Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems xx (20xx) x–xx 1

DOI:10.3233/JIFS-172009
IOS Press

1 Spherical fuzzy sets and their applications

2 in multi-attribute decision making problems

f
roo
3 Shahzaib Ashrafa,∗ , Saleem Abdullaha , Tahir Mahmoodb , Fazal Ghania and Tariq Mahmoodc
4
a Department of Mathematics, Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan, Pakistan
5
b Department of Mathematics and Statistics, International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan
c Department of Electronics Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology,

rP
6
Taxila sub campus Chakwal, Pakistan
7

tho
8 Abstract. The key objective of the present proposed work in this paper is introduced a new version of picture fuzzy set so
9 called spherical fuzzy sets (SFS). spherical fuzzy set is a new extension of picture fuzzy sets and Pythagorean fuzzy sets. In
10 spherical fuzzy sets, membership degrees are gratifying the condition 0  P 2 (x) + I 2 (x) + N 2 (x)  1 instead of 0  P(x) +
Au
11 I(x) + N(x)  1 as is in picture fuzzy sets. In this paper, we investigate the basic operations of spherical fuzzy sets and discuss
12 some related results. We extend operational laws to aggregation operators and introduce weighted averaging and weighted
13 geometric aggregation operators based on spherical fuzzy number’s. Further a multi attribute decision making method is
14 developed and these aggregation operators are utilized. Finally, we constructed a numerical approach for implementation of
15 proposed technique.
d

16 Keywords: Spherical fuzzy sets, aggregation operators, multi-attribute decision making problem
cte

17 1. Introduction the neutral state (which neither favor nor disfavor). 31

rre

However, Intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS) developed 32

18 To address the issues of difficulties of acquiring by Atanassov [3], to apprehend the uncertainties or 33
19 sufficient and accurate data for real decision making inexact information about degree of membership. 34
20 due to the imprecision and ambiguity of socioeco- Atanassov’s IFSs are the generalization of Zadeh’s 35
21 nomics, fuzzy set theory is one of the most powerful FSs. He utilized two indices (membership degree
co

36
22 track for treating the multi-attribute decision mak- P(x) and non-membership degree N(x)) to define the 37
23 ing problems. Based on fuzziness circumstances IFS with the condition that 0  P(x) + N(x)  1. 38
24 fuzzy sets (FSs), developed by Zadeh [31], was ini- From last few decades, the IFS has been explored 39
tially used. In FSs each element x of the domain
Un

25
by many researchers and successfully applied to 40
26 set contains only one index namely as degree of many practical fields like medical diagnosis, cluster- 41
27 membership P(x) which oscillate from 0 to 1. Non- ing analysis, decision making and pattern recognition 42
28 membership degree for the FS is straightforward [1, 2, 5, 15, 16, 32, 34]. Later, the degree of 43
29 equivalent to 1 − P(x). However, sometime FS has membership and non-membership in IFSs may be 44
30 some drawbacks for example, it has no ability to show denoted as interval values alternatively by crisp num- 45

∗ Corresponding
bers. So, the interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets 46
author. Shahzaib Ashraf, Department of Math-
ematics, Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan, Pakistan. E-mail:
(IVIFSs), was developed by Atanassov and Gar- 47

shahzaibashraf@awkum.edu.pk. gov [4]. IVIFSs are an extension of FSs & IFSs. 48

1064-1246/18/$35.00 © 2018 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved
 2 S. Ashraf et al. / Spherical fuzzy sets and their applications

49 The IFS and IVIFS have been explored by many idea of spherical fuzzy sets (SFSs) is introduced as a
50 researchers like as [4, 5], and widely applied to generalization of PFS. In SFS, membership degrees
51 many areas, such as group decision making [22, 27], are gratifying the condition.
52 similarity measures [11], multi-criteria decision mak-
53 ing [24]. In 2017, Lui [19] introduced the Heronian 0 < P 2 (x) + I 2 (x) + N 2 (x) < 1.
54 aggregation operators of intuitionistic fuzzy num- The objectives of this paper are: (1) to introduce the 92
55 bers, also defined interaction partitioned Bonferroni spherical fuzzy set (2) to define the spherical fuzzy 93
56 mean operators [18] and Interval-valued intuition- numbers (SFNs) and related basic operational iden-

f
94
57 istic fuzzy power Bonferroni aggregation operators tities, (3) to suggest score, accuracy and certainty

roo
95
58 [17] for intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. In 2018, Lui functions for comparison, (4) to propose spherical 96
59 [20] introduced the Partitioned Heronian means aggregation operators and some debate on their prop- 97
60 based on linguistic intuitionistic fuzzy numbers for erties, (5) to demonstrate a MADM method based 98
61 dealing with multi-attribute group decision making on these aggregation operators under spherical fuzzy 99
62 problems. information.

rP
100
63 Since in some real life decision theory the deci- The superfluity of this paper is planned as follows. 101
64 sion makers deal with the situation of particular In Section 2, the basic notion of Intuitionistic fuzzy 102
65 attributes where values of their summation of mem- sets, PFSs and their properties are presented. In Sec- 103
66 bership degrees exceeds 1. In such condition, IFSs tion 3, we introduce the concept of SFSs and their 104

tho
67 has no ability to obtain any satisfactory result. To operational properties. Section 4, consist of the study 105
68 overcome this situation Yager [28] developed the of aggregation operators to aggregate the spherical 106
69 idea of Pythagorean fuzzy set (PyFS) as a gen- fuzzy information. In Sections 5, we proposed the 107
70 eralization of IFS, which satisfies that the value MADM method to deal with spherical fuzzy informa- 108
71 of square summation of its membership degrees is tion and a descriptive example is illustrated to express 109
Au
72 less then or equals to 1. Now the situation where the effectiveness and reliability of the suggested tech- 110
73 the neutral membership degree calculate indepen- nique. The last Section 6, consist of the conclusion 111
74 dently in real life problems, the IFS and PyFS fail of the paper. 112
75 to attain any satisfactory result. Based on these cir-
76 cumstances, to overcome this situation, Cuong and
Kreinovich [9] initiated the idea of picture fuzzy
d

77
2. Preliminaries 113
78 set (PFS). He utilized three index (membership
degree P (x), neutral-membership degree I (x), and
cte

79
The paper gives brief discussion on basic ideas
non-membership degree N (x)) in PFS with the condi-
114
80
associated to IFS and PFS with their operations and
tion that is 0  P (x) + I (x) + N (x)  1. Obviously
115
81
operators. We also discuss, more familiarized ideas 116
82 PFSs is more suitable than IFS and PyFS to deal with
which is utilized in following analysis 117
83 fuzziness and vagueness. H. Garg [12] introduced
rre

84 picture fuzzy weighted averaging operator, Picture

85 fuzzy ordered weighted averaging operator, Picture 2.1.1. Definition [3] 118

86 fuzzy hybrid averaging operator under picture fuzzy

87 environment. From last few decades, the PFS has Let the universe set be R. Then
co

88 been explored by many researchers and successfully A = {r, PA (r), NA (r)|r ∈ R} ,
89 applied to many practical fields like strategic deci-
90 sion making, Attribute decision making and pattern is said to be intuitionistic fuzzy set of R, where PA : 119

91 recognition [9, 10, 12, 26]. R → [0, 1] and NA : R → [0, 1] are said to be 120
Un

Sometimes in real life, we face many problems degree of positive-membership of r in R and negative- 121

which cannot be handled by using PFS for example membership degree of r in R espectively. Also PA 122

when P (x) + I (x) + N (x) > 1. In such condition, and NA satisfy the condition: (∀r ∈ R) (0  PA (r) + 123

PFS has no ability to obtain any satisfactory result. To NA (r)  1). 124

state this condition, we give an example: for support

and against the degree of membership of an alterna- 2.1.2. Definition [9] 125
tive are 15 , 35 and 35 respectively. This satisfies the Let the universe set be R. Then the set
condition that their sum exceeds 1 and are not pre-
sented for PFS. Based on these circumstances, the A = {r, PA (r), IA (r), NA (r)|r ∈ R} ,
 S. Ashraf et al. / Spherical fuzzy sets and their applications 3

is said to be picture fuzzy set of R, where PA : I(x) + N(x) = 1.5 > 1. But by squaring P(x), I(x) 166

R → [0, 1], IA : R → [0, 1] and NA : R → and N(x) their sum becomes less than or equal to one 167

[0, 1] are said to be degree of positive-membership i.e. 0  (0.7)2 + (0.3)2 + (0.5)2  1. This example 168

of r in R, neutral-membership degree of r in R and indicate that SFS is more influential tool than PFS. 169

negative-membership degree of r in R respectively. Also observe that PyFS is also failed to deal such 170

Also PA , IA and NA satisfy the condition: situation because PyFS does not deal with neutral 171

membership. We conclude that all existing structure 172

(∀r ∈ R)(0  PA (r) + IA (r) + NA (r)  1). failed to deal such type of information, so this situa- 173

f
tion leads us to propose novel structure of SFSs. This 174

roo
126 Then for 1 − (PA (r) + IA (r) + NA (r)) is said to be example give strength to the novelty and effectiveness 175
127 degree of refusal-membership of r in R. of proposed SFSs. 176

