You are on page 1of 15

Volume: 02, October 2013, Pages: 339-353 International J ournal of Computing Algorithm

Integrated Intelligent Research (IIR) 339


ATTRIBUTES WEIGHT DETERMINATION FOR INTERVAL
VALUED INTUITIONISTIC FUZZY MULTIPLE ATTRIBUTE GROUP
DECISION MAKING PROBLEMS

Henry Amirtharaj E.C, J ohn Robinson P
PG & Research Department of Mathematics, Bishop Heber College, Tiruchirappalli-620017,
robijohnsharon@gmail.com
Abstract
In this paper, the Multiple Attribute Group Decision Making (MAGDM) problems are investigated in
which all the information provided by the decision-makers is presented as interval-valued
intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrices, and the information about attribute weights is partially known.
The first model is based on the attribute weights calculated from partially known information using
the score function of Xu, (2007) and the second model is based on the Gaussian distribution function
for calculating the completely unknown attribute weights. The interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy
ordered weighted averaging (IIFOWA) operator is utilized to aggregate all individual interval-valued
intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrices provided by the decision-makers into the collective interval-
valued intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix, and then we use the obtained attribute weights and the
interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid averaging (IIFHA) operator to fuse the interval-valued
intuitionistic fuzzy information in the collective interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix to
get the overall interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy values of alternatives, and then rank the alternatives
according to the correlation coefficients between the Interval Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Numbers
(IVIFNs) and select the most desirable one(s). Finally, numerical examples are used to illustrate the
effectiveness of the proposed approaches.
Key words: MAGDM, Ordered Weighted Averaging, Hybrid Averaging Operator, Correlation of
Interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets.

Introduction
Atanassov, (1986; 1989; 1994) introduced the
concept of intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS), which
is a generalization of the concept of fuzzy set.
Gau & Buehrer, (1994) introduced the concept
of vague set. But Bustince & Burillo, (1995;
1996) showed that vague sets are IFSs. In the
process of decision making, the IFS has
received more and more attention since its
appearance, because the information about
attribute values is usually uncertain or fuzzy
due to the increasing complexity of the socio-
economic environment and the vagueness of
inherent subjective nature of human thinking.
Many researchers have applied the
intuitionistic fuzzy set theory to the field of
decision making. Chen & Tan, (1994)
presented some products for dealing with
multi-attribute decision making problems
based on vague sets. Szmidt & Kacprzyk,
(2002) proposed some solution concepts in
group decision making with intuitionistic
(individual and social) fuzzy preference
relations, such as intuitionistic fuzzy core and
consensus winner, etc. Szmidt & Kacprzyk,
(2003) investigated the consensus-reaching
process in group decision making based on
individual intuitionistic fuzzy preference
relations. Herrera et al., (1999) developed an
aggregation process for combining numerical,
interval valued and linguistic information, and
then proposed different extensions of this
process to deal with contexts in which can
appear other type of information such as IFSs
or multi-granular linguistic information.
Yager,(1988) developed the Ordered Weighted
Averaging (OWA) operator and applied in
decision making problems. Xu & Yager,
(2006) developed some geometric aggregation
operators, such as the intuitionistic fuzzy
weighted geometric (IFWG) operator, the
intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid geometric (IFHG)
Volume: 02, October 2013, Pages: 339-353 International J ournal of Computing Algorithm
Integrated Intelligent Research (IIR) 340
operator and gave an application of the IFHG
operator to multiple attribute group decision
making with intuitionistic fuzzy information.
Xu, (2007) and Xu & Chen, (2007) also
developed some arithmetic aggregation
operators, such as the intuitionistic fuzzy
weighted averaging (IFWA) operator, the
intuitionistic fuzzy ordered weighted
averaging (IFOWA) operator, and the
intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid aggregation (IFHA)
operator. The interval-valued intuitionistic
fuzzy sets (IVIFSs), introduced by Atanassov
& Gargov,(1989), each of which is
characterized by a membership function and a
non-membership function whose values are
intervals rather than exact numbers, are a very
useful means to describe the decision
information in the process of decision making.
Wei & Wang, (2007), respectively, developed
some geometric aggregation operators, such as
the interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy ordered
weighted geometric (IIFOWG) operator and
interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid
geometric (IIFHG) operator and applied them
to MAGDM with interval-valued intuitionistic
fuzzy information. However, they used the
IIFWG operator, the IIFOWG operator and the
IIFHG operator in the situation where the
information about attribute weights is
completely known. In this work, based on the
score function and accuracy function
introduced by Xu, (2007) a method for
calculating the attribute weights is discussed
and some aggregation operators namely
Intuitionistic Fuzzy Ordered Weighted
Averaging (IFOWA) Operators and
Intuitionistic Fuzzy Hybrid Averaging
(IFHA) Operators are also presented. We also
investigate Multiple Attribute Group Decision
Making (MAGDM) problems in which all the
information provided by the Decision-makers
is presented as interval valued intuitionistic
fuzzy decision matrices where each of its
elements is characterised by Interval Valued
Intuitionistic Fuzzy Number (IVIFN), and the
information about attribute weights is only
partially known or completely unknown. Park
et al, (2009) proposed a Ordered Weighted
Geometric (OWG) model to aggregate all
individual Interval Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy
decision matrices provided by the decision
makers into the collective Interval Valued
Intuitionistic Fuzzy decision matrix, and then
by using the score function the score of each
attribute value is calculated and a score matrix
is constructed out of the collective interval
valued intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix. In
the proposed model, fromthe score matrix and
the attribute weight information an
optimization model is established to determine
the partially known weights. Then the obtained
attribute weights and the Interval Valued
Intuitionistic Fuzzy Ordered Weighted
Averaging (IIFOWA) Operators are used to
fuse the Interval Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy
information in the collective Interval Valued
Intuitionistic Fuzzy decision matrix to get the
overall Interval Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy
values of the alternatives. Correlation
coefficient is used as a tool to rank alternatives
since it preserves the linear relationship
between the variables. Robinson &
Amirtharaj, (2011; 2012a; 2012b) defined
correlation coefficient for vague sets, interval
vague sets and triangular and trapezoidal
intuitionistic fuzzy sets. In this paper, the
correlation coefficient proposed by Park et al,
(2009) for IVIFSs is utilized. Correlation
coefficient of the overall Interval Valued
Intuitionistic Fuzzy values and the ideal
Interval Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Numbers
(IVIFN) value is calculated and the ranking of
the most desirable alternatives is done based
on the obtained correlation coefficients. Two
different models are presented for computing
the attributes weights, the first model based on
the score function of Xu, (2007) and
correlation coefficient of Interval Valued
Intuitionistic Fuzzy Numbers (IVIFNs); the
second model based on Gaussian distribution
and correlation coefficient of IVIFNS. The
numerical illustrations present the same
ranking of the alternatives when the weights
are partially known or completely unknown.

