Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr

Pythagorean fuzzy multi-criteria decision making and its application in

fitting assembly
Parul Thakur, Neeraj Gandotra ⇑
Yogananda School of AI, Computers and Data Sciences, Shoolini University, Bajhol, Solan, HP, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Multi-criteria determination planning (MCDM) is among the examination territories of tasks and the
Received 1 February 2021 board sciences which have generally concentrated by researchers and specialists. Among all the augmen-
Accepted 11 March 2021 tations of the fuzzy set, the pythagorean fuzzy set is considered as a standout amongst other methodolo-
Available online xxxx
gies in managing the unclear terms with more precision in correlation with the intuitionist fuzzy system.
In this writing, we proposed new pythagorean fuzzy entropy for MCDM issues. We have utilized the
Keywords: VIKOR approach to tackle these issues. The VIKOR approach was created to unravel MCDM issues with
Pythagorean fuzzy set
clashing or non-commensurable standards. We depict an MCDM issue and offer the means of the
Multi-criteria determination planning
VIKOR
VIKOR approach inside the pythagorean fuzzy system.
Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Emerging Trends in
Materials Science, Technology and Engineering.

1. Introduction
In an actual atmosphere, there exists a ton of fuzzy data; data
that is complex, imprecise, questionable, ambiguous, incorrect, or
probabilistic. Human reasoning and thinking normally deal with
uncertain data, which starts from human ideas that are inherently
inaccurate. People can offer great reactions, which are legitimate.
The majority of our customary devices for formal demonstrating,
thinking, and computing is crisp, deterministic, and exact in char-
acter. The absolute depiction of a veritable structure would rou-
tinely require unquestionably a more noteworthy number of data
than an individual could ever see simultaneously, process, and
understand. This circumstance has quite recently been seen by
researchers beforehand. Fuzzy sets have been proficient offer
responses for some authentic issues. The fuzzy set hypothesis is
a continuation of the classical set hypothesis where components
have a degree of membership. Aguila et al. [1] studied about the
introduction of fuzzy set by Lotfi Zadeh. The acknowledgment of
fuzzy set hypothesis developed gradually during the 1960 s to
1970 s. Fuzzy sets give a superior portrayal of reality than the ideal
mathematical binary description. Kahraman et al. [2] studies that
every component of a fuzzy set has a degree of membership which
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: neerajgandotra@shooliniuniversity.com, neeaj.juit@gmail.com
(N. Gandotra).
is a real number somewhere in the range of zero and one; these
values are depicted by membership functions. Fuzzy sets can por-
tray the fuzziness covering up in a questionable genuine world.
The fuzzy set has been seen as a helpful instrument to show indi-
viduals’ vague choice information, and clusters of fuzzy decision
making techniques have been advanced. The specialists and
researchers are growing new strategies or approaches to resolve
the decision making issues that bring about the improvement of
higher decision making logical inconsistencies. Hong and Kim [3]
studies about the some limitations in the fuzzy set in dealing with
MCDM issues. For conquering these limitations fuzzy sets have
been extended by Atanassov in 1986, known as intuitionistic fuzzy
set. Decision making is a truly entire development in people’s reg-
ular day to day existence, which can be observed as a method of
situating different choices or picking the best one from various
alternatives relying upon the gave choice information under the
given condition. During the time spent multi-attribute decision
making (MADM) with intuitionistic fuzzy erudition, once in a
while, the characteristic qualities show up as intuitionistic fuzzy
numbers, and the information about attribute weights are partially
known or obscure as a result of time pressure, absence of informa-
tion. So to overcome these issues, Xu [4]] inspected the intuitionis-
tic fuzzy MADM with the information about attribute weights is
for the most part known and thoroughly obscure, a methodology
dependent on the ideal game plan proposed. Yuan and Luo [5]]
grant another decision making strategy reliant on entropy for

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.03.347
2214-7853/Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Emerging Trends in Materials Science, Technology and Engineering.

