 0.3774 − 1.8482 − 0.2828 − 1.0657 0.0000 ]
Then, we get the overall value δ ( A i ) ( i = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ) by using Equation (14):
δ ( A 1 ) = 0.0000 , δ ( A 2 ) = 1.0000 , δ ( A 3 ) = 0.2648 δ ( A 4 ) = 0.3944 , δ ( A 5 ) = 0.0187
Finally, we get order of ETEs by δ ( A i ) ( i = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ) : A 2 ≻ A 4 ≻ A 3 ≻ A 5 ≻ A 1 , and thus the most desirable ETE is A 2 .

5.2. Comparative Analysis 1

In what follows, we compare our proposed method with other existing methods including the SVNWA operator and SVNWG operator proposed by Sahin [85] as follows:
Definition 14 
[85]. Let A j = ( T j , I j , F j ) ( j = 1 , 2 , ⋯ , n ) be a collection of SVNNs, w = ( w 1 , w 2 , ⋯ , w n ) T be the weight of A j ( j = 1 , 2 , ⋯ , n ) , and w j > 0 , ∑ j = 1 n w j = 1 . Then
r i = ( T i , I i , F i ) = SVNWA w ( r i 1 , r i 2 , ⋯ , r i n ) = ⊕ j = 1 n ( w j r i j ) = ( 1 − ∏ j = 1 n ( 1 − T i j ) w j , ∏ j = 1 n ( I i j ) w j , ∏ j = 1 n ( F i j ) w j )
r i = ( T i , I i , F i ) = SVNWG ω ( r i 1 , r i 2 , ⋯ , r i n ) = ⊗ j = 1 n ( r i j ) w j = ( ∏ j = 1 n ( T i j ) w j , 1 − ∏ j = 1 n ( 1 − I i j ) w j , 1 − ∏ j = 1 n ( 1 − F i j ) w j )
By utilizing the R ˜ , as well as the SVNWA and SVNWG operators, the aggregating values are derived in Table 1.
According to the aggregating results in Table 1, the score functions are listed in Table 2.
According to the score functions shown in Table 2, the order of the emerging technology enterprises are in Table 3.
From the above analysis, it can be seen that two operators have the same best emerging technology enterprise A2 and two methods’ ranking results are slightly different. However, the SVN TODIM approach can reasonably depict the DMs’ psychological behaviors under risk, and thus, it may deal with the above issue effectively. This verifies the method we proposed is reasonable and effective in this paper.

