Fuzzy set, Uncertainty and Decision

Making

Dr. Sujit Das

Department of Computer Science & Engineering
National Institute of Technology Warangal
India
 Presentation Outline
 Soft Set and its application in decision making
 Fuzzy Soft Set and decision making
 Fuzzy Soft Set theoretic approach
 GDM using Intuitionistic fuzzy soft set
 GDM using Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy soft set

2
 Evolution of Soft Set
 Set theory describes mathematical models for the class of problems that
deal with exactness, precision and certainty
 More often the real life problems inherently involve uncertainties,
imprecision and vagueness.
 A number of mathematical theories formulated to solve such problems,
have been found only partially successful such as
➢ probability theory,
➢ fuzzy set theory,
➢ rough set theory,
➢ interval mathematics theory,
➢ vague set theory, etc.,
 The major reason for these difficulties arising with the above theories is
due to the inadequacies of their parameterization tools
3
 Basics of Soft Set
 Soft set theory was initiated by Molodtsov in 1999 as a
mathematical tool for dealing with uncertainties.
 Molodtsov defined a soft set as a parameterized family of
subsets of a universe set
❖Where each element/object is considered as the set of approximate
elements of the soft set
 In Soft set, each object has an approximate nature and no need
to introduce the notion of exact solution
 The absence of any restrictions on the approximate description
makes this theory very convenient and easily applicable in
practice.
4
 Soft Set
Let U be an initial universal set and E be a set of parameters. Let P(U) denotes the power set of U and A  E.
A pair ( F{ A} , E ) is called a soft set over U, where F{ A} is a mapping given by F{ A} : E → P (U ) such that

F{ A} (e) =  if e  A .

Example. Let U be the set of five diseases (Viral fever, Malaria, Typhoid, Gastric ulcer, Pneumonia) given by

U = d1 , d 2 , d3 , d 4 , d 5  and E be the set of five symptoms given by E= {Temperature, Headache, Stomach

pain, Cough, Chest pain} = s1 , s2 , s3 , s4 , s5  .

Let A = s1 , s2 , s3   E . Now consider that F{ A} is a mapping given by, F{ A} ( s1 ) = d1 , d 2  ,

F{ A} ( s2 ) = d1 , d3  , F{ A} ( s3 ) = d 2 , d 4  .
Then the soft set ( F{ A} , E ) = ( s ,{d , d }) , ( s ,{d , d }) , ( s ,{d , d }) , ( s ,{}) , ( s ,{}).
1 1 2 2 1 3 3 2 4 4 5

5
 Tabular Representation of Soft Set

Tabular representation of ( F{ A} , E )

U E s1 s2 s3 s4 s5
d1 1 1 0 0 0

d2 1 0 1 0 0

d3 0 1 0 0 0

d4 0 0 1 0 0

d5 0 0 0 0 0

6
 Application of Soft Set in Decision
Making
 Maji and Roy (2002) first applied soft sets in decision making
problems
 Let U = {h1 , h2 , h3 , h4 , h5 , h6 } be the set of 6 houses
 Let E = {e1 , e2 , e3 , e4 , e5 , e6 , e7 , e8 } = {expensive;
beautiful; wooden; cheap; in the green surroundings: modern; in
good repair: in bad repair} be a set of parameters.
 Suppose, Mr. X is interested to buy a house on the basis of his choice
parameters P = {beautiful; wooden; cheap; in the green
surroundings; in good repair}
 Problem:Which house is more suitable for Mr. X
7
 Given Information
 Based on the choice parameters of Mr. X Tabular
representation of soft set (F,P) is given below
 Here the soft set can be viewed as knowledge
representation system
Table 1.Tabular form of soft set (F,P)

8
 Necessary Ideas
 Consider the soft set (F,E). Clearly, for any P  E ,
(F, P) is a soft subset of (F, E)
 Consider the soft set (F, P). If Q is a reduct of P, then the
soft set (F, Q) is called the reduct-soft-set of the soft set
(F, P)
 The choice value of an object hi  U is ci given by
ci =  hij
j

where hij are the entries in the table of the reduct-soft-

set.

9
 Algorithm for Decision Making
1) Input the soft set (F, E)
2) Input the set P of choice parameters of Mr. X, which is a
subset of E
3) Find all reduct-soft-sets of (F, P)
4) Choose one reduct-soft-set say (F, Q) of (F, P)
5) Find k, for which ck = max ci
6) Then hk is the optimal choice object
7) If k has more than one value, then any one of them is
chosen
10
 Example
 From Table 1, we see that {e1 , e2 , e4 , e5 } and {e2 , e3 , e4 , e5 }
are the two reducts of P = {e1 , e2 , e3 , e4 , e5 }
 Choose any one say Q = {e1 , e2 , e4 , e5 }
 Incorporating the choice values, the reduct-soft-set is represented in Table
2
Table 2. Reduct-soft-set

 Here max ci = c1 or c6
 Decision: Mr. X can buy either the house h1 or the house h6
11
 Example with parameters’ weight
 Suppose Mr. X likes to impose weights wi  (0,1) on his
choice parameters
 He sets the following weights for the parameters of Q:
➢ for parameter ‘beautiful’, w1 = 0.8,
➢ for parameter ‘wooden’, w2 = 0.3,
➢ for parameter ‘in the green surroundings’, w4 = 0.9,
➢ for parameter ‘in good repair’, w5 = 0.8.
 The choice value of an object hi  U is ci given by

ci =  dij , where dij = w j  hij

j
12
 Example (contd)
 From Table 3 it is seen that Mr. X will select the house h1 or h6
for buying according to his choice parameters in P.

Table 3. weighted soft set

13
 Algorithm for Decision Making
Parameters’ Weight
1) Input the soft set (F, E)
2) Input the set P of choice parameters of Mr. X, which is a subset
of E
3) Find all reduct-soft-sets of (F, P)
4) Choose one reduct-soft-set say (F, Q) of (F, P)
5) Find weighted table of the soft set (F, Q) according to the
weights decided by Mr. X,
6) Find k, for which ck = max ci
7) Then hk is the optimal choice object
8) If k has more than one value, then any one of them is chosen

14
 Fuzzy Soft Set
Let U be an initial universe and E be a set of parameters which are fuzzy words or sentences involving fuzzy
words. Let FS(U) denotes the set of all fuzzy sets of U and A  E . A pair F { A} , E ( ) is called a fuzzy soft set
(FSS) over U, where F { A} is a mapping given by F { A} : E → FS (U ) such that F { A} (e) =  if e  A where

 is null fuzzy set.

