Ranking Fuzzy Numbers With An Area Method Using Circumcenter of Centroids

Fuzzy Information and Engineering
ISSN: 1616-8658 (Print) 1616-8666 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tfie20
Ranking Fuzzy Numbers with an Area Method

Using Circumcenter of Centroids
P. Phani Bushan Rao & N. Ravi Shankar
To cite this article: P. Phani Bushan Rao & N. Ravi Shankar (2013) Ranking Fuzzy Numbers with
an Area Method Using Circumcenter of Centroids, Fuzzy Information and Engineering, 5:1, 3-18,
DOI: 10.1007/s12543-013-0129-1
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12543-013-0129-1
© 2013 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
Published online: 25 Jan 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 77
View related articles
Citing articles: 7 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tfie20
Fuzzy Inf. Eng. (2013) 1: 3-18
DOI 10.1007/s12543-013-0129-1
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Ranking Fuzzy Numbers with an Area Method Using

Circumcenter of Centroids
P. Phani Bushan Rao · N. Ravi Shankar
Received: 7 July 2011/ Revised: 25 November 2012/

Accepted: 21 December 2012/
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg and Fuzzy Information and Engineering Branch of the Operations
Research Society of China
2013
Abstract This paper proposes a new method for ranking fuzzy numbers based on
the area between circumcenter of centroids of a fuzzy number and the origin. The pro-
posed method not only uses an index of optimism, which reflects the decision maker’s
optimistic attitude but also makes use of an index of modality which represents the
importance of mode and spreads. This method ranks various types of fuzzy numbers
which includes normal, generalized trapezoidal and triangular fuzzy numbers along
with crisp numbers which are a special case of fuzzy numbers. Some numerical ex-
amples are presented to illustrate the validity and advantages of the proposed method.
Keywords Fuzzy numbers · Centroid points · Circumcenter · Ranking function ·

Index of optimism · Index of modality
1. Introduction
Ranking of fuzzy numbers plays a vital role in real time applications, especially in
decision making. Hence there is a need for an apt procedure to rank fuzzy numbers in
all conditions. Ranking of fuzzy numbers relies on bringing out several characteristics
from fuzzy numbers like a centroid, an area bounded by the membership function
or several points of intersection between fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy ranking methods
bring out a specific characteristic from each fuzzy number and orders them basing on
that characteristic feature. Hence, ranking of fuzzy numbers is made more complex
because different ranking methods give different ranking orders for the same set of
fuzzy numbers.
P. Phani Bushan Rao ()

Department of Mathematics, GITAM Institute of Technology, GITAM University, Visakhapatnam, Andhra
Pradesh-530045, India
email: peddipb@yahoo.com
N. Ravi Shankar
GITAM Institute of Science, GITAM University, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-530045, India
4 P. Phani Bushan Rao · N. Ravi Shankar (2013)
Several researchers came up with different techniques for ranking fuzzy numbers,
but still a method to rank all types of fuzzy numbers under different existing condi-
tions is a quest. In fuzzy decision analysis, fuzzy quantities are used to describe the
performance of alternatives in modelling a real world problem. Fuzzy numbers being
represented by possibility distributions, there are chances of them getting overlapped
with each other, hence discriminating them becomes a more complex task than dis-
criminating real numbers where a natural order exists between them. In problems
like fuzzy risk analysis, fuzzy optimization, and so on where fuzzy set theory is used,
at one or the other stage, fuzzy numbers must be ranked before an action taken by a
decision maker.
In 1965, Zadeh [1] introduced the theory of fuzzy sets. Ranking fuzzy numbers
was first proposed by Jain in the year 1977 for decision making in fuzzy situations by
representing the ill-defined quantity as a fuzzy set. Jain [2, 3] proposed a method us-
ing the concept of maximizing set to order the fuzzy numbers and the decision maker
considered only the right side membership functions. Since then various procedures
to rank fuzzy quantities are proposed by various researchers. Chen [7] presented
ranking fuzzy numbers with maximizing set and minimizing set. Kim and Park [8]
presented a method of ranking fuzzy numbers with index of optimism. Liou and
Wang [9] presented ranking fuzzy numbers with integral value. Choobineh and Li
[10] presented an index for ordering fuzzy numbers. Since then several methods have
been proposed by various researchers including the ranking of fuzzy numbers using
area compensation, distance method, decomposition principle and signed distance
[11-13]. Wang and Kerre [14, 15] classified the ranking procedures into three classes.
The first class consists of ranking procedures based on fuzzy mean and spread and
second class includes ranking procedures based on fuzzy scoring whereas the third
class contains methods based on preference relations and concluded that the order-
ing procedures associated with first class are relatively reasonable for the ordering of
fuzzy numbers. Later on, ranking fuzzy numbers by left and right dominance [16],
area between the centroid point and original point [17], sign distance [18], distance
minimization [19] came into existence. Later in 2007, Garcia and Lamata [20] mod-
ified the index of Liou and Wang [9] for ranking fuzzy numbers by stating that the
index of optimism is not alone sufficient to discriminate fuzzy numbers and proposed
an index of modality to rank fuzzy numbers. In 2011, Rao and Shankar [22] proposed
a fuzzy ranking method based on circumcenter of centroids and index of modality
which allows the participation of decision makers in ranking fuzzy numbers.
In this paper, a new method is proposed, based on circumcenter of centroids to
rank fuzzy quantities. Assuming a trapezoidal fuzzy number as a trapezoid, a ref-
erential triangle is constructed by splitting the trapezoid into three parts which are a
triangle, a rectangle and a triangle respectively. Then the centroids of these three parts
are calculated followed by the calculation of the circumcenter of these centroids. A
ranking function is defined which is the area between the circumcenter point of the
given generalized trapezoidal fuzzy numbers and the origin to rank fuzzy numbers.
Centroid of trapezoid is used as reference point for most of the ranking procedures
proposed in literature, as the centroid is a balancing point of the trapezoid. But the
circumcenter of centroids can be considered a better balancing point as this point is
Fuzzy Inf. Eng. (2013) 1: 3-18 5
equidistant from all the vertices which are centroids. Further, the method, an index of
optimism, is used to reflect the decision maker’s optimistic attitude and also an index
of modality is used that represents the importance of using mode and spreads of fuzzy
numbers.
The work is organized as follows. Section 2 briefly introduces the basic concepts
and definitions of fuzzy numbers. Section 3 presents the proposed new method. In
Section 4, a procedure to rank fuzzy numbers is presented. In Section 5, by consid-
ering some numerical examples, a comparative study is made with few methods of
literature. In Section 6, the method is validated and finally the conclusions of the
work are presented in Section 7.
2. Preliminaries
In this section, some basic concepts of fuzzy numbers, arithmetic operations and few
existing methods for ranking fuzzy numbers are reviewed.
2.1. Fuzzy Sets-basic Definitions
In this subsection, some basic definitions of fuzzy numbers are reviewed from [27].
Definition 2.1 Let U be a universe of discourse. A fuzzy set Ã of U is defined by
a membership function fÃ : U → [0, 1], where fÃ (x) is the degree of x in Ã and is
represented as Ã = {(x, fÃ (x))/xU}.
Definition 2.2 A fuzzy set Ã defined on the universe set U happens to be normal iff
S up xU fÃ (x) = 1.
Definition 2.3 A fuzzy set Ã of universe
set U
is said to be convex iff
fÃ (λx + (1 − λ)y) ≥ min fÃ (x), fÃ (y) ∀x, yU and λ[0, 1].
Definition 2.4 A fuzzy set Ã of universe set U is a fuzzy number iff Ã is normal and
convex on U.
Definition 2.5 A real fuzzy number Ã is described as any fuzzy subset of the real line
R with membership function fÃ (x) possessing the following properties:
1) fÃ is a continuous mapping from R to the closed interval [0, wÃ ], 0 ≤ wÃ ≤ 1.

