Sunteți pe pagina 1din 20

USING e-ANNOTATION TOOLS FOR ELECTRONIC PROOF CORRECTION

Required software to e-Annotate PDFs: Adobe Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader (version 11
or above). (Note that this document uses screenshots from Adobe Reader DC.)
The latest version of Acrobat Reader can be downloaded for free at: http://get.adobe.com/reader/

Once you have Acrobat Reader open on your computer, click on the Comment tab
(right-hand panel or under the Tools menu).

This will open up a ribbon panel at the top of the document. Using a tool will place
a comment in the right-hand panel. The tools you will use for annotating your proof
are shown below:

1. Replace (Ins) Tool – for replacing text. 2. Strikethrough (Del) Tool – for deleting text.

Strikes a line through text and opens up a text Strikes a red line through text that is to be
box where replacement text can be entered. deleted.

How to use it: How to use it:


 Highlight a word or sentence.  Highlight a word or sentence.

 Click on .  Click on ..

 Type the replacement text into the blue box that  The text will be struck out in red.
appears.

3. Commenting Tool – for highlighting a section 4. Insert Tool – for inserting missing text
to be changed to bold or italic or for general at specific points in the text.
comments.

Use these 2 tools to highlight the text Marks an insertion point in the text and
where a comment is then made. opens up a text box where comments
can be entered.
How to use it:
How to use it:
 Click on .  Click on .
 Click and drag over the text you need to
 Click at the point in the proof where the comment
highlight for the comment you will add.
should be inserted.
 Click on .
 Type the comment into the box that
 Click close to the text you just highlighted. appears.

 Type any instructions regarding the text to be


altered into the box that appears.
USING e-ANNOTATION TOOLS FOR ELECTRONIC PROOF CORRECTION

5. Attach File Tool – for inserting large amounts of 6. Add stamp Tool – for approving a proof if no
text or replacement figures. corrections are required.

Inserts an icon linking to the attached file in the Inserts a selected stamp onto an appropriate
appropriate place in the text. place in the proof.

How to use it: How to use it:


 Click on .  Click on .

 Click on the proof to where you’d like the attached  Select the stamp you want to use. (The Approved
file to be linked. stamp is usually available directly in the menu that
 Select the file to be attached from your computer appears. Others are shown under Dynamic, Sign
or network. Here, Standard Business).

 Select the colour and type of icon that will appear  Fill in any details and then click on the proof
in the proof. Click OK. where you’d like the stamp to appear. (Where a
proof is to be approved as it is, this would
The attachment appears in the right-hand panel. normally be on the first page).

7. Drawing Markups Tools – for drawing shapes, lines, and freeform


annotations on proofs and commenting on these marks.
Drawing
tools Allows shapes, lines, and freeform annotations to be drawn on proofs and
available on for comments to be made on these marks.
comment
ribbon

How to use it:


 Click on one of the shapes in the Drawing
Markups section.
 Click on the proof at the relevant point and
draw the selected shape with the cursor.
 To add a comment to the drawn shape,
right-click on shape and select Open
Pop-up Note.
 Type any text in the red box that
appears.

For further information on how to annotate proofs, click on the Help menu to reveal a list of further options:
Author Query Form

Journal: Expert Systems


Article: exsy12292

Dear Author,
During the copyediting of your manuscript the following queries arose.
Please refer to the query reference call out numbers in the page proofs and respond to each by marking the necessary
comments using the PDF annotation tools.
Please remember illegible or unclear comments and corrections may delay publication.
Many thanks for your assistance.

Query No. Query Remark


Q1 AUTHOR: Please confirm that given names (Blue) and
surnames/family names (Vermilion) have been identified correctly.
Q2 AUTHOR: Please check that authors’ affiliation and corresponding
details are correct.
Q3 AUTHOR: Please provide authors’ biography.
Q4 AUTHOR: Table 3 has not been mentioned in the text. Please cite the
table in the relevant place in the text.
Q5 AUTHOR: Instances of the use of hyphens in Absolutely low, Very low,
Fairly low, Fairly high, Very high, and Absolutely high in tables and
equations have been removed. Please check.
Q6 AUTHOR: Please check references Atanassov (1999) and Jain (1976)
if captured correctly.
Q7 AUTHOR: If references Chutia (2018); Zeng et al. (2014) have now
been published in print, please add relevant volume/issue/page/
information.
Q8 AUTHOR: Please provide city location for reference Dubey and
Mehra (2011).
Q9 AUTHOR: If this is not a one-page article, please supply the first and
last pages for reference Li (2008).
Journal Code: Article ID Dispatch: 17.05.18 CE: Jenneth Villagracia
E X S Y 1 2 2 9 2 No. of Pages: 17 ME:

Received: 11 June 2017 Revised: 3 April 2018 Accepted: 20 April 2018


DOI: 10.1111/exsy.12292
01
02
03 O R I G I N A L A R T I C L E
04
05
06
07
Ranking intuitionistic fuzzy numbers at levels of
08 decision-making and its application
09
10
11 Rituparna Chutia Sunayana Saikia

F
Q1
12
13

OO
Q2 14 Department of Mathematics, Cotton
15 University, Guwahati, Assam 781001, India Abstract
16 In this paper, a new method of ranking trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers has been intro- Q3
Correspondence
17 Rituparna Chutia, Department of Mathematics, duced based on the concept of value and ambiguity at different levels of decision-making. The

PR
18 Cotton University, Guwahati, Assam 781001, concept of decision levels 𝛼 for the membership function and 𝛽 for the non-membership function
19 India. called as the flexibility parameters have been introduced in ranking these types of fuzzy numbers.
Email: rituparnachutia7@gmail.com
20 If the flexibility parameters 𝛼 is close to maximum membership degree of the membership func-
21 tion and 𝛽 close to minimum membership degree of non-membership function, then a high-level
22 decision is made. Likewise, if the flexibility parameters 𝛼 is close to minimum membership degree
D
23 of membership function and 𝛽 close to maximum membership degree of non-membership func-
24 tion, then a low-level decision is made. Again, if the flexibility parameters 𝛼 and 𝛽 lie between
TE
25 minimum membership degree of the membership function and maximum membership degree of
26 the non-membership function, then an intermediate decision is made. This phenomenon of the
27 proposed method is an attractive feature as it allows the decision-maker to make a choice on the
EC

28 levels of decision. Further, the rationality validation of the proposed method has been checked by
29 proving some of the Wang and Kerre's reasonable properties on ordering fuzzy quantities.
30
31 KEYWORDS
RR

32 ambiguity, decision levels, flexibility parameter, intuitionistic fuzzy number, value


33
34
35 1 INTRODUCTION
CO

36
Fuzzy set theory is generally used when the information involved in problems of decision-making, operation research, risk analysis, and so forth are
37
vague. These vague information are often expressed as linguistic terms which in turn can be expressed as fuzzy numbers. Nowadays, risk analysis
38
under fuzzy environment known as fuzzy risk analysis is gaining much popularity among the researchers. Fuzzy risk analysis is first introduced by
39
Schmucke (1984) in production system using the parameters probability of failure and severity of loss. Most of the time, the parameters involved in
40
UN

those risk analysis problems are expressed by linguistic terms due to its nature which in turn can be expressed in terms of fuzzy numbers (Zadeh,
41
1965). Initially, risk analysis using linguistic terms was proposed by Kangari and Riggs (1989). Some of the studies that involves risk analysis are
42
Chen (1996); Chen and Chen (2007); Chen and Chen (2001, 2003); Tang and Chi (2005); Wang and Elhag (2006), and so forth. Generally, in fuzzy
43
risk analysis problem for an approximate decision-making, ordering of fuzzy quantities are very essential. Hence, a novel method for ranking fuzzy
44
numbers is very essential for a proper decision-making. Jain (1976, 1977) and Dubois and Prade (1980) first attempted ordering fuzzy quantities
45
by the pioneer works through developing a method using maximizing set.
46
The incomplete information in a fuzzy set is covered by the concept of intuitionistic fuzzy sets (IFS) that was proposed by Atanassov (1986). Liter-
47
ally, the concept of IFS is just to include the non-membership function in fuzzy set. This generalization adds more abundant and flexible information
48
as compared with fuzzy sets. Some of the pioneering works are Atanassov (1989, 1994, (2000) that gives the complete concepts of IFS. The con-
49
cept of fuzzy numbers has been further generalized to intuitionistic fuzzy number (IFN) by Li (2008), and its application are clear in the many field
50
of decision-making and risk analysis problems. Generally, choice has to be made among the alternatives in decision-making problems where the
51
alternatives are IFNs. As such, the ordering of IFN is very essential for proper and approximate decision.
52
Recently, the ordering of IFNs is gaining attention. Different researchers have used different types of IFN and various type of concepts to rank
53
IFNs by Grzegorzewski (2003); Kumar and Kaur (2013); Nehi (2010); Salahshour, Shekari, and Hakimzadeh (2012); Seikh, Nayak, and Pal (2012).
54
55 Expert Systems. 2018;e12292. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/exsy Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1 of 17
https://doi.org/10.1111/exsy.12292
2 of 17 CHUTIA AND SAIKIA

01 Mitchell (2004) adopted a statistical viewpoint and interpreted each IFN as an ensemble of ordinary fuzzy numbers to rank them. Wang and Zhang
02 (2009) method of ranking trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (TrIFN) is by transforming TrIFNs into interval numbers. Hence, the resulting
03 index is interval numbers, which is why this method is not popular among the researchers. The concept of value and ambiguity in ranking IFN has
04 been attempted on several definitions of IFNs by Das and De (2016); Dubey and Mehra (2011), Zeng, Li, and Yu (2014). Li (2010) used the concept of
05 ratio of the value index to the ambiguity index to rank triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (TIFN) and applied to multiattribute decision-making
06 problems. This concept has been generalized to TrIFNs by removing the limitations of Li's method due to non-linearity by De and Das (2012). Nan, Li,
07 and Zhang (2010) used membership function average indexes to rank TIFNs. Wan (2013) proposed a method on ranking TIFN using least possibility
08 variance coefficients. Rezvani (2013) used values and ambiguities of the membership degree and the non-membership degree for TrIFNs and defined
09 the value-index and the ambiguity-index. Very recently, Nayagam, Jeevaraj, and Dhanasekaran (2016) defined eight different classes of TrIFNs and
10 defined different ranking indexes for these classes.
11 In this paper, value and ambiguity at level of decision-making have been adopted for the ranking of TrIFNs. This concept of decision levels has

F
12 the flexibility of choosing a decision levels. A high-level decision is made if the decision-maker choose 𝛼 close to the maximum membership degree
13 of the membership function and 𝛽 close to minimum membership degree of the non-membership function. A low-level decision is made if the

OO
14 decision-maker choose 𝛼 close to minimum membership degree of the membership function and 𝛽 close to maximum membership degree of the
15 non-membership functions. An intermediate decision is made if the flexibility parameters 𝛼 and 𝛽 lie between maximum membership degree of the
16 membership function and minimum membership degree of the non-membership function. Also, the rationality validation has been placed under
17 scrutiny by proving the Wang and Kerre (2001a) reasonable properties for the ordering fuzzy quantities. Further, a risk analysis problem on poultry

PR
18 farming has been discussed that demonstrates the proposed ranking method in decision-making.
19 The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the basic definitions of IFN and TrIFNs and related definitions to the discussion.
20 Section 3 discusses the definitions and theorems of the proposed ranking method. Section 3.3 discusses the rationality validation of the proposed
21 raking method proving the Wang and Kerre (2001a, 2001b) reasonable properties on ranking fuzzy quantities. In Section 4, numerical examples
22 are discussed highlighting the advantage of the proposed method. In Section 5, a risk analysis problem in poultry farming has been discussed by
D
23 demonstrating the proposed ranking method as a supplementary tool in decision-making. Finally, in Section 6, conclusions and the main features of
24 the proposed method are highlighted. Further, the scope on further studies are also highlighted.
TE
25
26
27 2 DEFINITIONS AND PRELIMINARIES
EC

28
In this section, related definitions and notations of TrIFN are reviewed and forwarded that are essential for further study.
29
30
31 2.1 IFN and its concepts
RR

32
Definition 2.1. If X is a collection of objects, then a fuzzy set A in X is a set of ordered pairs:
33
34 A = {(x, 𝜇A (x)) ∶ x ∈ X, 𝜇A ∶ X → [0, 1]}.
35
CO

36 Example 2.1. A real number close to 0, then the fuzzy set A may be defined as A = {( − 1.0, 0.1), ( − 0.5, 0.5), (0, 1), (0.5, 0.5), (1.0, 0.1)}.
37
38 Definition 2.2. (Basu, 2005) A null set is denoted by Φ and is that fuzzy set for which the degree of membership for each element is zero. Thus,

39 Φ = {(x, 𝜇A (x)) ∶ x ∈ X, 𝜇A (x) = 0}.