Example. Let U and E remain same as the previous Example. Here we take A = s1 , s2 , s3 , s5   E. Now

suppose that F { A} ( s1 ) = d1 / 0.2, d 2 / 0.4, d 3 / 0.9, d 4 / 0.7 ,

F { A} ( s2 ) = d 2 / 0.8, d3 / 0.1, d 4 / 0.7 ,

F { A} ( s3 ) = d1 / 0.6, d 2 / 0.2, d 3 / 0.8 ,
F { A} ( s5 ) = d1 / 0.6, d 2 / 0.7, d3 / 0.5, d 4 / 0.8.

 
( s
 1 1,{ d / 0.2, d 2 / 0.4, d 3 / 0.9, d 4 / 0.7} ) , 
 s , d / 0.8, d / 0.1, d / 0.7 , 
( 2 2 3 4 ) 
 
Then the fuzzy soft set is given by ( F { A} , E ) = ( s3 , d1 / 0.6, d 2 / 0.2, d 3 / 0.8 ) , 
 

(
 s4 ,{} , ) 

( s5 , d1 / 0.6, d 2 / 0.7, d 3 / 0.5, d 4 / 0.8 ) 
15
 
 Tabular Representation of Fuzzy
Soft Set

Tabular representation of the fuzzy soft set ( F { A} , E )

U E s1 s2 s3 s4 s5
d1 0.2 0 0.6 0 0.6

d2 0.4 0.8 0.2 0 0.7

d3 0.9 0.1 0.8 0 0.5

d4 0.7 0.7 0 0 0.8

d5 0 0 0 0 0

16
 Decision making using Fuzzy Soft Set
 Maji and Roy (2007) introduced fuzzy soft set theoretic
approach
 They proposed an application of fuzzy soft set theory in object
recognition problem
 This recognition strategy is based on multi-observer input
parameter data set.
 The algorithm involves Construction of Comparison table
from the resultant fuzzy soft set
 Final decision is taken based on the maximum score computed
from the Comparison Table
17
 Basic Ideas
Fuzzy Intersection

 If (F,A) and (G,B) be two fuzzy soft sets then

❖“(F, A) AND (G, B)” is a fuzzy soft set denoted by (F,A)∧(G,B) and is
defined by (F,A)∧(G,B)=(H, A×B), where H(α,β)=F(α)∩G(β), ∀ α∈
A and ∀ β∈ B
❖where ∩ is the operation ‘fuzzy intersection’ of two fuzzy sets

18
 Comparison Table
 Comparison table is a square table in which the number of rows
and number of columns are equal
 Rows and columns both are labelled by the object names o1, o2,
o3, . . . , on of the universe, and the entries are cij, i,j = 1, 2, . . . , n,
 cij = the number of parameters for which the membership value
of oi exceeds or equal to the membership value of oj
 Clearly, 0≤cij≤ k, and cii = k, ∀ i, j, where k is the number of
parameters present in a fuzzy soft set
 cij indicates a numerical measurer and oi dominates oj in cij number of
parameters out of k parameters.
19
 Row Sum and Column Sum
 The row sum of an object oi is denoted by ri and is calculated by using the
formula

 Clearly, ri indicates the total number of parameters in which oi dominates

all the members of U
 Likewise, the column sum of an object oj is denoted by tj and may be
computed as

 The integer tj indicates the total number of parameters in which oj is

dominated by all the members of U
 The score of an object oi is Si is given as

20
 Algorithm for Decision Making
 Input the fuzzy-soft-sets (F,A), (G,B) and (H,C)
 Input the parameter set P as observed by the observer
 Compute the corresponding resultant-fuzzy-soft-set (S, P) from
the fuzzy soft sets (F,A), (G,B), (H,C) and place it in tabular form
 Construct the Comparison-table of the fuzzy-soft-set (S, P) and
compute ri and ti for oi , ∀ i
 Compute the score of oi , ∀ i
 The decision is Sk if, Sk = maxi Si
 If k has more than one value then any one of ok may be chosen

21
 Application in Decision Making
 Let U = {o1,o2, o3, o4, o5, o6}, be the set of objects having different
colours, sizes and surface texture features
 The parameter set, E = {blackish, dark brown, yellowish, reddish,
large, small, very small, average, very large, course, moderately
course, fine, extra fine}
 Let A, B and C denote three subsets of the set of parameters E
 Also let subset A represent the colour space, B represents the size of
the object, and subset C represents the surface texture granularity
 A = {blackish, dark brown, yellowish, reddish}
 B = {large, very large, small, very small, average}
 C = {course, moderately course, fine, extra fine}

22
 Application (Contd)
 Assume that the fuzzy-soft-set (F, A) describe the ‘objects having
colour space’,
 Fuzzy-soft-set (G,B) describes the ‘objects having size’
 Fuzzy-soft-set (H,C) describes the ‘texture feature of the object
surface’
 The problem is to identify an unknown object from the multi-
observers fuzzy data, specified by different observers, in terms of
fuzzy soft sets
✓ (F,A),
✓ (G,B) and
✓ (H,C)

23
 Fuzzy Soft set (F, A)
objects having colour space

24
 Fuzzy Soft Set (G, B)
objects having size

25
 Fuzzy Soft Set (H, C)
texture feature of the object surface

26
 Application (Contd)

 We perform AND operation, i.e., “(F, A) AND (G,B)”

 We have 4 × 5 = 20 parameters of the form eij , where eij
= ai ∧ bj , for all i = 1, 2, 3, 4, and j = 1, 2, 3, 4, .
 Suppose we require the fuzzy soft set for the parameters
R = {e11, e15, e21, e24, e33, e44, e45}
 The resultant fuzzy soft set for the fuzzy soft sets (F, A)
and (G,B) will be (K,R) say.