5.3. Numerical Example 2

If the five possible emerging technology enterprises A i ( i = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ) are to be evaluated by using the INNS under the above four attributes (whose weighting vector ω = ( 0.2 , 0.1 , 0.3 , 0.4 ) T ), as listed in the matrix R ˜ , then:
R ˜ = [ ( [ 0.5 , 0.6 ] , [ 0.8 , 0.9 ] , [ 0.1 , 0.2 ] ) ( [ 0.6 , 0.7 ] , [ 0.3 , 0.4 ] , [ 0.3 , 0.4 ] ) ( [ 0.7 , 0.9 ] , [ 0.2 , 0.3 ] , [ 0.1 , 0.2 ] ) ( [ 0.7 , 0.8 ] , [ 0.1 , 0.2 ] , [ 0.2 , 0.3 ] ) ( [ 0.6 , 0.7 ] , [ 0.7 , 0.8 ] , [ 0.2 , 0.3 ] ) ( [ 0.5 , 0.6 ] , [ 0.7 , 0.8 ] , [ 0.3 , 0.4 ] ) ( [ 0.8 , 0.9 ] , [ 0.1 , 0.2 ] , [ 0.3 , 0.4 ] ) ( [ 0.6 , 0.7 ] , [ 0.3 , 0.4 ] , [ 0.4 , 0.5 ] ) ( [ 0.6 , 0.7 ] , [ 0.4 , 0.5 ] , [ 0.4 , 0.5 ] ) ( [ 0.4 , 0.5 ] , [ 0.8 , 0.9 ] , [ 0.1 , 0.2 ] )        ( [ 0.3 , 0.4 ] , [ 0.6 , 0.7 ] , [ 0.1 , 0.2 ] ) ( [ 0.5 , 0.6 ] , [ 0.7 , 0.8 ] , [ 0.1 , 0.2 ] ) ( [ 0.7 , 0.9 ] , [ 0.2 , 0.3 ] , [ 0.4 , 0.5 ] ) ( [ 0.8 , 0.9 ] , [ 0.2 , 0.3 ] , [ 0.1 , 0.2 ] ) ( [ 0.5 , 0.6 ] , [ 0.3 , 0.4 ] , [ 0.1 , 0.2 ] ) ( [ 0.6 , 0.7 ] , [ 0.3 , 0.4 ] , [ 0.2 , 0.3 ] ) ( [ 0.3 , 0.4 ] , [ 0.4 , 0.5 ] , [ 0.2 , 0.3 ] ) ( [ 0.5 , 0.6 ] , [ 0.6 , 0.7 ] , [ 0.1 , 0.2 ] ) ( [ 0.7 , 0.8 ] , [ 0.6 , 0.7 ] , [ 0.1 , 0.2 ] ) ( [ 0.5 , 0.6 ] , [ 0.8 , 0.9 ] , [ 0.2 , 0.3 ] ) ]
Then, we use Procedure Two to select the best ETE.
Firstly, since w 4 = max { w 1 , w 2 , w 3 , w 4 } , then G 4 is the reference attribute and the reference attribute’s weight is w r = 0.4 . Then, we can calculate the relative weights of the attributes G j ( j = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) as: w 1 r = 0.50 , w 2 r = 0.25 , w 3 r = 0.75 and w 4 r = 1.00 . Let θ = 2.5 , then the dominance degree matrix ϕ j ( A i , A t ) ( j = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) with respect to G j can be calculated:
                      A 1          A 2          A 3           A 4         A 5 ϕ 1 = A 1 A 2 A 3 A 4 A 5 [ 0.0000 − 0.4761 − 0.2828 − 0.5657 − 0.4619 0.2380 0.0000 0.2236 0.1528 0.2082 0.1414 − 0.4472 0.0000 − 0.4899 − 0.3651 0.2828 − 0.3055 0.2449 0.0000 0.2000 0.2309 − 0.4163 0.1826 − 0.4000 0.0000 ]
                      A 1          A 2          A 3           A 4         A 5 ϕ 2 = A 1 A 2 A 3 A 4 A 5 [ 0.0000 − 0.4619 0.1291 0.0577 0.1732 0.1155 0.0000 0.1732 0.1291 0.1915 − 0.5164 − 0.6928 0.0000 − 0.5657 − 0.4619 − 0.2309 − 0.5164 0.1414 0.0000 0.1826 − 0.6928 − 0.7659 0.1155 − 0.7303 0.0000 ]                    A 1          A 2          A 3         A 4         A 5 ϕ 3 = A 1 A 2 A 3 A 4 A 5 [ 0.0000 − 0.4522 − 0.2981 − 0.2309 − 0.2667 0.3391 0.0000 0.2550 0.2915 0.2739 0.2236 − 0.3399 0.0000 0.2000 0.2236 0.1732 − 0.3887 − 0.2667 0.0000 − 0.3528 0.2000 − 0.3651 − 0.2981 0.2646 0.0000 ]                    A 1          A 2          A 3           A 4         A 5 ϕ 4 = A 1 A 2 A 3 A 4 A 5 [ 0.0000 − 0.3266 − 0.2828 − 0.1155 0.1633 0.3266 0.0000 0.2309 0.3055 0.3651 0.2828 − 0.2309 0.0000 0.2582 0.2828 0.1155 − 0.3055 − 0.2582 0.0000 0.2000 − 0.1633 − 0.3651 − 0.2828 − 0.2000 0.0000 ]
The overall dominance degree δ ( A i , A t ) of the candidate A i over each candidate A t can be derived by Equation (24):
                  A 1          A 2           A 3          A 4        A 5 δ = A 1 A 2 A 3 A 4 A 5 [ 0.0000 − 1.7168 − 0.7346 − 0.7506 0.0698 1.0192 0.0000 0.3727 0.3513 0.8305 0.1314 − 1.0310 0.0000 − 0.4726 0.0445 0.3406 − 1.5161 − 0.1386 0.2000 0.0298 − 0.4252 − 1.9124 − 0.8654 − 0.6657 0.0000 ]
Then, we get the overall value δ ( A i ) ( i = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ) by using Equation (25):
δ ( A 1 ) = 0.1143 , δ ( A 2 ) = 1.0000 , δ ( A 3 ) = 0.3944 δ ( A 4 ) = 0.4322 , δ ( A 5 ) = 0.0000
Finally, we get order of ETEs by δ ( A i ) ( i = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ) : A 2 ≻ A 4 ≻ A 3 ≻ A 1 ≻ A 5 , and thus the most desirable ETE is A 2 .