Volume: 02, October 2013, Pages: 339-353 International J ournal of Computing Algorithm
Integrated Intelligent Research (IIR) 341
Basic Concepts of Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets and Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets
Let X be the universe of discourse. An intuitionistic fuzzy set A in X is an object having the form
{ }
, ( ), ( )
A A
A x x x x X = e
where ( ), ( ): [0,1]
A A
x x x denote membership function
and non-membership function, respectively, of A and satisfy 0 ( ), ( ) 1
A A
x x s s for every
. x X e
For each IFS A in X ( ) 1 ( ) ( )
A A A
x x x = is called as the intuitionistic index of x in A. It is
otherwise called as the hesitation degree (or degree of indeterminacy) of x to A. It is obvious that
0 ( ) 1
A
x s s for eachx X e . Thus, an IFS A in X can be expressed as:
{ }
, ( ), ( ), ( ) :
A A A
A x x x x x X = e

If A is an ordinary fuzzy set, then ( ) 1 ( ) (1 ( )) 0
A A A
x x x = = for each x X e . It means that
the third parameter ( )
A
x cannot be casually omitted if A is a general IFS, not an ordinary fuzzy set.
Therefore, the representation of IFS should consider all three parameters in calculating the degree of
similarity between IFSs.
For , ( ) A B IFS X e , the set of all IFSs, Atanassov, (1986) defined the notion of containment as
follows: ( ) ( ) and ( ) ( ),
A B A B
A B x x x x x X _ s > e .

Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set
An interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy set (IVIFS) A in , X X = C and card(X)=n, is an object
having the form: { }
, ( ), ( ) : ,
A A
A x x x x X = e
where
: [0,1], : [0,1]
A A
X X with the condition sup ( ) sup ( ) 1
A A
x x + s for any
x X e . The intervals ( )
A
x and ( )
A
x denote, respectively, the degree of belongingness and the
degree of non-belongingness of the element x to A. We denote by IVIFS(X) the set of all IVIFSs in X.
Then for eachx X e , ( )
A
x and ( )
A
x are closed intervals and their lower and upper end points
are denoted by
( ), ( ), ( ) and ( )
AL AU AL AU
x x x x
, respectively, and thus we can replace
with { }
,[ ( ), ( )],[ ( ), ( )] : ,
AL AU AL AU
A x x x x x x X = e
where
0 ( ) ( ) 1,
AU AU
x x s + s . x X e For each ( ) A IVIFS X e ,
( ) 1 ( ) ( ) [1 ( ) ( ),1 ( ) ( )]
A A A AU AU AL AL
x x x x x x x = = is called an intuitionistic fuzzy
interval or hesitation degree of x in A. Its lower and upper points are ( ) 1 ( ) ( )
AL AU AU
x x x =
and 1 ( ) ( )
AU AL AL
x x = , respectively.
The following expressions are defined for , ( ) A B IVIFS X e :
- ( ) ( ) and ( ) ( ) forall
A B A B
A B x x x x x X s s > e ;
- ( ) ( ) and ( ) ( ) forall
A B A B
A B x x x x x X = = = e
- { }
, ( ), ( ) :
c
A A
A x x x x X e ;
Volume: 02, October 2013, Pages: 339-353 International J ournal of Computing Algorithm
Integrated Intelligent Research (IIR) 342
- ( ) ( ) and ( ) ( ) forall
A B A B
A B x x x x x X s s e .
Correlation of Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets
Let X={x
1
,x
2
,,x
n
} be the finite universal set and , ( ) A B IVIFS X e be given by .
Now, we utilize the method of calculating the correlation and the correlation coefficient of IVIFSs
proposed by Park et al., (2009). For each ( ) A IVIFS X e , the informational intuitionistic energy of A
is defined as follows:
2 2 2 2 2 2
1
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( )
2
N
AL i AU i AL i AU i AL i AU i
IVIFS
I
x x x x x x
E A

=
+ + + + +
=
(1)
The function E satisfies the following conditions:
1) ( ) ( ) for all ( )
c
IVIFS IVIFS
E A E A A IVIFS X = e .
2) ( ) for all ( )
IVIFS
E A n A IVIFS X s e .
The correlation of A and B is defined by the formula:
|
|
1
1
( , ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
2
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
n
IVIFS AL i BL i AU i BU i AL i BL i AU i BU i
i
AL i BL i AU i BU i
C A B x x x x x x x x
x x x x


=
= + + +
+ +


(2)
For , ( ) A B IVIFS X e , the correlation has the following properties:
1) ( , ) ( )
IVIFS
C A A E A = .
2) ( , ) ( , )
IVIFS IVIFS
C A B C B A = .
Furthermore, the correlation coefficient of A and B is defined by the formula:
( , )
( , )
( ) ( )
IVIFS
IVIFS
IVIFS IVIFS
C A B
K A B
E A E B
=

(3)
Theorem 1: (proved by Park et al., 2009)
For all , ( ) A B IVIFS X e , the correlation coefficient satisfies:
1)
( , ) ( , )
IVIFS IVIFS
K A B K B A =
.
2) 0 ( , ) 1
IVIFS
K A B s s .
3)
( , ) 1
IVIFS
A B K A B = =
.