2) fÃ (x) = 0 for all x (−∞, a) (d, ∞).
3) fÃ (x) is strictly increasing on [a, b].
4) fÃ (x) = 1 for all x [b, c].
5) fÃ (x) is strictly decreasing on [c, d], where a, b, c, d are real numbers.
Definition 2.6 The membership function of the real fuzzy number Ã is given by
⎧ L
⎪
⎪
⎪ fÃ (x), a ≤ x ≤ b,
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ wÃ , b ≤ x ≤ c,
fÃ (x) = ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ f R
(x), c ≤ x ≤ d,
⎪
⎪
⎪
Ã
⎩ 0, otherwise,
where 0 ≤ wÃ ≤ 1 is a constant, a, b, c, d are real numbers and fÃL : [a, b] →

[0, wÃ ], fÃR : [c, d] → [0, wÃ ] are two strictly monotonic and continuous functions
from R to the closed interval [0, wÃ ]. It is customary to write a fuzzy number as
Ã = (a, b, c, d; wÃ ). If wÃ = 1, then Ã = (a, b, c, d; 1) is a normalized fuzzy number,
otherwise Ã is said to be a generalized or non-normal fuzzy number. If the mem-
bership function is fÃ (x) piecewise linear, then Ã is said to be a trapezoidal fuzzy
number.
Definition 2.7 The membership function of a trapezoidal fuzzy number is given by
⎧
⎪
⎪
⎪ wÃ (x − a)
⎪
⎪
⎪ , a ≤ x ≤ b,
⎪
⎪
⎪ b−a
⎪
⎪
⎨ wÃ , b ≤ x ≤ c,
fÃ (x) = ⎪
⎪ −
⎪
⎪
⎪
w Ã (x d)
⎪
⎪ , c ≤ x ≤ d,
⎪
⎪
⎪ c−d
⎪
⎩ 0, otherwise.
If wÃ = 1, then Ã = (a, b, c, d; 1) is a normalized trapezoidal fuzzy number and Ã is a

generalized trapezoidal fuzzy number if 0 ≤ wÃ ≤ 1 as shown in Fig.1.

Fig. 1 Trapezoidal fuzzy number
Definition 2.8 The image of Ã = (a, b, c, d : wÃ ) is −Ã = (−d, −c, −b, −a; wÃ ). If
a = b, c = d and wÃ = 1, then Ã is called a crisp interval. If a = b = c = d and
wÃ = 1, then Ã is called a crisp value. As a particular case, if b = c, the trape-
zoidal fuzzy number reduces to a triangular fuzzy number given by Ã = (a, b, d; wÃ )
as shown in Fig.2.