128 3. Spherical fuzzy sets and their operations

rP
129 In this section, the idea of spherical fuzzy set (SFS),
130 their operations and operators are introduced. The
131 structure of SFSs give shields to the elements, which

tho
132 satisfies or dissatisfies the condition that values must
133 oscillate from 0 to 1. We see in the figure : 1,
134 which specifies the points where structure of Spher-
135 ical fuzzy set give shield to the elements. Also,
136 we familiarized with the contour of this graph in
figure : 3.
Au
137

138 Spherical fuzzy set is a direct generalization of

139 Pythagorean fuzzy set and picture fuzzy set. An inter-
140 esting scenario emerge when Pythagorean fuzzy sets
141 (PyFS) and picture fuzzy sets both failed to handle
the situation. Therefore, there is need the spherical .
d

142

143 fuzzy set to tackle this situation. The main difference

cte

144 between PyFSs and SFSs is that in SFSs we study Now we see the contour of this graph. 177
145 the neutral degree, where as in PyFSs it doesn’t. In
146 PFSs the connection of positive, neutral and negative
147 grades of an object is given in unit close interval but
148 in some cases the sum of the positive, neutral and
rre

149 negative grades of the object is greater than 1, so this

150 situation leads us toward spherical fuzzy set.
151 Now using an example to understand that why
152 spherical fuzzy set is suitable as compare to existing
co

153 structure like IFS, PyFS and PFS. Cuong structure of

154 PFS is prominence as it has the capability to deal with
155 human opinion competently. In PFSs, we observed
156 that the condition on membership degree belongs
Un

157 to unit interval. i.e. 0  P(x) + I(x) + N(x)  1.

158 Therefore, it is observed that, we have restricted to
159 assign values to membership degrees by own choice.
160 Considering these points, an innovative structure of
161 SFS is proposed which somehow give strength to the .
162 structure of PFS by expanding the space of mem-
163 bership degrees. i.e. 0  P 2 (x) + I 2 (x) + N 2 (x) 
164 1. For example, if we choose P(x) = 0.7, I(x) = when we are combining the both graph and their 178

165 0.3 and N(x) = 0.5. Then in this case 0  P(x) + contour, we have. 179
 4 S. Ashraf et al. / Spherical fuzzy sets and their applications

     195

(4) ej ∩ ek = min Pej , Pek , min Iej , Iek ,

 
196

max Nej , Nek ; 197

  198

(5) ecj = Nej , Iej , Pej . 199

3.1.3. Definition   200

f
Suppose that ej = Pej , Iej , Nej and ek =
 
201

roo
Pek , Iek , Nek are any two SFNs and τ  0. Then 202

the operations of SFNs can be denotes as 203

 
(1) τej = 1 − (1 − Pe2j )τ , (Iej )τ , (Nej )τ ; 204

rP
 205

(2) ej +ek = Pe2j +Pe2k − Pe2j · Pe2k , Iej · Iek , 206

. 
Nej · Nek ; 207

3.1.1. Definition  208

(3) ej × ek = Pej · Pek , Iej · Iek ,

tho
180

 
209
Let the universe set be R. Then the set
Ne2j + Ne2k − Ne2j · Ne2k ; 210

A = {r, PA (r), IA (r), NA (r)|r ∈ R} ,    211

(4) eτj = (Pej )τ , (Iej )τ , 1 − (1 − Ne2j )τ . 212

is said to be spherical fuzzy set, where PA : 213

Au
R → [0, 1], IA : R → [0, 1] and NA : R →
[0, 1] are said to be degree of positive-membership
of r in R, neutral-membership degree of r in R and 3.1.4. Theorem   214
negative-membership degree of r in R respectively. Assuming that ej = Pej , Iej , Nej ,
   
215
Also PA , IA and NA satisfy the following condition: ek = Pek , Iek , Nek and el = Pel , Iel , Nel 216
d

be any three SFNs and τ  0. Then the following

(∀r ∈ R)(0  (PA (r)) + (IA (r)) + (NA (r))  1).
2 2 2 217

identities are satisfies.

cte

218

For SFS {r, PA (r), IA (r), NA (r)|r ∈ R}, which

is triple components (1) ej + ek = ek + ej ; 219

220

PA (r), IA (r), NA (r) (2) ej × ek = ek × ej ; 221

rre

222
181 are said to SFN and each SFN can be denoted by (3) (ej + ek ) + el = ej + (ek + el ); 223
182 e = Pe , Ie , Ne , where Pe , Ie and Ne ∈ [0, 1], with 224
183 condition that 0  Pe2 + Ie2 + Ne2  1. (4) (ej × ek ) × el = ej × (ek × el ); 225
co

226

3.1.2. Definition (5) τej + τek = τ(ej + ek ), τ  0;

 
184 227

Assuming that ej = Pej , Iej , Nej and ek = 228

 
185

186 Pek , Iek , Nek be any two SFNs. Then union, inter- (6) τj ej + τk ej = (τj + τk )ej , τj  0 and τk  0; 229
Un

187 section and compliment are describes as;  τ 230

(7) ej × ek = eτj × eτk , τ  0; 231

188 (1) ej ⊆ ek iff ∀r ∈ R, Pej  Pek , Iej  Iek 232

τ τ τ +τk
189 and Nej  Nek ; (8) ejj × ejk = ejj , τj  0 and τk  0. 233

190 234

191 (2) ej = ek iff ej ⊆ ek and ek ⊆ ej ;

192
    
(3) ej ∪ ek = max Pej , Pek , min Iej , Iek , Proof. (1) We have to show that ej + ek = ek + ej .
 
193 235

194 min Nej , Nek ; Consider 236

 S. Ashraf et al. / Spherical fuzzy sets and their applications 5

Hence, we prove this. 244

L.H.S = ej + ek (6) We have to show that τj ej + τk ej = (τj + 245

    τk )ej , τj  0 and τk  0. Consider 246

= Pej , Iej , Nej + Pek , Iek , Nek
 
= Pe2j + Pe2k − Pe2j · Pe2k , Iej · Iek , Nej · Nek
  L.H.S = τj ej + τk ej , whereτj  0andτk  0
= Pe2k + Pe2j − Pe2k · Pe2j , Iek · Iej , Nek · Nej    
= τj · Pej , Iej , Nej + τk · Pej , Iej , Nej
 
= ek + ej = R.H.S

f
= 1 − (1 − Pe2j )τj , (Iej )τj , (Nej )τj

roo
 
Hence, we prove this.
+ 1 − (1 − Pe2j )τk , (Iej )τk , (Nej )τk
237

(2) We have to show that ej × ek = ek × ej . Con- 

sider     
 1 − (1 − Pe2 )τ + 1 − (1 − Pe2 )τ
 j k
L.H.S = ej × ek =    ,
    − 1 − (1 − Pe2j )τ 1 − (1 − Pe2k )τ

rP
= Pej , Iej , Nej × Pek , Iek , Nek
   
= Pej · Pek , Iej · Iek , Ne2j + Ne2k − Ne2j · Ne2k (Iej )τ · (Iek )τ , (Nej )τ · (Nek )τ

 τj  τk  
   τ +τ
= Pek · Pej , Iek · Iej , Ne2k + Ne2j − Ne2k · Ne2j = 1 − 1 − Pe2j 1 − Pe2j , Iej j k ,
τ +τ 

tho

= ek × ej = R.H.S Nej j k

Hence, we prove this.  τj +τk   
238
τ +τ
239 The proofs of (3) and (4) are straightforward as (1) = 1 − 1 − Pej 2 , Iej j k ,
and (2).  τj +τk 
240
Au
241 (5) We have to show that τej + τek = τ(ej + ek ), Nej
242 τ  0. Consider

Furthermore 247
L.H.S = τej + τek
   
d

= τ · Pej , Iej , Nej + τ · Pek , Iek , Nek

 
R.H.S = (τj + τk )ej , where τj  0 and τk  0
= 1 − (1 − Pe2j )τ , (Iej )τ , (Nej )τ  
cte

  = (τj + τk ) · Pej , Iej , Nej

1 − (1 − Pe2k )τ , (Iek )τ , (Nek )τ 
+  τj +τk   

τ +τ
 τ  τ  τ = 1 − 1 − Pe2j , Iej j k ,
= 1 − 1 − Pe2j 1 − Pe2k , Iej · Iek ,
 τj +τk 
rre

 τ  Nej
Nej · Nek

  τ
= 1 − 1 − Pe2j + Pe2k − Pe2j · Pe2k , Hence, we prove this.
 τ  τ   τ 248

(7) We have to show that ej × ek = eτj × eτk ,

co

Iej · Iek , Nej · Nek

τ  0. Consider
Next
 τ
243

L.H.S = ej × ek , τ  0
Un


R.H.S = τ(ej + ek ) = Pej · Pek , Iej · Iek ,
   τ
= τ · Pe2j +Pe2k −Pe2j ·Pe2k , Iej ·Iek , Nej ·Nek Ne2j + Ne2k − Ne2j · Ne2k