40
UN

41 Example 2.2. A negative real number greater than 1, then the fuzzy set Φ may be defined as Φ = {(x, 0) ∶ x ∈ R− }.
42
43 Definition 2.3. (Atanassov, 1999) An IFS A on R is defined as an object of the form
44
A = (⟨x, 𝜇A (x), 𝜈A (x)⟩ ∶ x ∈ R) ,
45
46 where the functions 𝜇A ∶ R → [0, 1] and 𝜈A ∶ R → [0, 1] the degree of membership and the degree of non-membership of the element x ∈ R,
47 respectively, and for every x ∈ R, 0 ≤ 𝜇A (x) + 𝜈A (x) ≤ 1.
48
49 Example 2.3. A real number close to 0, then the IFS A may be defined as A = {( − 1.0, 0.1, 0.9), ( − 0.5, 0.5, 0.4), (0, 1, 0), (0.5, 0.5, 0.4), (1.0, 0.1, 0.9)}.
50
51 Definition 2.4. A null set Φ in terms of IFS is that set for which the degree of membership and the degree of non-membership for each elements
52 are zero. Thus,
53 Φ = (⟨x, 𝜇Φ (x), 𝜈Φ (x)⟩ ∶ x ∈ R, 𝜇Φ (x) = 0, 𝜈Φ (x) = 0) .
54
55 Example 2.4. A negative real number greater than 1, then the IFS Φ may be defined as Φ = {(x, 0, 1) ∶ x ∈ R− }.
CHUTIA AND SAIKIA 3 of 17

01 Definition 2.1.1. (Nayagam et al. 2016) An IFN ã = (𝜇ã , 𝜈ã ) in the set of real numbers R with membership function and non-membership
02 functions are defined as
03 ⎧
⎪ fã (x) if a ≤ x ≤ x0 ,
04
⎪1 if x0 ≤ x ≤ y0 ,
05 𝜇ã (x) = ⎨ (1)
⎪ gã (x) if y0 ≤ x ≤ b,
06 ⎪0 otherwise,

07
08 and
09 ⎧
⎪ hã (x) if c ≤ x ≤ x0 ′,
10
⎪0 if x0 ′ ≤ x ≤ y0 ′,
11 𝜈ã (x) = ⎨ (2)
⎪ kã (x) if y0 ′ ≤ x ≤ d,

F
12 ⎪1 otherwise,

13

OO
14 respectively, where 0 ≤ 𝜇ã (x) + 𝜈ã (x) ≤ 1 and a, x0 , y0 , b, c, x0 ′, y0 ′, d ∈ R such that c ≤ a, x0 ′ ≤ x0 ≤ y0 ≤ y0 ′ , b ≤ d and the
15 functions fã , gã , hã , kã ∶ R → [0, 1] are the legs of membership function 𝜇ã and non-membership function 𝜈ã . The functions fã and kã are non-
16 decreasing continuous functions and the functions hã and gã are nonincreasing continuous functions. Hence, the IFN can also be denoted by
17 ã = ⟨(a, x0 , y0 , b), (c, x0 ′, y0 ′, d)⟩.

PR
18
19 Definition 2.1.2. (Nayagam et al. 2016) Consider a TrIFN ã = ⟨(a, x0 , y0 , b; wã ), (c, x0 ′, y0 ′, d; uã )⟩ as shown in Figure 1 where the real numbers F1
20 are such that c ≤ a, x0 ′ ≤ x0 ≤ y0 ≤ y0 ′ , b ≤ d, then the membership function and the non-membership function are defined as
21
⎧ wã (x−a) if a ≤ x ≤ x0 ,
22 ⎪ x0 −a D
⎪ w̃ if x0 ≤ x ≤ y0 ,
23 𝜇ã (x) = ⎨ wãa(b−x) (3)
⎪ b−y0 if y0 ≤ x ≤ b,
24
TE
⎪0 otherwise,
25 ⎩

26 and
27
⎧ (x0 ′−x)+uã (x−c) if c ≤ x ≤ x0 ′,
EC

28 ⎪ x0 ′−c
⎪ uã if x0 ′ ≤ x ≤ y0 ′,
29 𝜈ã (x) = ⎨ (x−y 0 ′)+uã (d−x)
(4)
⎪ d−y0 ′
if y0 ′ ≤ x ≤ d,
30 ⎪1
⎩ otherwise,
31
RR

32 respectively, where maximum degree of membership and minimum degree of non-membership are represented by wã and uã , respectively, such
33 that 0 ≤ wã ≤ 1, 0 ≤ uã ≤ 1 and 0 ≤ wã + uã ≤ 1. The degree of belongingness of an element in ã is given by the 𝜇ã (x). Further, the degree of
34 nonbelongingness of an element in ã is given by the function 𝜈ã (x).
35
CO

36 Definition 2.1.3. The IF index of an element x in ã is the degree of the indeterminacy membership 𝜋ã of the element x in ã is defined as
37
38 𝜋ã (x) = 1 − 𝜇ã (x) − 𝜈ã (x). (5)
39
40 A TrIFN ã = ⟨(a, x0 , y0 , b; wã ), (c, x0 ′, y0 ′, d; uã )⟩ is called a positive TrIFN whenever a > 0, denoted as ã > 0. Likewise, ã is called negative TrIFN
UN

41 whenever d < 0, denoted as ã < 0.


42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55 FIGURE 1 Graphical representation of an TrIFN
4 of 17 CHUTIA AND SAIKIA

01 2.2 Cut sets of TrIFN


02
As like the fuzzy number, the cut sets of TrIFN can also be defined for the membership and the non-membership functions. These sets are defined
03
by Atanassov (1999) as follows:
04
05 Definition 2.2.1. A (𝛼, 𝛽)-cut set of a TrIFN ã = ⟨(a, x0 , y0 , b; wã ), (c, x0 ′, y0 ′, d; uã )⟩ is a crisp subset of R, which is defined as ã 𝛼,𝛽 = {x|𝜇ã (x) ≥
06 𝛼, 𝜈ã (x) ≤ 𝛽}, where 0 ≤ 𝛼 ≤ wã , uã ≤ 𝛽 ≤ 1 and 0 ≤ 𝛼 + 𝛽 ≤ 1.
07
08 Definition 2.2.2. A 𝛼 -cut set of a TrIFN ã = ⟨(a, x0 , y0 , b; wã ), (c, x0 ′, y0 ′, d; uã )⟩ is a crisp subset of R, which is defined as ã 𝛼 = {x|𝜇ã (x) ≥ 𝛼} where
09 0 ≤ 𝛼 ≤ wã .
10 [ ]
It is clear that ã 𝛼 represents a closed interval, denoted by ã 𝛼 = L𝜇ã (𝛼), R𝜇ã (𝛼) , which can be calculated using the membership function Equation 3
11

F
as [ ]
12 [ ] 𝛼 𝛼
ã 𝛼 = L𝜇ã (𝛼), R𝜇ã (𝛼) = a + (x0 − a), b − (b − y0 ) . (6)
13 wã wã

OO
14
Definition 2.2.3. A 𝛽 -cut set of a TrIFN ã = ⟨(a, x0 , y0 , b; wã ), (c, x0 ′, y0 ′, d; uã )⟩ is a crisp subset of R, which is defined as ã 𝛽 = {x|𝜈ã (x) ≤ 𝛽}, where
15
uã ≤ 𝛽 ≤ 1.
16
[ ]
17 It is clear that ã 𝛽 represents a closed interval, denoted by ã 𝛽 = L𝜈ã (𝛽), R𝜈ã (𝛽) , which can be calculated using the non-membership function

PR
18 Equation 4 as
[ ]
19 [ ] (1 − 𝛽)x0 ′ + (𝛽 − uã )c (1 − 𝛽)y0 ′ + (𝛽 − uã )d
ã 𝛽 = L𝜈ã (𝛽), R𝜈ã (𝛽) = , . (7)
20 1 − uã 1 − uã

21
22 D
23
2.3 Arithmetic of TrIFN
24 The arithmetic operations of TIFN are defined by Li (2008, 2010). These operations are extended to TrIFN here. Let ã =
TE
25 ⟨(a, x0 , y0 , b; wã ), (c, x0 ′, y0 ′, d; uã )⟩ and b̃ = ⟨(p, m0 , n0 , q; w ̃ ), (r, m0 ′, n0 ′, s; u ̃ )⟩ be two TrIFNs and 𝜆 be a real number, then the arithmetic operations
b b
26 are defined as
27 ã ⊕ b̃ = ⟨(a + p, x0 + m0 , y0 + n0 , b + q; min{wã , wb̃ }),
(8)
EC

28 (c + r, x0 ′ + m0 ′, y0 ′ + n0 ′, d + s; max{uã , ub̃ })⟩


29
30 ã ⊖ b̃ = ⟨(a − q, x0 − n0 , y0 − m0 , b − p; min{wã , wb̃ }),
(9)
31 (c − s, x0 ′ − n0 ′, y0 ′ − m0 ′, d − r; max{uã , ub̃ })⟩
RR

32
⎧ ⟨(ap, x0 m0 , y0 n0 , bq; min{wã , wb̃ }),
33 ⎪ ̃
⎪ (cr, x0 ′m0 ′, y0 ′n0 ′, ds; max{uã , ub̃ })⟩ if ã > 0 and b > 0,
34 ⎪ ⟨(aq, x n , y m , bp; min{w , w }),
ã ⊗ b̃ = ⎨ 0 0 0 0 ̃
a ̃
b
̃ (10)
35 ⎪ (cs, x0 ′n0 ′, y0 ′m0 ′, dr; max{uã , ub̃ })⟩ if ã < 0 and b > 0,
⎪ ⟨(bq, y0 n0 , x0 m0 , ap; min{wã , wb̃ }),
CO

36 ⎪ (ds, y ′n ′, x ′m ′, cr; max{u , u ̃ })⟩ if ã < 0 and b̃ < 0,


37 ⎩ 0 0 0 0 ã b

38 ⎧ ⟨(a∕q, x0 ∕n0 , y0 ∕m0 , b∕p; min{wã , wb̃ }),


⎪ ̃
39 ⎪ (c∕s, x0 ∕′n0 ′, y0 ∕′m0 ′, d∕r; max{uã , ub̃ })⟩ if ã > 0 and b > 0,
⎪ ⟨(b∕d, y ∕n , x ∕m , a∕p; min{w , w }),
40 ã ⊘ b̃ = ⎨ 0 0 0 0 ã b̃
UN

̃ (11)
41 ⎪ (d∕s, y0 ′∕n0 ′, x0 ′∕m0 ′, c∕r; max{uã , ub̃ })⟩ if ã < 0 and b > 0,
⎪ ⟨(b∕p, y0 ∕m0 , x0 ∕n0 , a∕q; min{wã , wb̃ }),
42 ⎪ (d∕r, y ′∕m ′, x ′∕n ′, c∕s; max{u , u ̃ })⟩ if ã < 0 and b̃ < 0,
⎩ 0 0 0 0 ã b
43 {
⟨(λa, λx0 , λy0 , λb; wã ), (λc, λx0 ′, λy0 ′, λd; uã )⟩ if λ > 0,
44 λ̃a = (12)
⟨(λb, λy0 , λx0 , λa; wã ), (λd, λy0 ′, λx0 ′, λc; uã )⟩ if λ < 0,
45
46 ã −1 = ⟨(1∕b, 1∕y0 , 1∕x0 , 1∕a; wã ), (1∕d, 1∕y0 ′, 1∕x0 ′, 1∕c; uã )⟩. (13)
47
48
49 3 THE PROPOSED METHOD
50
51 In this section, value and ambiguity of nonempty TrIFN with respect to membership and non-membership functions are defined. These definitions
52 are adopted from the definitions of value and ambiguity a fuzzy number introduced by Delgado, Vila, and Voxman (1998). Further, the value and
53 ambiguity of nonempty TrIFN at decision levels are also defined. And this concept has been adopted from the concept of value and ambiguity at
54 decision levels of fuzzy numbers introduced by Chutia and Chutia (2017). Further, the proposed method of ranking nonempty TrIFN at decision levels
55 is also discussed. Moreover, the proposed method has been validated by proving some of the reasonable properties of Wang and Kerre's.
CHUTIA AND SAIKIA 5 of 17