Fig. 2 Triangular fuzzy number
Fuzzy Inf. Eng. (2013) 1: 3-18 7
If wÃ = 1, then Ã = (a, b, d) is a normalized triangular fuzzy number and Ã =

(a, b, d, wÃ ) is a generalized or non-normal triangular fuzzy number if 0 ≤ wÃ ≤ 1.
2.2. Arithmetic Operations between Fuzzy Numbers
In this subsection, arithmetic operations between two generalized fuzzy numbers are
reviewed from Chen and Chen [25]. Assume that Ã = (a1 , b1 , c1 , d1 ; wÃ ) and B̃ =
(a2 , b2 , c2 , d2 ; wB̃ ) are two generalized trapezoidal fuzzy numbers.
1) Fuzzy numbers addition ⊕:
Ã ⊕ B̃ = a1 + a2 , b1 + b2 , c1 + c2 , d1 + d2 ; min(wÃ , wB̃ ) .
2) Fuzzy numbers
subtraction :
Ã B̃ = a1 − d2 , b1 − c2 , c1 − b2 , d1 − a2 ; min(wÃ , wB̃ ) .
3) Fuzzy numbers
multiplication ⊗:

Ã ⊗ B̃ = a, b, c, d; min(wÃ , wB̃ ) , where
a = min(a1 × a2 , a1 × d2 , d1 × a2 , d1 × d2 ),
b = min(b1 × b2 , b1 × c2 , c1 × b2 , c1 × c2 ),
c = max(b1 × b2 , b1 × c2 , c1 × b2 , c1 × c2 ) and
d = max(a1 × a2 , a1 × d2 , d1 × a2 , d1 × d2 ).
4) Fuzzy numbers
division
:
Ã
B̃ = a1 /d2 , b1 /c2 , c1 /b2 , d1 /a2 ; min(wÃ , wB̃ ) .
5) Multiplication
⎧ by a scalar k:
⎪
⎪
⎨ (ka1 , kb1 , kc1 , kd1 ; wÃ ), k > 0,
k Ã = ⎪
⎪
⎩ (kd1 , kc1 , kb1 , ka1 ; wÃ ), k < 0.
2.3. A Review of Some Existing Methods for Ranking Fuzzy Numbers
In this subsection, few existing methods for ranking of fuzzy numbers are reviewed
such as Cheng [12], Chu and Tsao [17], Liou and Wang [9] and Garcia and Lamata
[20].
2.3.1. Cheng’s Fuzzy Ranking Method
Cheng [12] proposed a centroid-index ranking method for calculating the centroid
point ( x¯0 , y¯0 ) of each fuzzy number Ã = (a, b, c, d; w). The centroid point ( x¯0 , y¯0 ) is
given by
w(d2 − 2c2 + 2b2 − a2 + dc − ab) + 3(c2 − b2 )
( x¯0 , y¯0 ) = ,
3w(d − c + b − a) + 6(c

− b)
w 2(b + c − a − d) + 3(a + d)w
.
3 (b + c − a − d) + 3(a + d)w

Cheng proposed a ranking function R(Ã) = x¯0 2 + y¯0 2 , which is the distance from
centroid point and the origin. The larger the value of R(Ã), the better is the ranking
of Ã. Cheng’s method cannot rank crisp fuzzy numbers because the denominator
becomes zero for crisp fuzzy numbers, hence his centroid formulae is undefined for
crisp numbers.
2.3.2. Chu and Tsao’s Fuzzy Ranking Method
Chu and Tsao [17] presented a method for ranking fuzzy numbers based on a ranking
function R(Ã) = x¯0 y¯0 which is the area between the centroid point ( x¯0 , y¯0 ) of each
fuzzy number Ã = (a, b, c, d; w) and original point. Chu and Tsao’s centroid formula
is given by
w(d2 − 2c2 + 2b2 − a2 + dc − ab) + 3(c2 − b2 ) w (b + c)
( x¯0 , y¯0 ) = , 1+ .
3w(d − c + b − a) + 6(c − b) 3 a+b+c+d
The larger the value of R(Ã), the better is the ranking of Ã. Chu and Tsao’s centroid
formulae cannot rank crisp numbers which are a special case of fuzzy numbers, as
can be seen from the above formulae that the denominator in the first coordinate of
their centroid formulae is zero, hence his centroid formulae is undefined for crisp
numbers.
2.3.3. Liou and Wang’s Fuzzy Ranking Method
Liou and Wang [9] ranked fuzzy numbers with total integral value. For a fuzzy num-
ber Ã = (a, b, c, d; w), the total integral value is defined as
ITα (Ã) = αIR (Ã) + (1 − α)IL (Ã),