Model-1: Solving Magdm Problems with Incomplete Attribute Weight Information Using Score
Function
Let { }
1 2
, ,...,
n
O O O O =
be the set of n alternatives, { }
1 2
, ,...,
l
D d d d =
be the set of
decision-makers, and
1 2
( , ,..., )
T
l
=
be the weight vector of decision-makers, where
1
0, 1,2,..., , and 1.
l
k k
k
k l
=
> = =

Let { }
1 2
, ,...,
m
U u u u =
be the set of m attributes. In
general, the decision-makers need to determine the importance degree of a set U of mattributes and
l
Volume: 02, October 2013, Pages: 339-353 International J ournal of Computing Algorithm
Integrated Intelligent Research (IIR) 343
suppose that the decision-maker provide the attribute weight information may be presented in the
following, for i j = :
1) A weak ranking:{ }
i j
w w > ;
2) A strict ranking:{ }
( 0)
i j i
w w > > ;
3) A ranking with multiples:{ }
, 0 1
i i j i
w w > s s ;
4) An interval form:{ },0 1
i i i i i i i
w s s +e s s +es
;
5) A ranking of differences:{ }
,
i j k l
w w w w for j k l > = =
.
For convenience, denote by H the set of the known information about attribute weight provided by the
decision-makers. Let
( ) ( )
( )
k k
ij
m n
R r

=
be an interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix,
where
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
, , ,
k k k k k
ij ij ij ij ij
r a b c d ( ( =

is an IVIFN, provided by the decision-maker


k
d D e
for the alternative O
j
with respect to the attribute
( ) ( )
, ,
k k
i ij ij
u U a b ( e

indicates the degree that the
alternative
j
O O e satisfy the attribute u
i
, expressed by the decision-maker d
k
, while
( ) ( )
,
k k
ij ij
c d (


indicates the degree that the alternative
j
O O e does not satisfy the attribute u
i
, expressed by the
decision-maker d
k
, and
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
, [0,1], , [0,1], 1,
k k k k k k
ij ij ij ij ij ij
a b c d b d ( ( c c + s

1,2,..., , 1,2,..., i m j n = = . To make a final decision in the process of group decision making, we need to
fuse all individual decision opinion into group opinion. To do this, we use the IIFHA operator to
aggregate all individual interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrices
( ) ( )
( )
( 1,2,3,4)
k k
ij
m n
R r k

= =
into the collective interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy decision
matrix R=(r
ij
)
m x n
.
Definition: Interval Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Ordered Weighted Average Operator
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
1 2
1 2 1 2
,
( , ,..., ) ...
l
l l
ij ij ij ij ij ij ij
r IIFOWA r r r r r r



| | | | | |
= =
| | |
\ . \ . \ .


( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
1 1 1 1
1 1 ,1 1 , , .
k k k k
n n n n
k k k k
ij ij ij ij
k k k k
a b c d


= = = =
( (
=
( (

[ [ [ [


(4)
where
1 2
( , ,..., )
T
l
= is weight vector of IIFOWA operator with 0, ( 1,2,..., )
k
k l > =

and
1
1
l
k
k

=
=

, and
, , ,
ij ij ij ij ij
r a b c d ( ( =



,
(( )) (( )) (( )) (( )) (( ))
, , ,
k k k k k
ij ij ij ij ij
r a b c d

( ( =



is
the k
th
largest of the weighted IVIFNs
( ) ( )
( ) , 1,2,..., , 1,2,...,
k
l k k
ij ij
r r i m j n

= = =
.
Definition: Interval Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Hybrid Average Operator
1 2
1 2 1 2
( , ,..., ) ,...,
m
w w w
j j j mj j j mj
r IIFHA r r r r r r = =

( ) ( )
1 1 1 1
1 1 ,1 1 , ,
i i
i i
m m m m
w w
w w
ij ij ij ij ij
i i i i
r a b c d
= = = =
( (
=
( (

[ [ [ [


(5)
Volume: 02, October 2013, Pages: 339-353 International J ournal of Computing Algorithm
Integrated Intelligent Research (IIR) 344
where the weights
1 2
( , ,..., )
T
m
w w w w =
of the attributes can be completely determined in
advance.
For the ranking order of the alternatives in accordance with the decision making problem, we give the
largest IVIFN | | | |
1,1, 0,0 r
-
=
as the value of the ideal alternative. Then from equation (1) the
informational intuitionistic energies of the IVIFN r
j
of the alternative O
j
and the IVIFN r
*
of the ideal
alternative O
*
can be presented, respectively, by
2 2 2 2 2 2
1
( ) ( (1 ) (1 ) ),
2
IVIFS j j j j j j j j j
E r a b c d a c b d = + + + + +
(6)
*
( ) 1.
IVIFS
E r =

(7)
Where
1 1 1
, , , , , , 1 (1 )
i i i
m m m
w w w
j j j j j j ij j ij j ij
i i i
r a b c d a a b b c c
= = =
( ( = = = =

[ [ [
and
1
1 (1 )
i
m
w
j ij
i
d d
=
=
[
, is the aggregating IVIFN for O
j
(j=1, 2,, n). Calculate the
correlation
*
( , )
IVIFS j
C r r
between the IVIFNs r
*
and r
j
(j=1, 2, ,n):
*
1
( , ) ( ), 1,2,..., .
2
IVIFS j j j
C r r a b j n = + =

(8)
And then we use equation (3) to calculate the correlation coefficient
*
( , )
IVIFS j
K r r
of r
*
and r
j
(j=1,
2,,n):
*
*
*
( , )
( , ) , 1,2,....., .
( ) ( )
IVIFS j
IVIFS j
IVIFS IVIFS j
C r r
K r r j n
E r E r
= =