01 3.1 Value and ambiguity at decision levels


02
Definition 3.1.1. Consider a nonempty TrIFN ã = ⟨(a, x0 , y0 , b; wã ), (c, x0 ′, y0 ′, d; uã )⟩. Let ã 𝛼 = [L𝜇ã (𝛼), R𝜇ã (𝛼)] and ã 𝛽 = [L𝜈ã (𝛽), R𝜈ã (𝛽)] be the cut sets
03
of membership and non-membership functions respectively of the TrIFN ã . Then, values of the membership function 𝜇ã (x) and non-membership
04
function 𝜈ã (x) of the TrIFN ã are defined as
05 wã
06 V 𝜇 (̃a) = f(𝛼)(L𝜇ã (𝛼) + R𝜇ã (𝛼))d𝛼 (14)
∫0
07
and
08 1
09 V 𝜈 (̃a) = g(𝛼)(L𝜈ã (𝛽) + R𝜈ã (𝛽))d𝛽, (15)
∫uã
10
w
11 respectively, where the function f(𝛼) is non-negative and nondecreasing function on the interval [0, 1] with f(0) = 0 and ∫0 ã f(𝛼)d𝛼 = wã ; the

F
1
12 function g(𝛽) is a non-negative and nonincreasing function on the interval [0, 1] with g(1) = 0 and ∫u ̃ g(𝛽)d𝛽 = 1 − uã .
a

13

OO
14 Definition 3.1.2. Consider a nonempty TrIFN ã = ⟨(a, x0 , y0 , b; wã ), (c, x0 ′, y0 ′, d; uã )⟩. Let ã 𝛼 = [L𝜇ã (𝛼), R𝜇ã (𝛼)] and ã 𝛽 = [L𝜈ã (𝛽), R𝜈ã (𝛽)] be the

15 cut sets of membership and non-membership functions respectively of the TrIFN ã . Then, ambiguities of the membership function 𝜇ã (x) and

16 non-membership function 𝜈ã (x) of the TrIFN ã are defined as


wã
17
A𝜇 (̃a) = f(𝛼)(R𝜇ã (𝛼) − L𝜇ã (𝛼))d𝛼

PR
(16)
18 ∫0
19 and
1
20
A𝜈 (̃a) = g(𝛼)(R𝜈ã (𝛽) − L𝜈ã (𝛽))d𝛽, (17)
21 ∫uã
22 D w
respectively, where the function f(𝛼) is non-negative and nondecreasing function on the interval [0, 1] with f(0) = 0 and ∫0 ã f(𝛼)d𝛼 = wã ; the
23 1
function g(𝛽) is a non-negative and nonincreasing function on the interval [0, 1] with g(1) = 0 and ∫u ̃ g(𝛽)d𝛽 = 1 − uã .
a
24
TE
25 Chutia and Chutia (2017) first introduced the concept of decision levels on value, and ambiguity of fuzzy numbers is termed as flexibility param-
26 eter. This concept of flexibility parameters is the first of this kind in TrIFNs that has been adopted in TrIFNs. The quantities value and ambiguity at
27 decision levels allows the decision-maker a choice on the decision levels. In case of fuzzy number, a high-level decision is made when a decision levels
EC

28 close to 1 is chosen, a low-level decision is made when a decision levels close to 0 is chosen, and also an intermediate decision is made if a decision
29 levels between 0 and 1 is chosen. This concept has been generalized to TrIFN where a high-level decision is made if the flexibility parameters 𝛼 is
30 close to maximum membership degree of the membership function and 𝛽 close to minimum membership degree of the non-membership function, a
31 low-level decision is made if the flexibility parameters 𝛼 is close to minimum membership degree of the membership function and 𝛽 is close to max-
32 imum membership degree of non-membership function, and intermediate decision is made if flexibility parameters 𝛼 and 𝛽 are between maximum
RR

33 membership degree of membership function and minimum membership degree of the non-membership function. The following definitions of value
34 and ambiguity at decision levels is forwarded by using this concept of flexibility parameters 𝛼 and 𝛽 .
35 Definition 3.1.3. Consider a nonempty TrIFN ã = ⟨(a, x0 , y0 , b; wã ), (c, x0 ′, y0 ′, d; uã )⟩ with membership and non-membership functions 𝜇ã (x) and
[ ] [ ]
CO

36 𝜈ã (x), respectively. Let the 𝛼 -cut and the 𝛽 -cut sets be ã 𝛼 = L𝜇ã (𝛼), R𝜇ã (𝛼) and ã 𝛼 = L𝜈ã (𝛼), R𝜈ã (𝛼) of membership and non-membership functions
37 respectively of ã . Then, value V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) and ambiguity A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) of ã at decision level higher than 𝛼 and lower than 𝛽 , such that 𝛼 < wã and 𝛽 > uã , are
38 defined as
39 wã 𝛽
V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = f(r)(L𝜇ã (r) + R𝜇ã (r))dr + g(r)(L𝜈ã (r) + R𝜈ã (r))dr (18)
40 ∫𝛼 ∫uã
UN

41
wã 𝛽
42 A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = f(r)(R𝜇ã (r) − L𝜇ã (r))dr + g(r)(R𝜈ã (r) − L𝜈ã (r))dr, (19)
∫𝛼 ∫uã
43
w
44 where the function f(𝛼) is non-negative and nondecreasing function on the interval [0, 1] with f(0) = 0 and ∫0 ã f(𝛼)d𝛼 = wã ; the function g(𝛽)
1
45 is a non-negative and nonincreasing function on the interval [0, 1] with g(1) = 0 and ∫u ̃ g(𝛽)d𝛽 = 1 − uã .
a

46
47 Definition 3.1.4. Consider a nonempty TrIFN ã = ⟨(a, x0 , y0 , b; wã ), (c, x0 ′, y0 ′, d; uã )⟩ with membership and non-membership functions 𝜇ã (x) and
[ ] [ ]
48 𝜈ã (x), respectively. Let the 𝛼 -cut and the 𝛽 -cut sets be ã 𝛼 = L𝜇ã (𝛼), R𝜇ã (𝛼) and ã 𝛼 = L𝜈ã (𝛼), R𝜈ã (𝛼) of membership and non-membership functions
49 respectively of ã . Then, value V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) and ambiguity A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) of ã , such that 𝛼 < wã and 𝛽 ≤ uã , are defined solely on membership function as
50 wã
V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = f(r)(L𝜇ã (r) + R𝜇ã (r))dr (20)
51 ∫𝛼
52
wã
53 A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = f(r)(R𝜇ã (r) − L𝜇ã (r))dr, (21)
∫𝛼
54
w
55 where the function f(𝛼) is non-negative and nondecreasing function on the interval [0, 1] with f(0) = 0 and ∫0 ã f(𝛼)d𝛼 = wã .
6 of 17 CHUTIA AND SAIKIA

01 Definition 3.1.5. Consider a nonempty TrIFN ã = ⟨(a, x0 , y0 , b; wã ), (c, x0 ′, y0 ′, d; uã )⟩ with membership and non-membership functions 𝜇ã (x) and
[ ] [ ]
02 𝜈ã (x), respectively. Let the 𝛼 -cut and the 𝛽 -cut sets be ã 𝛼 = L𝜇ã (𝛼), R𝜇ã (𝛼) and ã 𝛼 = L𝜈ã (𝛼), R𝜈ã (𝛼) of membership and non-membership functions
03 respectively of ã . Then, value V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) and ambiguity A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) of ã , such that 𝛼 ≥ wã and 𝛽 < uã , are defined solely on non-membership function as
04
𝛽
05 V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = g(r)(L𝜈ã (r) + R𝜈ã (r))dr (22)
∫uã
06
07
𝛽
08 A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = g(r)(R𝜈ã (r) − L𝜈ã (r))dr, (23)
∫uã
09
10 1
where the function g(𝛽) is a non-negative and nonincreasing function on the interval [0, 1] with g(1) = 0 and ∫u ̃ g(𝛽)d𝛽 = 1 − uã .
a
11

F
12 Let ã = ⟨(a, x0 , y0 , b; wã ), (c, x0 ′, y0 ′, d; uã )⟩ be a nonempty TrIFN with membership and non-membership functions denoted as 𝜇ã (x) and 𝜈ã (x)
13 as given in Equations 3 and 4, respectively. Let the 𝛼 -cut and the 𝛽 -cut sets of the membership and non-membership functions of ã be given by

OO
2𝛼 2(1−𝛽)
14 Equations 6 and 7, respectively. Choosing f(𝛼) and g(𝛽) as f(𝛼) = w and g(𝛽) = 1−u , respectively. Then, based on Definition 3.1.3, the value V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a)
ã ã

15 and ambiguity A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) of ã at decision level higher than 𝛼 and lower than 𝛽 , such that 𝛼 < wã and 𝛽 > uã , are obtained as
16 wã 𝛽
17 V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = f(r)(L𝜇ã (r) + R𝜇ã (r))dr + g(r)(L𝜈ã (r) + R𝜈ã (r))dr
∫𝛼 ∫uã

PR
18 wã ( )
2r r r
19 = a+ (x0 − a) + b − (b − y0 ) dr+
∫𝛼 wã wã wã
20 ( )
𝛽
2(1 − r) (1 − 𝛽)x0 + (𝛽 − uã )c (1 − 𝛽)y0 + (𝛽 − uã )d
′ ′
+ dr
21 ∫uã 1 − uã 1 − uã 1 − uã
(24)
22 1 2 2 D
= (w − 𝛼 2 )(a + b) + (wa3̃ − 𝛼 3 )(x0 + y0 − a − b)+
23 wã ã 3wa2̃
[ { }
24 2 1 3
TE
′ ′ 3 2 2
(x0
+ y 0
) (𝛽 − u ̃
a ) − (𝛽 − u ̃
a ) + (𝛽 − u ̃
a ) +
25 (1 − uã )2 3
{ }]
26 1
(c + d) (1 + uã )(𝛽 3 − u3ã ) − (𝛽 2 − u2ã ) + (𝛽 − uã ) ,
2
27
EC

28 and
29 wã 𝛽

30 A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = f(r)(R𝜇ã (r) − L𝜇ã (r))dr + g(r)(R𝜈ã (r) − L𝜈ã (r))dr
∫𝛼 ∫uã
31 1 ( )
2r r r
RR

32 = b− (b − y0 ) − a − (x0 − a) dr+
∫𝛼 wã wã wã
33 ( )
𝛽
2(1 − r) (1 − 𝛽)y ′
0
+ (𝛽 − uã )d (1 − 𝛽)x0′ + (𝛽 − uã )a
− dr
34 ∫0 1 − uã 1 − uã 1 − uã
(25)
35 1 2 2
= (w − 𝛼 2 )(b − a) − (wa3̃ − 𝛼 3 )(b − y0 + x0 − a)+
wã ã
CO

36 3wa2̃
[ { }
37 2 ′ ′ 1 3 3 2 2
(y 0
− x 0
) (𝛽 − u ̃
a ) − (𝛽 − u ̃
a ) + (𝛽 − u ̃
a ) +
38 (1 − uã )2 3
{ }]
39 1
(d − c) (1 + uã )(𝛽 3 − u3ã ) − (𝛽 2 − u2ã ) + (𝛽 − uã ) ,
2
40
UN

41 respectively. Value V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) and ambiguity A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) of ã based on Definition 3.1.4 at decision level higher than 𝛼 and lower than 𝛽 , such that 𝛼 < wã and
42 𝛽 ≤ uã , are obtained as
43 wã
44 V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = f(r)(L𝜇ã (r) + R𝜇ã (r))dr,
∫𝛼
45 wã ( )
2r r r
= a+ (x0 − a) + b − (b − y0 ) dr, (26)
46 ∫𝛼 wã wã wã
47 1 2 2
= (w − 𝛼 2 )(a + b) + (wa3̃ − 𝛼 3 )(x0 + y0 − a − b),
48 wã ã 3wa2̃
49
and
50
wã
51 A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = f(r)(R𝜇ã (r) − L𝜇ã (r))dr,
∫𝛼
52 1 ( )
2r r r
53 = b− (b − y0 ) − a − (x0 − a) dr, (27)
∫𝛼 wã wã wã
54 1 2 2
= (w − 𝛼 2 )(b − a) − (wa3̃ − 𝛼 3 )(b − y0 + x0 − a),
55 wã ã 3wa2̃
CHUTIA AND SAIKIA 7 of 17

01 respectively. Value V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) and ambiguity A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) of ã based on Definition 3.1.5 at decision level higher than 𝛼 and lower than 𝛽 , such that 𝛼 ≥ wã and
02 𝛽 < uã , are obtained as
03 𝛽
V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = g(r)(L𝜈ã (r) + R𝜈ã (r))dr,
04 ∫uã
𝛽 ( )
05 2(1 − r) (1 − 𝛽)x0 ′ + (𝛽 − uã )c (1 − 𝛽)y0 ′ + (𝛽 − uã )d
= + dr,
06 ∫uã 1 − uã 1 − uã 1 − uã
[ { } (28)
07 2 1 3
= (x0 ′ + y0 ′) (𝛽 − u3ã ) − (𝛽 2 − u2ã ) + (𝛽 − uã ) +
08 (1 − uã )2 3
{ }]
09 1
(c + d) (1 + uã )(𝛽 3 − u3ã ) − (𝛽 2 − u2ã ) + (𝛽 − uã ) ,
2
10
11 and