5.4. Comparative Analysis 2

In what follows, we compare our proposed method with other existing methods including the INWA operator and INWG operator proposed by Zhang et al. [50] as follows:
Definition 15 
[50]. Let A ˜ j = ( [ T j L , T j R ] , [ I j L , I j R ] , [ F j L , F j R ] ) ( j = 1 , 2 , ⋯ , n ) be a collection of INNs, w = ( w 1 , w 2 , ⋯ , w n ) T be the weight of A j ( j = 1 , 2 , ⋯ , n ) , and w j > 0 , ∑ j = 1 n w j = 1 . Then
r ˜ i = ( [ T i L , T i R ] , [ I i L , I i R ] , [ F i L , F i R ] ) = INWA w ( r ˜ i 1 , r ˜ i 2 , ⋯ , r ˜ i n ) = ⊕ j = 1 n ( w j r ˜ i j ) = ( [ 1 − ∏ j = 1 n ( 1 − T i j L ) w j , 1 − ∏ j = 1 n ( 1 − T i j R ) w j ] , [ ∏ j = 1 n ( I i j L ) w j , ∏ j = 1 n ( I i j R ) w j ] , [ ∏ j = 1 n ( F i j L ) w j , ∏ j = 1 n ( F i j R ) w j ] )
r ˜ i = ( [ T i L , T i R ] , [ I i L , I i R ] , [ F i L , F i R ] ) = INWG w ( r ˜ i 1 , r ˜ i 2 , ⋯ , r ˜ i n ) = ⊗ j = 1 n ( r ˜ i j ) w j = ( [ ∏ j = 1 n ( T i j L ) w j , ∏ j = 1 n ( T i j R ) w j ] , [ 1 − ∏ j = 1 n ( 1 − I i j L ) w j , 1 − ∏ j = 1 n ( 1 − I i j R ) w j ] , [ 1 − ∏ j = 1 n ( 1 − F i j L ) w j , 1 − ∏ j = 1 n ( 1 − F i j R ) w j ] )
By utilizing the decision matrix R ˜ , and the INWA and INWG operators, the aggregating values are in Table 4.
According to the aggregating values in Table 4, the score functions are in Table 5.
According to the score functions shown in Table 5, the order of the emerging technology enterprises are in Table 6.
From the above analysis, it can be seen that two operators have the same best emerging technology enterprise A2 and two methods’ ranking results are slightly different. However, the interval neutrosophic TODIM approach can reasonably depict the DMs’ psychological behaviors under risk, and thus, it may deal with the above issue effectively. This verifies the method we proposed is reasonable and effective.

6. Conclusions

In this paper, we will extend the TODIM method to the MADM with the single-valued neutrosophic numbers (SVNNs). Firstly, the definition, comparison and distance of SVNNs are briefly presented, and the steps of the classical TODIM method for MADM problems are introduced. Then, the extended classical TODIM method is proposed to deal with MADM problems with the SVNNs, and its significant characteristic is that it can fully consider the decision makers’ bounded rationality which is a real action in decision making. Furthermore, we extend the proposed model to interval neutrosophic sets (INSs). Finally, a numerical example is proposed to verify the developed approach.
In the future, the application of the proposed models and methods of SVNSs and INSs needs to be explored in the decision making [86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99], risk analysis and many other uncertain and fuzzy environment [100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112].