(9)
The greater the value of
*
( , )
IVIFS j
K r r
, the better the alternative O
j
is closer to the ideal alternative
O
*
. Therefore, the alternative O
j
(j=1, 2,,n) can be ranked according to the correlation coefficient so
that the best alternative can be selected.
Definition: Let R=(r
ij
)
mxn
be the collective interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix.
Then we call S=(s
ij
)
mxn
the score matrix of R=(r
ij
)
mxn
, where
1
( ) ( ), 1,2,..., & 1,2,...,
2
ij ij ij ij ij ij
S S r a c b d i m j n = = + = =

(10)
And S(r
ij
) is called the score of r
ij
. Based on the score matrix, we present the overall score value of
each alternative O
j
(j=1, 2,, m):
1
( ) , 1, 2,..., .
m
j i ij
i
s w w s j n
=
= =


(11)
Obviously, the greater the value s
j
(w), the better the alternative O
j
, when we only consider the
alternative O
j
, then a reasonable vector of attribute weight
1 2
( , ,....... )
T
m
w w w w = should be
determined. Thus, the following optimization model is established to maximize s
j
(w):
1
( ) ( )
m
j i ij
i
M Maximize s w w s
=
=


Subject to:
1 2
1
( , ,....... ) , 0, 1.
m
T
m i i
i
w w w w H w w
=
= e > =

.
Volume: 02, October 2013, Pages: 339-353 International J ournal of Computing Algorithm
Integrated Intelligent Research (IIR) 345
By solving the model (M), we obtain the optimal solution
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
1 2 3
( , , ,..... )
j j j j j T
m
w w w w w =
corresponding to the alternative O
j
.
We discuss a problemconcerning with a manufacturing company (Park et al., 2009), searching the
best global supplier for one of its most critical parts used in assembling process. The attributes which
are considered here in selection of four potential global suppliers (j=1, 2, 3, 4) are: 1) U
1
:
Overall cost of the product; 2) U
2
: Quality of the product; 3) U
3
: Service performance of supplier;
4) U
4
: Suppliers profile; and 5) U
5
: Risk factor.
An expert group is formed which consists of four experts ( ) 1,2,3,4
k
d k = (whose weight vector is
(0.3,0.2,0.3,0.2)
T
= ) fromeach strategic decision area. The experts ( 1,2,3,4)
k
d k = represent,
respectively, the characteristics of the potential global suppliers ( ) 1,2,3,4
j
o j = by the IVIFSs
( ) k
ij
r
( ) 1,2,3,4,5, 1,2,3,4 i j = = with respect to the attributes ( ) 1,2,3,4,5 ,
i
u i =
Assume that the information about attribute weights, given by decision makers, is shown as
follows, respectively,
1 1 3
2 2 5
3 3 2 5 4 4 1
4 3 1 4
: 0.3,0.2 0.5;
: 0.1 0.2, 0.4;
: , ;
: 0.1,0.1 0.3.
d w w
d w w
d w w w w w w
d w w w
s s s
s s s
> >
s s s

Then the set H of the known information about weights provided by the decision- makers is:
{
1 3 2 5
0.3,0.2 0.5,0.1 0.2, 0.4, H w w w w = s s s s s s

}
3 2 5 4 4 1 3 1 4
, , 0.1,0.1 0.3 . w w w w w w w w w > > s s s

1 2 3 4
1
2
(1)
3
4
5
[0.5,0.6],[0.2,0.3] [0.3,0.4],[0.4,0.6] [0.4,0.5],[0.3,0.5] [0.3,0.5],[0.4,0.5]
[0.3,0.5],[0.4,0.5] [0.1,0.3],[0.2,0.4] [0.7,0.8],[0.1,0.2] [0.1,0.2],[0.7,0.8]
[0.6,0.7],[0.2,0.3] [0.3,0
O O O O
u
u
R u
u
u
= .4],[0.4,0.5] [0.5,0.8],[0.1,0.2] [0.1,0.2],[0.5,0.8]
[0.5,0.7],[0.1,0.2] [0.2,0.4],[0.5,0.6] [0.4,0.6],[0.2,0.3] [0.2,0.3],[0.4,0.6]
[0.1,0.4],[0.3,0.5] [0.7,0.8],[0.1,0.2] [0.5,0.6],[0.2,0.3] [0.2,0.3],[0.5,0.6]
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(


1 2 3 4
1
2
(2)
3
4
5
[0.4,0.5],[0.2,0.4] [0.3,0.5],[0.4,0.5] [0.4,0.6],[0.3,0.4] [0.3,0.4],[0.4,0.6]
[0.3,0.4],[0.4,0.6] [0.1,0.3],[0.3,0.7] [0.6,0.8],[0.1,0.2] [0.1,0.2],[0.6,0.8]
[0.6,0.7],[0.1,0.2] [0.3,0
O O O O
u
u
R u
u
u
= .4],[0.4,0.5] [0.7,0.8],[0.1,0.2] [0.1,0.2],[0.7,0.8]
[0.5,0.6],[0.1,0.3] [0.2,0.3],[0.6,0.7] [0.4,0.6],[0.3,0.4] [0.3,0.4],[0.4,0.6]
[0.1,0.3],[0.3,0.5] [0.6,0.8],[0.1,0.2] [0.5,0.6],[0.2,0.4] [0.2,0.4],[0.5,0.6]
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(


1 2 3 4
1
2
(3)
3
4
5
[0.4,0.7],[0.1,0.2] [0.4,0.5],[0.2,0.4] [0.2,0.4],[0.3,0.4] [0.3,0.4],[0.2,0.4]
[0.3,0.5],[0.3,0.4] [0.2,0.4],[0.4,0.5] [0.6,0.8],[0.1,0.2] [0.1,0.2],[0.6,0.8]
[0.6,0.7],[0.1,0.2] [0.4,0
O O O O
u
u
R u
u
u
= .5],[0.3,0.4] [0.5,0.7],[0.1,0.3] [0.1,0.3],[0.5,0.7]
[0.5,0.6],[0.1,0.3] [0.1,0.2],[0.7,0.8] [0.5,0.7],[0.2,0.3] [0.2,0.3],[0.5,0.7]
[0.3,0.5],[0.4,0.5] [0.6,0.7],[0.2,0.3] [0.6,0.8],[0.1,0.2] [0.1,0.2],[0.6,0.8]
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(