Please cite this article as: P. Thakur and N. Gandotra, Pythagorean fuzzy multi-criteria decision making and its application in fitting assembly, Materials
Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.03.347
P. Thakur and N. Gandotra
MADM issues with intuitionistic fuzzy set. This entropy is offered
for processing the attribute weights, including the membership
degree, non-membership degree, and reluctance level of appraisal
information. There is an impression of entropy on attribute
weights and positioning requests of alternatives. If the sum of
the point of membership and non-membership is larger than
one, then it is not reasonable to use intuitionistic fuzzy set in some
MCDM. Pythagorean fuzzy sets, the associate extension of intu-
itionistic fuzzy set, submitted for handling the impediments of
intuitionistic fuzzy set. For MCDM, the Pythagorean fuzzy set has
a variety of how to provide an explanation. Yager evolved the
application of pythagorean fuzzy set in the field of decision making
in 2013, whereas the pythagorean fuzzy set was firstly introduced
in 1999, by Atanassov. Zhang [6] presented different fuzzy entropy
criteria for PFS dependent on probabilistic-type, extent, pythagor-
ean index. It has been utilized in an application to MCDM, which is
sensible, natural, and appropriate in taking care of numerous types
of issues, and MCDM in pythagorean fuzzy condition. To effectively
deal with MADM and MCDM issues with pythagorean fuzzy infor-
mation, several pythagorean fuzzy decision making methods, such
as VIKOR (Vlsekriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje),
pythagorean fuzzy TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Sim-
ilarity to Ideal Solutions), Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) have
been developed. Chen [7] expressed VIKOR methodologies for
empowering MADM inside the PF circumstances. It might be used
for dealing with MADM issues where the data portraying the show
of the choices are depicted by PF esteem. A remarkable eagerness
for analyzing VIKOR was seen in view of various applications, for
instance, in the standards satisfaction issue, the evaluation of orga-
nization quality among household airplane the appraisal of web
stock execution, enthusiasm for web stocks. The VIKOR strategy
is a successful trading off device in MCDM. The VIKOR technique
has been created as a MCDM strategy to explain a discrete MCDM
issue with non-commensurable and clashing measures.
2. Preliminaries
Definition. 2.1: A fuzzy set characterizes either value is 0 or 1 in
examination with classical clustering and the fuzzy set proposed
by Zadeh (1965) focuses only on the point of membership. Krawc-
zak and Szkatula [8]] defines the fuzzy set according to Zadeh as:
Let us count a non-empty and finite set S of nominal elements,
S={s1, s2, ..., sn}. A fuzzy set M in the crisp set S (in the sense of
Zadeh) can be described by a collection of ordered combinations
written in the following form:
M={(s,lm(s)):s2S}.
Where lm(s) 2 [0, 1] is the point of the membership of the com-
ponent s to the set M. The membership degree signifies the level of
belongingness of the component s to the fuzzy set M. The condition
lm(s)=1 signifies, that the component associate for sure to the
fuzzy set M. The condition lm(s)=0 signifies, that the component
for sure does-not associate to the fuzzy set M. The condition 0
<lm(s) <1 signifies, that the component s associate to the fuzzy
set M with the point lm(s) of membership.
Definition. 2.2: An intuitionistic fuzzy set can be called as
summed up condition of a fuzzy set since it contains both member-
ship and non-membership degrees. Song et al. [9] defines the intu-
itionistic fuzzy set according to Atanassov as:
Let us consider a non-empty and finite S of nominal compo-
nents, S={s1, s2, ..., sn}. An intuitionistic fuzzy set M in the crisp
set S (in the sense of Atanassov) is defined as the set of ordered tri-
plets of the form M={(s,lm(s),0m(s))|s2S}
M={(s,lm(s),0m(s))|s2S}.
Where lm(s):S?[0, 1] and 0m(s):S?]0, 1] are membership