F
𝛽
12 A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = g(r)(R𝜈ã (r) − L𝜈ã (r))dr,
∫uã
13

OO
𝛽 ( )
14 2(1 − r) (1 − 𝛽)y0 ′ + (𝛽 − uã )d (1 − 𝛽)x0 ′ + (𝛽 − uã )a
= − dr,
∫0 1 − uã 1 − uã 1 − uã
15 [ { } (29)
2 1 3
16 = (y0 ′ − x0 ′) (𝛽 − u3ã ) − (𝛽 2 − u2ã ) + (𝛽 − uã ) +
(1 − uã )2 3
17 { }]

PR
1
18 (d − c) (1 + uã )(𝛽 3 − u3ã ) − (𝛽 2 − u2ã ) + (𝛽 − uã ) ,
2
19
respectively.
20
Here are some of the theorems that depict the nature of the quantities value and ambiguity of IFNs. Also, some of the theorems and corollaries
21
depict the behaviour of the quantities value and ambiguity under particular type of IFNs.
22 D
23 ̃ for 0 ≤
Theorem 3.1. If ã = ⟨(a, x0 , y0 , b; wã ), (c, x0 ′, y0 ′, d; uã )⟩ and b̃ = ⟨(−b, −y0 , −x0 , −a; wã ), (−d, −y0 ′, −x0 ′, −c; uã )⟩, then V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = −V𝛼,𝛽 (b)
24 𝛼, 𝛽 ≤ 1.
TE
25
26
Proof. For the TrIFN ã = ⟨(a, x0 , y0 , b; wã ), (c, x0 ′, y0 ′, d; uã )⟩, the value of ã is
27
EC

28 1 2 2
V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = (w − 𝛼 2 )(a + b) + (wa3̃ − 𝛼 3 )(x0 + y0 − a − b)+
wã ã 3wa2̃
29 [ { }
30 2 1 3 3 2 2
(x0 ′ + y 0 ′) (𝛽 − u ã ) − (𝛽 − u ã ) + (𝛽 − u ã ) +
(1 − uã )2 3
31 { }]
1
RR

32 (c + d) (1 + uã )(𝛽 3 − u3ã ) − (𝛽 2 − u2ã ) + (𝛽 − uã ) .


2
33
34 Likewise, for the TrIFN b̃ = ⟨(−b, −y0 , −x0 , −a; wã ), (−d, −y0 ′, −x0 ′, −c; uã )⟩, the value of b̃ is
35
̃ = 1 (w2 − 𝛼 2 )(a + b) + 2 (w3 − 𝛼 3 )(x0 + y0 − a − b)+
V𝛼,𝛽 (b)
wã ã ã
CO

36 3wa2̃
[ { }
37 2 1 3 3 2 2
(x0 ′ + y 0 ′) (𝛽 − u ̃
a ) − (𝛽 − u ̃
a ) + (𝛽 − u ̃
a ) +
38 (1 − uã )2 3
{ }]
39 1
(c + d) (1 + uã )(𝛽 3 − u3ã ) − (𝛽 2 − u2ã ) + (𝛽 − uã ) .
2
40
UN

41 ̃ for 0 ≤ 𝛼, 𝛽 ≤ 1.
Hence, it immediately follows that V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = −V𝛼,𝛽 (b)
42
43 Theorem 3.2. Let ã = ⟨(a, x0 , y0 , b; wã ), (c, x0 ′, y0 ′, d; uã )⟩ and b̃ = ⟨(p, m0 , n0 , q; wb̃ ), (r, m0 ′, n0 ′, s; ub̃ )⟩ be two TrIFNs such that wã = wb̃ and uã = ub̃ ,
44 then the following equations are valid:
45
̃ = V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) + V𝛼,𝛽 (b).
V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a + b) ̃ (30)
46
47
48 Proof. By the arithmetic of TrIFNs ã + b̃ = ⟨(a + p, x0 + m0 , y0 + n0 , b + q; wã ), (c + r, x0 ′ + m0 ′, y0 ′ + n0 ′, d + s; uã )⟩. Hence, using Equation 24,
49 ̃ is obtained as
V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a + b)
50
̃ = 1 (w2 − 𝛼 2 )(a + p + b + q) + 2 (w3 − 𝛼 3 )(x0 + m0 + y0 + n0 − a − p − b − q)+
V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a + b)
51 wã ã 3wa2̃

[ { }
52 2 1 3 3 2 2
(x0 ′ + m 0 ′ + y 0 ′ + n 0 ′) (𝛽 − u ã ) − (𝛽 − u ã ) + (𝛽 − u ̃
a ) +
53 (1 − uã )2 3
{ }]
54 1
(c + r + d + s) (1 + uã )(𝛽 3 − u3ã ) − (𝛽 2 − u2ã ) + (𝛽 − uã ) ,
55 2
8 of 17 CHUTIA AND SAIKIA

[
01
1 2 2
= (w − 𝛼 2 )(a + b) + (wa3̃ − 𝛼 3 )(x0 + y0 − a − b)+
02 wã ã 3wa2̃
03 [ { }
2 1 3 3 2 2
(x 0 ′ + y 0 ′) (𝛽 − u ã ) − (𝛽 − u ã ) + (𝛽 − u ̃
a ) +
04 (1 − uã )2 3
{ }]]
05 1
(c + d) (1 + uã )(𝛽 3 − u3ã ) − (𝛽 2 − u2ã ) + (𝛽 − uã ) +
06 2
[
07 1 2 2
(w − 𝛼 2 )(p + q) + (wa3̃ − 𝛼 3 )(m0 + n0 − p − q)+
08 wã ã 3wa2̃
[ { }
09 2 1 3 3 2 2
(m 0 ′ + n 0 ′) (𝛽 − u ã ) − (𝛽 − u ã ) + (𝛽 − u ̃
a ) +
10 (1 − uã )2 3
{ }]]
11 1
(1 + uã )(𝛽 3 − u3ã ) − (𝛽 2 − u2ã ) + (𝛽 − uã ) ,

F
(r + s)
12 2

13 ̃
= V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) + V𝛼,𝛽 (b).

OO
14
Theorem 3.3. Let ã = ⟨(a, x0 , y0 , b; wã ), (c, x0 ′, y0 ′, d; uã )⟩ and b̃ = ⟨(p, m0 , n0 , q; wb̃ ), (r, m0 ′, n0 ′, s; ub̃ )⟩ be two TrIFNs such that wã = wb̃ and uã = ub̃ ,
15
then the following equations are valid:
16
̃ = A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) + A𝛼,𝛽 (b).
A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a + b) ̃ (31)
17

PR
18
19 Proof. By the arithmetic of TrIFNs ã + b̃ = ⟨(a + p, x0 + m0 , y0 + n0 , b + q; wã ), (c + r, x0 ′ + m0 ′, y0 ′ + n0 ′, d + s; uã )⟩. Hence, using Equation 25,
20 ̃ is obtained as
A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a + b)
21 1 2 2
̃ =
A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a + b) (w − 𝛼 2 )(b + q − a − p) − (wa3̃ − 𝛼 3 )(b + q − y0 − n0 + x0 + m0 − a − p)+
22 wã ã 3wa2̃ D
[ { }
23 2 1 3 3 2 2
(y 0 ′ + n 0 ′ − x0 ′ − m 0 ′) (𝛽 − u ã ) − (𝛽 − u ̃
a ) + (𝛽 − u ̃
a ) +
24 (1 − uã )2 3
TE
{ }]
25 1
(d + s − c − r) (1 + uã )(𝛽 3 − u3ã ) − (𝛽 2 − u2ã ) + (𝛽 − uã ) ,
26 2
[
27 1 2 2
= (w − 𝛼 2 )(b − a) − (wa3̃ − 𝛼 3 )(b − y0 + x0 − a)+
wã ã
EC

28 3wa2̃
[ { }
29 2 1 3 3 2 2
(y 0 ′ − x 0 ′) (𝛽 − u ̃
a ) − (𝛽 − u ̃
a ) + (𝛽 − u ̃
a ) +
30 (1 − uã )2 3
{ }]]
31 1
(d − c) (1 + uã )(𝛽 3 − u3ã ) − (𝛽 2 − u2ã ) + (𝛽 − uã ) +
2
RR

32 [
33 1 2 2
(w − 𝛼 2 )(q − p) − (wa3̃ − 𝛼 3 )(q − n0 + m0 − p)+
wã ã 3wa2̃
34
[ { }
35 2 1 3 3 2 2
(n 0 ′ − m 0 ′) (𝛽 − u ̃
a ) − (𝛽 − u ã ) + (𝛽 − u ̃
a ) +
(1 − uã )2 3
CO

36 { }]]
1
37 (s − r) (1 + uã )(𝛽 3 − u3ã ) − (𝛽 2 − u2ã ) + (𝛽 − uã ) ,
2
38
̃
= A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) + A𝛼,𝛽 (b).
39
40
UN

Theorem 3.4. Let ã = ⟨(a, x0 , y0 , b; wã ), (c, x0 ′, y0 ′, d; uã )⟩ be a TrIFN and 𝜆 be a real number, then V𝛼,𝛽 (λ̃a) = λV𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) and A𝛼,𝛽 (λ̃a) = λA𝛼,𝛽 (̃a).
41
42
Proof. Let ã = ⟨(a, x0 , y0 , b; wã ), (c, x0 ′, y0 ′, d; uã )⟩ be a TrIFN and λ ∈ R, then
43
{
44 ⟨(λa, λx0 , λy0 , λb; wã ), (λc, λx0 ′, λy0 ′, λd; uã )⟩ if λ > 0,
λ̃a =
45 ⟨(λb, λy0 , λx0 , λa; wã ), (λd, λy0 ′, λx0 ′, λc; uã )⟩ if λ < 0.

46 Let 𝜆 > 0, then the relations for value V𝛼,𝛽 (λ̃a) and ambiguity A𝛼,𝛽 (λ̃a) are obtained as
47 1 2 2
V𝛼,𝛽 (λ̃a) = (w − 𝛼 2 )(λa + λb) + (wa3̃ − 𝛼 3 )(λx0 + λy0 − λa − λb)
48 wã ã 3wa2̃
[ { } { }]
49 2 1 3 1
+ (λx 0 ′ + λy 0 ′) (𝛽 − u 3
̃
a ) − (𝛽 2
− u 2
̃
a ) + (𝛽 − u ̃
a ) + (λc + λd) (1 + u ̃
a )(𝛽 3
− u 3
̃
a ) − (𝛽 2
− u 2
̃
a ) + (𝛽 − u ̃
a ) ,
50 (1 − uã )2 3 2
[ [ { }
51 1 2 2 2 1 3
=λ (wã − 𝛼 2 )(a + b) + (wa3̃ − 𝛼 3 )(x0 + y0 − a − b)+ (x0 ′ + y0 ′) (𝛽 − u3ã ) − (𝛽 2 − u2ã ) + (𝛽 − uã )
52 wã 3wã2 (1 − uã ) 2 3
{ }]]
53 1
+ (c + d) (1 + uã )(𝛽 3 − u3ã ) − (𝛽 2 − u2ã ) + (𝛽 − uã ) ,
54 2
55 = λV𝛼,𝛽 (̃a)
CHUTIA AND SAIKIA 9 of 17

01 and
02 1 2 2
A𝛼,𝛽 (λ̃a) = (w − 𝛼 2 )(λb − λa) − (wa3̃ − 𝛼 3 )(λb − λy0 + λx0 − λa)+
03 wã ã 3wa2̃
[ { }
04 2 1 3 3 2 2
(λy 0 ′ − λx 0 ′) (𝛽 − u ã ) − (𝛽 − u ã ) + (𝛽 − u ̃
a ) +
(1 − uã )2 3
05 { }]
1
06 (d − c) (1 + uã )(𝛽 3 − u3ã ) − (𝛽 2 − u2ã ) + (𝛽 − uã ) ,
2
07 [
1 2 2
08 =λ (w − 𝛼 2 )(b − a) − (wa3̃ − 𝛼 3 )(b − y0 + x0 − a)+
wã ã 3wa2̃
09 [ { }
10 2 1 3 3 2 2
(y 0 ′ − x0 ′) (𝛽 − u ̃
a ) − (𝛽 − u ̃
a ) + (𝛽 − u ̃
a ) +
(1 − uã )2 3
11 { }]]

F
1
12 (d − c) (1 + uã )(𝛽 3 − u3ã ) − (𝛽 2 − u2ã ) + (𝛽 − uã ) ,
2
13

OO
= λA𝛼,𝛽 (̃a),
14
15 respectively. Similarly, for 𝜆 < 0, it can be proved that V𝛼,𝛽 (λ̃a) = λV𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) and A𝛼,𝛽 (λ̃a) = λA𝛼,𝛽 (̃a).
16
17 Theorem 3.5. If ã = ⟨(a, a, a, a; wã ), (a, a, a, a; uã )⟩, then

PR
18 { }
2a 2 4a 1 3
19 V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = (w − 𝛼 2 ) + (𝛽 − u3ã )(5 + 3uã ) − 2(𝛽 2 − u2ã ) + 2(𝛽 − uã )
wã ã (1 − uã )2 6
20
21 and A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = 0 for 0 ≤ 𝛼, 𝛽 ≤ 1.