j
O
Volume: 02, October 2013, Pages: 339-353 International J ournal of Computing Algorithm
Integrated Intelligent Research (IIR) 346
1 2 3 4
1
2
(4)
3
4
5
[0.6,0.7],[0.2,0.3] [0.4,0.5],[0.4,0.5] [0.4,.5],[0.3,0.4] [0.3,0.4],[0.4,0.5]
[0.3,0.4],[0.3,0.4] [0.1,0.2],[0.2,0.3] [0.6,0.7],[0.1,0.3] [0.1,0.3],[0.6,0.7]
[0.7,0.8],[0.1,0.2] [0.3,0.
O O O O
u
u
R u
u
u
= 4],[0.5,0.6] [0.5,0.8],[0.1,0.2] [0.1,0.2],[0.5,0.8]
[0.5,0.6],[0.1,0.3] [0.2,0.3],[0.4,0.6] [0.4,0.5],[0.2,0.3] [0.2,0.3],[0.4,0.5]
[0.1,0.2],[0.5,0.7] [0.6,0.7],[0.1,0.2] [0.5,0.6],[0.3,0.4] [0.3,0.4],[0.5,0.6]
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(



Algorithm for Model-1:
Reviewing the Park et al., (2009) method of MAGDM we present a new approach to multiple
attribute interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy decision making with incomplete attribute weight
information:
Step: 1 Utilize the IIFOWA operator to aggregate all individual interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy
decision matrices
( ) ( )
( )
5 4
( 1,2,3,4)
k k
ij
R r k

= = into a collective interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy


decision matrix R=(r
ij
)
mxn
. ( (0.155,0.345,0.345,0.155)
T
= is the weights calculated by normal
distribution based method)
Step: 2 Calculate the score matrix S=(s
ij
)
mxn
of the collective interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy
decision matrix R.
Step:3 Utilize the model (M) to obtain the optimal weight vector
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
1 2 3 4 5
( , , , , )
j j j j j j T
w w w w w w =
, (j=1,2,.n) corresponding to the alternatives O
j
(j=1,
2,.n), and then construct the weight matrix W.
Step: 4 is the row of weighting vectors whose sum is very close to 1.
Step: 5 Utilize
(1) (2) ( )
1 2
....
n
n
w w w w = + + +
to derive the weight vector
1 2
( , ,..., )
T
m
w w w w =
.
Step: 6 Use the IIFHA operator to get the overall values r
j
of the alternatives O
j
(j=1, 2,,n).
Step: 7 Use
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
2 2
2 2 2 2
12 1 1 ,
IVIFS j j j j j j j j j
E r a b c d a c b d = + + + + + j=1,2,..,n to
calculate the informational intuitionistic energies of the obtained values r
j
(j=1, 2, ..,n). use (2) to
calculate the correlation between the value r
*
of the ideal alternative O
*
and the value r
j
(j=1,2,,n).
Step: 8 Utilize
( )
( )
( ) ( )
*
*
*
,
,
,
IVIFS j
IVIFS j
IVIFS IVIFS j
C r r
K r r
E r E r
= , j=1,2,..,n to calculate the correlation
coefficients K
IVIFS
(r
*
,r
j
) (j=1, 2, .,n) between the values r
*
and r
j
(j=1, 2, ., n).

Step: 9 Utilize the obtained correlation coefficients K
IVIFS
(r
*
,r
j
) (j=1. 2.., n) to rank the alternatives
O
j
(j=1, 2,, n), and then select the most desirable one(s).

Numerical Illustration
Step: 1 Utilize the IIFOWA operator (let
(0.155,0.345,0.345,0.155)
T
=
be its weight vector
derived by the normal distribution based method) to aggregate the individual interval-valued
intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrices
( ) ( )
( )
( 1,2,3,4)
k k
ij
m n
R r k

= =
into the collective interval-valued
intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix
R=(r
ij
)
mxn
.


Volume: 02, October 2013, Pages: 339-353 International J ournal of Computing Algorithm
Integrated Intelligent Research (IIR) 347
The collective interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix R is as follows:
1 2
1
2
3
4
5
[0.4930, 0.6605],[0.1575, 0.2727] [0.3707, 0.4858],[0.3148, 0.4761]
[0.3001,0.4168],[0.3149,0.4777] [0.1358,0.3051],[0.2705, 0.4266]
[0.6378, 0.7871],[0.1114,0.2129] [0.3368,0.4366],[0.3912,0.492
O O
u
u
R u
u
u
= 9]
[0.5001,0.6175],[0.1000,0.2818] [0.1668, 0.2843],[0.5348, 0.6786]
[0.1748, 0.3627],[0.3951,0.5615] [0.6175,0.7354],[0.1270,0.2300]


3 4
[0.3375, 0.4857],[0.2999,0.4139] [0.3001,0.4168],[0.3149, 0.4762]
[0.6175, 0.7700],[0.1000,0.2300] [0.1001,0.2361],[0.6145,0.7369]
[0.5381,0.7700],[0.1000,0.2300] [0.1001, 0.2361],[0.5368,0.7639]
[0.4366,0.
O O
6089],[0.2129,0.3137] [0.2164,0.3165],[0.4319,0.5942]
[0.5371,0.6851],[0.1811,0.3012] [0.2044,0.3214],[0.5324,0.6626]
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(


Step: 2Calculate the score matrix S =(s
ij
)
5x4
of the collective interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy
decision matrix R.
1
( ) ( ), 1,2,..., & 1,2,...,
2
ij ij ij ij ij ij
S S r a c b d i m j n = = + = =
The Collective score matrix S is as follows:
1 2 3 4
1
2
3
4
5
0.3617 0.0328 0.0547 0.0371
0.0379 0.0381 0.5288 0.5211
0.5683 0.0556 0.4891 0.4823
0.3679 0.3812 0.2595 0.2466
0.2096 0.4979 0.3699 0.3346
O O O O
u
u
S u
u
u
| |
|

|
| =
|

|
|

\ .