Acknowledgments

The work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 71571128 and 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

Dong-Sheng Xu, Cun Wei and Gui-Wu Wei conceived and worked together to achieve this work, Gui-Wu Wei wrote the paper, Cun Wei made contribution to the case study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Buyukozkan, G.; Arsenyan, J.; Ruan, D. Logistics tool selection with two-phase fuzzy multi criteria decision making: A case study for personal digital assistant selection. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 142–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Wei, G.W.; Wang, J.M.; Chen, J. Potential optimality and robust optimality in multiattribute decision analysis with incomplete information: A comparative study. Decis. Support Syst. 2013, 55, 679–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Xu, Z.S. The uncertain OWA operator. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 2002, 17, 569–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. 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]
  5. Van Laarhoven, P.J.M.; Pedrycz, W. A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1983, 11, 229–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zhao, X.F.; Lin, R.; Wei, G.W. Fuzzy prioritized operators and their application to multiple attribute group decision making. Appl. Math. Model. 2013, 37, 4759–4770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wei, G.W.; Zhao, X.F.; Wang, H.J.; Lin, R. Fuzzy power aggregating operators and their application to multiple attribute group decision making. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2013, 19, 377–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wei, G.W. FIOWHM operator and its application to multiple attribute group decision making. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 2984–2989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Herrera, F.; Martínez, L. A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 2000, 8, 746–752. [Google Scholar]
  10. Herrera, F.; Martínez, L. An approach for combining linguistic and numerical information based on 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model in decision-making. Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness 2000, 8, 539–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Herrera, F.; Martínez, L. A model based on linguistic 2-tuples for dealing with multigranular hierarchical linguistic contexts in multi-expert decision-making. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 2001, 31, 227–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Xu, Z.S. A method for multiple attribute decision making with incomplete weight information in linguistic setting. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2007, 20, 719–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. 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]
  14. Xu, Z.S. Uncertain linguistic aggregation operators based approach to multiple attribute group decision making under uncertain linguistic environment. Inf. Sci. 2004, 168, 171–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Xu, Z.S. Induced uncertain linguistic OWA operators applied to group decision making. Inf. Fusion 2006, 7, 231–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wei, G.W. Uncertain linguistic hybrid geometric mean operator and its Application to group decision making under uncertain linguistic environment. Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness 2009, 17, 251–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. 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]
  18. Lu, M.; Wei, G.W. Pythagorean uncertain linguistic aggregation operators for multiple attribute decision making. Int. J. Knowl.-Based Intell. Eng. Syst. 2017, 21, 165–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. 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]
  20. 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 2013, 21, 603–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. 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]
  22. Atanassov, K. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1986, 20, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Xu, Z.S. Intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 2007, 15, 1179–1187. [Google Scholar]
  24. Xu, Z.S.; Yager, R.R. Some geometric aggregation operators based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Int. J. Gen. Syst. 2006, 35, 417–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhao, X.F.; Wei, G.W. Some Intuitionistic Fuzzy Einstein Hybrid Aggregation Operators and Their Application to Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2013, 37, 472–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. 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]
  27. Wei, G.W. Gray relational analysis method for intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute decision making. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 11671–11677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Atanassov, K.; Gargov, G. Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1989, 31, 343–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Atanassov, K. Operators over interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1994, 64, 159–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. 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]
  31. Wei, G.W.; Wang, H.J.; Lin, R. Application of correlation coefficient to interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute decision making with incomplete weight information. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 2011, 26, 337–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wang, H.; Smarandache, F.; Zhang, Y.Q.; Sunderraman, R. Single valued neutrosophic sets. Multispace Multistruct 2010, 4, 410–413. [Google Scholar]