1 1
where IR (Ã) = 0 gRÃ (y)dy and IL (Ã) = 0 gLÃ (y)dy are the right and left integral values
of Ã respectively and α[0, 1] is the index of optimism which represents the degree
of optimism from a decision maker. If α = 0, the total integral value represents a
pessimistic decision maker’s view point and is equal to left integral value. If α = 1,
the total integral value represents an optimistic decision maker’s view point and is
equal to the right integral value and when α = 0.5, the total integral value represents
a moderate decision maker’s view point and is equal to the mean of right and left
integral values. For a decision maker, the larger the value of α, the higher is the
degree of optimism.
2.3.4. Garcia and Lamata’s Fuzzy Ranking Method
Garcia and Lamata [20] modified the index of Liou and Wang [9] for ranking fuzzy
numbers. This method, an index of optimism, is used to reflect the decision maker’s
optimistic attitude, and also an index of modality is used to represent the neutrality
of the decision maker. For a fuzzy number Ã = (a, b, d; w), Garcia and Lamata [20]
proposed an index associated with the ranking as the convex combination Iβ,α (Ã) =
βS M (Ã) + (1 − β)ITα (Ã), where S M (Ã) is the area of the core of the fuzzy number
which is equal to ‘b’ for a triangular fuzzy number defined by Ã = (a, b, c, d; w)
and the average value of the plateau for a trapezoidal fuzzy number given by Ã =
(a, b, c, d; w), β[0, 1] is the index of modality that represents the importance of cen-
tral value against the extreme values, α[0, 1] is the degree of optimism of the decision
maker and ITα (Ã) = αIR (Ã) + (1 − α)IL (Ã).
3. Propose Method for Ranking Fuzzy Numbers Based on Circumcenter of Cen-
troids
In this section, a new method for ranking fuzzy numbers is proposed. This method
unifies the concepts such as centroids, circumcenter of centroids, index of optimism
Fuzzy Inf. Eng. (2013) 1: 3-18 9
(Liou and Wang [9]) and index of modality (Garcia and Lamata [20]). The centroid
of a trapezoid is considered the balanceing point of the trapezoid (Fig.3).

Fig. 3 Circumcenter of centroids

Assuming a trapezoidal fuzzy number as a trapezoid, divide the trapezoid into three
plane figures. These three plane figures are a triangle (APB), a rectangle (BPQC) and
again a triangle (CQD) respectively. The circumcenter of the centroids of these three
plane figures is taken as the point of reference to define the ranking of generalized
fuzzy numbers. The reason for selecting this point as a point of reference is that each
centroid point (G1 of triangle APB, G2 of rectangle BPQC and G3 of triangle CQD)
is a balancing point of each individual plane figure and the circumcenter of these
centroid points is equidistant from each vertex (which are centroids). Therefore, this
point would be a better reference point than a centroid point of the trapezoid. Con-
sider a generalized trapezoidal fuzzy number Ã = (a, b, c, d; w), the centroids of the
three plane figures are G1 = ( a+2b
3 , 3 ), G 2 = ( 2 , 2 ) and G 3 = ( 3 3 ), respectively.
w b+c w 2c+d w
−−−−→ −−−−→
Equation of the line G1G3 is y = w3 and G2 does not lie on the line G1G3 . There-
fore, G1 , G2 and G3 are non-collinear and they form a triangle.
We define the circumcenter SÃ ( x¯0 , y¯0 ) of the triangle with vertices G1 , G2 and G3
of the generalized trapezoidal fuzzy number Ã = (a, b, c, d; w) as
a + 2b + 2c + d (2a + b − 3c)(2d + c − 3b) + 5w2
S Ã ( x¯0 , y¯0 ) = , . (1)
6 12w
As a special case, for triangular fuzzy number Ã = (a, b, d; w), i.e., c = b, the circum-
center of centroids is given by
a + 4b + d 4(a − b)(d − b) + 5w2
S Ã ( x¯0 , y¯0 ) = , . (2)
6 12w
4. Ranking Procedure
An efficient way to rank fuzzy numbers is defuzzification. In this section, the pro-
cedure involved in ranking fuzzy quantities using the process of defuzzification is
presented.
Consider a set of n generalized trapezoidal fuzzy numbers Ãi = (ai , bi , ci , di ; wi ), i =

1, 2, · · · , n. For any decision maker whether pessimistic (α = 0), optimistic (α = 1)
or neutral (α = 0.5), the ranking value of the trapezoidal fuzzy number is defined by
a ranking function which associates a real number to each trapezoidal fuzzy number
Ãi with circumcenter of centroids SÃi ( x¯0 , y¯0 ) defined by (1). This is given by
R(Ãi ) = ( x¯0 )Ãi .(y¯0 )Ãi . (3)
This represents the area between the circumcenter of centroids for the generalized
trapezoidal fuzzy number Ãi and the origin. The larger is the value of R(Ãi ), 1, 2, · · · , n,
the bigger is the fuzzy number Ãi . As this area is not sufficient to discriminate fuzzy
numbers in all situations, the following areas are also used to discriminate fuzzy num-
bers.
Areas associated with mode, total spread, left spread, right spread
For any generalized trapezoidal fuzzy number Ãi = (ai , bi , ci , di ; wi ), i = 1, 2, · · · , n,
the areas associated with mode and spreads are defined as follows:
b+c
Area associated with mode or central value is defined as MA (Ãi ) = w( ).
2
Total spread area is defined as T S A (Ãi ) = w(d − a).
Left spread area is defined as LS A (Ãi ) = w(b − a).
Right spread area is defined as RS A (Ãi ) = w(d − c).