 τ  τ
  τ = Pej · Pek , Iej · Iek ,
= 1 − 1 − Pe2j + Pe2k − Pe2j · Pe2k ,
  τ 
 τ  τ  1 − 1 − Ne2j + Ne2k − Ne2j · Ne2k
Iej · Iek , Nej · Nek
 6 S. Ashraf et al. / Spherical fuzzy sets and their applications

Now Hence, we prove this. 250

R.H.S = eτj × eτk , τ  0

   3.2. Comparison rules for SFNs 251

= (Pej )τ , (Iej )τ , 1 − (1 − Ne2j )τ

   In this section we introduce some functions which 252

× (Pek )τ , (Iek )τ , 1 − (1 − Ne2k )τ play an important role for the ranking of SFNs are; 253

= (Pej )τ · (Pek )τ , (Iej )τ · (Iek )τ ,
   3.2.1. Definition
 

254


f
 1 − (1 − N 2 )τ + 1 − (1 − N 2 )τ  Let ek = Pek, Iek , Nek be any
 e ek  SFNs. Then 255

roo
j
    Pek +1−Iek +1−Nek
 sc(ek ) = = 13 (2 + Pek −
− 1 − (1 − Ne2j )τ 1 − (1 − Ne2k )τ (1) 3 256

Iek − Nek ) which denoted as score function. 257

 τ  τ (2) ac(ek ) = Pek − Nek which denoted as accu-
= Pej · Pek , Iej · Iek , 258

 τ   racy function.
τ
259

(3) cr(ek ) = Pek which denoted as certainty func-

rP
1 − 1 − Nej
2 1 − Nek
2 260

 τ  τ tion. Idea takes from Definition [3.2.1.], is the 261

= Pej · Pek , Iej · Iek , technique which using for equating the SFNs can be 262

  τ  described as 263

1 − 1 − Nej + Nek − Nej · Nek

2 2 2 2

tho
3.2.2. Definition  264

Hence, we prove this. Let ej = Pej , Iej , Nej and ek =

 
249 265

τ τ τ +τ Pek , Iek , Nek be any two SFNs. Then by

(8) We have to show that ejj × ejk = ejj k , τj  266

0 and τk  0. Consider using the Definition [3.2.1.], equating technique can 267

be described as, (a) If sc(ej ) > sc(ek ), then ej > ek .

Au
268
τ τ
L.H.S = ejj × ejk , τj  0andτk  0 (b) If sc(ej ) = sc(ek ) and ac(ej ) > ac(ek ), then 269
 τ  τ ej > ek .
= Pej , Iej , Nej j × Pej , Iej , Nej k 270

   (c) If sc(ej ) = sc(ek ), ac(ej ) = ac(ek ) and 271

= (Pej )τj , (Iej )τj , 1 − (1 − Ne2j )τj cr(ej ) > cr(ek ), then ej > ek. 272
   (d) If sc(ej ) = sc(ek ), ac(ej ) = ac(ek ) and
d

273
× (Pej )τk , (Iej )τk , 1 − (1 − Ne2j )τk cr(ej ) = cr(ek ), then ej = ek. 274

= (Pej )τj · (Pej )τk , (Iej )τj · (Iej )τk ,
cte

   

 1 − (1 − N 2 )τj + 1 − (1 − N 2 )τk  4. Spherical aggregation operators
 ej ej 275
   

− 1 − (1 − Ne2j )τj 1 − (1 − Ne2j )τk This section gives some discussion about weighted 276
rre

τ +τ  τ +τ aggregated operators according to defined opera- 277

= Pej j k , Iej j k , tional properties of SFNs. 278

 τj  τk 
1 − 1 − Nej2 1 − Nej
2 4.1. Spherical fuzzy number weighted averaging 279

 
co

 τ +τ aggregation operators 280

τ +τ
= Pej j k , Iej j k ,

 This section describes the spherical weighted aver-
  τj +τk
281

1 − 1 − Ne2j aging aggregation (SFNWAA) operators by utilizing 282

Un

the defined operational properties of SFNs. 283

Furthermore 4.1.1. Definition

  284

τ +τ Let ek = Pek , Iek , Nek , (k ∈ N) be any col-

R.H.S = ejj k ,
τj  0andτk  0
 τ +τ lection of SFNs and SFNWAA : SFN n → SFN,
= Pej , Iej , Nej j k then SFNWAA describe as,

 
 τj +τk  τj +τk τj +τk n

= Pej , Iej , 1− 1−Ne2j SFNWAA (e1 , e2 , . . . , en ) = τk ek ,
k=1
 S. Ashraf et al. / Spherical fuzzy sets and their applications 7

285
 τ = {τ1 , τ2 , .. . , τn } be the weight vector
In which (c) Now we have to prove that outcome is true for
of e = Pek , Iek , Nek , k ∈ N, with τk  0 and n = z + 1, by utilizing the (a) & (b) we have
286
n k
287
k=1 τk = 1.

z
SFNWAA (e1 , e2 , . . . , ez , ez+1 ) = τk ek + τz+1 ez+1
288 
4.1.2. Theorem   k=1 τk 
289 Let ek = Pek , Iek , Nek , (k ∈ N) be any collec- = 1 − zk=1 (1 − Pe2k )τk , zk=1 Iek , zk=1 (Nek )τk +
290 tion of SFNs. Then by utilizing the Definition [4.1.1.]   τz+1  τz+1 
291 and operational properties of SFNs, we can obtain the 1 − (1 − Pe2z+1 )τz+1 , Iez+1 , Nez+1
   

f
292 following outcome. 
 1 − zk=1 (1 − Pe2k )τk + 1 − (1 − Pe2z+1 )τz+1 

roo
    ,
293 SFNWAA (e1 , e2 , . . . , en ) = ( 1 − nk=1 (1 − Pe2k )τk ), = − 1 − zk=1 (1 − Pe2k )τk 1 − (1 − Pe2z+1 )τz+1

   τk  τz+1  τz+1
zk=1 Iek · Iez+1 , zk=1 (Nek )τk · Nez+1
294 nk=1 (Iek )τk , nk=1 (Nek )τk ,
  τk
1 − zk=1 (1 − Pe2k )τk (1 − Pe2z+1 )τz+1 , zk=1 Iek
 τz+1

rP
295 =  τz+1 , zk=1 (Nek )τk· Nez+1
296 Where τ = {τ1 , τ2 , . .. , τn } be the weight vector · Iez+1
   τk 
297
nek = Pek , Iek , Nek , k ∈ N, with τk  0 and
of
= 1 − zk +1 2 τk z +1
=1 (1 − Pek ) , k =1 Iek , kz +1
=1 (Nek )
τk
298
k=1 τk = 1.
304

tho
299 Proof. We done the prove by utilizing the technique
300 of mathematical induction. Therefore, we follow as Outcome is satisfying for n = z + 1. Thus, outcome 305
(a) For n = 2, since is satisfied for whole n. Therefore 306
  τ  τ  307
τ1 e1 = (1 − (1 − Pe21 )τ1 , Ie1 1 , Ne1 1 )
Au
SFNWAA (e1 , e2 , . . . , en ) 308
 
and = 1 − nk=1 (1 − Pe2k )τk , nk=1 (Iek )τk , nk=1 (Nek )τk 309

 τ  τ 

τ2 e2 = (1 − (1 − Pe22 )τ2 , Ie2 2 , Ne2 2 ) 310

which done the proof. 311

Then
d

SFNWAA (e1 , e2 ) = τ1 e1 + τ2 e2
cte

  τ  τ  4.1.3. Properties 312

= (1 − (1 − Pe21 )τ1 , Ie1 1 , Ne1 1 ) There are some properties which are fulfilled by 313
  τ  τ  the SFNWAA operator obviously. 
+ (1 − (1 − Pe22 )τ2 , Ie2 2 , Ne2 2 )  314

(a) Idempotency: Let ek = Pek , Iek , Nek ,

   
 1 − (1 − Pe21 )τ1 + 1 − (1 − Pe22 )τ2 −  ∈ N) be any collection of SFNs. If all of ek =
(k
rre

=     , Pek , Iek , Nek , (k ∈ N) are identical. Then there

1 − (1 − Pe21 )τ1 1 − (1 − Pe22 )τ2 is

(Ie1 )τ1 · (Ie2 )τ2 , (Ne1 )τ1 · (Ne2 )τ2 SFNWAA (e1 , e2 , . . . , en ) = e.
  τ  τ  
co

= 1 − 1 − Pe21 1 1 − Pe22 2 , (b) Boundedness: Let ek = Pek , Iek , Nek ,

 (k ∈ N) be any collection of SFNs.
(Ie1 )τ1 · (Ie2 )τ2 , (Ne1 )τ1 · (Ne2 )τ2 Pek Iek Nek
 Assuming
  τ that e−k = min k , min k , max k and e+
k =
= 1 − 2k=1 (1 − Pe2k )τk , 2k=1 Iek k ,  
Un

Pe Ie Ne
 maxk k , mink k , mink k for whole k ∈ N, there-
2k=1 (Nek )τk
fore e− +
k ⊆ SFNOWAA (e1 , e2 , . . . , en ) = ek .
(b) Suppose that outcome is true for n = z that is, e− +
k ⊆ SFNWAA (e1 , e2 , . . . , en ) = ek .
301

 
302 SFNWAA (e1 , e2 , . . . , ez ) = (c) Monotonically: Let ȩk = Pȩk , Iȩk , Nȩk ,
  τ  (k ∈ N) be any collection of SFNs. If it satisfies that
1 − zk=1 (1 − Pe2k )τk , zk=1 Iek k , ek ⊆k for whole k ∈ N, then
,
 
303

zk=1 (Nek )τk SFNWAA (e1 , e2 , . . . , en ) = SFNWAA ȩ1 , ȩ2 , . . . , ȩn .