22 D
23
Proof. The proof is very trivial.
24
TE
25
Corollary 3.1. If ã = ⟨(1, 1, 1, 1; wã ), (1, 1, 1, 1; uã )⟩, then
26
{ }
27 2 2 4 1 3
V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = (w − 𝛼 2 ) + (𝛽 − u3ã )(5 + 3uã ) − 2(𝛽 2 − u2ã ) + 2(𝛽 − uã )
wã ã
EC

28 (1 − uã )2 6
29 and A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = 0 for 0 ≤ 𝛼, 𝛽 ≤ 1.
30
31
RR

32 Proof. The proof is very trivial.


33
34 Corollary 3.2. If ã = ⟨(0, 0, 0, 0; wã ), (0, 0, 0, 0; uã )⟩, then V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = 0 for 0 ≤ 𝛼, 𝛽 ≤ 1.
35
CO

36
Proof. The proof is very trivial.
37
38
39 3.2 The ranking method
40
UN

Based on the definitions and the theorems discussed so far, the following definition can be proposed. This definition provides an algorithm to rank
41
different types of IFNs based on the quantities value and ambiguity at different levels of decision-making.
42
43 Definition 3.1. If ã and b̃ are two arbitrary nonempty TrIFNs, then for a decision levels higher than 𝛼 and lower than 𝛽 such that 0 ≤ 𝛼, 𝛽 ≤ 1,
44 the following decisions are made
45
̃ , then ã ≻ b̃ for 𝛼, 𝛽 ∈ [0, 1].
1. If V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) > V𝛼,𝛽 (b)
46
̃ , then ã ≺ b̃ for 𝛼, 𝛽 ∈ [0, 1].
2. If V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) < V𝛼,𝛽 (b)
47
̃ for 𝛼, 𝛽 ∈ [0, 1], then;
3. If V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = V𝛼,𝛽 (b)
48
49 ̃ , then ã ≼ b̃ ,
(a) if A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) ≥ A𝛼,𝛽 (b)
50 ̃ , then ã ≥ b̃ ,
(b) if A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) ≤ A𝛼,𝛽 (b)
51 ̃ , then ã ∼ b̃ ,
(c) if A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = A𝛼,𝛽 (b)
52
̃ implies that at decision level higher than 𝛼 and lower than 𝛽, ã ≺ b̃ .
where V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) < V𝛼,𝛽 (b)
53
54 Let ai 's be the IFNs that are to be compared, then the following graphical representation shown in Figure 2 depicts the algorithm of the ranking F2
55 method.
10 of 17 CHUTIA AND SAIKIA

01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11

F
12
13

OO
14
15 FIGURE 2 The graphical representation of the ranking method
16
17

PR
Note 1. The method is applicable only for nonempty TrIFNs. The quantities value and ambiguity V𝛼,𝛽 and A𝛼,𝛽 , respectively, for decision level
18
higher than 𝛼 and lower than 𝛽 can be evaluated based on Definitions 3.1.3, 3.1.4, and 3.1.5. For example, at decision level higher than 𝛼
19
and lower than 𝛽 , such that 𝛼 < wã and 𝛽 > uã , value and ambiguity are evaluated based on Definition 3.1.3 as obtained in Equations 24
20
and 25, respectively. For decision level higher than 𝛼 and lower than 𝛽 , such that 𝛼 < wã and 𝛽 ≤ uã , value and ambiguity are evaluated
21
based on Definition 3.1.4 as obtained in Equations 26 and 27, respectively. For decision level higher than 𝛼 and lower than 𝛽 , such that
22 D
𝛼 ≥ wã and 𝛽 < uã , value and ambiguity are evaluated based on Definition 3.1.5 as obtained in Equations 28 and 29, respectively.
23
24 Theorem 3.6. If ã and b̃ be two arbitrary TrIFNs such that ã ≻ b̃ , then −̃a ≺ −b̃ for decision levels 𝛼 and 𝛽 , provided the ordering is done by the values.
TE
25
26
Proof. Given that ã ≻ b̃ and the ordering is done by values; hence, for decision levels 𝛼 and 𝛽 , the relation V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) > V𝛼,𝛽 (b)
̃ is valid. This implies
27 ̃ . Hence, −̃a ≺ −b̃ .
that −V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) < −V𝛼,𝛽 (b)
EC

28
29
Theorem 3.7. If ã = ⟨(a, a, a, a; wã ), (a, a, a, a; uã )⟩ and b̃ = ⟨(b, b, b, b; wb̃ ), (b, b, b, b; ub̃ )⟩ such that a > b, then ã ≻ b̃ for 0 ≤ 𝛼, 𝛽 ≤ 1.
30
31
RR

32 Proof. By Theorem 3.5,


33 { }
2a 2 4a 1 3
34 V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = (w − 𝛼 2 ) + (𝛽 − u3ã )(5 + 3uã ) − 2(𝛽 2 − u2ã ) + 2(𝛽 − uã ) ,
wã ã (1 − uã )2 6
35 { }
̃ = 2b 2 4b 1 3
V𝛼,𝛽 (b) (w − 𝛼 2 ) + (𝛽 − u3b̃ )(5 + 3ub̃ ) − 2(𝛽 2 − u2b̃ ) + 2(𝛽 − ub̃ ) ,
CO

36 wb̃ b̃ (1 − ub̃ )2 6
37
̃ = 0 for 0 ≤ 𝛼, 𝛽 ≤ 1. Because a > b, it follows that V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) > V𝛼,𝛽 (b̃ for 0 ≤ 𝛼, 𝛽 ≤ 1. Hence, ã ≻ b̃ for 0 ≤ 𝛼, 𝛽 ≤ 1.
A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = 0 and A𝛼,𝛽 (b)
38
39
40
UN

3.3 Rationality validation of the ranking method


41
42 In this subsection, some of the Wang and Kerre (2001a, 2001b) reasonable properties of ranking fuzzy numbers have been proved and stated to
43 check the rationality validation of the proposed ranking method.
44
Property 3.1. For an arbitrary finite subset A of S, ã ∈ A, then ã ≥ ã by V𝛼,𝛽 and A𝛼,𝛽 on A.
45
46 ̃ ∈ A2 , ã ≥ b̃ and ã ≼ b̃ by V𝛼,𝛽 and A𝛼,𝛽 on A, then ã ∼ b̃ by V𝛼,𝛽 and A𝛼,𝛽 on A.
Property 3.2. For an arbitrary finite subset A of S and (̃a, b)
47
48
49 Proof. Given ã ≥ b̃ , thus V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) ≥ V𝛼,𝛽 (b)
̃ . Hence, it follows that V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) > V𝛼,𝛽 (b)
̃ or V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = V𝛼,𝛽 (b)
̃ . If V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = V𝛼,𝛽 (b)
̃ , then in such situation

50 according to the proposed ranking method, decision has to be made by A𝛼,𝛽 . Let ã ≥ b̃ by A𝛼,𝛽 on A, then A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) ≤ A𝛼,𝛽 (b) ̃ .

51 Further, for given ã ≼ b̃ implies V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) ≤ V𝛼,𝛽 (b)


̃ . Thus, V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) < V𝛼,𝛽 (b)
̃ or V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = V𝛼,𝛽 (b)
̃ . If V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = V𝛼,𝛽 (b)
̃ , then in such situation according

52 ̃
to the proposed ranking method, decision has to be made by A𝛼,𝛽 . Let ã ≼ b by A𝛼,𝛽 on A, then A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) ≥ A𝛼,𝛽 (b). ̃

53 ̃ that implies ã ∼ b̃ .
Hence, it follows A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = A𝛼,𝛽 (b)
54
55 ̃ c̃ ) ∈ A3 , ã ≥ b̃ and b̃ ≥ c̃ by V𝛼,𝛽 and A𝛼,𝛽 on A, then ã ≥ c̃ by V𝛼,𝛽 and A𝛼,𝛽 on A.
Property 3.3. For an arbitrary finite subset A of S and (̃a, b,
CHUTIA AND SAIKIA 11 of 17

01 Proof. Given ã ≥ b̃ , thus V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) ≥ V𝛼,𝛽 (b)


̃ . Hence, V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) > V𝛼,𝛽 (b)
̃ or V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = V𝛼,𝛽 (b)
̃ . If V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = V𝛼,𝛽 (b)
̃ , then in such situation according to the
02 proposed ranking method, decision has to be made by A𝛼,𝛽 . Let ã ≥ b̃ by A𝛼,𝛽 on A, then A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) ≤ A𝛼,𝛽 (b) ̃ .
03 ̃ ≥ V𝛼,𝛽 (̃c). Thus, V𝛼,𝛽 (b)
Further, for given b̃ ≥ c̃ implies V𝛼,𝛽 (b) ̃ > V𝛼,𝛽 (̃c) or V𝛼,𝛽 (b)
̃ = V𝛼,𝛽 (̃c). If V𝛼,𝛽 (b)
̃ = V𝛼,𝛽 (̃c), then in such situation according
04 ̃ ̃
to the proposed ranking method, decision has to be made by A𝛼,𝛽 . Let b ≥ c̃ by A𝛼,𝛽 on A, then A𝛼,𝛽 (b) ≤ A𝛼,𝛽 (̃c).
05 ̃ ≤ A𝛼,𝛽 (̃c) that implies ã ≥ c̃ .
Hence, it follows A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) ≤ A𝛼,𝛽 (b)
06
Property 3.4. Let S and S be two arbitrary finite sets of fuzzy quantities in which V𝛼,𝛽 and A𝛼,𝛽 can be applied and ã and b̃ are in S ∩ S′ , then the

07
ranking order ã ≻ b̃ by V𝛼,𝛽 and A𝛼,𝛽 on S if and only if ã ≻ b̃ by V𝛼,𝛽 and A𝛼,𝛽 on S.

08
09
10 ̃ ã + c̃ , b̃ + c̃ be elements of S. If ã ≥ b̃ by V𝛼,𝛽 and A𝛼,𝛽 on {̃a, b}
Property 3.5. Let ã , b, ̃ , then ã + c̃ ≥ b̃ + c̃ by V𝛼,𝛽 and A𝛼,𝛽 on {̃a + c̃ , b̃ + c̃ }
11

F
12 ̃ ã + c̃ , b̃ + c̃ be elements of S. Let ã ≥ b̃ by V𝛼,𝛽 on {̃a, b}
̃ , then
Proof. Let ã , b,
13

OO
14 ̃
V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) ≥ V𝛼,𝛽 (b)
15 ̃ + V𝛼,𝛽 (̃c)
⇒V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) + V𝛼,𝛽 (̃c) ≥ V𝛼,𝛽 (b)
16
⇒V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a + c̃ ) ≥ V𝛼,𝛽 (b̃ + c̃ ), using Equation 30 in Theorem 3.2,
17

PR
18 ⇒V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a + c̃ ) > V𝛼,𝛽 (b̃ + c̃ ), or V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a + c̃ ) = V𝛼,𝛽 (b̃ + c̃ ).