Remark 1 For generalized trapezoidal fuzzy number Ãi = (ai , bi , ci , di ; wi ), i =
1, 2, · · · , n, with circumcenter of centroids SÃi ( x¯0 , y¯0 ) defined by (1), we define the
index associated with the ranking as
Iα (Ãi ) = α(y¯0 )Ãi + (1 − α)( x¯0 )Ãi , (4)
where α[0, 1] is the index of optimism which represents the degree of optimism of a
decision maker. The larger the value of α is, the higher the degree of optimism of the
decision maker. The index of optimism alone is not sufficient to discriminate fuzzy
numbers as this uses only the coordinates of the circumcenter of centroids. Hence,
we upgrade this by using an index of modality which represents the importance of
areas associated with central value and spreads along with index of optimism.
Remark 2 For a generalized trapezoidal fuzzy number Ãi = (ai , bi , ci , di ; wi ), i =
1, 2, · · · , n, with circumcenter of centroids SÃi ( x¯0 , y¯0 ) defined by (1), we define the
index associated with the ranking as
1
Iβ,α (Ãi ) = βMA (Ãi ) + (1 − β)Iα (Ãi ), (5)
2
Iβ,α (Ãi ) = βT S A (Ãi ) + (1 − β)Iα (Ãi ), (6)
3
Iβ,α (Ãi ) = βLS A (Ãi ) + (1 − β)Iα (Ãi ), (7)
Fuzzy Inf. Eng. (2013) 1: 3-18 11
4
Iβ,α (Ãi ) = βRS A (Ãi ) + (1 − β)Iα (Ãi ), (8)
where β[0, 1] is the index of modality which represents the importance of area asso-
ciated with central value and the area associated with spreads against the coordinates
of circumcenter x¯0 and y¯0 .
4.1. Working Rule to Rank Fuzzy Numbers
Suppose that given a set of n fuzzy numbers S̃ = (A˜1 , A˜2 , · · · , Añ ) which are to be
ranked. The mapping from the set Ã into the real line is defined as:
R : Ãi → R(Ãi ) = ( x¯0 )Ã .(y¯0 )Ãi , i = 1, 2, · · · , n. (9)
Using (3) calculate the ranking indexes R(A˜1 ), R(A˜2 ), · · · , R(Añ ), of the fuzzy num-
bers A˜1 , A˜2 , · · · , Añ . The larger the value of R(Ãi ) where i = 1, 2, · · · , n, the better the
ranking of Ãi is. Hence for two fuzzy numbers Ãi and Ã j ,
If R(Ãi ) > R(Ã j ), then Ãi > Ã j .
If R(Ãi ) < R(Ã j ), then Ãi < Ã j .
If R(Ãi ) = R(Ã j ), then discrimination of fuzzy numbers is not possible. In such
cases, use (5) to rank fuzzy numbers. The larger the value of Iβ,α 1
(Ãi ), i = 1, 2, · · · , n,
the better the ranking of Ãi is.
1
If Iβ,α (Ãi ) = Iβ,α 1
(Ã j ); i j, then use (6) to rank fuzzy numbers. The larger the
value of Iβ,α (Ãi ), i = 1, 2, · · · , n, the better the ranking of Ãi is.
2
2
3
3
4
4
(Ã j ); i j, then the fuzzy number with larger value of wÃi is
ranked higher.
5. Comparative Study
In this section, the ranking results of various existing methods Yager’s method [6],
Murakami et al’s method [23], Liou and Wang’s method [9], Fortemps and Roubens’s
method [11], Cheng’s method [12], Chen and Lu’s method [16], Chu and Tsao’s
method [17] , Asady and Zendehnam’s method [19], Wang et al’s method [21], Chen
and Chen’s method [25], Deng and Liu’s method [24] and Chen and Chen’s method
[26] are compared with proposed method. These are studied in three cases.
Comparative study-Case I
In this case, four fuzzy numbers are considered and the proposed method is compared
with the ranking results of Yager [6], Fortemps and Roubens [11], Liou and Wang [9]
and Chen and Lu [16] and the results are shown in Table 1.
Consider the four normal fuzzy numbers
A1 = (0.1, 0.2, 0.3); A2 = (0.2, 0.5, 0.8); A3 = (0.3, 0.4, 0.9); A4 = (0.6, 0.7, 0.8)
as shown in Fig.4.

Fig. 4 Set of four fuzzy numbers
By using the proposed method, we have the following:

S A1 ( x¯0 , y¯0 ) = (0.2, 0.4133), S A2 ( x¯0 , y¯0 ) = (0.5, 0.3866),
S A3 ( x¯0 , y¯0 ) = (0.4666, 0.4), S A4 ( x¯0 , y¯0 ) = (0.7, 0.413),
R(A1 ) = 0.0826, R(A2 ) = 0.01933, R(A3 ) = 0.1866, R(A4 ) = 0.2893
⇒ A4 > A2 > A3 > A1 .
Table 1: Comparison results of various ranking methods.
Method \ Fuzzy number A1 A2 A3 A4
Yager [6] 0.20 0.50 0.50 0.70

Fortemps and Roubens [11] 0.20 0.50 0.50 0.70
Liou and Wang [9]
α=1 0.25 0.65 0.65 0.75
α = 0.5 0.20 0.50 0.50 0.75
α=0 0.15 0.35 0.35 0.65
Chen and Lu [6]
α=1 -0.20 0.00 0.00 -0.20
α = 0.5 -0.20 0.00 0.00 -0.20
α=0 -0.20 0.00 0.00 -0.20
Proposed method 0.0826 0.1933 0.1866 0.2893
From Table 1, we can see that Yager’s method [6], Fortemps and Roubens’ method
[11], Liou and Wang’s method [9], Chen and Lu’s [16] method failed to discriminate
the fuzzy numbers A2 , A3 and Chen and Lu’s method [16] even failed to discriminate
fuzzy numbers A1 , A4 , whereas, the proposed method properly discriminated fuzzy
numbers appropriately.
Comparative study-Case II
In this case, three sets of fuzzy numbers are adopted from (Deng and Liu [24]) as
shown in Fig.5. The proposed method is compared with the ranking results of Yager
Fuzzy Inf. Eng. (2013) 1: 3-18 13
[6], Murakami et al [23] and Cheng [12], Chen and Chen [25], Deng and Liu [24]
and Chen and Chen [26] and the results are shown in Table 2.