 8 S. Ashraf et al. / Spherical fuzzy sets and their applications

315 337
316 4.1.4. Definition
 
Let ek = Pek , Iek , Nek (kεN) be a collection of The spherical fuzzy weighted averaging operator 338

SFNs, and SFNOWAA : SFN n → SFN, then the only considers importance of the aggregated spheri- 339

SFNOWAA describe as, cal fuzzy sets themselves. The spherical fuzzy OWA 340

operator only concerns with position importance of 341

SFNOWAAw (e1 , e2 , . . . , en ) = nk=1 τk eη(k) the ranking order of the aggregated spherical fuzzy 342

sets. To overcome the disadvantages of the aforemen- 343

317 with dimensions n, where kth biggest weighted value
tioned two spherical fuzzy aggregation operators, 344
is eη(k) consequently by total order eη(1)  eη(2) 

f
318
we may define the following spherical fuzzy hybrid 345
. . .  eη(n) . τ = {τ1 , τ2 , . . . , τn } is the weight vec-

roo
319
weighted averaging operator.
tors such that τk  0 (k ∈ N) and nk=1 τk = 1.
346
320

4.1.7. Definition
  347

321 
4.1.5. Theorem  Let ek = Pek , Iek , Nek (kεN) be a collection of
322 Let ek = Pek , Iek , Nek (k ∈ N) be a collection SFNs, and SFNHOWAA : SFN n → SFN, then

rP
323 of SFNs. Then by utilizing the definition [4.1.4.] and the SFNHOWAA describe as,
324 operational properties of SFNs, we can obtain the
325 following outcome. SFNHOWAAw (e1 , e2 , . . . en ) = nk=1 τk eη(k) ,
SFNOWAAw (e1 , e2 , . . . , en )
326
  τk  with dimensions n, where kth  biggest weighted


348

tho
1 − nk=1 (1 − Pe2η(k) )τk , nj=1 Ieη(k) , value is eη(k) and ek ek = nτk ek , k εN , 349
327 =   τk τ = {τ1 , τ2 , . . . , τn } is the weight vectors
nj=1
350
Neη(k)
such that τk  0 (kεN) and nk=1 τk = 1. Also 351
328
ω = (ω1 , ω2 , . . . , ωn ) is the associated weight 352
329 where eη(k) is kth largest value consequently by total vector such that ωk  0 (k ∈ N) and nk=1 ωk = 1,
Au 353
330 order eη(1)  eη(2)  . . .  eη(n) . and balancing coefficient is n. 354

331 Proof. Theorem [4.1.5.] takes the form by utilizing

332 the technique of mathematical induction on n, and 4.1.8. Theorem
  355

333 procedure is eliminated here. Let ek = Pek , Iek , Nek (k ∈ N) be a collection 356

of SFNs. Then by utilizing the definition [4.1.7.] and

d

357

operational properties of SFNs, we can obtain the 358

following outcome.
cte

334 4.1.6. Properties 359

335 There are some properties which are fulfilled by

SFNHOWAAw (e1 , e2 , . . . , en ) = 360
336 the SFNOWAA operator obviously.   
(a) Idempotency: Let ek = Pek , Iek , Nek ,  ωk

1 − nk=1 1 − Pe2 ,
 ∈ N) be any collection of SFNs. If all of ek =
(k η(k)
rre

Pek , Iek , Nek , (k ∈ N) are identical. Then there  ωk  ωk 361

is nj=1 Ie , nj=1 Ne
η(k) η(k)

SFNOWAA (e1 , e2 , . . . , en ) = e.
  where eη(k) is kth biggest value consequently by 362
co

(b) Boundedness: Let ek = Pek , Iek , Nek , total order eη(1)  eη(2)  .. .  eη(n) and kth biggest
 363

(k ∈ N) be any collection of SFNs.  Assuming weighted value is eη(k) , ek ek = nτk ek , k εN . 364
− Pek Iek Nek
that ek = mink , mink , maxk and e+
k =
 Pek Iek Nek
 Proof. Theorem [4.1.8.] takes the form by utilizing 365
Un

maxk , mink , mink for whole k ∈ N, there- the technique of mathematical induction on n and 366

fore procedure is eliminated here. 367

e− +
k ⊆ SFNOWAA (e1 , e2 , . . . , en ) = ek . 4.1.9. Properties
 
368

(c) Monotonically: Let ȩk = Pȩk , Iȩk , Nȩk , There are some properties which are fulfilled by 369

(k ∈ N) be any collection of SFNs. If it satisfies that the SFNHOWAA operator obviously. 370

ek ⊆ ȩk for whole k ∈ N, then  

  (a) Idempotency: Let ek = Pek , Iek , Nek , 371

SFNWAA (e1 , e2 , . . . , en ) = SFNOWAA ȩ1 , ȩ2 , . . . , ȩn . (k ∈ N) be any collection of SFNs. If all of 372
 S. Ashraf et al. / Spherical fuzzy sets and their applications 9

 
373 ek = Pek , Iek , Nek , (k ∈ N) are identical. following outcome. 399

374 Then there is

SFNWGA (e1 , e2 , . . . , en ) 400

n (P )τk , n (I )τk , 
SFNHOWAA (e1 , e2 , . . . , en ) = e. k=1 ek k=1 ek
=  ,
1 − nk =1 (1 − Ne2k )τk
401

 
375 (b) Boundedness: Let ek = Pek , Iek , Nek ,
(k ∈ N) be any

f
376
 collection of SFNs. Assuming

Pek Iek Ne Where τ = {τ1 , τ2 , . .. , τn } be the weight vector

roo
−
that ek = mink , mink , maxk k
402
377 and
 P I N
 nek = Pek , Iek , Nek , k ∈ N, with τk  0 and
of 403

e+
e e e
k = maxk , mink , mink k=1 τk = 1.
k k k
378 for whole 404

379 k ∈ N, therefore
Proof. We done the prove by utilizing the technique 405

of mathematical induction. Therefore, we follow as

rP
406

(a) For n = 2, since

e− +
k ⊆ SFNHOWAA (e1 , e2 , . . . , en ) = ek .


 τ1  τ1  
(c) Monotonically: Let ȩk = Pȩk , Iȩk , eτ11 = Pe1 , Ie1 , (1 − (1 − Ne21 )τ1 )

380

tho
381 Nȩk , (k ∈ N) be any collection of SFNs. If
382 it satisfies that ek ⊆ ȩk for whole k ∈ N, then and

  τ  
383

SFNHOWAA (e1 , e2 , . . . , en ) eτ22 = (Pe2 )τ2 , Ie2 2 , (1 − (1 − Ne22 )τ2 )

384
Au
 
385 = SFNHOWAA ȩ1 , ȩ2 , . . . , ȩn .
Then 407

SFNWGA (e1 , e2 ) = eτ11 + eτ22

386 4.2. Spherical fuzzy number weighted geometric
 τ  τ  
d

387 aggregation operators

= Pe1 1 , Ie1 1 , (1 − (1 − Ne21 )τ1 )
  τ  
cte

388 This section described the spherical weighted geo-

389 metric aggregation (SFNWGA) operators by utilizing + (Pe2 )τ2 , Ie2 2 , (1 − (1 − Ne22 )τ2 )

390 the defined operational properties of SFNs. = (Pe1 )τ1 · (Pe2 )τ2 , (Ie1 )τ1 · (Ie2 )τ2 ,
   

 1 − (1 − Ne21 )τ1 + 1 − (1 − Ne22 )τ2
   
rre

391 4.2.1. Definition

  − 1 − (1 − Ne21 )τ1 1 − (1 − Ne22 )τ2 408

Let ek = Pek , Iek , Nek , (k ∈ N) be any col- 

lection of SFNs and SFNWGA : SFN n → SFN, = (Pe1 )τ1 · (Pe2 )τ2 , (Ie1 )τ1 · (Ie2 )τ2 ,
  τ  τ 
then SFNWGA operator describe as, 1 − 1 − Ne21 1 1 − Ne22 2
co

n
   τ  τ
τ = 2k=1 Pek k , 2k=1 Iek k ,
SFNWGA (e1 , e2 , . . . , en ) = ekk ,  
k=1 1 − 2k =1 (1 − Ne2k )τk
Un

392
 τ = {τ1 , τ2 , .. . , τn } be the weight vector
In which
393 of
n ek = Pek , Iek , Nek , k ∈ N, with τk  0 and
(b) Suppose that outcome is true for n = z that is,
k=1 τk = 1.
409
394

SFNWGA (e1 , e2 , . . . , ez ) 410

395 4.2.2. Theorem
    τ  τ
396 Let ek = Pek , Iek , Nek , (k ∈ N) be any collec- = zk=1 Pek k , zk=1 Iek k , 411

tion of SFNs. Then by utilizing the Definition [4.2.1.]  