  33. Wang, H.; Smarandache, F.; Zhang, Y.Q.; Sunderraman, R. Interval Neutrosophic Sets and Logic: Theory and Applications in Computing; Hexis: Phoenix, AZ, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  34. Zadeh, L.A. Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 1965, 8, 338–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bellman, R.; Zadeh, L.A. Decision making in a fuzzy environment. Manag. Sci. 1970, 17, 141–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Yager, R.R. Multiple objective decision-making using fuzzy sets. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 1997, 9, 375–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zadeh, L.A. Fuzzy logic and approximate reasoning. Synthese 1975, 30, 407–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Pedrycz, W. Fuzzy sets in pattern recognition: Methodology and methods. Pattern Recognit. 1990, 23, 121–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Smarandache, F. A unifying field in logics. In Neutrosophy: Neutrosophic Probability, Set and Logic; American Research Press: Rehoboth, DE, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  40. Smarandache, F. A unifying field in logics: Neutrosophic logic. In Neutrosophy, Neutrosophic Set, Neutrosophic Probability and Statistics, 3rd ed.; Xiquan: Phoenix, AZ, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  41. Ye, J. A multicriteria decision-making method using aggregation operators for simplified neutrosophic sets. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2014, 26, 2459–2466. [Google Scholar]
  42. Majumdar, P.; Samant, S.K. On similarity and entropy of neutrosophic sets. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2014, 26, 1245–1252. [Google Scholar]
  43. Ye, J. Multicriteria decision-making method using the correlation coefficient under single-value neutrosophic environment. Int. J. Gen. Syst. 2013, 42, 386–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Broumi, S.; Smarandache, F. Correlation coefficient of interval neutrosophic set. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2013, 436, 511–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zhang, H.Y.; Ji, P.; Wang, J.; 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]
  46. 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]
  47. Zhang, H.Y.; 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]
  48. Tian, Z.P.; Zhang, H.Y.; Wang, J.; Wang, J.Q.; Chen, X.H. Multi-criteria decision-making method based on a cross-entropy with interval neutrosophic sets. Int. J. Syst. Sci. 2016, 47, 3598–3608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. 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]
  50. Zhang, H.Y.; Wang, J.Q.; Chen, X.H. Interval neutrosophic sets and their application in multicriteria decision making problems. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 645953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. 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]
  52. 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. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2014, 16, 242–255. [Google Scholar]
  53. Zhao, A.W.; Du, J.G.; Guan, H.J. Interval valued neutrosophic sets and multi-attribute decision-making based on generalized weighted aggregation operator. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2015, 29, 2697–2706. [Google Scholar]
  54. Sun, H.X.; Yang, H.X.; Wu, J.Z.; Yao, O.Y. Interval neutrosophic numbers Choquet integral operator for multi-criteria decision making. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2015, 28, 2443–2455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Liu, P.D.; Wang, Y.M. Interval neutrosophic prioritized OWA operator and its application to multiple attribute decision making. J. Syst. Sci. Complex. 2016, 29, 681–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. 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. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2016, 18, 1104–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ye, J. Exponential operations and aggregation operators of interval neutrosophic sets and their decision making methods. Springerplus 2016, 5, 1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. 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]
  59. Mao, H.; Lin, G.-M. Interval neutrosophic fuzzy concept lattice representation and interval-similarity measure. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2017, 33, 957–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ye, J. Single valued neutrosophic cross-entropy for multicriteria decision making problems. Appl. Math. Model. 2014, 38, 1170–1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. 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]
  62. Ye, J. Improved cosine similarity measures of simplified neutrosophic sets for medical diagnoses. Artif. Intell. Med. 2015, 63, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Ye, J. Single valued neutrosophic similarity measures based on cotangent function and their application in the fault diagnosis of steam turbine. Soft Comput. 2017, 21, 817–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ye, J. Single-valued neutrosophic clustering algorithms based on similarity measures. J. Classif. 2017, 34, 148–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ye, J. Multiple attribute decision-making method based on the possibility degree ranking method and ordered weighted aggregation operators of interval neutrosophic numbers. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2015, 28, 1307–1317. [Google Scholar]