Fig. 5 Three sets of fuzzy numbers (Deng and Liu [24])
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3

Method \ Fuzzy number Ã B̃ C̃ Ã B̃ Ã B̃
Yager [6] 0.3 0.3 – 0.3 -0.3 – –

Murakami et al [23] 0.3 0.3 – 0.3 -0.3 – –
Cheng [12] 0.5831 0.5831 – 0.5831 0.5831 – –
Chen and Chen [25] 1.2359 1.2674 2 1.2359 0.6359 0.989 0.99
Deng and Liu [24] 0.6214 0.6244 1 0.6214 0.3756 0.505 0.495
Chen and Chen [26] 0.4456 0.4728 0.8602 0.7473 0.4456 0.4 0.5
Proposed method 0.1207 0.1239 0.4166 0.1209 -0.1209 0.0033 -0.0041
From Table 2, the observations for the fuzzy numbers are

Set 1: Yager’s method [6], Murakami et al’s method [23] and Cheng’s method [12]
fail to discriminate fuzzy numbers Ã and B̃ and fail to calculate the ranking value of
the fuzzy number C̃, whereas, the ranking order of the proposed method and other
methods are the same, i.e., Ã < B̃ < C̃.
Set 2: Cheng’s method [12] failed to discriminate the fuzzy numbers Ã and B̃,
whereas, the ranking order of the proposed method and other methods are the same,
i.e., Ã > B̃.

Set 3: Yager’s method [6], Murakami et al’s method [23], Cheng’s method [12] failed
to calculate the ranking value of the fuzzy numbers Ã and B̃, the ranking orders of
Chen and Chen [25], Chen and Chen [26] are Ã < B̃ and Deng and Liu [24] and the
proposed method are Ã > B̃.
Comparative study-Case III
In this case, four sets of fuzzy numbers are adopted from (Asady and Zendehnam
[19]) as shown in Fig.6. The proposed method is compared with the ranking results
of Yager [6], Chu and Tsao [17], Asady and Zendehnam [19], Chen [7], Wang et al
[28] and the results are shown in Table 3.

Fig. 6 Four sets of fuzzy numbers (Asady and Zendehnam [19])

Set 1: The ranking order of the proposed method is in coincidence with other meth-
ods, i.e., A1 < A2 < A3 .
Set 2: The ranking order of Wang et al [28] is A2 < A3 < A1 , whereas the ranking
order of the proposed method coincides with other methods, i.e., A1 < A2 < A3 .
Set 3: Asady and Zendehnam’s method [19] failed to discriminate fuzzy numbers
A1 and A2 , whereas the ranking order of the proposed method coincides with other
methods, i.e., A1 < A2 .
Set 4: Yager’s method [6], Chu and Tsao’s method [17], Asady and Zendehnam’s
Fuzzy Inf. Eng. (2013) 1: 3-18 15
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4
Methods A1 A2 A3 A1 A2 A3 A1 A2 A1 A2
Yager [6] 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.575 0.65 0.7 0.525 0.55 0.5 0.5
Chen [7] 0.337 0.5 0.667 0.431 0.562 0.625 0.57 0.625 0.5 0.5
Chu et al [17] 0.299 0.35 0.399 0.287 0.324 0.35 262 0.261 0.25 0.25
Asady et al [19] 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.575 0.65 0.7 0.525 0.525 0.5 0.5
Wang et al [28] 0.211 0.233 0.255 0.256 0.211 0.233 0.177 0.166 0.188 0.188
Proposed method 0.234 0.270 0.333 0.173 0.259 0.282 0.218 0.248 0.193 0.206
method [19] and Wang et al’s method [28] failed to discriminate the fuzzy numbers
A1 and A2 , whereas the proposed method discriminates the two given fuzzy numbers
and gives the correct ranking order, i.e., A1 < A2 .
Comparative study-Case IV
In this case, six sets of fuzzy numbers are adopted from (Chen and Chen [25]) as
shown in Fig.7. The proposed method is compared with the ranking results of Yager
[6], Murakami et al [23], Cheng [12], Chu and Tsao [17] and Chen and Chen [25],
and the results are shown in Table 4.
Fig. 7 Six sets of fuzzy numbers (Chen and Chen [25])

Sets 1 2 3
Method \ Fuzzy number Ã B̃ Ã B̃ Ã B̃
Yager [6] 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.5

Murakami et al [23] 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.42 0.6 0.6
Cheng [12] 0.58 0.71 0.58 0.58 0.77 0.72
Chu and Tsao [17] 0.15 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.29 0.26
Chen and Chen [25] 0.45 0.49 0.42 0.45 0.41 0.40
Proposed method 0.12 0.20 0.11 0.12 0.21 0.21
α=0 0.55-0.05β 0.6
α=1 0.38+0.12β 0.38+0.22β
α = 0.5 0.47+0.03β 0.49+0.11β
Sets 4 5 6
Method \ Fuzzy number Ã B̃ Ã B̃ Ã B̃ C̃
Yager [6] 0.3 0.3 0.3 – 0.44 0.53 0.52