degree and non-membership degree, respectively with the condi-
tion 0lm(s)+0m(s)1.
2
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
Definition. 2.3: After the appearance of the intuitionistic fuzzy
set model, Yager generalizes intuitionistic fuzzy set and introduced
another set called Pythagorean fuzzy set. Zhang et al. [10] defines
the pythagorean fuzzy set according to Yager as:
Let us consider a non-empty and finite S of nominal compo-
nents, S={s1, s2, ..., sn}. A pythagorean fuzzy set M in the crisp set
S (in the sense of Yager) may be represented as:
M={(s,lm(s),0m(s))|s2S}.
Where lm(s):S?[0, 1] and 0m(s):S?[0, 1].
3. Literature Review
MCDM and MADM procedures have been made for dealing with
certified issues just as, to enhance the decision making methodolo-
gies through various advances. MCDM issues are the essential bit
of current decision theory where plenty of choices must be
reviewed against the different amazing characteristics before the
best alternative is picked. To effectively oversee MADM and MCDM
issues with fuzzy information, a couple of fuzzy decision making
strategies, for instance, VIKOR, fuzzy TOPSIS etc, have been made.
MCDM is the procedure of finding the best choice from all the
attainable choices that gives numerous and conflicting standards.
It manages the genuine circumstances that encompass with the
uncertain and dubious in nature. It can’t be evaded as the choices
or sentiments are originating from the decision makers’ (DMs).As
per the literature survey, the Researcher’s examines that Zadeh
widened the establishment of the fuzzy set hypothesis by building
up fuzzy closeness relations, linguistic hedges, and fuzzy decision
making. During the time spent decision making leaders’ have a
noteworthy effect. Garg [11]] studies the concepts of interdepen-
dence and interdependence coefficients of pythagorean fuzzy sets
and implemented them to determine the decision making issues.
For deciding the MAGDM issues, attribute weights are essential.
These can be directed by decision makers’ theoretical evaluation
of each component. So a couple of methods, for instance, the VIKOR
methodology, TODIM procedure, and entropy strategy have been
proposed subject to the information given by all leaders and avail-
able data on attribute weights. Chen [7]] communicated VIKOR
systems for enabling MADM inside the pythagorean fuzzy condi-
tions. It may be utilized for managing MADM issues where the
information depicting the demonstration of the alternatives are
portrayed by pythagorean fuzzy (PF) regard. Chen [12]] recom-
mends a novel summarized PF partition measure for tending to
MCDM issues in PF set. It analyzes the differentiation of point of
membership and non-membership, nature of commitment, and
course of obligation utilized for overseeing flawed and cloud data
and managing MCDM issues subject to PF sets. Kutlu and Kahra-
man [13] considered that in 1998, by Serafim Opricovic as an
MCDM technique, VIKOR technique has been developed to take
care of the discrete multi-measures issue with non-
commensurable and clashing standards. VIKOR is a beneficial
device in MCDM, especially in a circumstance where the choice
maker can’t, or doesn’t know to communicate his/her inclination
toward the start of the framework. Opricovic and Tzeng [14]
explain that for the obscure frames VIKOR system has been intro-
duced. It decides the trade-off positioning rundown, the trade-off
arrangement, and the weight endurance intervals for inclination
stability of bargain arrangement got with the initial weight. Gao
et al. [15] examined that the VIKOR approach presents the multi-
criteria ranking description reliant on the specific proportion of
’closeness’ to the ’perfect’ arrangement. VIKOR approach is a bene-
ficial philosophy managing the MCDM issue, and the acquired
arrangement (thought about nearest to the perfect arrangement)
could be acknowledged by the leaders’. Girubha and Vinodh [16]
examines VIKOR strategy as the most reliable technique for the
P. Thakur and N. Gandotra Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