19 Hence, if V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a + c̃ ) > V𝛼,𝛽 (b̃ + c̃ ), then ã + c̃ ≻ b̃ + c̃ . If V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a + c̃ ) = V𝛼,𝛽 (b̃ + c̃ ), then in such situation according to the proposed ranking method,
20 decision has to be made by A𝛼,𝛽 . Let ã ≥ b̃ by A𝛼,𝛽 on {̃a, b} ̃ , then
21
̃
A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) ≤ A𝛼,𝛽 (b),
22 D
23 ̃ + A𝛼,𝛽 (̃c),
⇒A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) + A𝛼,𝛽 (̃c) ≤ A𝛼,𝛽 (b)
24 ⇒A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a + c̃ ) ≤ A𝛼,𝛽 (b̃ + c̃ ), using Equation 31 in Theorem 3.3,
TE
25
⇒̃a + c̃ ≥ b̃ + c̃ .
26
27
̃ ã + c̃ , b̃ + c̃ be elements of S. If ã ≻ b̃ by V𝛼,𝛽 and A𝛼,𝛽 on {̃a, b}
Property 3.6. Let ã , b, ̃ , then ã + c̃ ≻ b̃ + c̃ by V𝛼,𝛽 and A𝛼,𝛽 on {̃a + c̃ , b̃ + c̃ }
EC

28
29
30 ̃ ã + c̃ , b̃ + c̃ be elements of S. Let ã ≻ b̃ by V𝛼,𝛽 on {̃a, b}
Proof. Let ã , b, ̃ , then
31
̃
V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) > V𝛼,𝛽 (b)
RR

32
33 ̃ + V𝛼,𝛽 (̃c)
⇒V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) + V𝛼,𝛽 (̃c) > V𝛼,𝛽 (b)
34 ⇒V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a + c̃ ) > V𝛼,𝛽 (b̃ + c̃ ), using Equation 30 in Theorem 3.2.
35
⇒̃a + c̃ ≻ b̃ + c̃ .
CO

36
37
̃ ∈ A2 and λ ∈ R such that λ̃a, λb̃ ∈ A. If ã ≥ b̃ , then λ̃a ≥ λb̃ provided 𝜆 > 0 and
Property 3.7. For an arbitrary finite subset A of S and (̃a, b)
38
̃
λ̃a ≼ λb provided 𝜆 < 0.
39
40
UN

41
42
4 NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
43
In this section, numerical examples are considered to demonstrate of the proposed ranking method. Throughout these examples, for a high-level
44
decision 𝛼=0.9 and 𝛽=0.1, for a low-level decision 𝛼=0.1 and 𝛽=0.9, and for an intermediate decision 𝛼=0.5 and 𝛽=0.5 have been chosen.
45
46 Example 4.1. Consider the TrIFNs ã = ⟨(0.0, 0.4, 0.7, 0.8; 1.0), (0.0, 0.3, 0.8, 0.9; 0.0)⟩, b̃ = ⟨(0.2, 0.5, 0.5, 0.9; 1.0), (0.2, 0.5, 0.5, 1.0; 0.0)⟩,
47 and c̃ = ⟨(0.0, 0.6, 0.6, 0.8; 1.0), (0.0, 0.6, 0.6, 0.9; 0.0)⟩.
48 Nayagam et al. (2016) give L(̃a)=0.3087, L(b)= ̃ 0.2987, and L(̃c)=0.2824. Hence, c̃ ≺ b̃ ≺ ã . The expected value indices of Ye (2011) are
49 EV(̃a)=0.4875, EV(b)=0.5375, and EV(̃c)=0.5125; hence, ã ≺ c̃ ≺ b̃ .
̃
50 Values and ambiguities at different decision levels of TrIFNs are displayed in Table 1. It is observed that the values of TrIFNs are unequal, T1
51 hence, the values are used in ranking them. The flexibility parameters of the proposed method are the attractive feature that allow to make
52 decision at different levels of decision-making. At high and intermediate level of decision-making, the ranking order are b̃ ≺ ã ≺ c̃ , whereas at
53 low-level of decision-making, the ranking order is ã ≺ b̃ ≺ c̃ . Hence, the decision at levels of decision-making is more appropriate.
54 However, no such interpretation can be achieved through the methods of Nayagam et al. (2016) and Ye (2011) method. Hence, superiority
55 of the proposed method is highlighted.
12 of 17 CHUTIA AND SAIKIA

01 TABLE 1 Ranking order of fuzzy numbers in Example 4.1


02 (𝜶, 𝜷) V 𝜶,𝜷 (ã) V 𝜶,𝜷 (b̃ ) V 𝜶,𝜷 (c̃ ) A𝜶,𝜷 (ã) A𝜶,𝜷 (b̃ ) A𝜶,𝜷 (c̃ ) Decision result
03
(0.9, 0.1) 0.4133 0.3827 0.4494 0.1604 0.0140 0.0159 b̃ ≺ ã ≺ c̃
04
(0.5, 0.5) 1.5666 1.5500 1.6833 0.7500 0.2500 0.2833 b̃ ≺ ã ≺ c̃
05
(0.1, 0.9) 2.0160 2.0772 2.1492 1.0836 0.4860 0.5508 ã ≺ b̃ ≺ c̃
06
07
TABLE 2 Ranking order of fuzzy numbers in Example 4.2
08
Set (𝜶, 𝜷) V 𝜶,𝜷 (ã) V 𝛼,𝜷 (b̃ ) A𝜶,𝜷 (ã) A𝜶,𝜷 (b̃ ) Decision result
09
10 (0.9, 0.1) 0.3040 0.2280 0.1177 0.0933 ã ≻ b̃

11 1 (0.5, 0.5) 1.2000 0.9000 0.5166 0.1666 ã ≻ b̃

F
12 (0.1, 0.9) 1.5840 1.1880 0.7236 0.3240 ã ≻ b̃

13 (0.9, 0.1) 0.3040 0.3040 0.1177 0.0093 ã ≺ b̃

OO
14 2 (0.5, 0.5) 1.2000 1.2000 0.5166 0.1666 ã ≺ b̃

15 (0.1, 0.9) 1.5840 1.5840 0.7236 0.3240 ã ≺ b̃

16 (0.9, 0.1) 0.3040 0.3800 0.1177 0.0093 ã ≺ b̃


17 3 (0.5, 0.5) 1.2000 1.5000 0.5166 0.1666 ã ≺ b̃

PR
18 (0.1, 0.9) 1.5840 1.9800 0.7236 0.3240 ã ≺ b̃
19
20 Example 4.2. Consider different sets of TrIFNs given below:
21
Set (1): ã = ⟨(0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.6; 1.0), (0.1, 0.2, 0.6, 0.7; 0.0)⟩, b̃ = ⟨(0.1, 0.3, 0.3, 0.5; 1.0), (0.0, 0.3, 0.3, 0.6; 0.0)⟩,
22 D
Set (2): ã = ⟨(0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.6; 1.0), (0.1, 0.2, 0.6, 0.7; 0.0)⟩, b̃ = ⟨(0.2, 0.4, 0.4, 0.6; 1.0), (0.1, 0.4, 0.4, 0.7; 0.0)⟩,
23
Set (3): ã = ⟨(0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.6; 1.0), (0.1, 0.2, 0.6, 0.7; 0.0)⟩, b̃ = ⟨(0.3, 0.5, 0.5, 0.7; 1.0), (0.2, 0.5, 0.5, 0.8; 0.0)⟩.
24
The TrIFNs in Sets 1 and 3 are generated from Set 2 by keeping the TrIFN ã fixed and displacing the TrIFN b̃ by 0.1 unit both in left and right,
TE
25
respectively. As such, b̃ in Set 1 is generated from b̃ in Set 2 by displacing 0.1 unit to the left and b̃ in Set 3 is generated from b̃ in Set 2 by displacing
26
0.1 unit to the right.
27 ̃ 0.1750; hence, the ranking order is ã ≺ b̃ . Ye (2011)
Consider Set 2, Nayagam et al. (2016) indices for ranking are L(̃a)=0.1975 and L(b)=
EC

28 ̃ ̃
̃
expected values are EV(̃a)=0.4, EV(b)=0.3; hence, the ranking order is a ≺ b. By the proposed method, values of the TrIFNs are equal; hence,
29 ̃ for all decision levels; hence, ã ≻ b̃ . Further,
T2 ambiguities can be used to rank them. It is seen as can be seen from Table 2 that A𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) > A𝛼,𝛽 (b)
30
decisions at different levels of decision-making is absent in Nayagam et al. (2016) and Ye (2011).
31
Displacement of the legs of b̃ by 0.1 on Set 2 to the right lead to formation of Set 1. Nayagam et al.'s indices are L(̃a)=0.1975 and L(b)=
̃ 0.1056;
RR

32
hence, the ranking order is ã ≺ b̃ . Ye's expected values are equal; hence, ranking order is ã ∼ b̃ . According to the proposed method as values are
33
different; hence, the ranking order using the values at different levels of decision-making is ã ≻ b̃ .
34
Displacement of the legs of b̃ by 0.1 on Set 2 to the left lead to formation of Set 3. Nayagam et al.'s indices are L(̃a)=0.9975 and L(b)=
̃ 0.2650;
35
hence, the ranking order is ã ≺ b̃ . The expected value indices of the TrIFNs by Ye (2011) are EV(̃a)=0.4, EV(b)=
̃ 0.5; hence, the ranking order is
CO

36
ã ≺ b̃ . According to the proposed method as values are different; hence, the ranking order using values at different levels of decision-making is
37
ã ≺ b̃ .
38
Finally, it can be seen that for all the sets, Nayagam et al. (2016) always rank ã to be greater than b̃ , which is illogical. Ye (2011) makes a logical
39
decision for Sets 1 and 3 that also tally with the proposed method, but it fails to make a distinction on Set 2. Hence, the proposed method is
40
UN

more logical and superior to the existing methods.


41
42
43
44 5 APPLICATION OF THE PROPOSED METHOD IN RISK ANALYSIS
45
46 Risk analysis problem under fuzzy environment using the parameters probability of failure and severity of loss was first discussed by Schmucke
47 (1984). It was claimed that due to imprecise nature of these parameters, expressing them as linguistic terms such as high, low, and medium is much
48 justifiable. Hence, these parameters in turn can eventually be expressed as fuzzy numbers. Some of the studies in risk analysis using these parameters
49 as fuzzy numbers are Zhang (1986), Chen (1996), Chen and Chen (2008), Chen and Chen (2009), Wei and Chen (2009), Chen, Munif, Chen, Liu, and
50 Kuo (2012), Zhu and Xu (2012) and Ye (2011).
51
52
53
5.1 Fuzzy risk analysis
54 Consider n production system Ci , 1 ≤ i ≤ n. Each production systems consisting of p alternates Aik , 1 ≤ k ≤ p. The alternate Aik is assessed by two
55 parameters probability of failure R̃ ik and severity of loss W
̃ik that are linguistic terms where 1 ≤ k ≤ p and 1 ≤ i ≤ n. The structure of risk analysis
CHUTIA AND SAIKIA 13 of 17

01 under fuzzy environment is depicted by the logical diagram shown in Figure 3 (Schmucke, 1984). The following steps are necessary for a logical risk F3
02 analysis under fuzzy environment.
03
Step (1) For each alternates Aik , consider the probability of failure R̃ ik and severity of loss W
̃ik in linguistic terms such as low, medium, and high
04
where 1 ≤ k ≤ p and 1 ≤ i ≤ n, n is the number of production systems and p is the number of alternates in each of the production
05
system.
06
Step (2) Obtain the total risk R̃ i of the production system Ci integrating R̃ ik and W ̃ik of each alternate Aik using the fuzzy weighted mean method.
07
̃
The total risk Ri is given as
08 ∑p ̃
W ⊗R ̃ik
09 ̃i = k=1 ik
R = ⟨(ri1 , ri2 , ri3 , ri4 ), (ri1

, ri2

, ri3

, ri4

)⟩. (32)
∑p ̃
10 k=1
W ik

11
Step (3) Obtain the values V𝛼,𝛽 (R̃ i ) and the ambiguity A𝛼,𝛽 (R̃ i ) at decision levels higher than 𝛼 and lower than 𝛽 for each of the production systems.

F
12
Step (4) Rank the R̃ i 's using the values V𝛼,𝛽 (R̃ i ) and the ambiguity A𝛼,𝛽 (R̃ i ). The largest V𝛼,𝛽 (R̃ i ) for decision levels higher than 𝛼 and lower than 𝛽 will
13

OO
have high risk of probability of failure. If V𝛼,𝛽 (R̃ i )'s are equal, then least A𝛼,𝛽 (R̃ i ) for a decision levels higher than 𝛼 and lower than 𝛽 will
14
have high risk of probability of failure.
15
16
17
5.2 A case study

PR
18 In recent times, poultry farming plays a major role in improving the standard of living of people through poverty alleviation and creating employment
19 opportunities. A case study has been done on fuzzy risk analysis on poultry farming in rural area to evaluate the risk in poultry farming under different
20 constraints.
21 Eight different alternates Aik , k = 1, 2, … , 8 are identified that play major role in poultry farming. Namely, Ai1 : availability of land, Ai2 : financial
22 support, Ai3 : availability of expert labor, Ai4 : availability of clean water, Ai5 : transportation, Ai6 : availability of electricity, Ai7 : food supply, and Ai8 : good
D
23 poultry baby. These alternates are main factors that should be considered for a fruitful result from the poultry farming (Chutia, 2017; 2018; Chutia &
24 Gogoi, 2018a; 2018b). As discussed earlier, probabilistic values of the alternates Ai1 , Ai2 , … , Ai8 are not precise that lead to consider them as TrIFNs.
TE
25 Consider three farmers Ci , i = 1, 2, 3 who independently start poultry farms restricted to different constraints such that farmer C1 is financial
26 sound and experienced, C2 has minimum capital and has no financial support from government, and C3 is financially sound whereas inexperienced.
27 Hence, under such circumstances, which of the farmer will undergo maximum risk of probability of failure. The linguistic terms to the alternates
EC