27
 Application (Contd)
 After performing the “(F, A) AND (G, B)” for some
parameters the tabular representation of the resultant
fuzzy soft set will be as follows

28
 Application (Contd)
 Suppose that P = {e11 ∧ c1, e15 ∧ c3, e21 ∧ c2, e24 ∧ c4, e33 ∧
c3, e44 ∧ c3, e45 ∧ c4} be the set of choice parameters of an
observer
 Now the tabular representation of resultant-fuzzy soft set
(S, P) will be

29
 Comparison Table of the Resultant Fuzzy
Soft Set, Row Sum, Column Sum, Score

From the above score table, it is clear that the maximum score is 8,
30
scored by o5 and the decision is in favour of selecting o5
 Comment
on
[A.R. Roy, P.K. Maji,
A fuzzy soft set theoretic approach
to decision making problems,
J. Computational Applied
Mathematics 203 (2007) 412–418]

31
 Proposal of Kong et al. (2009)
 Kong et al. (2009) found that the algorithm for
identification of an object in a previous paper of A.R.
Roy et al., A fuzzy soft set theoretic approach to decision
making problems, is incorrect
 Using the algorithm the right choice cannot be obtained
in general.
 They illustrated the problem by a counter-example.

32
 Counter Example
Resultant soft set
 Let U = {o1, o2, o3, o4, o5 ,o6} be the set of objects
 The parameter set E ={e1, e2,e3, e4, e5, e6 }
 The tabular representation of the resultant fuzzy soft set is
given in Table 1
Table 1. Resultant soft set

33
 Counter Example
Comparison Table
 The comparison table of the resultant fuzzy soft set
(Table 1) is in Table 2.

Table 2. Comparison table

34
 Counter Example
Row sum, Column Sum, Score
 Next we compute the row-sum, column sum, and the
score for each oi as shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Score

According the algorithm of Roy & Maji, 2007, it is

clear that the maximum score is 6, scored by o3, and
35 the decision is in favour of selecting o3
 Counter Example
Contradiction
 The calculated choice value (based on information given in Table
1) is shown below
 Here o6 is the optimal choice object as per the optimal choice
value c6=2.1
 But this is contradictory to the result obtained with the algorithm
for fuzzy soft set [Roy & Maji, 2007] where result is o3

Thus the algorithm for fuzzy soft set in decision making

36 problem is incorrect.
 Group decision making in medical
system: An intuitionistic fuzzy soft
set approach

37
 Proposal
 An algorithmic approach is proposed for group decision
making (GDM) based on intuitionistic fuzzy soft set (IFSS)
 Choice matrix has been used as an important parameter
 Confident weights are assigned to the experts based on their
opinions
 Validation of this approach is done by distance
measurements
 Case study is related with medical disease diagnosis

38
 Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set
Let X be a universe of discourse, then a fuzzy set
A = { x,  A ( x) | x  X }

defined by Zadeh (1965) is characterized by a membership function  A : X → [0,1] , where  A ( x) represents

the degree of membership of the element x to the set A .

Atanassov [1986, 1999] introduced a more general version of fuzzy set called intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS),
defined as follows:
A = { x,  A ( x), A ( x) | x  X }
which is characterized by a membership function  A : X → [0,1] and a non-membership function
 A : X → [0,1] with the condition
0   A ( x) +  A ( x)  1
for all x  X where the numbers  A ( x) and  A ( x) denotes the degree of membership and the degree of non

membership respectively of the element x to the set A .

39
 Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set (Contd)

For each intuitionistic fuzzy set A in X, the hesitation margin or intuitionistic fuzzy index, which expresses a
lack of knowledge whether x belongs to A or not A is defined as
 A ( x) = 1 − { A ( x) + A ( x)}, x  X
and is the hesitation degree of whether x  A or x  A . Also for each x  X
0   A ( x)  1.
Note that for an IFS A , if  A ( x) = 0 then  A ( x) +  A ( x) = 1 and if  A ( x) = 1 then A ( x) = 0 and
 A ( x) = 0 . For each fuzzy set A in X, we have
 A ( x) = 1 −  A ( x) − [1 −  A ( x)] = 0 , for every x  X .

40
 Intuitionistic Fuzzy Soft Set
Let U be an initial universe and E be a set of parameters. Let IFS (U) denotes the set of all intuitionistic fuzzy
sets of U and A  E . A pair ( F { A} , E ) is called an intuitionistic fuzzy soft set (IFSS) over U, where F { A} is
a mapping given by, F { A} : E → IFS (U ) so that F { A} (e) =  if e  A where  is null intuitionistic
fuzzy set (i.e. the membership value of x,  ( x) = 0; the non-membership value of x,  ( x) = 1 and the
indeterministic part of x,  ( x) = 0, x   .

Example. Let U, A and E are same like as previous Example. Let us take
F { A} ( s1 ) = d1 /(0.2, 0.5), d 2 /(0.4, 0.3), d3 /(0.9, 0.1), d 4 /(0.7, 0.2) ,
F { A} ( s2 ) = d 2 /(0.8, 0.2), d3 /(0.1, 0.8), d 4 /(0.7, 0.2) ,
F { A} ( s3 ) = d1 /(0.6, 0.3), d 2 /(0.2, 0.6), d3 /(0.8, 0.1) ,
F { A} ( s5 ) = d1 /(0.6, 0.1), d 2 /(0.7, 0.2), d3 /(0.5, 0.2), d 4 /(0.8, 0.2) .
Then the intuitionistic fuzzy soft set is given by
 s , d /(0.2, 0.5), d /(0.4, 0.3), d /(0.9, 0.1), d /(0.7, 0.2) , 
( 1  1 2 3 4 ) 
( s , d /(0.8, 0.2), d /(0.1, 0.8), d /(0.7, 0.2) ) , 
 2 2 3 4

 
( F { A} , E ) = ( s3 , d1 /(0.6, 0.3), d 2 /(0.2, 0.6), d 3 /(0.8, 0.1) ) , 
 
(
)
 s4 ,  , 

41 ( s5 , d1 /(0.6, 0.1), d 2 /(0.7, 0.2), d3 /(0.5, 0.2), d 4 /(0.8, 0.2) ) 
 
 Tabular Representation of IFSS

Tabular representation of the IFSS ( F { A} , E )