1 − zk=1 (1 − Ne2k )τk
397
412
398 and operational properties of SFNs, we can obtain the
 10 S. Ashraf et al. / Spherical fuzzy sets and their applications

(c) Now we have to prove that outcome is true for 4.2.4. Definition
  428
n = z + 1, by utilizing the (a) & (b) we have Let ek = Pek , Iek , Nek , (k ∈ N) be any collec-

z tion of SFNs and SFNOWGA : SFN n → SFN,
τ τz+1
SFNWGA (e1 , e2 , . . . , ez , ez+1 ) = ekk + ez+1 then SFNOWGA operator describe as,
k=1
   τk   τk  
= zk=1 Pek , zk=1 Iek , 1 − zk=1 (1 − Ne2k )τk + SFNOWGAw (e1 , e2 , . . . , en ) = nk=1 eτη(k)
k ,
  τ 1   τ1  
Pe 1 , Ie 1 , (1 − (1 − Ne21 )τ1 )
  τk  τz+1   τk  τz+1 with dimensions n, where kth biggest weighted 429
zk=1 Pek · Pez+1 , zk=1 Iek · Iez+1 , value is eη(k) consequently by total order eη(1) 
 

f
430

    eη(2)  . . .  eη(n) . τ = {τ1 , τ2 , . . . , τn } be the

roo
z
 1 − k=1 (1 − Nek ) + 1 − (1 − Nez+1 )
τ τ
2 2 431
k z+1
=
  
− 1 − zk=1 (1 − Ne2k )τk

1 − (1 − Ne2z+1 )τz+1
weight vector of ek = Pek , Iek , Nek , k ∈ N, with 432

τk  0 and nk=1 τk = 1. 433

  τk  τz+1   τk  τz+1 
zk=1 Pek · Pez+1 , zk=1 Iek · Iez+1 ,
=  4.2.5. Theorem
  434
1 − zk=1 (1 − Ne2k )τk (1 − Ne2z+1 )τz+1 Let ek = Pek , Iek , Nek , (k ∈ N) be any collec-

rP
435
   τk   τk   tion of SFNs. Then by utilizing the definition [4.2.4.] 436
= z+1 , z+1 , 1 − z+1 2 τk
k=1 Pe k k=1 Ie k k=1 (1 − Nek ) and operational properties of SFNs, we can obtain the 437

413 following outcome. 438

Outcome is satisfying for n = z + 1. Thus, out-

tho
414
SFNOWGAw (e1 , e2 , . . . , en ) 439
come is satisfied for whole n. Therefore
n P τk , n (I )τk , 
415

k=1 eη(k) k=1 eη(k)

416 SFNWGA (e1 , e2 , . . . , en ) = 
 n
1 − k=1 (1 − Ne2η(k) )τk
440

417 = nk=1 (Pek )τk , nk=1 (Iek )τk ,

 
Au
418 1 − nk=1 (1 − Ne2k )τk where eη(k) is kth largest value consequently by 441

total order eη(1)  eη(2)  . . .  eη(n) . 442

419 which done the proof. Proof. Theorem [4.2.5.] takes the form by utilizing 443

the technique of mathematical induction on n, and 444

420 4.2.3. Properties procedure is eliminated here. 445

d

421 There are some properties which are fulfilled by

422 the SFNWGA operator obviously.   4.2.6. Properties 446
cte

(a) Idempotency: Let ek = Pek , Iek , Nek , There are some properties which are fulfilled by 447

 ∈ N) be any collection of SFNs. If all of ek =

(k the SFNOWGA operator obviously. 448

Pek , Iek , Nek , (k ∈ N) are identical. Then there  

is (a) Idempotency: Let ek = Pek , Iek , Nek , 449

(k ∈ N)
 be any collection
 of SFNs. If all of 450
rre

SFNWGA (e1 , e2 , . . . , en ) = e. ek = Pek , Iek , Nek , (k ∈ N) are identical. 451

  Then there is 452

(b) Boundedness: Let ek = Pek , Iek , Nek ,
(k ∈ N) be any collection of SFNs.  Assuming
− Pek Iek Nek
that ek = mink , mink , maxk and e+
k =
co

  SFNOWGA (e1 , e2 , . . . , en ) = e.
Pek Iek Nek
maxk , mink , mink for whole k ∈ N, there-
 
fore (b) Boundedness: Let ek = Pek , Iek , Nek , 453
Un

(k ∈ N) be any collection of FNs. Assuming

 454
e− +
k ⊆ SFNWGA (e1 , e2 , . . . , en ) = ek . − Pe Ie Ne
  that ek = mink k , mink k , maxk k and 455

(c) Monotonically: Let ȩk = Pȩk , Iȩk , Nȩk ,  Pek Iek Nek

423
+
ek = maxk , mink , mink for whole
(k ∈ N) be any collection of SFNs. If it satisfies that
456
424

425 ek ⊆ ȩk for whole k ∈ N, then k ∈ N, therefore 457

426 SFNWGA (e1 , e2 , . . . , en )

 
427 = SFNWGA ȩ1 , ȩ2 , . . . , ȩn . e− +
k ⊆ SFNOWGA (e1 , e2 , . . . , en ) = ek .
 S. Ashraf et al. / Spherical fuzzy sets and their applications 11


(c) Monotonically: Let ȩk = Pȩk , Iȩk ,

458

Nȩk , (k ∈ N) be any collection of SFNs. If

SFNHOWGA (e1 , e2 , . . . , en ) = e.
459

460 it satisfies that ek ⊆ ȩk for whole k ∈ N, then

 
(b) Boundedness: Let ek = Pek , Iek , Nek ,
461
(k ∈ N) be any collection of FNs.  Assuming
− Pek Iek Nek
462 SFNOWGA (e1 , e2 , . . . , en ) that ek = mink , mink , maxk and e+
k =
   Pek Iek Nek

463 = SFNOWGA ȩ1 , ȩ2 , . . . , ȩn . maxk , mink , mink for whole k ∈ N, there-

f
fore

roo
464 4.2.7. Definition
  e− +
k ⊆ SFNHOWGA (e1 , e2 , . . . , en ) = ek .
Let ek = Pek , Iek , Nek , (k ∈ N) be any collec-  
tion of SFNs and SFNHOWGA : SFN n → SFN, (c) Monotonically: Let ȩk = Pȩk , Iȩk , Nȩk , 492

then SFNOWGA operator describe as, (k ∈ N) be any collection of SFNs. If it satisfies that 493

rP
τ
ek ⊆ ȩk for whole k ∈ N, then 494
SFNHOWGAw (e1 , e2 , . . . en ) = nj=1 eη(k)
k
,
SFNHOWGA (e1 , e2 , . . . , en ) 495
465 with dimensions n, where kth  biggest weighted
  
466 value is eη(k) and ek ek = nτk ek , k εN , = SFNHOWGA ȩ1 , ȩ2 , . . . , ȩn . 496

tho
467 τ = {τ1 , τ2 , . . . , τn }  be the weight vector of
468 ek = Pek , Iek , Nek , k ∈ N, with τk  0 and
n
469
k=1 τk = 1. Also ω = (ω1 , ω2 , . . . , ωn ) is the
5. MADM method utilizing spherical
associated weight vector such that ωj  0 (jεN) and
497
470
aggregation operators
nj=1 ωj = 1, and balancing coefficient is n.
498
471
Au
This section proposes the technique to solve
472 4.2.8. Theorem
  the MADM problems by utilizing the spherical
473 Let ek = Pek , Iek , Nek , (k ∈ N) be any collec- aggregation operators. For a MADM problem,
474 tion of SFNs. Then by utilizing the definition [4.2.7.] assuming that C = {c1 , c2 , . . . , cm } be any finite
475 and operational properties of SFNs, we can obtain the collection of m alternatives, G = {g1 , g2 , . . . , gn }
d

476 following outcome. be collection of n attributes and T =

 any finite 
t1 , t2 , . . . , tp be any collection of p DMs. If the
cte

477 SFNHOWGAw (e1 , e2 , . . . , en )

 ωk  ωk zth (z = 1, 2, . . . , p) DM deliver the assessment of
nk=1 Pe , nk=1 Ie , the alternative ci (i = 1, 2, . . . , m) on the attribute
η(k) η(k)
  ωk gi (i = 1, 2, . . . , n) under any discrete term set. Let
478 =    
1 − nk=1 1 − Ne2 B = bjk = Pejk , Iejk , Nejk m×n
rre

η(k)

479 where eη(k) is kth biggest value consequently by g1 g2 ... gn

     
480 total order eη(1)  eη(2)  .. .  eη(n) and kth biggest
 c1 Pe11 , Ie11 , Ne11 Pe12 , Ie12 , Ne12 ... Pe1n , Ie1n , Ne1n
weighted value is eη(k) , ek ek = nτk ek , k εN .      
co