28 are assigned based on intuition and on basis of discussion with some experienced poultry farmers in rural areas. The linguistic terms assigned are
29 depicted in Table 4 and discussed below. T4
30
Ai1 : Land is not a major issue in rural area as there exist lots of unused land where one can easily start a poultry farm. So the probability of failure
31
R̃ i1 due to insufficient land is “Very low” for all the three farmers Ci , i = 1, 2, 3. Hence, the severity of loss W
̃i1 is “Absolutely low” for all the
RR

32
three farmers Ci , i = 1, 2, 3.
33
34
35
CO

36
37
38
39
40
UN

41
42
FIGURE 3 Graphical representation of fuzzy risk analysis
43
44
TABLE 3 A 9-member linguistic term set (Ye, 2011)
45
Linguistic term TrIFN Q4
46
47 Absolutely low ⟨(0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00; 1.0), (0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00; 0.0)⟩

48 Very low ⟨(0.00, 0.00, 0.02, 0.07; 1.0), (0.00, 0.00, 0.02, 0.07; 0.0)⟩

49 Low ⟨(0.04, 0.10, 0.18, 0.23; 1.0), (0.04, 0.10, 0.18, 0.23; 0.0)⟩

50 Fairly low ⟨(0.17, 0.22, 0.36, 0.42; 1.0), (0.17, 0.22, 0.36, 0.42; 0.0)⟩

51 Medium ⟨(0.32, 0.41, 0.58, 0.65; 1.0), (0.32, 0.41, 0.58, 0.65; 0.0)⟩

52 Fairly high ⟨(0.58, 0.63, 0.80, 0.86; 1.0), (0.58, 0.63, 0.80, 0.86; 0.0)⟩

53 High ⟨(0.72, 0.78, 0.92, 0.97; 1.0), (0.72, 0.78, 0.92, 0.97; 0.0)⟩

54 Very high ⟨(0.93, 0.98, 1.00, 1.00; 1.0), (0.93, 0.98, 1.00, 1.00; 0.0)⟩

55 Absolutely high ⟨(1.00, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 1.0), (1.00, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 0.0)⟩
14 of 17 CHUTIA AND SAIKIA

01 TABLE 4 Linguistic terms of R̃ ik and W


̃ik for the alternates Aik
02 ̃ik ̃ik
Farmer Ci Alternate Aik Linguistic value of R Linguistic value of W
03
C1 A11 Very low Absolutely low
04
A12 Absolutely low Very low
05
A13 Very low Absolutely low
06
A14 Absolutely low Fairly low
07
A15 Low Fairly low
08
A16 Low Very low
09
A17 Very low Absolutely low
10
A18 Very low Low
11

F
C2 A21 Very low Absolutely low
12
A22 High Fairly high
13

OO
A23 Fairly high High
14
A24 Very low Fairly low
15
A25 Low Fairly low
16
A26 Low High
17

PR
A27 Very low Absolutely low
18
A28 Very low Fairly high
19
C3 A31 Very low Absolutely low
20
A32 Absolutely low Very low
21
A33 High Fairly high
22 D
A34 Very low Fairly low
23
A35 Low Fairly low
24
TE
A36 Low Medium
25
A37 Very low Absolutely low
26
A38 Very low Fairly high
27
EC

28
29 Ai2 : Capital is the most important alternate in poultry farming. Although a farmer might not have enough capital in hand, yet government takes
30 enough steps to financially encourage to those farmers who wanted to start such types of mini projects. As the farmer C1 is financially sound
31 and has financial support from government; hence, probability of failure R̃ 12 due to insufficient fund is “Absolutely low” and the severity of
RR

32 ̃12 is “Very low.” As assumed earlier for farmer C2 has minimum capital and no financial support from government or another agency;
loss W
33 hence, probability of failure R̃ 22 due to insufficient fund is “High” and the severity of loss W
̃22 is “Fairly high.” Farmer C3 is financially sound
34 but inexperienced. Although the farmer is inexperienced , yet it will not affect much on the parameters probability of failure and severity of
35 lose. Hence, probability of failure R̃ 32 is “Absolutely low” and the severity of loss R̃ 32 is “Very low.”
CO

36 Ai3 : Expert labour is also a very important factor in poultry farming, and they are high in demand and cost. As farmer C1 is financially sound; hence,
37 he can hire such trained labour. Hence, the probability of failure R̃ 13 is “Very low” and severity of loss W
̃13 is “Absolutely low.” The farmer C2
38 is financially weak; hence probability of failure R̃ 23 due to inexpert labour is “Fairly high” and also severity of loss W
̃23 is “High.” Farmer C3 is
39 inexperienced; hence, he is unaware of well-trained labour in which case probability of failure R̃ 33 is “High” and severity of loss W ̃33 is “Fairly
40
UN

high.”
41 Ai4 : Clean water is another very essential alternate for a successful poultry farming. In case of rural area, water problem is negligible as rivers and
42 ponds are available. So probability of failure R̃ i4 due to insufficient water is “Very low.” However, the river and pond water might be infected.
43 ̃i4 is “Fairly low.”
So severity of loss W
44 Ai5 : Transportation of the food, poultry baby, adult chicken at different time is a very important aspect of the poultry farming. Remote area where
45 vehicle is available, the farmer might use different types of traditional means of transportation such as cart, bicycle, and so forth. Hence,
46 probability of failure R̃ i5 due to transpiration is “Low.” However, due to bad road condition, transportation cost might be higher; hence.
47 ̃i5 will be “Fairly low.”
severity of loss W
48 Ai6 : Electricity is very essential alternate in a poultry farming that one cannot ignore. In case of rural area, electricity supply is very irregular.
49 Hence, there is “Low” probability of failure R̃ i6 . However, during power cut, one can use solar and generators. As the farmer C1 is experienced
50 ̃16 will be “Very low.” Farmer C2 is financially weak; hence, he would not be able to afford
and financially sound; hence, severity of loss W
51 ̃26 is “High.” As the farmer C3 is inexperienced and financially sound; hence, severity
alternative power source. Therefore, severity of loss W
52 ̃36 is “Medium.”
of loss W
53 Ai7 : In recent times, poultry farming has become very popular in the whole country; hence, poultry feed is available not only in the city areas but
54 also in rural areas. So probability of failure R̃ i7 due to insufficient food is “Very low” and severity of loss W
̃i7 due to insufficient poultry feed
55 is “Absolutely low.”
CHUTIA AND SAIKIA 15 of 17

01 Ai8 : Good quality of poultry babies are very essential for a successful farming that are high in cost. Mostly, good quality of poultry baby is available
02 in the market; hence, probability of failure R̃ i8 due to bad quality poultry baby is “Very low” and severity of loss W
̃18 is “Low.” However, in case
03 ̃28 and W
of inexperience and low financial budget, severity of losses W ̃38 are “Fairly high.” Q5
04 If rural farmers want to start a poultry farm with minimum capital under these circumstances where road condition is not so good, electricity
05 supply is irregular, good quality of poultry babies are unrecognizable, food supply is unsatisfactory, inexpert labour, on other hand land, clean water
06 is sufficient, then which of the farmers will undergo maximum risk of failure in the system to produce maximum number of good quality meat in
07 linguistic term? Here, to determine the highest risk of failure in the production systems, the proposed method can be successfully applied in such
08 situations.
09 ̃i of probability of failure for the farmers Ci where 1 ≤ i ≤ 3 are obtained by using Equation 32 and taking the parameters from
The total risk R
10 Table 4. Hence, the total risk R̃ i for each of the farmers Ci where 1 ≤ i ≤ 3 are given by
11 ∑8

F
̃1k ⊗ R̃ 1k
W
12 R̃ 1 = k=1
∑8 ̃
13 k=1 W1k

OO
( )
14 ̃11 ⊗ R̃ 11 ) ⊕ (W
(W ̃12 ⊗ R̃ 12 ) ⊕ (W
̃13 ⊗ R̃ 13 ) ⊕ (W
̃14 ⊗ R̃ 14 )⊕
15 ̃ ̃ ̃ ̃ ̃ ̃
(W15 ⊗ R15 ) ⊕ (W16 ⊗ R16 ) ⊕ (W17 ⊗ R17 ) ⊕ (W ̃18 ⊗ R̃ 18 )
=
16 W ̃12 ⊕ W
̃11 ⊕ W ̃13 ⊕ W
̃14 ⊕ W
̃15 ⊕ W
̃16 ⊕ W
̃17 ⊕ W
̃18
17 ⎛ (Absolutely low ⊗ Very low) ⊕ (Very low ⊗ Absolutely low)⊕ ⎞

PR
18 ⎜ (Absolutely low ⊗ Very low) ⊕ (Fairly low ⊗ Absolutely low) ⊕ (Fairly low ⊗ Low)⊕ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
19 ⎝ (Very low ⊗ Low) ⊕ (Absolutely low ⊗ Very low) ⊕ (Low ⊗ Very low) ⎠
= ( )
20 Absolutely low ⊕ Very low ⊕ Absolutely low ⊕ Fairly low⊕
Fairly low ⊕ Very low ⊕ Absolutely low ⊕ Low
21
22 = ⟨(0.0057, 0.0234, 0.1466, 0.4163; 1.0), (0.0057, 0.0234, 0.1466, 0.4163; 0.0)⟩,
23
∑8 ̃2k ⊗ R̃ 2k
D
24 W
TE
R̃ 2 = k=1
∑8 ̃
25 k=1 W2k
( )
26 ̃21 ⊗ R̃ 21 ) ⊕ (W
(W ̃22 ⊗ R̃ 22 ) ⊕ (W
̃23 ⊗ R̃ 23 ) ⊕ (W
̃24 ⊗ R̃ 24 )⊕
27 ̃25 ⊗ R̃ 25 ) ⊕ (W
(W ̃26 ⊗ R̃ 26 ) ⊕ (W
̃27 ⊗ R̃ 27 ) ⊕ (W
̃28 ⊗ R̃ 28 )
EC

28 =
̃21 ⊕ W
W ̃22 ⊕ W
̃23 ⊕ W
̃24 ⊕ W
̃25 ⊕ W
̃26 ⊕ W
̃27 ⊕ W
̃28
29
⎛ (Absolutely low ⊗ Very low) ⊕ (Fairly high ⊗ High)⊕ ⎞
30 ⎜ (High ⊗ Fairly high) ⊕ (Fairly low ⊗ Very low) ⊕ (Fairly low ⊗ Low)⊕ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
31 ⎝ (High ⊗ Low) ⊕ (Absolutely low ⊗ Very low) ⊕ (Fairly high ⊗ Very low) ⎠
= ( )
RR

32 Absolutely low ⊕ Fairly high ⊕ High ⊕ Fairly low⊕


33 Fairly low ⊕ High ⊕ Absolutely low ⊕ Fairly high
34 = ⟨(0.1935, 0.2603, 0.5293, 0.7067; 1.0), (0.1935, 0.2603, 0.5293, 0.7067; 0.0)⟩,
35
∑8
CO

36 ̃3k ⊗ R̃ 3k
W
37 R̃ 3 = k=1
∑8 ̃
k=1 W3k
38 ( )
̃31 ⊗ R̃ 31 ) ⊕ (W
(W ̃32 ⊗ R̃ 32 ) ⊕ (W
̃33 ⊗ R̃ 33 ) ⊕ (W
̃34 ⊗ R̃ 34 )⊕
39 ̃35 ⊗ R̃ 35 ) ⊕ (W
̃36 ⊗ R̃ 36 ) ⊕ (W
̃37 ⊗ R̃ 37 ) ⊕ (W
̃38 ⊗ R̃ 38 )
(W
40
UN

=
̃31 ⊕ W
W ̃32 ⊕ W
̃33 ⊕ W
̃34 ⊕ W
̃35 ⊕ W
̃36 ⊕ W
̃37 ⊕ W
̃38
41
42 ⎛ (Absolutely low ⊗ Very low) ⊕ (Very low ⊗ Absolutely low)⊕ ⎞
⎜ (Fairly high ⊗ High) ⊕ (Fairly low ⊗ Very low) ⊕ (Fairly low ⊗ Low)⊕ ⎟
43 ⎜ ⎟
⎝ (Medium ⊗ Low) ⊕ (Absolutely low ⊗ Very low) ⊕ (Fairly high ⊗ Very low) ⎠
44 = ( )
Absolutely low ⊕ Very low ⊕ Fairly high ⊕ Fairly low⊕
45 Fairly low ⊕ Medium ⊕ Absolutely low ⊕ Fairly high
46
= ⟨(0.1333, 0.1899, 0.4400, 0.6428; 1.0), (0.1333, 0.1899, 0.4400, 0.6428; 0.0)⟩,
47
48 respectively. As the risk obtained are TrIFNs, one cannot order these risks as done for numbers in the real number system. In such a case, the
49 proposed method on ranking TrIFNs is a very efficient tool in this decision-making process. The ranking indexes, basically values and ambiguities
50 at different levels of decision-making obtained using the proposed method, are displayed in Table 5. For high-level decision (𝛼=0.9, 𝛽=0.1) using T5
51 the ranking index V𝛼,𝛽 , the risk values of the farmers C1 , C2 , and C3 are 0.0693, 0.3040, and 0.2421, respectively. Hence, the risk are ranked as
52 R̃ 2 > R̃ 3 > R̃ 1 . Therefore, the farmers can be ranked based on their risk values as C2 > C3 > C1 . For an intermediate and low-level decisions based on
53 the ranking index V𝛼,𝛽 , the risk to the farmers are ranked as R̃ 2 > R̃ 3 > R̃ 1 that lead to ordering of the farmers according to the risk as C2 > C3 > C1 .
54 Here, the ranking is done using the indices values as they are unequal. Intuitively, one can come to a conclusion that the risk at different levels of
55 decision is justified as the farmer C2 with minimum capital and no financial support from government receives the highest risk.
16 of 17 CHUTIA AND SAIKIA