U E s1 s2 s3 s4 s5
d1 (0.2,0.5) 0 (0.6,0.3) 0 (0.6,0.1)

d2 (0.4,0.3) (0.8,0.2) (0.2,0.6) 0 (0.7,0.2)

d3 (0.9,0.1) (0.1,0.8) (0.8,0.1) 0 (0.5,0.2)

d4 (0.7,0.2) (0.7,0.2) 0 0 (0.8,0.2)

d5 0 0 0 0 0

42
 Basic Ideas
Choice Matrix
 Choice matrix is a square matrix whose rows and
columns both indicate parameters. If ( ij )nn is a
choice matrix, then its element is defined as follows:
➢  ij = (1, 0) when ith and jth parameters are
both choice parameters of the decision
makers
➢  ij = (0, 1) otherwise, i.e. when at least one
of the ith or jth parameters be not under
choice.
43
 Example of Choice Matrix
 Suppose Expert X prefers to prescribe her observation
based on symptoms or choice parameters like headache,
stomach pain and chest pain which form a subset
P = {s2 , s3 , s5 } of the parameter set E.
 Now the choice matrix of Expert X is represented as
eP
 (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) ( 0,1) ( 0,1) 
 
 (0,1) (1, 0 ) (1, 0 ) ( 0,1) (1, 0 ) 
 
(  ij ) P = eP  (0,1) (1, 0 ) (1, 0 ) ( 0,1) ( )
1, 0
 (0,1) ( 0,1) ( 0,1) ( 0,1) ( 0,1) 

 (0,1) (1, 0 ) (1, 0 ) ( 0,1) (1, 0 ) 

44
 Example of Combined Choice Matrix
 Suppose choice parameters of Mr. X is P = {s2 , s3 , s5 }
 Choice parameters of Mr.Y is Q = {s1 , s2 , s3 , s4 }
 Then the combined choice matrix of Expert X and
Expert Y is represented as
eQ
 (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) ( 0,1) ( 0,1) 
 
 (1, 0) (1, 0 ) (1, 0 ) (1, 0 ) ( 0,1) 

(  ij ){ P ,Q} = eP  (1, 0) (1, 0 ) (1, 0 ) (1, 0 ) ( 0,1) 
 (0,1) ( 0,1) ( 0,1) ( 0,1) ( 0,1) 

 (1, 0) (1, 0 ) (1, 0 ) (1, 0 ) ( 0,1) 

45
 Product of IFSM
 If the number of columns of intuitionistic fuzzy
soft matrix A be equal to the number of rows of
the choice matrix  ,
➢then A and  are said to be conformable for the
product ( A   ) and the product ( A   )becomes an
intuitionistic Fuzzy Soft Matrix.
➢The product is denoted by ( A   ) or simply A.

( )
➢ If A = (a ij ) mn and  = (  jk )n p , then A = cik
m p
where
cik = (max nj =1 min{aij ,  }, min nj =1 max{ aij ,  }).
jk jk
46
 Example: Product of IFSM
 Product between an IFSM and Choice Matrix

 (0.8, 0.1) (0.2, 0.7) (0.7, 0.2) (0.3, 0.5)   (1, 0) (0,1) (1, 0) (0,1) 
 (0.7, 0.1) (0.4, 0.6) (0.8, 0.1)   (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) 
 (0.3, 0.6)    (0,1) 
 (0.7, 0.2) (0.4, 0.5) (0.5, 0.3) (0.6, 0.2)   (1, 0) (0,1) (1, 0) (0,1) 
   
 (0.5, 0.4) (0.1, 0.8) (0.9, 0.1) (0.2, 0.7)   (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) 

 (0.8, 0.1) (0,1) (0.8, 0.1) (0,1) 

 (0,1) (0.4, 0.6) (0,1) 
 (0.4, 0.6) 
=
 (0.7, 0.2) (0,1) (0.7, 0.2) (0,1) 
 
 (0.9, 0.1) (0,1) (0.9, 0.1) (0,1) 

47
 Addition of IFSMs
 Two intuitionistic fuzzy soft matrices A and B are said
to conformable for addition, if they are of the same
order
 The addition of two intuitionistic fuzzy soft matrices
[ a ij ]mn and [bij ]mn is defined by
[a ij ]mn  [bij ]mn = [cij ]mn
 [c ij ]mn is also intuitionistic fuzzy soft matrix of
order m  n and
(cij ) = (max{a , b }, min{ a , b }) i, j.
ij ij ij ij
48
 Example: Addition of IFSMs
Let [ a ij ]55 and [bij ]55 be two IFSMs which are given below.

 (0.3,0.1) (0.4.0.1) (0.3,0.6) (0.3,0.1) (0,1)   (0.4,0.2) (0.6,0.1) (0.3,0.2) (0,1) (0.8,0.1) 
   
 (0.4,0.5) (0.1,0.7) (0.6,0.2) (0.4,0.5) (0,1)   (0.3,0.5) (0.3,0.7) (0.3,0.5) (0,1) (0.4,0.5) 
[a(ij ) ] =  (0.6,0.3) (0.4,0.3) (0.5,0.3) (0.6,0.2) (0,1)  ,[b(ij ) ] =  (0.5,0.3) (0.5,0.3) (0.2,0.4) (0,1) (0.6,0.4) 
   
 (0.4,0.1) (0.5,0.2) (0.5,0.1) (0.7,0.2) (0,1)   (0.6,0.2) (0.4,0.2) (0.6,0.3) (0,1) (0.6,0.2) 
 (0.6,0.3) (0,1)   (0.4,0.5) (0.4,0.3) (0,1) (0.4,0.3) 
 (0.2,0.3) (0.5,0.3) (0.8,0.1)  (0.2,0.5)
 (0.4,0.1) (0.6,0.1) (0.3,0.2) (0.3,0.1) (0.8,0.1) 
 
 (0.4,0.5) (0.3,0.7) (0.6,0.2) (0.4,0.5) (0.4,0.5) 
Then [c(ij ) ] = [a(ij ) ]  [b(ij ) ] =  (0.6,0.3) (0.5,0.3) (0.5,0.3) (0.6,0.2) (0.6,0.4) 
 
 (0.6,0.1) (0.5,0.2) (0.6,0.1) (0.7,0.2) (0.6, 0.2) 
 (0.6,0.3) (0.4,0.3) 
 (0.2,0.3) (0.5,0.3) (0.8,0.1)