  66. Ye, J. Projection and bidirectional projection measures of single valued neutrosophic sets and their decision-making method for mechanical design schemes. J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell. 2016, 29, 731–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ye, J. Interval neutrosophic multiple attribute decision-making method with credibility information. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 2016, 18, 914–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ren, P.; Xu, Z.; Gou, X. Pythagorean fuzzy TODIM approach to multi-criteria decision making. Appl. Soft Comput. 2016, 42, 246–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kahneman, D.; Tversky, A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econom. J. Econom. Soc. 1979, 47, 263–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Abdellaoui, M.; Bleichrodt, H.; Paraschiv, C. Loss aversion under prospect theory: A parameter-free measurement. Manag. Sci. 2007, 53, 1659–1674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Gomes, L.; Lima, M. TODIM: Basics and application to multicriteria ranking of projects with environmental impacts. Found. Comput. Decis. Sci. 1991, 16, 113–127. [Google Scholar]
  72. Chen, L.H.; Hung, C.C.; Tu, C.C. Considering the decision maker’s attitudinal character to solve multi-criteria decision-making problems in an intuitionistic fuzzy environ-ment. Knowl. Based Syst. 2012, 361, 29–38. [Google Scholar]
  73. Liu, H.C.; You, J.X.; Fan, X.J.; Chen, Y.Z. Site selection in waste management by the VIKOR method using linguistic assessment. Appl. Soft Comput. 2014, 214, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Wu, J.; Chiclana, F. A risk attitudinal ranking method for interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy numbers based on novel attitudinal expected score and accuracy functions. Appl. Soft Comput. 2014, 222, 72–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Krohling, R.A.; de Souza, T.T.M. Combining prospect theory and fuzzy numbers to multi-criteria decision making. Exp. Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 11487–11493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Fan, Z.P.; Zhang, X.; Chen, F.D.; Liu, Y. Extended TODIM method for hybrid multiple attribute decision making problems. Knowl. Based Syst. 2013, 42, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Lourenzutti, R.; Krohling, R.A. A study of TODIM in a intuitionistic fuzzy and random environment. Exp. Syst. Appl. 2013, 40, 6459–6468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Krohling, R.A.; Pacheco, A.G.C.; Siviero, A.L.T. IF-TODIM: An intuitionistic fuzzy TODIM to multi-criteria decision making. Knowl. Based Syst. 2013, 53, 142–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Wang, J.; Wang, J.-Q.; Zhang, H.Y. A likelihood-based TODIM approach based on multi-hesitant fuzzy linguistic information for evaluation in logistics outsourcing. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2016, 99, 287–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Wei, C.; Ren, Z.; Rodríguez, R.M. A Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic TODIM Method Based on a Score Function. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst. 2015, 8, 701–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Sang, X.; Liu, X. An interval type-2 fuzzy sets-based TODIM method and its application to green supplier selection. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 2016, 67, 722–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Wang, S.; Liu, J. Extension of the TODIM Method to Intuitionistic Linguistic Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Symmetry 2017, 9, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Liu, P.; Teng, F. An extended TODIM method for multiple attribute group decision-making based on 2-dimension uncertain linguistic Variable. Complexity 2016, 21, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Tang, G. Approaches for Relational Multiple Attribute Decision Making with Interval Neutrosophic Numbers Based on Choquet Integral. Master Thesis, Shandong University of Finance and Economics, Jinan, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  85. Sahin, R. Multi-criteria neutrosophic decision making method based on score and accuracy functions under neutrosophic environment. arXiv, 2014; arXiv:1412.5202. [Google Scholar]
  86. 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]
  87. Wei, G.W.; Lu, M.; Alsaadi, 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]
  88. Park, K.S. Mathematical programming models for charactering dominance and potential optimality when multicriteria alternative values and weights are simultaneously incomplete. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A Syst. Hum. 2004, 34, 601–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. 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]
  90. 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]
  91. Yager, R.R. Pythagorean membership grades in multicriteria decision making. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 2014, 22, 958–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Zhang, X.L.; Xu, Z.S. Extension of TOPSIS to multiple criteria decision making with Pythagorean fuzzy sets. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 2014, 29, 1061–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Gou, X.; Xu, Z.; Ren, P. The Properties of Continuous Pythagorean Fuzzy Information. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 2016, 31, 401–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. 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]
  95. 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]
  96. 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]