determination of stock for an automotive segment since the choice d. (Symmetric) EðSÞ ¼ EðSc Þ, where Sc is the complement of S ;
procedure conforms to the qualities set up. Shemshadi et al. [17] In meaning with pythagorean fuzzy learning, we recommend
utilized VIKOR strategy for the provider determination procedure the following pythagorean fuzzy entropy analogous to criteria as:
and they got the decision makers’ evaluations as linguistic are Let M ¼ fm1 ; m2 ; m3 ;    ; mn g be the universal set. Let


changed over into trapezoidal fuzzy figures and the entropy idea S ¼ mi ; lS ðmi Þ; #S ðmi Þjmi 2 M be a pythagorean fuzzy set on M.
is utilized for allotting the weights of the models. Chatterjee
et al. [18] clarified VIKOR technique for the flywheel and cruising 1X n
Et ðSÞ ¼ E ðSÞ ð4:1Þ
boat pole structure stock determination. VIKOR technique is like- n i¼1 t
wise utilized as water asset making arrangements for the advance-
Eqn 4.1
ment of a supply framework. Devi [19] employed the VIKOR
Where,
strategy which depends on the fuzzy for the perception of a robot
"   #
for material taking care of an assignment. Gul et al. [[20] explores p l2S ðmi Þ  #2S ðmi Þ
VIKOR technique is satisfactory of the time utilized in the "struc- Et ðSÞ ¼ tan  p
4 4
ture mechanical building and assembling" and most limited recog-
nized in "farming" though, as per their investigation it is generally For all i = 1, 2,. . ., n.
mainstream in "material choice". VIKOR isn’t over 17 years of span,
yet it is a recognized strategy in different applications. Chang [21] Theorem 1.. To verify that the proposed entropy (4.1) is a logical
assumes that there are a few issues in employing the traditional pythagorean fuzzy entropy.
VIKOR technique in knowing the MCDM issues, so to overcome
these issues they recovered the VIKOR strategy and because of this, Verification: To show that proposed entropy is valid, we prove
the numerical operation has been recovered. that the entropy (4.1) satisfies the properties a-d given in defini-
tion 4.1.
4. New fuzzy entropy for pythagorean fuzzy sets Sharpness:
If S is a crisp set (i.e., lS ðmi Þ ¼ 1; #S ðmi Þ ¼ 0 or
The entropy of fuzzy sets is a criteria of fuzziness between fuzzy lS ðmi Þ ¼ 0; #S ðmi Þ ¼ 1 for all mi 2 M), then
sets. Axiomatic entropy of fuzzy sets are extended as the intuition- jl2 ðm Þ#2 ðm Þj
Et ðSÞ ¼ tan p4  S i 4 S i p ¼ 0, for all mi 2 M
istic fuzzy sets and later they are extended as the pythagorean
P
fuzzy sets. Entropy criteria is the most useful form of uncertainty So, that Et ðSÞ ¼ n1 ni¼1 Et ðSÞ ¼ 0
criteria. Maximility:
pffiffi
For all mi 2 M, if l2S ðmi Þ ¼ #2S ðmi Þ ¼ 13 or lS ðmi Þ ¼ #S ðmi Þ ¼ 33,
Definition:. A real function E: pythagorean fuzzy set ðMÞ ! ½0; 1 is then
designated as entropy on pythagorean fuzzy set ðMÞ if E satisfies the  
jl2 ðm Þ#2 ðm Þj
following axioms: Et ðSÞ ¼ tan p4  S i 4 S i p ¼ 1, for all mi 2 M
P
a. (Sharpness) EðSÞ ¼ 0, iff S is a crisp set ; It implies that Et ðSÞ ¼ n1 ni¼1 Et ðSÞ ¼ 1
b. (Maximility) EðSÞ ¼ 1, iff aS ðmÞ ¼ bS ðmÞ; 8m 2 M; Resolution:
c. (Resolution) ðSÞ  EðLÞ, if S is crisper than L, i.e., 8m 2 M, Et ðSÞ  Et ðLÞ, if S is crisper than L, i.e., 8m 2 M if
aS ðmÞ  aL ðmÞ and bS ðmÞ  bL ðmÞ for aL ðmÞ  bL ðmÞ or lS ðmÞ  lL ðmÞ and #S ðmÞ  #L ðmÞ for lL ðmÞ  #L ðmÞ or
aS ðmÞ  aL ðmÞ and bS ðmÞ  bL ðmÞ for aL ðmÞ  bL ðmÞ ; lS ðmÞ  lL ðmÞ and #S ðmÞ  #L ðmÞ for lL ðmÞ  #L ðmÞ

Fig 1. Flow chart of the VIKOR method.

3
P. Thakur and N. Gandotra Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 1
Pythagorean Fuzzy Decision Matrix.

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5
O1 (0.321, 0.124) (0.445, 0.291) (0.352, 0.168) (0.515, 0.282) (0.417, 0.152)
O2 (0.474, 0.118) (0.344, 0.121) (0.521, 0.242) (0.321, 0.152) (0.542, 0.313)
O3 (0.429, 0.128) (0.535, 0.241) (0.445, 0.291) (0.488, 0.148) (0.548, 0.321)
O4 (0.417, 0.152) (0.381, 0.129) (0.574, 0.242) (0.468, 0.241) (0.582, 0.235)
O5 (0.382, 0.131) (0.447, 0.313) (0.529, 0.247) (0.389, 0.149) (0.439, 0.132)
Et ðSÞ 0.79121 0.80968 0.75164 0.78494 0.72762

Table 2
Calculated values of Jp, Hp and Ip.