49
 Cardinal of IFSS
 The cardinal set of intuitionistic fuzzy soft set
( F { A} , E ) denoted by (cF { A} , E ) and defined by
 F { A}
(d )  F { A}
(d )
c F ( x) = d U
,  c F { A} ( x ) = d U
, x  E.
{ A}
U U

E x1 x2 xn

cF { A} ( c F { A}
( x1 ), c F{ A} ( x1 ) ) ( c F { A}
( x2 ), c F{ A} ( x2 ) ) … ( c F { A}
( xn ), c F { A} ( xn ) )
 Cardinal score of a cardinal set cF { A} is denoted
by S (cF { A} ) and defined as
S (cF { A} ) =  c F { A} ( x) −  c F { A} ( x).
50 xE xE
 Example: Cardinal of IFSS
 Suppose the IFSM  a( ij )  55 for IFSS ( F { A} , E ) is given
below  (0.3, 0.1)

(0.4.0.1) (0.3, 0.6) (0.3, 0.1) (0,1) 

 (0.4, 0.5) (0.1, 0.7) (0.6, 0.2) (0.4, 0.5) (0,1) 
{a(ij ) } =  (0.6, 0.3) (0.4, 0.3) (0.5, 0.3) (0.6, 0.2) (0,1) 
 
 (0.4, 0.1) (0.5, 0.2) (0.5, 0.1) (0.7, 0.2) (0,1) 
 (0.6, 0.3) (0,1) 
 (0.2, 0.3) (0.5, 0.3) (0.8, 0.1)
 Cardinals are computed as
c F { A} ( x1 ) = (0.3 + 0.4 + 0.6 + 0.4 + 0.6) / 5 = 0.46,
 c F ( x1 ) = (0.1 + 0.5 + 0.3 + 0.1 + 0.3) / 5 = 0.26
{ A}

 Similarly
c F ( x2 ) = 0.32, c F ( x2 ) = 0.32, c F ( x3 ) = 0.48, c F ( x3 ) = 0.30,
{ A} { A} { A} { A}

c F { A} ( x4 ) = 0.56, c F { A} ( x4 ) = 0.22.
51
 Cardinal Score of IFSS
 Cardinal matrix  a( ij )  55of the IFSM is

 aij  = [a11 a12 ... a15 ],

15
 where
 aij  = [(0.46, 0.26) (0.32, 0.32) (0.48, 0.30) (0.56, 0.22) (0,1)].
15

 Cardinal score
S (cF { A} ) =  c F { A} ( x) −  c F { A} ( x)
xE xE

= (0.46 + 0.32 + 0.48 + 0.56) − (0.26 + 0.32 + 0.30 + 0.22)

= 1.82 − 1.10 = 0.72.
52
 Proposed Algorithm
 Step 1: The opinions of a set of experts about the various
possible symptoms and diseases of a patient are recorded
in IFSM.
 Step 2: Cardinal matrix of each IFSM is explored and then
cardinal score is calculated.
 Step 3: Cardinal score is multiplied with each IFSM and to
produce normalized IFSM.
 Step 4: Choice parameter of each experts are searched and
choice matrices for all experts are explored based on the
choice parameter of the decision makers.

53
 Proposed Algorithm (contd..)
 Step 5: The combined choice matrix with respect to the
choice parameters of the decision makers are constructed.
 Step 6:The product intuitionistic fuzzy soft matrices for each
of the experts are computed by multiplying each normalized
IFSM with the combined choice matrix as per the rule of
multiplication of IFSMs.
 Step 7: Next the sum of these product intuitionistic fuzzy soft
matrices is computed to have the resultant intuitionistic fuzzy
soft matrices.
 Step 8: Then the weight of each disease is computed by adding
the membership values of the entries of its concerned row (ith
54 row) and it is stored.
 Proposed Algorithm (contd..)
 Step 9: The disease having the highest weight becomes the optimal
choice disease. If more than one disease have the highest weight then
go to the next step.
 Step 10: Here one has to consider the “sum of the non-membership
values” of those entries which are associated with equal weighted
diseases. The disease with the minimum summation value is the
optimal choice object. Now if the summation values of those objects
are same then step 11 is followed.
 Step 11: When “sum of the non-membership values” of those objects
are same, then the sum of hesitation margins of those objects are
checked and the object having minimum hesitation margin is selected.
If two or more objects have same hesitation summation value, then any
object among them is the optimal choice.
55
 Case Study
 Let U be the set of five disease (Viral fever, Malaria, Typhoid,
Gastric ulcer, and Pneumonia) given by U ={d1, d2 , d3 , d4,d5}
 E be the set of five symptoms (Temperature, Headache,
Stomach pain, Cough, and Chest pain) given by E= {s1, s2, s3,
s4, s5 }
 Suppose that a group of four experts P={p1, p2, p3, p4}
monitoring the symptoms as per their knowledgebase to reach
a consensus about which disease is more likely to appear
 Expert p1 is aware of symptoms (s1, s2, s3, s4), p2 is aware of
symptoms (s1, s2, s3, s5 ), p3 is aware of (s1, s2, s4, s5 ), and p4 is
aware of (s1, s2, s3, s4, s5 ).
56
 IFSMs Provided by p1 and p2
 (0.3, 0.1) (0.4.0.1) (0.3, 0.6) (0.3, 0.1) (0,1) 
 
 (0.4, 0.5) (0.1, 0.7) (0.6, 0.2) (0.4, 0.5) (0,1) 
{a(ij ) } =  (0.6, 0.3) (0.4, 0.3) (0.5, 0.3) (0.6, 0.2) (0,1) 
 
 (0.4, 0.1) (0.5, 0.2) (0.5, 0.1) (0.7, 0.2) (0,1) 
 (0.6, 0.3) (0.5, 0.3) (0.8, 0.1) (0,1) 
 (0.2, 0.3)

 (0.4, 0.2) (0.6, 0.1) (0.3, 0.2) (0,1) (0.8, 0.1) 

 
 (0.3, 0.5) (0.3, 0.7) (0.3, 0.5) (0,1) (0.4, 0.5) 
{b(ik ) } =  (0.5, 0.3) (0.5, 0.3) (0.2, 0.4) (0,1) (0.6, 0.4) 
 