481
c2 Pe21 , Ie21 , Ne21 Pe22 , Ie22 , Ne22 ... Pe2n , Ie2n , Ne2n
482 Proof. Theorem [4.2.8.] takes the form by utilizing
. . . . .
483 the technique of mathematical induction on n. and . . . . .
484 procedure is eliminated here. . . . . .
Un

    
cm Pem1 , Iem1 , Nem1 Pem2 , Iem2 , Nem2 ... Pemn , Iemn , Nemn
485 4.2.9. Properties
486 There are some properties which are fulfilled by   499

487 the SFNHOWGA operator obviously. be the DM, where Pejk , Iejk , Nejk are the 500

  collection of SFNs and represents the evaluation 501

488 (a) Idempotency: Let ek = Pek , Iek , Nek , information of every alternative ci (i = 1, 2, . . . , m) 502

489 (k ∈ N)
 be any collection
 of SFNs. If all of on attribute gi (i = 1, 2, . . . , n) . If τ = 503

490 ek = Pek , Iek , Nek , (k ∈ N) are identical. {τ1 , τ2 , . . . , τn } be the weight vector of attribute, 504

491 Then there is with τk  0, nk=1 τk = 1 and the weight vector of 505
 12 S. Ashraf et al. / Spherical fuzzy sets and their applications

 
506 DMs is Q = q1 , q2 , . . . , qp , with qk  0 and environmental impact. The weight vector of the
p
k=1 qk = 1. attributes is τ = (0.35, 0.25, 0.40), and correspond-
ing associated weight are ω = {0.5, 0.2, 0.3} . Now
507

508 Then, listed below the main technique of handling we can calculate the following spherical fuzzy num-
509 the MADM problems: ber decision matrix as
510 Step 1. In extensively, we have two kinds of cri- g1 g2 g3
511 terion one is said to be positive criteria and other c1 0.6, 0.6, 0.2 0.8, 0.4, 0.1 0.8, 0.2, 0.3
512 one said to be negative criteria. For negative crite- c2 0.8, 0.3, 0.2 0.5, 0.4, 0.3 0.4, 0.3, 0.4

f
513 rion, we need to modify the negative criteria into c3 0.4, 0.8, 0.2 0.6, 0.5, 0.2 0.5, 0.3, 0.6

roo
514 positive criteria. In this step we construct the
 spheri-
 c4 0.7, 0.1, 0.7 0.7, 0.5, 0.1 0.7, 0.3, 0.5
515
s
cal fuzzy decision making matrices, D = bjk s
m×n 546
516 (s = 1, 2, . . . n) for decision. If the criteria have
517 two types, such as positive (benefit) criteria and Step 1. Since the attributes are same type, so there is 547

518 negative (cost) criteria, then the spherical fuzzy no need to be normalized. 548

rP
519 decision matrices, Ds = bjk s can be converted Step 2. (Case:1) Utilizing the SFNWAA Operator to
m×n
into the normalized find out every value of the alternative ci as,
520
  spherical fuzzy decision matri-
s
ces, R R = rjk s s =
(s = 1, 2, . . . n) where rjk
521 e1 = 0.748, 0.349, 0.197
m×n
s e2 = 0.627, 0.322, 0.292

tho
bjk for benefit criteria
s is represents the
and bjk
522
s
bjk for cost criteria e3 = 0.499, 0.480, 0.310
523 compliment of the bjks . If all the criteria have the same e4 = 0.700, 0.232, 0.376
524 type, then there is no need of normalization.
(Case:2) Utilizing the SFNOWAA Operator to find
Au
525 Step 2. We accumulate the SFNs for every decision out every value of the alternative as, Firstly we need
526 maker which are given, then use the SFNWAA and score function of the each alternative
527 SFNWGA operators, discussed in Theorem [4.1.2. & g1 g2 g3
528 4.2.2.] to aggregate the spherical fuzzy information. c1 sc(c1 g1 ) = 0.60 sc(c1 g2 ) = 0.76 sc(c1 g3 ) = 0.76
529 Which help us to choose the best alternate in the set
c2 sc(c2 g1 ) = 0.76 sc(c2 g2 ) = 0.60 sc(c2 g3 ) = 0.56
d

530 of alternatives.
c3 sc(c3g1 ) = 0.46 sc(c3 g2 ) = 0.63 sc(c3 g3 ) = 0.53
Step 3. Calculating the score, accuracy and cer-
cte

531 c4 sc(c4g1 ) = 0.63 sc(c4 g2 ) = 0.70 sc(c4 g3 ) = 0.63

532 tainty function values respectively by utilizing the
549
533 Definition [3.2.1.] to helpful for ranking the given
Now we rank the alternative in descending order
534 alternatives.
according to the score values as,
535 Step 4. Arrange the values calculated by utilizing
rre

536 the comparison technique in Definition [3.1.2.] of the g1 g2 g3

537 all alternatives in the form of ascending order and eη(1) 0.8, 0.3, 0.2 0.8, 0.4, 0.1 0.8, 0.2, 0.3
538 select that alternative which has the highest value. eη(2) 0.7, 0.1, 0.7 0.7, 0.5, 0.1 0.7, 0.3, 0.5
539 Alternative which has the highest value that will be
eη(3) 0.6, 0.6, 0.2 0.6, 0.5, 0.2 0.4, 0.3, 0.4
co

540 our finest result or suitable alternative according to

541 decision makers. eη(4) 0.4, 0.8, 0.2 0.5, 0.4, 0.3 0.5, 0.3, 0.6

Now by utilizing the SFNOWAA Operator to find

Un

542 5.1. A Numerical example out every values of the alternative as,

543 This section describes a MADM problem, which is e1 = 0.800, 0.274, 0.197
544 utilized to illustrate the pertinence and effectiveness e2 = 0.700, 0.232, 0.376
545 for the procedure of decision making problems. e3 = 0.535, 0.434, 0.263
There are four manageable alternatives, (a) c1 is
car company; (b) c2 is food company; (c) c3 is e4 = 0.468, 0.454, 0.343
a computer company; (d) c4 is an arms company.
According to the attributes company takes the deci- (Case:3) Utilizing the SFNHOWAA Operator to
sion, (a) g1 is the risk; (b) g2 is the growth; (c) g3 is the find out every value of the alternative as, Firstly we
 S. Ashraf et al. / Spherical fuzzy sets and their applications 13

need an order decision  matrices. by utilizing

 follow- Definition [3.2.1.] as,
ing formula eη(k) , ek ek = nτk ek , k εN . where n is
sc(e1 ) = 0.72 ac(e1 ) = 0.53 cr(e1 ) = 0.72
the dimension of alternative and (τk : k ∈ N) are
corresponding weights. sc(e2 ) = 0.71 ac(e2 ) = 0.43 cr(e2 ) = 0.68
sc(e3 ) = 0.56 ac(e3 ) = 0.20 cr(e3 ) = 0.47
g1 g2 g3
eη(1) 3×0.5 × 0.6, 0.6, 0.2 3×0.2 × 0.8, 0.4, 0.1 3×0.3 × 0.8, 0.2, 0.3 sc(e4 ) = 0.69 ac(e4 ) = 0.24 cr(e4 ) = 0.70
eη(2) 3×0.5 × 0.8, 0.3, 0.2 3×0.2 × 0.5, 0.4, 0.3 3×0.3 × 0.4, 0.3, 0.4

f
eη(3) 3×0.5 × 0.4, 0.8, 0.2 3×0.2 × 0.6, 0.5, 0.2 3×0.3 × 0.5, 0.3, 0.6 Step 4. (Case:1) Now rank the all the alternative 552

roo
eη(4) 3×0.5 × 0.7, 0.1, 0.7 3×0.2 × 0.7, 0.5, 0.1 3×0.3 × 0.7, 0.3, 0.5 by utilizing the comparison technique in Definition 553

[3.2.2.] for SFNWAA operator as, 554

550

We multiply these scaler as in define multiplication sc(e1 ) = 0.73 > sc(e4 ) = 0.70 > sc(e2 ) 555

g1 g2 g3 = 0.66 > sc(e3 ) = 0.57. 556

rP
eη(1) 0.69, 0.46, 0.08 0.67, 0.57, 0.25 0.77, 0.23, 0.33 Thus, according to the scoring function rank- 557

eη(2) 0.88, 0.16, 0.08 0.39, 0.57, 0.48 0.38, 0.33, 0.43 ing method of spherical fuzzy sets for SFNWAA 558

eη(3) 0.47, 0.71, 0.08 0.48, 0.65, 0.38 0.47, 0.33, 0.63 operator, the ranking order of the suppliers ei (i = 559

eη(4) 0.79, 0.03, 0.58 0.57, 0.65, 0.25 0.67, 0.33, 0.53 1, 2, 3, 4) is generated as follows: e1 > e4 > e2 > 560

tho
e3 . The best supplier for the enterprise is e1 . 561

551 (Case:2) Now rank the all the alternative by utiliz- 562

Now by utilizing the SFNHOWAA Operator to find ing the comparison technique in Definition [3.2.2.] 563

out every value of the alternative as, for SFNOWAA operator as, 564

sc(e1 ) = 0.77 > sc(e2 ) = 0.69 > sc(e3 )