O1 O2 O3 O4 O5
Jp 0.79849 0.53668 0.40091 0.35894 0.60513
Hp 0.24028 0.18985 0.13990 0.14154 0.21333
Ip 1 0.45100 0.04774 0.00817 0.64581

"   #

1X n
p l2L ðmi Þ  #2L ðmi Þ N ¼ Op ; Q q rn where Op are the alternatives with respect to the
Et ðLÞ  Et ðSÞ ¼ tan  p criteria Q q , such that Op ¼ fO1 ; O2 ;    ; Om g, p ¼ 1; 2;    ; m and
n i¼1 4 4
"   # Q q ¼ fQ 1 ; Q 2 ;    ; Q n g, q ¼ 1; 2;    ; n
1X n
p l2S ðmi Þ  #2S ðmi Þ
 tan  p 2
a Q1 Q2  Qq
3
n i¼1 4 4  7
6


6
6 O1 l11 ; #11 l12 ; #12    l1q ; #1q 77
1 X
n p
 1 X
n 6

  7
¼ 1  l2L ðmi Þ  #2L ðmi Þ  6 O2 l21 ; #21 l22 ; #22    l2q ; #2q 7
n
tan
4 n N¼6
6
7
7 ð5:1Þ
i¼1 i¼1 6 .. .. .. .. 7
6 . . . . .. 7
p
 2  6 . 7
 tan 1  lS ðmi Þ  #2S ðmi Þ 4    5
4
Op lp1 ; #p1 lp2 ; #p2    lpq ; #pq
1X n
p
  2    
¼ tan 1  lL ðmi Þ  #2L ðmi Þ  1  l2S ðmi Þ  #2S ðmi Þ Step II: Normalized pythagorean fuzzy decision matrix:
n i¼1 4 Normalize the decision matrix N to assure the comparability
amongst criteria values.
2 3
1X n
p
    a Q1 Q2  Qq
tan l2S ðmi Þ  #2S ðmi Þ  l2L ðmi Þ  #2L ðmi Þ 6    7
n i¼1 4 l0 11 ; # 11 l0 12 ; # 12 l0 1q ; # 1q 7
0 0 0
6 
6 O1 7
6    7
Since, 0  l2L  l2S  1 and 0  #2S  #2L  1, we have Et ðLÞ 0 6 O2 l0 21 ; # 21
0
l0 22 ; # 22
0
 l 2q ; # 2q 7
0 0

N ¼6
6
7
7
Et ðSÞ  0 i.e., Et ðSÞ  Et ðLÞ holds. 6 .. 7
6 . .. .. .. .. 7
Similarly, if L is crisper than S, we have Et ðLÞ  Et ðSÞ. 6 . . . . 7
4    5
Symmetry:
l0 p1 ; # p1 l p2 ; # p2    l pq ; # pq
0 0 0 0 0
Op
"   # ð5:2Þ
p #2S ðmi Þ  l2S ðmi Þ
Et ðSÞc ¼ tan  p Here,
4 4
" 8
 2  # >
p l ðmi Þ  #2 ðmi Þ < l ; #pq ; for the benefit criteria
¼ tan  S S
p ¼ Et ðSÞ 0
N ¼ 
pq
; ð5:3Þ
4 4 >
: l pq ; # pq ; for the cost criteria
0 0

 
Et ðSÞc ¼ Et ðSÞ Where, l0 pq ; # pq is the complement of lpq ; #pq . Thus we
0

0
obtain a normalized decision matrix N .
5. Methodology of VIKOR Step III: Determination of the weights of criteria:
Criteria weights represent a significant part in the solution of
The method applied in this research is developed by Opricovic MCDM issues. The weights can be obtained in different ways. In
in 1998, for multi-criteria decision making issues known as VIKOR. decision making method, the knowledge regarding criteria weights
Pourebrahmin et al. [22] studeis that this approach concentrates is sometimes entirely unknown or imperfectly known and partially
on ranking and choosing from a set of alternatives in the presence known at distinct times.
of conflicting criteria, and determines the compromised ranking
list, the compromised solution, and the weight stability intervals For unknown criteria weights:
for preference stability of the compromised solution obtained with
the initial weights. The compromise ranking algorithm VIKOR When, weights of criteria are entirely unknown, then we calcu-
technique has the subsequent moves: late the weights by adopting the following equation;
Step I: Formation of pythagorean fuzzy decision matrix: 1  Et ðSÞ
The first step is related to the formation of the pythagorean wq ¼ Pm ; ðp ¼ 1; 2;    ; mÞ ð5:4Þ
p¼1 ð1  Et ðSÞÞ
fuzzy decision matrix. We form the decision matrix
4
P. Thakur and N. Gandotra Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