Murakami et al [23] 0.23 0.3 0.42 – 0.44 0.53 0.52
Cheng [12] 0.46 0.54 0.42 – 0.68 0.72 0.75
Chu and Tsao [17] 0.12 0.15 0.15 – 0.23 0.26 0.28
Chen and Chen [25] 0.36 0.44 0.42 0.86 0.37 0.41 0.40
Proposed method 0.07 0.12 0.11 0.42 0.14 0.19 0.20

Set 1: The ranking order of the proposed method is in coincidence with other meth-
ods, i.e., Ã < B̃.
Set 2: Yager’s method [6], Cheng’s method [12] and Chu and Tsao’s method [17]
failed to discriminate the fuzzy numbers Ã and B̃. The ranking order of other meth-
ods and the proposed method are the same, i.e., Ã < B̃.
Set 3: The ranking order of all the methods is Ã > B̃, whereas the proposed method
initially failed to discriminate the fuzzy numbers Ã and B̃, but by taking into consid-
eration the decision maker’s choice and index of modality, we see that ranking order
of the proposed method is Ã < B̃, where β[0, 1].
Set 4: Yager’s method [6] failed to discriminate the fuzzy numbers Ã and B̃, whereas
the ranking order of the proposed method is in coincidence with other methods, i.e.,
Ã < B̃.
Set 5: Yager’s method [6], Murakami et al’s method [23], Cheng’s method [12] and
Chu and Tsao’s method [17] failed to calculate the ranking value of the fuzzy num-
Fuzzy Inf. Eng. (2013) 1: 3-18 17
bers, whereas the ranking order of Chen and Chen’s method [25] and the proposed
method are the same, i.e., Ã < B̃.
Set 6: Yager’s method [6], Murakami et al’s method [23], Chen and Chen’s method
[25] get the ranking order which is Ã < C̃ < B̃, whereas the ranking order of the
proposed method and other methods are the same, i.e., Ã < B̃ < C̃.
6. Validation of the Proposed Ranking Function
The proposed ranking function is valid as it satisfies the reasonable properties for
ordering fuzzy quantities proposed by Wang et al [14].
7. Conclusion
This paper proposes a method that ranks fuzzy numbers which is simple and concrete.
This method ranks trapezoidal as well as triangular fuzzy numbers and their images.
It also ranks crisp numbers which are special case of fuzzy numbers. Besides the de-
cision maker’s degree of optimism, an index of modality representing the importance
of mode and spreads against the coordinates of centroid, is used in ranking fuzzy
numbers. This method which is simple in calculation not only gives satisfactory re-
sults to well defined problems, but also gives a correct ranking order and agrees with
human intuition.
Acknowledgments
Authors would like to thank referees for their helpful comments.
References
1. Zadeh L A (1965) Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8: 338-353
2. Jain R (1976) Decision making in the presence of fuzzy variables. IEEE Transactions on Systems,
Man and Cybernetics 6: 698-703
3. Jain R (1978) A procedure for multi-aspect decision making using fuzzy sets. International Journal
of Systems Science 8: 1-7
4. Baldwin J F, Guild N C F (1979) Comparison of fuzzy sets on the same decision space. Fuzzy Sets
and Systems 2: 213-233
5. Yager R R (1978) Ranking fuzzy subsets over the unit interval. Proc. IEEE Conference on Decision
and Control, San Diego, California 17: 1435-1437
6. Yager R R (1981) A procedure for ordering fuzzy subsets of the unit interval. Information Sciences
24: 143-161
7. Chen S H (1985) Ranking fuzzy numbers with maximizing set and minimizing set. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 17: 113-129
8. Kim K, Park K S (1990) Ranking fuzzy numbers with index of optimism. Fuzzy Sets and Systems
35: 143-150
9. Liou T S, Wang M J (1992) Ranking fuzzy numbers with integral value. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 50:
247-255
10. Choobineh F, Li H (1993) An index for ordering fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 54: 287-294
11. Fortemps P, Roubens M (1996) Ranking and defuzzification methods based on area compensation.
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 82: 319-330
12. Cheng C H (1998) A new approach for ranking fuzzy numbers by distance method. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 95(3): 307-317
13. Yao J S, Wu K (2000) Ranking fuzzy numbers based on decomposition principle and signed distance.
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 116: 275-288
14. Wang X, Kerre E E (2001) Reasonable properties for the ordering of fuzzy quantities (I). Fuzzy Sets
15. Wang X, Kerre E E (2001) Reasonable properties for the ordering of fuzzy quantities (II). Fuzzy Sets
16. Chen L H, Lu H W (2001) An approximate approach for ranking fuzzy numbers based on left and
right dominance. Computers and Mathematics with Applications 41: 1589-1602
17. Chu T C, Tsao C T (2002) Ranking fuzzy numbers with an area between the centroid point and
original point. Computers and Mathematics with Applications 43: 111-117
18. Abbasbandy S, Asady B (2006) Ranking of fuzzy numbers by sign distance. Information Sciences
176: 2405-2416
19. Asady B, Zendehnam A (2007) Ranking fuzzy numbers by distance minimization. Applied Mathe-
matical Modelling 31: 2589-2598
20. Garcia M S, Lamata M T (2007) A modification of the index of liou and wang for ranking fuzzy
number. International Journal of Uncertainty Fuzziness and Knowledge-based Systems 15(4): 411-
424
21. Wang Y M, Yang J B, Xu D L, Chin K S (2006) On the centroids of fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 157: 919-926
22. Rao P P B, Shankar N (2011) Ranking fuzzy numbers by distance method using circumcenter of
centroids and index of modality. Advances in Fuzzy Systems, DOI: 10.1155/2011/178308
23. Murakami S, Maeda H, Imamura S (1983) Fuzzy decision analysis on the development of centralized
regional energy control system. Preprints IFAC Conf. on Fuzzy Information Knowledge Representa-
tion and Decision Analysis: 353-358
24. Deng Y, Liu Q (2005) A TOPSIS based centroid index ranking method of fuzzy numbers and its
application in decision making. Cybernetics and Systems 36: 581-595
25. Chen S J, Chen S M (2003) Fuzzy risk analysis based on similarity measure of generalized fuzzy
numbers. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 11: 45-56
26. Chen S J, Chen S M (2007) Fuzzy risk analysis based on the ranking of generalized trapezoidal fuzzy
numbers. Applied Intelligence 26: 1-11
27. Dubios D, Prade H (1978) Operations on fuzzy numbers. International Journal of Systems Science
9: 613-626
28. Wang Z Z, Mo Y N (2010) Ranking fuzzy numbers based on ideal solution. Fuzzy Information and
Engineering 1: 27-36
29. Kumar A, Singh P, Kaur A, Kaur P (2010) RM approach for ranking of generalized trapezoidal fuzzy
numbers. Fuzzy Information and Engineering 1: 17-47
30. Chen S M, Sanguansat K (2011) Analyzing fuzzy risk based on a new fuzzy ranking method between
generalized fuzzy numbers. Expert Systems with Applications 38: 2163-2171
31. Chou S Y, Dat L Q, Fu V F (2011) A revised method for ranking fuzzy numbers using maximizing
set and minimizing set. Computers and Industrial Engineering 61: 1342-1348
32. Ezzati R, Allahviranloo T, Khezerloo S, Khezerloo M (2012) An approach for ranking of fuzzy
numbers. Expert Systems with Applications 39: 690-695