Step: 3 Use the method (M) to obtain the optimal weight vectors
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
1 2 3 4 5
( , , , , )
j j j j j j T
w w w w w w =
(j=1, 2, 3, 4) corresponding to the alternatives O
j

(j=1,2,3,4):

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(0.2667, 0.1, 0.3667, 0.2667, 0) ,
(0.16, 0.1, 0.26, 0.16, 0.32) ,
(0.1, 0.2, 0.2, 0.25, 0.25) ,
(0.3, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.1) .
T
T
T
T
w
w
w
w
=
=
=
=

and construct the weight matrix.
0.2667 0.16 0.1 0.3
0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
0.3667 0.26 0.2 0.2
0.2667 0.16 0.25 0.3
0 0.32 0.25 0.1
W
| |
|
|
|
=
|
|
|
\ .

Volume: 02, October 2013, Pages: 339-353 International J ournal of Computing Algorithm
Integrated Intelligent Research (IIR) 348
Then
0.3617 0.0379 0.5683 0.3679 0.2096
0.0328 0.0381 0.0556 0.3812 0.4979
0.0547 0.5288 0.4891 0.2595 0.3699
0.0371 0.5211 0.4823 0.2466 0.3346
T
S
| |
|

|
=
|
|

\ .

0.3992 0.1936 0.1818 0.3078
0.1171 0.0853 0.0137 0.0825
0.3165 0.3487 0.3664 0.2819
0.3046 0.3299 0.3497 0.2671
T
S W
| |
|

|
=
|
|

\ .

0.3660 0.2781 0.2935 0.2838
0.2781 0.2752 0.2795 0.2530
( ) ( )
0.2935 0.2795 0.1675 0.2538
0.2838 0.2528 0.2538 0.2524
T T T
S W S W
| |
|
|
=
|
|
\ .

Step: 4 is the row of weighting vectors whose sumis very close to 1. Hence we have:
= (0.2935, 0.2795, 0.1675, 0.2538)
T


Step: 5Derive the weight vector w:
0.2667 0.16 0.1 0.3
0.2935
0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
0.2795
0.3667 0.26 0.2 0.2
0.1675
0.2667 0.16 0.25 0.3
0.2538
0 0.32 0.25 0.1
w W
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
= =
|
|
|
|
\ .
|
\ .

(0.2159, 0.1162, 0.2646, 0.2410, 0.1567)
T
w =
Step 6 Using IIFHA operator to obtain the overall value ( ) 1,2,3,4,5
j
r j = of the alternative
j
O
(j=1,2,3,4) and the collective interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix is R is as follows:


1 2
1
2
3
4
5
[0.4279,0.6079],[0.1088,0.2103] [0.4521,0.5613],[0.3967,0.5523]
[0.2359,0.3499],[0.2499,0.4121] [0.2025,0.3869],[0.3513,0.5058]
[0.5829,0.7503],[0.0718,0.1562] [0.4182,0.5153],[0.4719,0.567
O O
u
u
R u
u
u
= 8]
[0.4354,0.5607],[0.0631,0.2187] [0.2386,0.3656],[0.6061,0.7333]
[0.1233,0.2961],[0.3281,0.5003] [0.6800,0.7820],[0.1919,0.3086]



3 4
[0.2716,0.4204],[0.2357,0.3469] [0.3818, 0.4965],[0.3968,0.5524]
[0.5607,0.7308],[0.0631,0.1714] [0.1586, 0.3151],[0.6774, 0.8062]
[0.4753,0.7308],[0.0631, 0.1714] [0.1586,0.3151],[0.6079,0.8062]
[0.3699,0.
O O
5514],[0.1562,0.2488] [0.2939,0.3984],[0.5109,0.6594]
[0.4743,0.6352],[0.1287,0.2369] [0.2808,0.4033],[0.6039,0.7195]
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(


Utilizing the IIFHA operator and the weight information, the values are calculated as:

Volume: 02, October 2013, Pages: 339-353 International J ournal of Computing Algorithm
Integrated Intelligent Research (IIR) 349
| |
| |
| |
| |
1
2
3
4
(0.4182, 0.5821),(0.1133, 0.2452) ,
(0.4194,0.5392),(0.4069, 0.5399) ,
(0.4212,0.6205),(0.1185,0.2319) ,
(0.2629,0.3909),(0.5393,0.6962) .
r
r
r
r
=
=
=
=

Step: 7 To calculate the informational intuitionistic energy E
IVIFS
(r
j
) of the obtained valued r
j
(j=1, 2,
3, 4) and to calculate the correlation C
IVIFS
(r
*
,r
j
) between the value r
*
of the ideal alternative O
*
and
the value r
j
(j=1, 2, 3, 4).
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( )
2 2
2 2 2 2
12 1 1 , * 1.
IVIFS j j j j j j j j j IVIFS
E r a b c d a c b d E r = + + + + + =
To calculate the correlation C
IVIFS
(r
*
,r
j
) between the IVIFSs r
*
and r
j
(j=1, 2,,n).
*
1
( , ) ( ), 1,2,..., .
2
IVIFS j j j
C r r a b j n = + =

1 2 3 4
( *, ) 0.5001, ( *, ) 0.5153, ( *, ) 0.5209, ( *, ) 0.3269.
IVIFS IVIFS IVIFS IVIFS
C r r C r r C r r C r r = = = =
Step: 8To calculation the correlation coefficient K
IVIFS
(r
*
,r
j
) between the values r
*
and r
j
(j=1, 2, 3, 4).
*
*
*
( , )
( , ) , 1,2,3,4.
( ) ( )
IVIFS j
IVIFS j
IVIFS IVIFS j
C r r
K r r j
E r E r
= =


1 2 3 4
( *, ) 0.7735, ( *, ) 0.7266, ( *, ) 0.7925, ( *, ) 0.4524.
IVIFS IVIFS IVIFS IVIFS
K r r K r r K r r K r r = = = =
Step: 9Utilize the obtained correlation coefficients K
IVIFS
(r
*
,r
j
) (j=1, 2, 3, 4) to rank the alternatives O
j

(j=1, 2, 3, 4).
3 1 2 4
O O O O > > >

Hence the most desirable global supplier is O
3
.