"  2  #
1 Xm
p l ðmi Þ  #2 ðmi Þ Step VI: Compute Relationship between group utility and
Et ðSÞ ¼ tan  S S
p unique regret:
m p¼1 4 4
Relationship between the group utility and individual regret is
given as;
   
Jp  J Hp  H
For partially known criteria weights: Ip ¼ h þ ð1  hÞ ð5:12Þ
J J H H




Because of expanding intricacy of decision-making issues, it Where, J ¼ max Jp , J ¼ min Jp , and H ¼ max Hp , H ¼
may not generally be feasible for the choice makers’ to communi-

min Hp . The coefficients h and (1-h) represents the weight
cate their perspective as exact numbers. In case the criteria allocated to group utility Jp and unique regret Hp . Without loss of
weights are imperfectly known for a MCDM issues;
generality, we assume that the value of h is 0.5.
X
m Step VII: Ranking of Alternatives:
minA ¼ wq Et ðSÞ ð5:5Þ Ranking of the alternatives is arranged in an mounting order on
p¼1


the basis of the values of group utility Jp , individual regret Hp


Where, and the relation between them Ip .Fig 1.
"   #
1 Xm
p l2S ðmi Þ  @ 2S ðmi Þ
E t ð SÞ ¼ tan  p 6. Numerical Example
m p¼1 4 4

Step IV: Relative absolute Solutions: Assume that a fittings assembly requires its production poten-
In MCDM issues, the thought is to pick the most absolute option tial to succeed 5 million per annum and frame to establish a pal-
of fulfilling the provided criteria. In VIKOR strategy, this point is letizing plant in its foremost finishing area. On the bases of the
succeeded by choosing an option closest to the actual absolute scheme’s features, environmental equality necessities, a council
solution and farthest from the negative absolute solution. Conse- is requested to consider the bid incouring of the scheme, great
quently, to assess the other options, we develop the relative ideal planner co-workers and the construction scheme is assigned as
solutions as: the most significant part which will be calculated under five crite-
Characterize the relative actual absolute solution ðOþ Þ and the ria, i.e.,
relative negative absolute solution ðO Þ as follows: Q1 = uniqueness of the furniture,
For Benefit Criteria: Q2 = design of the furniture,

 Q3 = time duration of the furniture,
Oþ ¼ Oþ1 ; Oþ2 ;    ; Oþm ; Q4 = strength of a furniture,

 Q5 = eco-friendly furniture.
O ¼ O1 ; O2 ;    ; Om ; ð5:6Þ Assume that O1, O2, O3, O4, O5 are choosen as the five viable
organization associations.
Where,
In order to withdraw from affecting each other, the decision

 




lþpq ; #þpq ; pþpq ¼ max lpq ; min #pq ; min ppq ;
0 0 0
Oþq ¼ makers’ are expected to estimate the five viable organisations
(O1, O2, O3, O4, O5) under the given five criteria (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5).

 



The Pythagorean Fuzzy Decision Matrix is given as;Table 1
lpq ; #pq ; ppq ¼ min lpq ; max #pq ; max ppq ;
0 0 0
Oq ¼ ð5:7Þ (6.1)
ii. Since each criteria is the benefit criteria, therefore the nor-
For Cost Criteria: malized decision matrix is same as the decision matrix given in


O ¼ Oþ1 ; Oþ2 ;    ; Oþm ;
þ (6.1)
iii. According to the equation (5.4) we can calculate the weights

 of each criteria across all the alternatives using the values of Et(S).
O ¼ O1 ; O2 ;    ; Om ; ð5:8Þ
w1 = 0.20471, w2 = 0.20949, w3 = 0.19447, w4 = 0.20308,
Where, w5 = 0.18825 (6.2)

 



Now the values of actual absolute solution and negative abso-
lþpq ; #þpq ; pþpq ¼ min lpq ; max #pq ; max ppq ;
0 0 0
Oþq ¼ lute solution are given as:

 