Au
e1 = 0.721, 0.367, 0.187
565

e2 = 0.681, 0.293, 0.245 = 0.61 > sc(e4 ) = 0.55 566

e3 = 0.472, 0.511, 0.269 so, by utilizing the Definition [3.2.2.], we obtained

e4 = 0.702, 0.168, 0.453 the result which is
d

e1 > e2 > e3 > e4

Step 3. (Case:1) Now we find out the score, accuracy and by using the SFNOWAA, e1 is the best choose.
cte

567
and certainty function values respectively by utilizing (Case:3) Now rank the all the alternative by utiliz- 568
the Definition [3.2.1.] as, ing the comparison technique in Definition [3.2.2.] 569

for SFNHOWAA operator as, 570

sc(e1 ) = 0.73 ac(e1 ) = 0.55 cr(e1 ) = 0.75 sc(e1 ) = 0.72 > sc(e2 ) = 0.71 > sc(e4 ) =
rre

sc(e2 ) = 0.66 ac(e2 ) = 0.34 cr(e2 ) = 0.63 0.66 > sc(e3 ) = 0.56
sc(e3 ) = 0.57 ac(e3 ) = 0.19 cr(e3 ) = 0.50 we obtained the result which is
sc(e4 ) = 0.70 ac(e4 ) = 0.32 cr(e4 ) = 0.70 e1 > e2 > e4 > e3
co

and by using the SFNHOWAA, e1 is the best

(Case:2) Now we find out the score, accuracy and choose.
certainty function values respectively by utilizing the Averaging Geometric
Definition [3.2.1.] as, AggregationOperators AggregationOperators
Un

Weighted e1 > e 4 > e 2 > e 3 e 1 > e4 > e 2 > e 3

sc(e1 ) = 0.77 ac(e1 ) = 0.60 cr(e1 ) = 0.80 Ordered e1 > e 2 > e 3 > e 4 e 1 > e2 > e3 > e4
e1 > e2 > e4 > e3 e 1 > e2 > e4 > e 3
sc(e2 ) = 0.69 ac(e2 ) = 0.32 cr(e2 ) = 0.70 HybridOrdered

sc(e3 ) = 0.61 ac(e3 ) = 0.27 cr(e3 ) = 0.53

571

It is observing that using proposed aggregation 572

sc(e4 ) = 0.55 ac(e4 ) = 0.12 cr(e4 ) = 0.46 operators of SFSs to aggregate the spherical fuzzy 573

information. To choose the best alternative which is 574

(Case:3) Now we find out the score, accuracy and e1 from the set of alternatives. As SFSs is generalized 575

certainty function values respectively by utilizing the as compared to FSs, IFSs, PyFS and PFSs and have 576
 14 S. Ashraf et al. / Spherical fuzzy sets and their applications

577 the ability to deal with real life problems more effec- Step 2. Utilizing the SFNWAA operator to find out
578 tively than the existing concepts as it is discussed every value of the alternative ci as,
579 to evaluation investment company to invest money
580 problem is effectively applied. e1 = 0.658, 0.349, 0.332
e2 = 0.602, 0.361, 0.331
e3 = 0.512, 0.480, 0.367
581 5.2. Validity and reliability test
e4 = 0.636, 0.232, 0.430

f
582 In particularly, to track the best capable alternative
Step 3. Now we find out the score, accuracy and

roo
583 from given group decision matrices are not probable
certainty function values respectively by utilizing the
584 in practically. Wang and Triantaphyllou [26] initiated
Definition [3.2.1.] as,
585 the test to evaluate the reliability and validity of the
586 MADM techniques. These testing criteria are follow sc(e1 ) = 0.66 ac(e1 ) = 0.32 cr(e1 ) = 0.65
587 as sc(e2 ) = 0.63 ac(e2 ) = 0.27 cr(e2 ) = 0.60

rP
588 Test Criteria No:1. An operative and valid MADM sc(e3 ) = 0.55 ac(e3 ) = 0.14 cr(e3 ) = 0.51
589 technique is that if we are substituting a non-optimal sc(e4 ) = 0.65 ac(e4 ) = 0.20 cr(e4 ) = 0.63
590 alternative in worse alternative by showing without
591 any change then this indication of the best capable Step 4. Now rank the all the alternative by utilizing

tho
609

592 alternative without shifting the comparative status of the comparison technique in Definition [3.2.2.] for 610

593 each decision criteria. SFNWAA operator as, 611

sc(e1 ) = 0.66 > sc(e4 ) = 0.65 > sc(e2 ) =

594 Test Criteria No:2. An operative and valid MADM
0.63 > sc(e3 ) = 0.55
595 method should be satisfied the transitive property.
we obtained the result which is
Au
Test Criteria No:3. When an MCGDM problem
e1 > e4 > e2 > e3
596

597 is transformed into smaller problems. To rank the

598 alternative, we apply similar technique on smaller and by using the SFNWAA, e1 is the best choose. 612

599 problems which utilized in MADM problem, a col-

lective alternative rank should be alike with original Validity and Reliability Test for suggested
d

600 613

601 rank of un-decomposed problem. approach utilizing Test Criteria No:2 & Test Cri- 614

The reliability and validity of the suggested aggre- teria 3.

cte

602 615

603 gation operator constructed by MADM technique is To test validity and reliability of suggested 616

604 test by utilizing these testing criteria. technique by utilizing test criterion 2 and 3, 617

we transformed MADM technique into three 618

605 Validity and Reliability Test for suggested smaller sub-problems as {e1 , e2 , e3 }, {e2 , e3 , e4 } 619
rre

606 approach utilizing Test Criteria No:1. and {e2 , e4 , e1 }. Then by following stages of the sug- 620

To examine effectiveness of the suggested gested technique, accordingly to each sub-problem 621

approach utilizing test criterion no 1, then these we suggest rank to their correspondences as e1 > 622

decision matrices are attained by exchanging the e4 > e2 , e4 > e2 > e3 and e1 > e2 > e3 respec- 623

degree of the membership (non-optimal alternative)

co

tively. After aggregating the inclusive rank, we 624

and non-membership (worse alternative) in the orig- attain e1 > e4 > e2 > e3 that is similar with original 625

inal decision matrices as follows, after that original MADM technique. Hence it displays the transitive 626

decision matrices are transform property. So, under test criterion 2 and 3 recognized 627
Un

by Wang and Triantaphyllou [26] the suggested tech- 628

0.6, 0.6, 0.2 0.1, 0.4, 0.8 0.8, 0.2, 0.3 nique is valid and reliable. 629

0.8, 0.3, 0.2 0.3, 0.4, 0.5 0.4, 0.4, 0.4

0.2, 0.8, 0.4 0.6, 0.5, 0.2 0.6, 0.3, 0.5 5.3. Comparative analysis 630

0.7, 0.1, 0.7 0.7, 0.5, 0.1 0.5, 0.3, 0.7

In order to verify the validity and effectiveness of 631

the suggested techniques, a comparative approach is 632

607 Step 1. Since the attributes are uniform so there is conductive using Pythagorean fuzzy TOPSIS method 633

608 no need to normalize. [30] and aggregation operators of PFS [12]. 634
 S. Ashraf et al. / Spherical fuzzy sets and their applications 15

635 A Comparison analysis with the Pythagorean satisfactory results in such situations where sum of 683

636 fuzzy TOPSIS. membership degrees is greater than 1, and chose the 684

637 These two approaches are valid to solve the best alternative from decision making problems. 685

638 MADM problems, TOPSIS method which proposed

639 by Hwang and Yoon [13] simple and useful method
640 to solve the MADM problems with crisp numbers, 6. Conclusion 686
641 which aims at choosing the alternative with the short-
642 est distance from the positive ideal solution (PIS) and Information aggregation procedure plays a

f
687
643 the farthest distance from the negative ideal solution dynamic role throughout the decision making

roo
688
644 (NIS). procedure and hence in this track, the comparative 689
645 According to Zhang and Xu [33], the first step is importance of the criteria remains unreformed in 690
646 to identify the Pythagorean fuzzy positive ideal solu- modified problems, then we proposed SFNWAA and 691
647 tion (PIS) and the Pythagorean fuzzy negative ideal SFNWGA operators has been executed to invention 692
648 solution (NIS) of the decision matrix, which are the best alternative. Almost all the researchers have

rP
693

649 P +
= {0.7665, 0.4530 , 0.8185, 0.4125 , operated the IFS by considering the positive and 694

negative membership degrees only. But, it has been 695

650 0.7635, 0.6165 , 0.8176, 0.5144} detected that in some circumstances, like in situation 696
651 of voting, human thoughts including more degrees 697

tho
as, yes, neutral, no, refusal, and in situation where
P − = {0.5375, 0.7254 , 0.4976, 0.7996 ,
698
652
the sum of membership degree is greater than 1, 699

