Skip to content
2000
Volume 2, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 2665-9972
  • E-ISSN: 2665-9964

Abstract

Background

Cubic Hesitant Fuzzy Set (CHFS) is a hybrid set that can express uncertain and hesitancy fuzzy information simultaneously.

Objective

In this paper, we introduced three trigonometric similarity measures (, cosine, tangent, and cotangent similarity measures) to measure the degree of similarity between the alternative and the ideal set under the CHFS environment. Various desirable characteristics of the cubic hesitant fuzzy set are studied. Then, we developed multiple attribute decision-making methods based on the weighted cosine, tangent, and cotangent similarity measures of CHFSs.

Methods

In this research, we presented the similarity measures of CHFSs based on the cosine, tangent, and cotangent functions. Then, illustrative examples of construction project management with CHFS information are presented to show the effectiveness and feasibility of the proposed Multiattribute Decision-making (MADM) method under CHFS environments.

Results

Based on the weighted similarity measures between each alternative and the ideal set, this method provides the ranking order according to the values of their similarity measure. The best alternatives can be easily identified from the ranking order obtained.

Conclusion

Based on the comparison of the decision results obtained, the tangent and cotangent similarity measures are better in similarity identification than the cosine similarity measure for solving MADM problems under a cubic hesitant environment.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/cccs/10.2174/2665997202666220514132626
2022-04-01
2025-06-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. SzafrankoE. Decision problems in management of construction projectsIOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering251201710.1088/1757‑899X/251/1/012048
    [Google Scholar]
  2. ZadehL.A. Fuzzy sets.Inf. Control19658333835310.1016/S0019‑9958(65)90241‑X
    [Google Scholar]
  3. ZadehL.A. The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning-I.Inf. Sci.19758319924910.1016/0020‑0255(75)90036‑5
    [Google Scholar]
  4. JunY.B. KimC.S. YangK.O. Cubic sets.Anna. Fuzzy Math. Info.201248398
    [Google Scholar]
  5. SmarandacheF. Neutrosophy: Neutrosophic probability, set, and Logic; American Res.Rehoboth, USAPress1998
    [Google Scholar]
  6. AliM. DeliI. SmarandacheF. The theory of neutrosophic cubic sets and their applications in pattern recognition.J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst.20163041957196310.3233/IFS‑151906
    [Google Scholar]
  7. ZhanJ. KhanM. GulistanM. AliA. Applications of neutrosophic cubic sets in multi-criteria decision making.Int. J. Uncertain. Quantif.20177537739410.1615/Int.J.UncertaintyQuantification.2017020446
    [Google Scholar]
  8. BanerjeeD. GiriB.C. PramanikS. SmarandacheF. GRA for multi attribute decision making in neutrosophic cubic set environment.Neutrosophic Sets Syst.201715647310.5281/zenodo.570938
    [Google Scholar]
  9. PramanikS. DalapatiS. AlamS. RoyT.K. SmarandacheF. Neutrosophic cubic MCGDM method based on similarity measure.Neutrosophic Sets Syst.201716445610.5281/zenodo.831934
    [Google Scholar]
  10. TorraV. Hesitant fuzzy sets.Int. J. Intell. Syst.201025652953910.1002/int.20418
    [Google Scholar]
  11. TorraV. NarukawaY. On hesitant fuzzy sets and decisionIEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems13781382200910.1109/FUZZY.2009.5276884
    [Google Scholar]
  12. XuZ. ZhangS. An overview on the applications of the hesitant fuzzy sets in group decision-making: Theory, support and methods.Fron. Eng. Manag.20196216318210.1007/s42524‑019‑0017‑4
    [Google Scholar]
  13. ZolfaghariS. MeysamM.S. Construction-project risk assessment by a new decision model based on De-Novo multi-approaches analysis and hesitant fuzzy sets under uncertainty.J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst.201835163964910.3233/JIFS‑162013
    [Google Scholar]
  14. FuJ. YeJ. CuiW. An evaluation method of risk grades for prostate cancer using similarity measure of cubic hesitant fuzzy sets.J. Biomed. Inform.20188713113710.1016/j.jbi.2018.10.003 30339927
    [Google Scholar]
  15. YongR. ZhuA. YeJ. Multiple attribute decision method using similarity measure of cubic hesitant fuzzy sets.J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst.20193741910.3233/JIFS‑182555
    [Google Scholar]
  16. G. Salton, and M.J. McGill, Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval.McGraw-Hill1987
    [Google Scholar]
  17. MondalK. PramanikS. Neutrosophic refined similarity measure based on tangent function and its application to multi-attribute decision making.J. New Theory20158415010.5281/zenodo.32286
    [Google Scholar]
  18. YeJ. Single-valued neutrosophic similarity measures based on cotangent function and their application in the fault diagnosis of a steam turbine.Soft Comput.201721381782510.1007/s00500‑015‑1818‑y
    [Google Scholar]
  19. ErdoganS.A. ŠaparauskasJ. TurskisZ. Decision making in construction management: AHP and expert choice approach.Procedia Eng.201717227027610.1016/j.proeng.2017.02.111
    [Google Scholar]
  20. WangM.T. ChouH.Y. Risk allocation and risk handling of highway projects in Taiwan.J. Manage. Eng.2003192606810.1061/(ASCE)0742‑597X(2003)19:2(60)
    [Google Scholar]
  21. AshleyD.B. MolenaarK.R. DiekmannJ.E. Guide to Risk Assessment and Allocation for Highway Construction Management.United StatesFederal Highway Administration, Office of International Programs2006
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/cccs/10.2174/2665997202666220514132626
Loading
/content/journals/cccs/10.2174/2665997202666220514132626
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test