Oþ ¼ fð:474; :118Þ; ð:535; :121Þ; ð:574; :168Þ; ð:515; :148Þ; ð:582; :132Þg
lpq ; #pq ; ppq ¼ max lpq ; min #pq ; min ppq ;
0 0 0
Oq ¼ ð5:9Þ
ð6:3Þ

Step V: Determination of compromise Explication: O ¼ fð:321; :152Þ; ð:344; :313Þ; ð:352; :291Þ; ð:321; :282Þ; ð:417; :321Þg
The important element of VIKOR strategy is its qualities to ð6:4Þ
implement compromise explication. The group utility Jp and indi-
vidual regret Hp ðp ¼ 1; 2;    ; mÞ. Now obtained values of Jp , Hp and Ip using the equations (5.10),
The Jp is given as: (5.11) and (5.12) are given as:Table 2
 0

(6.5)
X
m d Oþq ; N pq According to the obtained values of Jp , Hp and Ip , alternatives are
Jp ¼ wq 
ð5:10Þ ranked in an ascending order:Table 3
p¼1 d Oþq ; Oq
(6.6)
Now from Table 3, it is observed that alternatives O4 and O3 are
The Hp is given as:
ranked as first and second in the lineup of Ip . Now by implementing
 0
1
0 condition I, we have;
d Oþq ; N pq
Hp ¼ max @wq 
A ð5:11Þ 1
d Oþq ; Oq IðO3 Þ  IðO4 Þ ¼ :04774  :00817 ¼ :03957 ¼ :25 ð6:7Þ
51
5
P. Thakur and N. Gandotra
Table 3
Ranks of alternatives.
O1 O2 O3 O4 O5
Hp V III II I IV
Hp V III I II IV
Ip V III II I IV
It shows that condition I is not convinced, therefore, we hae to
check for compromise explication again;
1 https://doi.org/10.1080/18756891.2016.1180817.
IðO3 Þ  IðO4 Þ ¼ :04774  :00817 ¼ :03957 < ¼ :25
51
And
1 Theory Pract. 27 (11) (2007) 62–71, https://doi.org/10.1016/s1874-8651(08)
IðO2 Þ  IðO4 Þ ¼ :45100  :00817 ¼ :44283 > ¼ :25 ð6:8Þ
51
This shows that (O4, O3) is the compromise explication.
7. Comparative analysis
In this section, a comparative analysis by taking the after-effects
of the suggested strategies and different other existing techniques
into account has been completed to illustrate the benefits of the
proposed approach. One of the significant favorable positions of
the pythagorean fuzzy VIKOR approach is that it yields the trade-
off arrangement which takes the greatest gathering utility along-
side the base individual regret. The system intends to manage a
compromise explication for ranking the alternatives by analyzing
clashing or non-commensurable standards. The compromise expli-
cation theory can be observed as electing the explication with the
tiniest distance from the perfect solution and the farthest distance
from the perfect solution.
8. Conclusion and future scopes
In this paper, for pythagorean fuzzy entropy, we submitted new
fuzzy entropy (4.1). To show the practicality of submitted learning
norms in true issues, its applications are given in the form of the
significance of material to succeed in the production of assembly.
The utilized pythagorean fuzzy learning guidelines are critical suf-
ficient to deal with the vulnerability where the weights of criteria
are entirely unknown. The literature review unquestionably dis-
plays the origination of the proposed method. The VIKOR tech-
nique which has been utilized in this paper is a MCDM technique
created for the arrangement of complex methods.
In future, the proposed pythagorean fuzzy MCDM approach can
likewise be utilized for the determination of the different type of
fitting assembly. The proposed strategy can be reached out for
future examination by utilizing other fuzzy configurations in deci-
sion matrices and apply them in unravelling the various MCDM
issues with unknown weights.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Parul Thakur: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Visu-
alization, Writing - original draft. Neeraj Gandotra: Data curation,
Supervision, Software, Validation, Writing - review & editing.
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] A. Hernandez-Aguila M. Garcia-Valdez O. C., Graphical representation of
Intuitionistic Membership Functions for Its Efficient Use in Intuitionistic Fuzzy
Systems 2019 Springer International Publishing
[2] C. Kahraman, B. Öztaysßi, S. Çevik Onar, A Comprehensive Literature Review of
50 Years of Fuzzy Set Theory, Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst. 9 (sup1) (2016) 3–24,
[3] C. K. Dug Hun Hong, A note on similarity measures between vague sets and
between elements Dug Hun Hong a, Chul Kim b Inf. Sci. (Ny) 0255 98 1999 96
[4] Z.S. Xu, ‘‘Approaches to multiple attribute decision making with intuitionistic