 (0.6, 0.2) (0.4, 0.2) (0.6, 0.3) (0,1) (0.6, 0.2) 
 (0.4, 0.5) (0.4, 0.3) (0,1) (0.4, 0.3) 
 (0.2, 0.5)

57
 IFSMs Provided by p3 and p4
 (0.5, 0.1) (0.2, 0.7) (0,1) (0.3, 0.6) (0.2, 0.4) 
 
 (0.1, 0.7) (0.9, 0.1) (0,1) (0.4, 0.5) (0.8, 0.1) 
{c(il ) } =  (0.5, 0.2) (0.6, 0.3) (0,1) (0.7, 0.1) (0.9, 0.1) 
 
 (0.6, 0.2) (0.4, 0.5) (0,1) (0.6, 0.2) (0.3, 0.2) 
 (0.7, 0.2) (0.3, 0.4) (0,1) (0.5, 0.2) (0.5, 0.4) 


 (0.5, 0.1) (0.2, 0.4) (0.4, 0.6) (0.9, 0.1) (0.2, 0.4) 
 
 (0.3, 0.5) (0.5, 0.1) (0.3, 0.5) (0.4, 0.5) (0.8, 0.1) 
{d (im ) } =  (0.6, 0.2) (0.5, 0.3) (0.2, 0.5) (0.7, 0.1) (0.9, 0.1) 
 
 (0.6, 0.3) (0.4, 0.3) (0.4, 0.6) (0.6, 0.2) (0.3, 0.2) 
 (0.4, 0.2) (0.3, 0.5) (0.8, 0.2) (0.5, 0.2) (0.5, 0.4) 

58
 Combined Choice Matrices for
Experts p1, p2, p3 and p4
s{ p2p3p4 }
 (1,0) (1.0) (0,1) (0,1) (1,0) 
 
 (1,0) (1,0) (0,1) (0,1) (1,0) 
s{ p1 }  (1,0) (1,0) (0,1) (0,1) (1,0) 
 
 (1,0) (1,0) (0,1) (0,1) (1,0) 
 (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) 
 
s{ p1p2 p4 }
 (1,0) (1.0) (1,0) (0,1) (0,1) 
 
 (1,0) (1,0) (1,0) (0,1) (0,1) 
s{ p3 }  (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) 
 
 (1,0) (1,0) (1,0) (0,1) (0,1) 
 (1,0) (1,0) (1,0) (0,1) (0,1) 
 
59
s{ p1p3p4 }
 (1,0) (1.0) (0,1) (1,0) (0,1) 
 
 (1,0) (1,0) (0,1) (1,0) (0,1) 
s{ p2 }  (1,0) (1,0) (0,1) (1,0) (0,1) 
 
 (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) 
 (1,0) (1,0) (0,1) (1,0) (0,1) 
s{P1P2 P3 }
 (1,0) (1.0) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) 
 
 (1,0) (1,0) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) 
s{P4 }  (1,0) (1,0) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) 
 
 (1,0) (1,0) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) 
 (1,0) (1,0) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) 
 Product IFSM for expert p1
s{ p2 p3p4 }
 (0.3, 0.1) (0.4.0.1) (0.3, 0.6) (0.3, 0.1) (0,1)   (1, 0) (1.0) (0,1) (0,1) (1, 0) 
   
 (0.4, 0.5) (0.1, 0.7) (0.6, 0.2) (0.4, 0.5) (0,1)   (1, 0) (1, 0) (0,1) (0,1) (1, 0) 
{a(ij ) }  (0.6, 0.3) (0.4, 0.3) (0.5, 0.3) (0.6, 0.2) (0,1)   s{ p1 }  (1, 0) (1, 0) (0,1) (0,1) (1, 0)  =
   
 (0.4, 0.1) (0.5, 0.2) (0.5, 0.1) (0.7, 0.2) (0,1)   (1, 0) (1, 0) (0,1) (0,1) (1, 0) 
 (0.6, 0.3) (0,1)   (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) 
 (0.2, 0.3) (0.5, 0.3) (0.8, 0.1)  (0,1) (0,1)
 (0.4,0.1) (0.4,0.1) (0,1) (0, 1) (0.4,0.1) 
 
 (0.6,0.2) (0.6,0.2) (0,1) (0,1) (0.6,0.2) 
 (0.6,0.2) (0.6,0.2) (0,1) (0,1) (0.6,0.2) 
 
 (0.7,0.1) (0.7,0.1) (0,1) (0,1) (0.7,0.1) 
 (0.8,0.1) (0,1) (0,1) (0.8,0.1) 
 (0.8,0.1)

60
 Product IFSM for expert p2
s{ p1p3p4 }
 (0.4, 0.2) (0.6, 0.1) (0.3, 0.2) (0,1) (0.8, 0.1)   (1, 0) (1.0) (0,1) (1, 0) (0,1) 
   
 (0.3, 0.5) (0.3, 0.7) (0.3, 0.5) (0,1) (0.4, 0.5)   (1, 0) (1, 0) (0,1) (1, 0) (0,1) 
{b(ik ) }  (0.5, 0.3) (0.5, 0.3) (0.2, 0.4) (0,1) (0.6, 0.4)   s{ p2 }  (1, 0) (1, 0) (0,1) (1, 0) (0,1)  =
   
 (0.6, 0.2) (0.4, 0.2) (0.6, 0.3) (0,1) (0.6, 0.2)   (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) 
 (0.4, 0.5) (0.2, 0.5) (0.4, 0.3) (0,1) (0.4, 0.3)   (1, 0) (1, 0) (0,1) (0,1) 
  (1, 0)
 (0.8,0.1) (0.8,0.1) (0,1) (0.8,0.1) (0,1) 
 
 (0.4,0.5) (0.4,0.5) (0,1) (0.4,0.5) (0,1) 
 (0.6,0.3) (0.6,0.3) (0,1) (0.6,0.3) (0,1) 
 
 (0.6,0.2) (0.6,0.2) (0,1) (0.6,0.2) (0,1) 
 (0.4,0.3) (0.4,0.3) (0,1) (0.4,0.3) (0,1) 
 

61
 Product IFSM for expert p3

s{ p1p2 p4 }
 (0.5, 0.1) (0.2, 0.7) (0,1) (0.3, 0.6) (0.2, 0.4)   (1, 0) (1.0) (1, 0) (0,1) (0,1) 
   