653 0.4124, 0.7598 , 0.4884, 0.8439} which cannot be exactly characterized in IFS and 700

PFS respectively. For this circumstance, Spherical 701

654 The bigger is ζi is, the better the alternatives and fuzzy set, which is an extension of the PFS, has been 702
Au
655 the most desirable alternative is ζ2 as given below. utilized in the paper and correspondingly aggrega- 703
656 ζ1 = 0 : 5865; ζ2 = 0 : 8115; ζ3 = 0 : 4758; ζ4 = tion operators have been defined and used. Several 704
657 0 : 4164; ζ5 = 0 : 5700 required properties of these operators have also 705
658 The decision matrix utilized in this paper are not been explored in comprehensibly. Finally, based on 706
659 be solve as this above technique because in this paper these operators, a decision-making method has been 707
d

660 we utilize positive, neutral and negative member- established for ranking the dissimilar alternatives by 708
661 ship degrees that’s square sum is less or equal to 1. utilizing spherical fuzzy environment. The suggested 709
cte

662 Pythagorean fuzzy TOPSIS method fail to solve such technique has been demonstrated with a descriptive 710
663 problems. So, our proposed technique is reliable and example for viewing their effectiveness as well as 711
664 valid for such types of alternatives. reliability. A test to check the reliability and validity 712

has also been conducted for viewing the supremacy 713

665 A Comparison analysis with the Picture fuzzy
of the suggested technique. Thus, the suggested
rre

714
666 Sets.
operators provide a new direction to the information 715
667 Picture fuzzy set initialized by B. C. Cuong [9]
measure theory and give a new easier track to grip 716
668 and Picture fuzzy aggregation operators which were
the uncertainties throughout the decision-making 717
669 introduced by Harish Garg [12] are listed as, (1)
procedure. 718
co

670 Picture fuzzy weighted averaging operator, (2) Pic-

671 ture fuzzy ordered weighted averaging operator, (3)
672 Picture fuzzy hybrid averaging operator. By utiliz-
673 ing these aggregation operators, a decision making References 719
Un

674 technique proposed for picture fuzzy environment.

675 finally chose the best one alternative from decision [1] K. Atanassov, New operations defined over the intuitionistic 720

676 matrices. fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 61(2) (1994), 137–142. 721
[2] K. Atanassov, Intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Heidelberg: 722
677 The above proposed aggregation operators for PFS Springer, 1999. 723
678 deals with that real-life problem where sum of mem- [3] K. Atanassov, Intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Sys- 724

679 bership degrees are equals to 1. In situation where tems 20 (1986), 87–96. 725
[4] K. Atanassov and G. Gargov, Interval valued intuitionistic 726
680 sum of membership degrees exceeds 1, PFS fails
fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 31 (1989), 343–349. 727
681 to give satisfactory results in such situation. On the [5] K. Atanassov, Remark on intuitionistic fuzzy numbers, 728
682 other hand, technique proposed in this paper can give Notes on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets 13 (2007), 29–32. 729
 16 S. Ashraf et al. / Spherical fuzzy sets and their applications

730 [6] G. Beliakov, H. Bustince, D.P. Goswami, U.K. Mukherjee with multi-attribute group decision making, Applied Soft 781
731 and N.R. Pal, On averaging operators for Atanassov’s intu- Computing 62 (2018), 395–422. 782
732 itionistic fuzzy sets, Information Sciences 181(6) (2011), [21] A.A. Salama and F. Smarandache, Neutrosophic crisp prob- 783
733 1116–11124. ability theory and decision making process, Critical Review 784
734 [7] S. Broumi and F. Smarandache, Single valued neutrosophic XII (2016), 34–48. 785
735 trapezoid linguistic aggregation operators based multi- [22] C. Tan, A multi-criteria interval-valued intuitionistic 786
736 attribute decision making, Bulletin of Pure and Applied fuzzy group decision making with Choquet integral-based 787
737 Sciences 33E(2) (2014), 135–155. TOPSIS, Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011), 788
738 [8] S. Broumi, J. Ye and F. Smarandache, An extended top- 3023–3033. 789
739 ics method for multiple attribute decision making based on [23] Z.P. Tian, J. Wang, H.Y. Zhang, X.H. Chen and J.Q. Wang, 790

f
740 interval neutrosophic uncertain linguistic variables, Neutro- Simplied neutrosophic linguistic normalized weighted 791

roo
741 sophic Sets and Systems 8 (2015). Bonferroni mean operator and its application to multi- 792
742 [9] B.C. Cuong, Picture fuzzy sets first results. part 1, Seminar criteria decision-making problems, Filomat 30(12) (2016), 793
743 Neuro-Fuzzy Systems with Applications, Preprint 03/2013, 3339–3360. 794
744 Institute of Mathematics, Hanoi, 2013. [24] H. Wang and Y.Q. Zhang, Multi-criteria decision-making 795
745 [10] B.C. Cuong, Picture fuzzy sets, journal of computer science approach based on Atanassov’s intuitionistic fuzzy sets with 796
746 and cybernetics 30(4) (2001), 409–420. incomplete certain information on weights, IEEE Transac- 797

rP
747 [11] B. Farhadinia, A theoretical development on the entropy tions on Fuzzy Systems 21 (2013), 510–515. 798
748 of interval-valued fuzzy sets based on the intuitionis- [25] E. Wang and E. Triantaphyllou, Ranking irregularities when 799
749 tic distance and its relationship with similarity measure, evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods, 800
750 Knowledge-Based Systems 39 (2013), 79–84. Omega Int J Manag Sci 36 (2008), 45–63. 801
751 [12] H. Garg, Some Picture fuzzy aggregation operators and [26] G. Wei, Some cosine similarity measures for picture fuzzy 802
752 their applications to multicriteria decision-making, Ara- sets and their applications to strategic decision making, 803

tho
753 bian Journal for Science and Engineering 42(12) (2017), informatica 28(3) (2017), 547–564. 804
754 5275–5290. [27] Z.S. Xu, Approaches to multiple attribute group decision 805
755 [13] C.L. Hwang and K. Yoon, Multiple Attribute Decision Mak- making based on intuitionistic fuzzy power aggregation 806
756 ing Methods and Applications, Springer, New York, NY, operators, Knowledge-Based Systems 24 (2011), 749–760. 807
757 1981. [28] R.R. Yager, Pythagorean fuzzy subsets, In: Proc Joint IFSA 808
758 [14] H.W. Liu and G.J. Wang, Multi-criteria methods based World Congress and NAFIPS Annual Meeting, Edmonton, 809
Au
759 on intuitionistic fuzzy sets, European Journal Operational Canada, 2013, pp. 57–61. 810
760 Research 179(1) (2007), 220–233. [29] R.R. Yager and A.M. Abbasov, Pythagorean membership 811
761 [15] P. Liu and S.M. Chen, Multi-attribute group decision mak- grades, complex numbers, and decision making, Interna- 812
762 ing based on intuitionistic 2-tuple linguistic information, tional Journal of Intelligent System 28 (2014), 436–452. 813
763 Information Sciences 430–431 (2018), 599–619. [30] Y. Yang, H. Ding, Z.S. Chen and Y.L. Li, A note on exten- 814
764 [16] P. Liu and P. Wang, Some q-Rung orthopair fuzzy aggre- sion of TOPSIS to multiple criteria decision making with 815
765 gation operators and their applications to multiple-attribute pythagorean fuzzy sets, International Journal of Intelligent 816
d

766 decision making, International Journal of Intelligent Sys- System (2015), 1–5. 817
767 tems 33(2) (2018), 259–280. [31] L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Information and Control 8(3) 818
cte

768 [17] P. Liu and H. Li, Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy power (1965), 338–356. 819
769 Bonferroni aggregation operators and their application [32] H. Zhao, Z.S. Xu, M.F. Ni and S.S. Liu, Generalized aggre- 820
770 to group decision making, Cognitive Computation, 9(4) gation operator for intuitionistic fuzzy sets, International 821
771 (2017), 494–512. Journal of Intelligent Systems 25(1) (2010), 1–30. 822
772 [18] P. Liu, S.M. Chen and J. Liu, Multiple attribute group [33] X.L. Zhang and Z.S. Xu, Extension of TOPSIS to multi- 823
773 decision making based on intuitionistic fuzzy interaction ple criteria decision making with Pythagorean fuzzy sets, 824
rre

774 partitioned Bonferroni mean operators, Information Sci- International Journal of Intelligent Systems 29 (2014), 825
775 ences 411 (2017), 98–121. 1061–1078. 826
776 [19] P. Liu and S.M. Chen, Group decision making based [34] L.G. Zhou, Z.F. Tao, H.Y. Chen and J. Liu, Continuous 827
777 on Heronian aggregation operators of intuitionistic fuzzy interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators 828
778 numbers, IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics 47(9) (2017), and their applications to group decision making, Appl Math 829
co

779 2514–2530. Model 38 (2014), 2190–2205. 830

780 [20] P. Liu, J. Liu and J. M. Merigo, Partitioned Heronian means
based on linguistic intuitionistic fuzzy numbers for dealing
Un