Model-2: Solving Magdm Problems with Unknown Attribute Weight Information Using
Gaussian Distribution Function
Let us consider a situation where there is an unfair argument among the experts in fixing the weights
in a decision making problem. In that case we need to relieve the influence of unfair arguments on the
decision variables. Xu, (2005) introduced a procedure for generating the OWA weights based on the
use of the Gaussian distribution. They are referred as Gaussian weights which are given as follows:
Consider a Gaussian distribution ( , )
n n
G , where
n
is the mean of the collection and
n
is the
deviation of the collection, and given by:


2
1 1
1 1 1
and ( ) .
2
n n
n n n
j j
n
j j
n n

= =
+
= = =

(12)

Let
2 2
( ) /2
1
( )
2
n n
j
n
G j e


= . Then the associated OWA weights are defined as:

(13)

2 2
2 2
( ) /2
( ) /2
1 1
=
( )
where [0,1] and 1.
n n
n n
j
j
j n n
j
j j
j j
j
G
e
w
G j e
w w




= =
=
e =

Volume: 02, October 2013, Pages: 339-353 International J ournal of Computing Algorithm
Integrated Intelligent Research (IIR) 350
It can be noted that the closer j is to
n
=
1
2
n +
, the larger
j
w . Furthermore, if n is odd, the maximal
value of
j
w occurs for
1
2
n
j
+
= . If n is even, the maximal value of
j
w occurs for
2
n
j = and
1
2
n
j = + . It can also be shown that the weighting vector generated using this approach is symmetric,
i.e.,
1
.
j n j
w w
+
=

Algorithm for Model-2:
The Algorithmfor Model-2 follows the same four decision matrices utilized for Model-1.
Step: 1 Utilize the IIFOWA operator to aggregate all individual interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy
decision matrices
( ) ( )
( )
( 1,2,3,4)
k k
ij
m n
R r k

= = into a collective interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy


decision matrix R=(r
ij
)
mxn
.
Step: 2 Calculate the weight information using the Gaussian distribution function given in equation
(12) and (13).
Step: 3 Use the IIFHA operator to get the overall values r
j
of the alternatives O
j
(j=1, 2,,n).
Step: 4 Use
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
2 2
2 2 2 2
12 1 1 ,
IVIFS j j j j j j j j j
E r a b c d a c b d = + + + + + j=1,2,..,n to
calculate the informational intuitionistic energies of the obtained values r
j
(j=1, 2, ..,n). use equation
(2) to calculate the correlation between the value r
*
of the ideal alternative O
*
and the value r
j

(j=1,2,.,n).
Step: 5 Utilize
( )
( )
( ) ( )
*
*
*
,
,
,
IVIFS j
IVIFS j
IVIFS IVIFS j
C r r
K r r
E r E r
= , j=1,2,..,n to calculate the correlation
coefficients K
IVIFS
(r
*
,r
j
) (j=1, 2, .,n) between the values r
*
and r
j
(j=1, 2, ., n).

Step: 6 Utilize the obtained correlation coefficients K
IVIFS
(r
*
,r
j
) (j=1. 2.., n) to rank the alternatives
O
j
(j=1, 2,, n), and then select the most desirable one(s).

Numerical Illustration
Step: 1Computation is similar to Step-1 of Model-1.
Step: 2Calculating the weight information using the Gaussian distribution function given in equations
(12) and (13), we get: (0.1116,0.2364,0.3036,0.2364,0.1116)
T
w =
Step: 3Use the IIFHA operator and the weight information from Step-2 to get the overall values r
j
of
the alternatives O
j
(j=1, 2,..n).
(the collective interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix R is same as Model-1)

| |
| |
| |
| |
1
2
3
4
(0.4182,0.5775),(0.1161,0.2505) ,
(0.3794,0.4061),(0.4142,0.5465) ,
(0.4550,0.9665),(0.0981,0.2100) ,
(0.2338,0.3681),(0.5701,0.7276) .
r
r
r
r
=
=
=
=

Step:4Use
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
2 2
2 2 2 2
12 1 1 ,
IVIFS j j j j j j j j j
E r a b c d a c b d = + + + + + j=1,2,..,n to calculate
the informational intuitionistic energies of the obtained values r
j
(j=1, 2, ..,n). use equation (2) to
calculate the correlation between the value r
*
of the ideal alternative O
*
and the value r
j
(j=1,2,,n).
Volume: 02, October 2013, Pages: 339-353 International J ournal of Computing Algorithm
Integrated Intelligent Research (IIR) 351

1 2 3 4
( *, ) 0.4978, ( *, ) 0.4427, ( *, ) 0.7107, ( *, ) 0.3009.
IVIFS IVIFS IVIFS IVIFS
C r r C r r C r r C r r = = = =

Step:5Utilize
( )
( )
( ) ( )
*
*
*
,
,
,
IVIFS j
IVIFS j
IVIFS IVIFS j
C r r
K r r
E r E r
= , j=1,2,..,n to calculate the correlation
coefficients K
IVIFS
(r
*
,r
j
) (j=1, 2, .,n) between the values r
*
and r
j
(j=1, 2, ., n).

1 2 3 4
( *, ) 0.7725, ( *, ) 0.6543, ( *, ) 0.8418, ( *, ) 0.4072.
IVIFS IVIFS IVIFS IVIFS
K r r K r r K r r K r r = = = =

Step: 6 Utilize the obtained correlation coefficients K
IVIFS
(r
*
,r
j
) (j=1. 2.., n) to rank the alternatives
O
j
(j=1, 2,, n), and then select the most desirable one(s).
3 1 2 4
O O O O > > >

Hence the most desirable global supplier is O
3
.
From the proceeding figures, it can be observed that even though there is much variation in the
attribute weights computed fromthe two different models, there is less variation observed in the
correlation coefficients calculated fromthe two models, hence resulting in same ranking of the
alternatives from the two models. Hence the proposed MAGDM model with correlation coefficient of
IVIFNs is an effective model because of its uncompromising ranking of the alternatives even when
the attribute weights are partially known or completely unknown.