01 TABLE 5 Ranking indices of total risk R̃ i obtained for the farmers Ci


02 (𝜶, 𝜷) V 𝜶,𝜷 (R̃ 1 ) V 𝜶 , 𝜷 (R̃ 2 ) V 𝜶 , 𝜷 (R̃ 3 ) A𝜶,𝜷 (R̃ 1 ) A𝜶,𝜷 (R̃ 2 ) A𝜶,𝜷 (R̃ 3 ) Decision
03
(0.9,0.1) 0.0693 0.3040 0.2421 0.0522 0.1068 0.0998 R̃ 2 ≻ R̃ 3 ≻ R̃ 1
04
(0.5,0.5) 0.3390 1.2000 0.9935 0.2806 0.4849 0.4616 R̃ 2 ≻ R̃ 3 ≻ R̃ 1
05
(0.1,0.9) 0.4998 1.6351 1.3419 0.4302 0.6908 0.6633 R̃ 2 ≻ R̃ 3 ≻ R̃ 1
06
07
08 Nayagam et al. (2016) ranking indices for the risk obtained are L(R̃ 1 )=0.0397, L(R̃ 2 )=0.2167, and L(R̃ 3 )=0.1596. Hence, the ordering to the farm-
09 ers according to the risk as C3 > C2 > C1 . Further, Ye (2011) expected values for the risk obtained are EV(R̃ 1 )=0.1480, EV(R̃ 2 )=0.4224, and
10 EV(R̃ 3 )=0.3515 that lead to the ordering of the farmers according to the risk as C2 > C3 > C1 . Thus, the ordering by the proposed method over-
11 laps the ordering by Nayagam et al. (2016) and Ye (2011). Moreover, the flexibility of decision-making at different levels of decision is missing in the

F
12 methods by Nayagam et al. and Ye. Hence, the proposed method is more flexible and justified.
13

OO
14 6 CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS
15
16 A new method on ranking TrIFNs using values and ambiguity at different levels of decision-making has been proposed. The levels of decision that are
17 termed as the flexibility parameters that allow the decision-maker a choice on the decision-making. The flexibility parameters are the most attractive

PR
18 feature of the proposed method. A high-level decision is said to be made if the flexibility parameter 𝛼 is close to maximum membership degree of the
19 membership function and 𝛽 is close to minimum membership degree of the non-membership function, and a low-level decision is said to be made if
20 the flexibility parameter 𝛼 is close to minimum membership degree of the membership function and 𝛽 is close to maximum membership degree of
21 non-membership function.
22 D
Rationality validation of the proposed method has been proved by cross checking the Wang and Kerre's reasonable properties on ranking fuzzy
23 numbers. The proposed method satisfies all the properties except A4 and A7 as shown in Section 3.3. Hence, there is a scope for further improvement
24 on the proposed method to make satisfy all the reasonable properties.
TE
25 A case study on risk analysis in poultry farming is also performed, and the proposed method on ranking TrIFNs is used as a supplementary tool of
26 decision-making. As per the case study, it reveals that the farmer with insufficient capital and without financial grant from government will undergo
27 high risk in probability of failure.
EC

28 The proposed method has unique characteristics, which is the concept of flexibility parameters. However, the method might sometime fail in
̃ , then the ordering has
29 ranking of the images of the TrIFNs. In particular, for arbitrary TrIFNs ã and b̃ , if the values are equal, that is, V𝛼,𝛽 (̃a) = V𝛼,𝛽 (b)
30 to be done using ambiguities. In such cases, the ordering of the images might not be logical as ambiguities for the TrIFN and their image are same.
31 This situation is clearly depicted in Theorem 3.6 as it has been mentioned that the ranking order of the images will be logical provided the ranking
RR

32 is done by the values. Hence, there is also some scope for further developing the current method to study ranking the images of TrIFNs when the
33 quantity ambiguity play the role in ordering.
34
35 ORCID
CO

36
Rituparna Chutia http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5323-3698
37
38
39 REFERENCES
40 Atanassov, K. T. (1986). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 20(1), 87–96.
UN

41 Atanassov, K. T. (1989). More on intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 33(1), 37–45.
42 Atanassov, K. T. (1994). New operations defined over the intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 61(2), 137–142.
Q6 43 Atanassov, K. T. (1999). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets, pp. 1–137. Heidelberg: Springer. Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets.
44 Atanassov, K. T. (2000). Two theorems for intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 110(2), 267–269.
45 Basu, S. (2005). Classical sets and non-classical sets : An overview. Resonance, 10(8), 38–48.
46 Chen, S. M. (1996). New methods for subjective mental workload assessment and fuzzy risk analysis. Cybernetics and Systems, 27(5), 449–472.
47 Chen, S. J., & Chen, S. M. (2001). A new method to measure the similarity between fuzzy numbers. In The 10th IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems,
48 3, Melbourn, Australia, pp. 1123–1126.

49 Chen, S. J., & Chen, S. M. (2003). Fuzzy risk analysis based on similarity measures of generalized fuzzy numbers. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 11(1), 45–56.
50 Chen, S. J., & Chen, S. M. (2007). Fuzzy risk analysis based on the ranking of generalized trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. Applied Intelligence, 26(1), 1–11.
51 Chen, S. J., & Chen, S. M. (2008). Fuzzy risk analysis based on measures of similarity between interval-valued fuzzy numbers. Computers & Mathematics with
Applications, 55(8), 1670–1685.
52
Chen, S. M., & Chen, J. H. (2009). Fuzzy risk analysis based on ranking generalized fuzzy numbers with different heights and different spreads. Expert Systems
53 with Applications, 36(3, Part 2), 6833–6842.
54 Chen, S. M., Munif, A., Chen, G. S., Liu, H. C., & Kuo, B. C. (2012). Fuzzy risk analysis based on ranking generalized fuzzy numbers with different left heights and
55 right heights. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(7), 6320–6334.
CHUTIA AND SAIKIA 17 of 17

01 Chutia, R. (2017). Ranking of fuzzy numbers by using value and angle in the epsilon-deviation degree method. Applied Soft Computing, 60, 706–721.
02 Chutia, R. (2018). Fuzzy risk analysis using similarity measure of interval-valued fuzzy numbers and its application in poultry farming. Applied Intelligence. Q7
03 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-018-1178-2

04 Chutia, R., & Chutia, B. (2017). A new method of ranking parametric form of fuzzy number using value and ambiguity. Applied Soft Computing, 52, 1154–1168.
Chutia, R., & Gogoi, M. K. (2018a). Fuzzy risk analysis in poultry farming based on a novel similarity measure of fuzzy numbers. Applied Soft Computing, 66,
05
60–76.
06
Chutia, R., & Gogoi, M. K. (2018b). Fuzzy risk analysis in poultry farming using a new similarity measure on generalized fuzzy numbers. Computers & Industrial
07 Engineering, 115, 543–558.
08 Das, D., & De, P. (2016). Ranking of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers by new distance measure. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 30(2), 1099–1107.
09 De, P. K., & Das, D. (2012). Ranking of trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. In 2012 12th International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications
10 (ISDA), Kochi, India, pp. 184–188.
11 Delgado, M., Vila, M., & Voxman, W. (1998). On a canonical representation of fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 93(1), 125–135.

F
12 Dubey, D., & Mehra, A. (2011). Linear programming with triangular intuitionistic fuzzy number. In Proceedings of the 7th conference of the European Society for Q8
Fuzzy Logic and Technology, Atlantis Press, pp. 563–569.
13

OO
Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (1980). Fuzzy sets and systems: Theory and applications. Orlando, FL, USA: Academic Press, Inc.
14
Grzegorzewski, P. (2003). Distances and orderings in a family of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. In EUSFLAT Conference, pp. 223–227.
15
Jain, R. (1976). Decisionmaking in the presence of fuzzy variables. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, SMC-6(10), 698–703.
16
Jain, R. (1977). A procedure for multiple-aspect decision making using fuzzy sets. International Journal of Systems Science, 8(1), 1–7.
17
Kangari, R., & Riggs, L. S. (1989). Construction risk assessment by linguistics. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 36(2), 126–131.

PR
18 Kumar, A., & Kaur, M. (2013). A ranking approach for intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and its application. Journal of Applied Research and Technology, 11(3), 381–396.
19 Li, D. F. (2008). A note on using intuitionistic fuzzy sets for fault-tree analysis on printed circuit board assembly. Microelectronics Reliability, 48(10), 1741. Q9
20 Li, D. F. (2010). A ratio ranking method of triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and its application to {MADM} problems. Computers & Mathematics with
21 Applications, 60(6), 1557–1570.
22 Mitchell, H. B. (2004). Ranking-intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 12(03), 377–386.
D
23 Nan, J. X., Li, D. F., & Zhang, M. J. (2010). A lexicographic method for matrix games with payoffs of triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. International Journal
of Computational Intelligence Systems, 3(3), 280–289.
24
TE
Nayagam, L. G. V., Jeevaraj, S., & Dhanasekaran, P. (2016). A linear ordering on the class of trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. Expert Systems with
25
Applications, 60, 269–279.
26
Nehi, H. M. (2010). A new ranking method for intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 12(1), 80–86.
27 Rezvani, S. (2013). Ranking method of trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. Annals of Fuzzy Mathematics and Informatics, 5(3), 515–523.
EC

28 Salahshour, S., Shekari, G., & Hakimzadeh, A. (2012). A novel approach for ranking triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. AWER Proedia Information Technology,
29 1, 442–446.
30 Schmucke, K. J. (1984). Fuzzy sets: Natural language computations and risk analysis. Rockville, MD: Computer Science Press, Incorporated.
31 Seikh, M. R., Nayak, P. K., & Pal, M. (2012). Generalized triangular fuzzy numbers in intuitionistic fuzzy environ-ment. International Journal of Engineering Research
RR

and Development, 5(1), 08–13.


32
Tang, T. C., & Chi, L. C. (2005). Predicting multilateral trade credit risks: Comparisons of logit and fuzzy logic models using ROC curve analysis. Expert Systems
33
with Applications, 28(3), 547–556.
34
Wan, S. P. (2013). Multi-attribute decision making method based on possibility variance coefficient of triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. International
35 Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 21(02), 223–243.
CO

36 Wang, Y. M., & Elhag, T. M. (2006). Fuzzy TOPSIS method based on alpha level sets with an application to bridge risk assessment. Expert Systems with Applications,
37 31(2), 309–319.
38 Wang, X., & Kerre, E. E. (2001a). Reasonable properties for the ordering of fuzzy quantities (I). Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 118(3), 375–385.
39 Wang, X., & Kerre, E. E. (2001b). Reasonable properties for the ordering of fuzzy quantities (II). Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 118(3), 387–405.
40 Wang, J., & Zhang, Z. (2009). Multi-criteria decision-making method with incomplete certain information based on intuitionistic fuzzy number. Control and
UN

decision, 24(2), 226–230.


41
Wei, S. H., & Chen, S. M. (2009). A new approach for fuzzy risk analysis based on similarity measures of generalized fuzzy numbers. Expert Systems with
42 Applications, 36(1), 589–598.
43 Ye, J. (2011). Expected value method for intuitionistic trapezoidal fuzzy multicriteria decision-making problems. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(9),
44 11730–11734.
45 Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353.
46 Zeng, X. T., Li, D. F., & Yu, G. F. (2014). A value and ambiguity-based ranking method of trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and application to decision
making. The Scientific World Journal. 2014.
47
Zhang, W. R. (1986). Knowledge representation using linguistic fuzzy relations. (PhD. Dissertation), USA.
48
Zhu, L. S., & Xu, R. N. (2012). Fuzzy risks analysis based on similarity measures of generalized fuzzy numbers, pp. 569–587. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin
49
Heidelberg.
50
51
52 How to cite this article: Chutia R, Saikia S. Ranking intuitionistic fuzzy numbers at levels of decision-making and its application. Expert
53 Systems. 2018;e12292. https://doi.org/10.1111/exsy.12292
54
55

S-ar putea să vă placă și