 (0.1, 0.7) (0.9, 0.1) (0,1) (0.4, 0.5) (0.8, 0.1)   (1, 0) (1, 0) (1, 0) (0,1) (0,1) 
{c( il ) }  (0.5, 0.2) (0.6, 0.3) (0,1) (0.7, 0.1) (0.9, 0.1)   s{ p3 }  (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1)  =
   
 (0.6, 0.2) (0.4, 0.5) (0,1) (0.6, 0.2) (0.3, 0.2)   (1, 0) (1, 0) (1, 0) (0,1) (0,1) 
 (0.7, 0.2) (0.3, 0.4) (0,1) (0.5, 0.2) (0.5, 0.4)   (1, 0) (1, 0) (1, 0) (0,1) 
  (0,1)
 (0.5,0.1) (0.5,0.1) (0.5,0.1) (0,1) (0,1) 
 
 (0.9,0.1) (0.9,0.1) (0.9,0.1) (0,1) (0,1) 
 (0.9,0.1) (0.9,0.1) (0.9,0.1) (0,1) (0,1) 
 
 (0.6,0.2) (0.6,0.2) (0.6,0.2) (0,1) (0,1) 
 (0.7,0.2) (0.7,0.2) (0.7,0.2) (0,1) (0,1) 
 

62
 Product IFSM for expert p4

s{ p1p2 p3 }
 (0.5, 0.1) (0.2, 0.4) (0.4, 0.6) (0.9, 0.1) (0.2, 0.4)   (1, 0) (1.0) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) 
   
 (0.3, 0.5) (0.5, 0.1) (0.3, 0.5) (0.4, 0.5) (0.8, 0.1)   (1, 0) (1, 0) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) 
{d (im ) }  (0.6, 0.2) (0.5, 0.3) (0.2, 0.5) (0.7, 0.1) (0.9, 0.1)   s{ p4 }  (1, 0) (1, 0) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1)  =
   
 (0.6, 0.3) (0.4, 0.3) (0.4, 0.6) (0.6, 0.2) (0.3, 0.2)   (1, 0) (1, 0) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) 
 (0.4, 0.2) (0.3, 0.5) (0.8, 0.2) (0.5, 0.2) (0.5, 0.4)   (1, 0) (0,1) 
  (1, 0) (0,1) (0,1)
 (0.9,0.1) (0.9,0.1) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) 
 
 (0.8,0.1) (0.8,0.1) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) 
 (0.9,0.1) (0.9,0.1) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) 
 
 (0.6,0.2) (0.6,0.2) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) 
 (0.8,0.2) (0.8,0.2) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) 


63
 Summation of Product IFSMs

 (0.4,0.1) (0.4,0.1) (0,1) (0, 1) (0.4,0.1)   (0.8,0.1) (0.8,0.1) (0,1) (0.8,0.1) (0,1) 
   
 (0.6,0.2) (0.6,0.2) (0,1) (0,1) (0.6,0.2)   (0.4,0.5) (0.4,0.5) (0,1) (0.4,0.5) (0,1) 
 (0.6,0.2) (0.6,0.2) (0,1) (0,1) (0.6,0.2)    (0.6,0.3) (0.6,0.3) (0,1) (0.6,0.3) (0,1)  
   
 (0.7,0.1) (0.7,0.1) (0,1) (0,1) (0.7,0.1)   (0.6,0.2) (0.6,0.2) (0,1) (0.6,0.2) (0,1) 
 (0.8,0.1) (0.8,0.1) (0,1) (0,1) (0.8,0.1)   (0.4,0.3) (0.4,0.3) (0,1) (0.4,0.3) (0,1) 
   
 (0.5,0.1) (0.5,0.1) (0.5,0.1) (0,1) (0,1)   (0.9,0.1) (0.9,0.1) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) 
   
 (0.9,0.1) (0.9,0.1) (0.9,0.1) (0,1) (0,1)   (0.8,0.1) (0.8,0.1) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) 
 (0.9,0.1) (0.9,0.1) (0.9,0.1) (0,1) (0,1)    (0.9,0.1) (0.9,0.1) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1)  =
   
 (0.6,0.2) (0.6,0.2) (0.6,0.2) (0,1) (0,1)   (0.6,0.2) (0.6,0.2) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) 
 (0.7,0.2) (0.7,0.2) (0.7,0.2) (0,1) (0,1)   (0.8,0.2) (0.8,0.2) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) 
   
 (0.9,0.1) (0.9,0.1) (0.5,0.1) (0.8,0.1) (0.4,0.1) 
 
 (0.9,0.1) (0.9,0.1) (0.9,0.1) (0.4,0.5) (0.6,0.2) 
 (0.9,0.1) (0.9,0.1) (0.9,0.1) (0.6,0.3) (0.6,0.2) 
 
 (0.7,0.1) (0.7,0.1) (0.6,0.2) (0.6,0.2) (0.7,0.1) 
 (0.8,0.1) (0.8,0.1) (0.7,0.2) (0.4,0.3) (0.8,0.1) 
 

64
 Weights of the Diseases

W ( d1 ) = 0.9 + 0.9 + 0.5 + 0.8 + 0.4 = 3.5

W ( d 2 ) = 0.9 + 0.9 + 0.9 + 0.4 + 0.6 = 3.7
W ( d3 ) = 0.9 + 0.9 + 0.9 + 0.6 + 0.6 = 3.9
W ( d 4 ) = 0.7 + 0.7 + 0.6 + 0.6 + 0.7 = 3.3
W ( d5 ) = 0.8 + 0.8 + 0.7 + 0.4 + 0.8 = 3.5

Now as the disease d3 i.e. typhoid has the highest

weight, therefore it is the optimal observations by
all of the experts.
65
 Observation
 We have discussed fuzzy soft sets and their
application in decision making
 Due to the parameterization capability of soft sets
and uncertainty dealing efficiency of fuzzy sets,
fuzzy soft sets has been emerging rapidly in
uncertain decision making paradigm

66
 Extension of our Proposal to
Interval-valued intuitionistic
fuzzy soft set

67
 Our Proposal
 We propose an algorithmic approach for multiple attribute group
decision making using
➢ interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy soft matrix (IVIFSM)
➢ confident weight of experts.