0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
0.2159
0.1162
0.2646
0.241 0.2567
0.1116
0.2364
0.3036
0.2364
0.1116
W1 W2 W3 W4 W5
Model-1 0.2159 0.1162 0.2646 0.241 0.2567
Model-2 0.1116 0.2364 0.3036 0.2364 0.1116
Figure-1: COMPARISON OF WEIGHTS
Volume: 02, October 2013, Pages: 339-353 International J ournal of Computing Algorithm
Integrated Intelligent Research (IIR) 352


Conclusion
The MAGDM problems under interval-valued
intuitionistic fuzzy environment were
investigated, and an approach was proposed to
handle the situations where the attribute values
were characterized by IVIFNs, and the
information about attribute weights was
partially known or completely unknown. The
proposed approach first combines all
individual interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy
decision matrices into the collective interval-
valued intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix by
using the IIFOWA operator. Next, in the
situations where the information about
attribute weights is incomplete, we have
constructed the score matrix of the collective
interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy decision
matrix, and established an optimization model
to determine the attribute weights. Then we
have used the obtained attribute weights and
the IIFHA operator to get the overall interval
valued intuitionistic fuzzy values of
alternatives, and have used the proposed
method for calculating correlation coefficients
between IVIFNs to rank the alternatives and
then to select the most desirable one. This
study has concentrated on the situations where
the best alternative could be determined even
when the weights of the decision makers are
completely unknown (Model-2). The proposed
approaches in this paper not only can comfort
the influence of unjust arguments on the
decision results, but also avoid losing or
distorting the original decision information in
the process of aggregation. Thus, the proposed
approach provides us an effective and practical
way to deal with multi-attribute group decision
making problems, because using correlation
coefficient to rank the alternatives can
preserve the linear relationship between the
variables involved in the decision process.

References
[1] Atanassov .K, (1986). Intuitionistic Fuzzy
sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 20, 87-96.
[2] Atanassov .K, (1989). More on
intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems, 33, 37-46.
[3] Atanassov .K, (1994). Operators over
interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy
Sets and Systems, 64, 159-174.
[4] Atanassov .K, Gargov .G, (1989). Interval-
valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems, 31, 343-349.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
K1
K2
K3
K4
K1 K2 K3 K4
MODEL-1 0.7735 0.7266 0.7925 0.4524
MODEL-2 0.7725 0.6543 0.8418 0.4072
Figure-2: COMPARISON OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
Volume: 02, October 2013, Pages: 339-353 International J ournal of Computing Algorithm
Integrated Intelligent Research (IIR) 353
[5] Bustince .H, Burillo .P, (1995). Correlation
of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets.
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 74, 237-244.
[6] Bustince .H, Burillo .P, (1996). Vague sets
are intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems, 79, 403-405.
[7] Chen .S.M., Tan .J .M., (1994). Handling
multi-criteria fuzzy decision-making problems
based on vague sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems,
67, 163-172.
[8] Gau .W.L., Buehrer .D.J ., (1994). Vague
sets. IEEE Trans. Systems, Man, Cybern., 23,
610-614.
[9] Herrera, F., Martinez, L., & Sanchez,P.J .
(1999). Managing non-homogenous
information in group decision making.
European Journal of Operational Research,
116, 115-132.
[10] Hong .D.H., Choi .C.H., (2000).
Multicriteria fuzzy decision-making problems
based on vague set theory. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems, 114, 103-113.
[11] Park .D.G., Kwun .Y.C., Park .J .H.,
Park .I.Y., (2009). Correlation coefficient of
Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets and its
application to multiple attribute group decision
making problems. Mathematical and
Computer Modelling, 50, 1279-1293.
[12] Robinson, J .P., Amirtharaj, E.C.H.
(2011). A short primer on the Correlation
coefficient of Vague sets, International
Journal of Fuzzy System Applications, 1(2),
55-69 .
[13] Robinson, J .P., Amirtharaj, E.C.H.
(2012a). Vague Correlation coefficient of
Interval Vague sets, International Journal of
Fuzzy System Applications, 2(1), 18-34.
[14] Robinson, J .P., Amirtharaj, E.C.H,
(2012b). A Search for the Correlation
coefficient of Triangular and Trapezoidal.







intuitionistic Fuzzy sets for Multiple Attribute
Group Decision Making, Communications in
Computer and Information Science - 283,
Springer-Verlag, 333-342
[15] Szmidt .E, Kacprzyk .J , (2002). Using
intuitionistic fuzzy sets in group decision-
making. Control and Cybernetics, 31, 1037-
1053.
[16] Szmidt, E., & Kacprzyk, J , (2003). A
consensus-reaching process under
intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations.
International Journal of Intelligent Systems,
18, 837-852.
[17] Wei .G, Wang .X.R., (2007). Some
geometric aggregation operators interval-
valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their
application to group decision making.
in:Proc.2007, ICCIS-2007, 495-499.
[18] Xu Z.S., (2005). An Overview of
Methods for Determining OWA Weights,
International Journal of Intelligent Systems,
20, 843-865.
[19] Xu .Z.S., (2007). Methods for aggregating
interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy information
and their application to decision making.
Control and Decision, 22, 215-219.
[20] Xu .Z.S., Chen .J , (2007). An approach to
group decision making based on interval-
valued intuitionistic judgment matrices.
Systems Engineering-Theory and Practice, 27,
126-133.
[21] Xu .Z.S., Yager .R.R., (2006). Some
geometric aggregation operators based on
intuitionistic fuzzy sets. International Journal
of General Systems, 35, 417-433.
[22] Yager .R.R., (1988). On ordered weighted
averaging aggregation operators in multi-
criteria decision making. IEEE Trans. Systems,
Man, Cybern., 18, 183-190.