  97. 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. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 2017, 19, 607–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. 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]
  99. Garg, H. A New Generalized Pythagorean Fuzzy Information Aggregation Using Einstein Operations and Its Application to Decision Making. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 2016, 31, 886–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Zeng, S.; Chen, J.; Li, X. A Hybrid Method for Pythagorean Fuzzy Multiple-Criteria Decision Making. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak. 2016, 15, 403–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Garg, H. A novel accuracy function under interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy environment for solving multicriteria decision making problem. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2016, 31, 529–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Wei, G.W. Picture fuzzy cross-entropy for multiple attribute decision making problems. J. Bus. Econ. 2016, 17, 491–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Wei, G.W.; Alsaadi, F.E.; Hayat, T.; Alsaedi, A. Hesitant fuzzy linguistic arithmetic aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making. Iran. J. Fuzzy Syst. 2016, 13, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  104. Wei, G.W.; Zhao, X.F.; Lin, R. Some hesitant interval-valued fuzzy aggregation operators and their applications to multiple attribute decision making. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2013, 46, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Zhang, H.Y.; Yang, S.Y.; Yue, Z.W. On inclusion measures of intuitionistic and interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy values and their applications to group decision making. Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern. 2016, 7, 833–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Nayagam, V.L.G.; Sivaraman, G. Ranking of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Appl. Soft Comput. 2011, 11, 3368–3372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Wei, G.W.; Lu, M. Pythagorean Fuzzy Maclaurin Symmetric Mean Operators in Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. 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]
  109. 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]
  110. 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]
  111. 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]
  112. Wei, G.W.; Alsaadi, F.E.; Hayat, T.; Alsaedi, A. Picture 2-tuple linguistic aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making. Soft Comput. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. The aggregating values of the emerging technology enterprises by the SVNWA (SVNWG) operators.
Table 1. The aggregating values of the emerging technology enterprises by the SVNWA (SVNWG) operators.
SVNWASVNWG
A1(0.4591, 0.6307, 0.1473)(0.4369, 0.6718, 0.1627)
A2(0.7449, 0.2000, 0.1625)(0.7384, 0.2000, 0.2124)
A3(0.5627, 0.3868, 0.1692)(0.5578, 0.4571, 0.1822)
A4(0.5497, 0.3464, 0.1762)(0.4799, 0.4381, 0.2067)
A5(0.5822, 0.6389, 0.1741)(0.5610, 0.6933, 0.2083)
Table
Table 2. The score functions of the emerging technology enterprises.
Table 2. The score functions of the emerging technology enterprises.
SVNWASVNWG
A10.56040.5341
A20.79420.7753
A30.66890.6398
A40.67570.6117
A50.58980.5531
Table
Table 3. Order of the emerging technology enterprises.
Table 3. Order of the emerging technology enterprises.
Order
SVNWAA2 > A4 > A3 > A5 > A1
SVNWGA2 > A3 > A4 > A5 > A1
Table
Table 4. The aggregating values of the emerging technology enterprises by the INWA and INWG operators.
Table 4. The aggregating values of the emerging technology enterprises by the INWA and INWG operators.
INWA
A1([0.4591, 0.5611], [0.6307, 0.7342], [0.1116, 0.2144])
A2([0.7449, 0.8928], [0.1866, 0.2881], [0.1625, 0.2742])
A3([0.5627, 0.6634], [0.3868, 0.4925], [0.1692, 0.2734])
A4([0.5497, 0.6674], [0.3464, 0.4657], [0.1762, 0.2844])
A5([0.5822, 0.6863], [0.6389, 0.7421], [0.1741, 0.2825])
INWG
A1([0.4369, 0.5395], [0.6718, 0.7805], [0.1223, 0.2227])
A2([0.7384, 0.8895], [0.1905, 0.2906], [0.2124, 0.3144])
A3([0.5578, 0.6581], [0.4571, 0.5685], [0.1822, 0.2825])
A4([0.4799, 0.5851], [0.4381, 0.5440], [0.2067, 0.3077])
A5([0.5610, 0.6624], [0.6933, 0.8082], [0.2083, 0.3097])
Table
Table 5. The score functions of the emerging technology enterprises.
Table 5. The score functions of the emerging technology enterprises.
INWAINWG
A10.55490.5298
A20.78770.7700
A30.65070.6209
A40.65740.5948
A50.57180.5340
Table
Table 6. Order of the emerging technology enterprises.
Table 6. Order of the emerging technology enterprises.
Ordering
INWAA2 > A4 > A3 > A5 > A1
INWGA2 > A3 > A4 > A5 > A1

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Xu, D.-S.; Wei, C.; Wei, G.-W. TODIM Method for Single-Valued Neutrosophic Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Information 2017, 8, 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/info8040125

AMA Style

Xu D-S, Wei C, Wei G-W. TODIM Method for Single-Valued Neutrosophic Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Information. 2017; 8(4):125. https://doi.org/10.3390/info8040125

Chicago/Turabian Style

Xu, Dong-Sheng, Cun Wei, and Gui-Wu Wei. 2017. "TODIM Method for Single-Valued Neutrosophic Multiple Attribute Decision Making" Information 8, no. 4: 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/info8040125

APA Style

Xu, D. -S., Wei, C., & Wei, G. -W. (2017). TODIM Method for Single-Valued Neutrosophic Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Information, 8(4), 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/info8040125

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