fuzzy preference information”, Xitong Gongcheng Lilun yu Shijian/System Eng,
60069-1.
[5] J. Yuan, X. Luo, Approach for multi-attribute decision making based on novel
intuitionistic fuzzy entropy and evidential reasoning, Comput. Ind. Eng. 135
(2019) 643–654, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.06.031.
[6] X. Zhang, Multicriteria Pythagorean fuzzy decision analysis : A hierarchical
QUALIFLEX approach with the closeness index-based ranking methods, Inf. Sci.
(Ny) 330 (2016) (2016) 104–124, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2015.10.012.
[7] T.-Y. Chen, Remoteness index-based Pythagorean fuzzy VIKOR methods with a
generalized distance measure for multiple criteria decision analysis, Inf. Fusion
41 (2018) (2017) 129–150, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2017.09.003.
[8] M. Krawczak, G. Szkatuła, On matching of intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Inf. Sci. (Ny)
517 (2020) 254–274, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2019.11.050.
[9] Y. Song, Q. Fu, Y.-F. Wang, X. Wang, Divergence-based cross entropy and
uncertainty measures of Atanassov’s intuitionistic fuzzy sets with their
application in decision making, Appl. Soft Comput. J. 84 (2019) 105703,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105703.
[10] S.P. Zhang, P. Sun, J.S. Mi, T. Feng, Belief function of Pythagorean fuzzy rough
approximation space and its applications, Int. J. Approx. Reason. 119 (2020)
58–80, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2020.01.001.
[11] H. Garg, Generalised pythagorean fuzzy geometric interactive aggregation
operators using einstein operations and their application to decision making, J.
Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell. 30 (6) (2018) 763–794, https://doi.org/10.1080/
0952813X.2018.1467497.
[12] T.-Y. Chen, A novel PROMETHEE-based method using a Pythagorean fuzzy
combinative distance-based precedence approach to multiple criteria decision
making, Appl. Soft Comput. J. 82 (2019) 105560, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
asoc.2019.105560.
[13] Fatma Kutlu Gündoğdu Cengiz Kahraman 37 1 2019 1197 1211
[14] G.-H.-T. Serafim Opricovic, Compromise solution by MCDM methods : A
comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 156 (2004) (2004)
445–455, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1.
[15] Zhicheng Gao Robert Y. Liang Tiemin Xuan 3 2019 100018 10.1016/j.
rineng.2019.100018
[16] R. Jeya Girubha, S. Vinodh, Application of fuzzy VIKOR and environmental
impact analysis for material selection of an automotive component, J. Mater.
37 (2012) 478–486, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.01.022.
[17] A. Shemshadi, H. Shirazi, M. Toreihi, M.J. Tarokh, A fuzzy VIKOR method for
supplier selection based on entropy measure for objective weighting, Expert
Syst. Appl. 38 (10) (2011) 12160–12167, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eswa.2011.03.027.
[18] P. Chatterjee, V.M. Athawale, S. Chakraborty, Vijay Manikrao Athawale,
‘‘Selection of materials using compromise ranking and outranking methods”,
Mater. Des. 30 (10) (2009) 4043–4053, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.matdes.2009.05.016.
[19] K. Devi, Extension of VIKOR method in intuitionistic fuzzy environment for
robot selection, Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (11) (2011) 14163–14168, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.227.
[20] M. Gul, E. Celik, N. Aydin, A. Taskin Gumus, A.F. Guneri, Alev Taskin Gumus, ‘‘A
state of the art literature review of VIKOR and its fuzzy extensions on
applications”, Appl. Soft Comput. J. 46 (2016) 60–89, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
asoc.2016.04.040.
[21] C.-L. Chang, A modified VIKOR method for multiple criteria analysis, Env.
Monit Assess 168 (100) (2010) 339–344, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-009-
1117-0.
[22] S.T. Sharareh Pourebrahmin, M. Hadipour, M.B. Mokhtar, ‘‘Application of
VIKOR and fuzzy AHP for conservation priority assessment in coastal areas :
Case of Khuzestan district, Iran”, Ocean, Coast. Manag. 98 (2014) (2014) 20–26,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.05.009.