Ranking Fuzzy Numbers With An Area Method Using Circumcenter of Centroids

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Ranking Fuzzy Numbers With An Area Method Using Circumcenter of Centroids

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Fuzzy Information and Engineering

ISSN: 1616-8658 (Print) 1616-8666 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tfie20

Ranking Fuzzy Numbers with an Area Method

P. Phani Bushan Rao & N. Ravi Shankar

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12543-013-0129-1

© 2013 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

Published online: 25 Jan 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Ranking Fuzzy Numbers with an Area Method Using

P. Phani Bushan Rao · N. Ravi Shankar

Received: 7 July 2011/ Revised: 25 November 2012/

Keywords Fuzzy numbers · Centroid points · Circumcenter · Ranking function ·

P. Phani Bushan Rao ()

where 0 ≤ wÃ ≤ 1 is a constant, a, b, c, d are real numbers and fÃL : [a, b] →

If wÃ = 1, then Ã = (a, b, c, d; 1) is a normalized trapezoidal fuzzy number and Ã is a

If wÃ = 1, then Ã = (a, b, d) is a normalized triangular fuzzy number and Ã =

ITα (Ã) = αIR (Ã) + (1 − α)IL (Ã),

Fig. 3 Circumcenter of centroids

Consider a set of n generalized trapezoidal fuzzy numbers Ãi = (ai , bi , ci , di ; wi ), i =

R(Ãi ) = ( x¯0 )Ãi .(y¯0 )Ãi . (3)

Left spread area is deﬁned as LS A (Ãi ) = w(b − a).

Right spread area is deﬁned as RS A (Ãi ) = w(d − c).

Iα (Ãi ) = α(y¯0 )Ãi + (1 − α)( x¯0 )Ãi , (4)

4.1. Working Rule to Rank Fuzzy Numbers

R : Ãi → R(Ãi ) = ( x¯0 )Ã .(y¯0 )Ãi , i = 1, 2, · · · , n. (9)

Fig. 4 Set of four fuzzy numbers

By using the proposed method, we have the following:

Table 1: Comparison results of various ranking methods.

Method \ Fuzzy number A1 A2 A3 A4

Yager [6] 0.20 0.50 0.50 0.70

Fig. 5 Three sets of fuzzy numbers (Deng and Liu [24])

Table 2: Comparison results of various ranking methods.

Set 1 Set 2 Set 3

Yager [6] 0.3 0.3 – 0.3 -0.3 – –

From Table 2, the observations for the fuzzy numbers are

i.e., Ã > B̃.

Fig. 6 Four sets of fuzzy numbers (Asady and Zendehnam [19])

From Table 3, the observations for the fuzzy numbers are

Table 3: Comparison results of various ranking methods.

Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4

Fig. 7 Six sets of fuzzy numbers (Chen and Chen [25])

Table 4: Comparison results of various ranking methods.

Method \ Fuzzy number Ã B̃ Ã B̃ Ã B̃

Yager [6] 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.5

α=0 0.55-0.05β 0.6

α=1 0.38+0.12β 0.38+0.22β

α = 0.5 0.47+0.03β 0.49+0.11β

Method \ Fuzzy number Ã B̃ Ã B̃ Ã B̃ C̃

Yager [6] 0.3 0.3 0.3 – 0.44 0.53 0.52

From Table 4, the observations for the fuzzy numbers are

You might also like