 Firstly we propose IVIFSM and define some of its relevant operations.

 Next we propose an algorithm using combined choice matrix, score

function and accuracy function.

 The proposed method yields optimal alternative(s) which reflects the

collective opinion of a group of decision makers.

 We have presented a case study related with medical diagnosis.

68
 Interval-valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set (IVIFS)
• Atanassov and Gargov (1989) introduced interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy set (IVIFS).
• Let X be a universal set. An interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy set A in universal set X is expressed as

A = { x,[  Al ( x),  Ar ( x)],[ Al ( x), Ar ( x)]  | x  X },

where [  A ( x),  A ( x)]  [0,1] and [ A ( x), A ( x)]  [0,1] are respectively the interval-valued degrees
l r l r

of membership and non-membership of an element x  X to A, which are more or less independent on each
other.
• The only requirement is that the sum of upper bounds of these two interval-valued degrees is not greater than 1,
i.e.,

0   Ar ( x) +  Ar ( x)  1.
• Example of IVIFS:
✓ Let, A and B are two IVIFSs in X = {a, b, c, d }.
✓ We can define

 a,[0.2, 0.5],[0, 0.3] ,  b,[0.3, 0.6],[0.2, 0.3] , 

A= ,
 c,[0.1, 0.4],[0.2, 0.3] ,  d ,[0, 0.6],[0.1, 0.3]  
 a,[0.1, 0.6],[0.3, 0.4] ,  b,[0.2, 0.5],[0.3, 0.4] , 
B= .
  c ,[0.5, 0.6],[0.1, 0.3] ,  d ,[0.1, 0.5],[0.2, 0.5]  

69
 Relevant Ideas
IVIFN, Score Function, Accuracy Function
For a fixed x  X , an object [  A ( x ),  A ( x )],[ A ( x ), A ( x )] is called
l r l r
•
interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy number (IVIFN).
• Let  = [ a, b],[c, d ] be an IVIFN. The score function (Chen and
( a − c) + (b − d ) where S ( )  [0,1].
Tan, 1994) S of  is defined as S ( ) = ,
2
• The accuracy function (Xu, 2007) H of  is defined as H ( ) = ( a + c) + (b + d ) ,
2
where H ( )  [0,1].

• Example: Let A be an IVIFS in X = {a, b, c, d }.

 a,[0.2, 0.5],[0, 0.3] ,  b,[0.3, 0.6],[0.2, 0.3] , 
A= ,
  c ,[0.1, 0.4],[0.2, 0.3] ,  d ,[0, 0.6],[0.1, 0.3]  

✓ We take IVIFN  = [0.2, 0.5],[0, 0.3] = [ a, b],[c, d ]

(0.2 − 0) + (0.5 − 0.3) 0.2 + 0.2
✓ S ( ) = = = 0.2
2 2
(0.2 + 0) + (0.5 + 0.3) 0.2 + 0.8
✓ H ( ) = = = 0.5
2 2
70
 Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy soft set
(IVIFSS)
Let U be an initial universe and E be a set of parameters. IVIF (U ) denotes the set of all interval-valued

intuitionistic fuzzy sets of U. Let A  E . A pair ( F  A , E ) is an IVIFSS over U, where F  A is a mapping,

given by F  A : E → IVIF (U ). An IVIFSS is a parameterized family of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy
subsets of U. Thus, its universe is the set of all interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets of U, i.e., IVIF (U ).
  A, F ( ) is an interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy set of U. F ( ) is expressed as:
F ( ) = { x,[  Fl ( ) ( x),  Fr ( ) ( x)],[ Fl ( ) ( x), Fr ( ) ( x)]  | x  X }.

Example Let U = d1 , d 2 , d 3 , d 4 , d 5  , E = s1 , s2 , s3 , s4 , s5  , and A = s1 , s2 , s3 , s5   E.

Let us take
  (0.2, 0.4)   (0.4, 0.5)   (0.7, 0.8)   (0.6, 0.7)  
F { A} ( s1 ) = d1 /   2 
, d /  3 
, d /  4 
d /  ,
  (0.5, 0.6)   (0.3, 0.4)   (0.1, 0.2)   (0.2, 0.3) 
  (0.6, 0.8)   (0.1, 0.2),   (0.5, 0.7)  
F { A} ( s2 ) = d 2 /   3 
, d /  4 
, d /  ,
  (0.1, 0.2)   (0.7, 0.8)   (0.2, 0.3) 
  (0.6, 0.7)   (0.2, 0.3)   (0.6, 0.8)  
F { A} ( s3 ) = d1 /   2 
, d /  3 
, d /   , and
  (0.2, 0.3)   (0.6, 0.7)   (0.1, 0.2) 
  (0.6, 0.7)   (0.5.0.7)   (0.4, 0.6)   (0.7, 0.8)  
F { A} ( s5 ) = d1 /   2 
, d /  3 
, d /  4 
, d / .
  (0.1, 0.2)   (0.2, 0.3)   (0.2, 0.3)   (0.1, 0.2) 
71
 IVIFSS Example (contd.)

   (0.2, 0.4)   (0.4, 0.5)   (0.7, 0.8)   (0.6, 0.7)    

 s1 , d1 /   2 
, d /  3 
, d /  4 
d /    , 
   (0.5, 0.6)   (0.3, 0.4)   (0.1, 0.2)   (0.2, 0.3)   
 
    (0.6, 0.8)   (0.1, 0.2),   (0.5, 0.7)    
 s2 , d 2 /  (0.1, 0.2)  , d 3 /  (0.7, 0.8)  , d 4 /  (0.2, 0.3)    , 
           
   (0.6, 0.7)   (0.2, 0.3)   (0.6, 0.8)    
 
( F { A} , E ) =  s3 , d1 /   , d2 /   , d3 /     , 
       
  (0.2, 0.3) (0.6, 0.7) (0.1, 0.2)  
 
( )
 s4 ,  , 
 
   (0.6, 0.7)   (0.5.0.7)   (0.4, 0.6)   (0.7, 0.8)    

 5  1 
s , d /  2 
, d /  3 
, d /  4 
, d /    
   (0.1, 0.2)   (0.2, 0.3)   (0.2, 0.3)   (0.1, 0.2)  

 


72
 IVIFSS Example (contd.)
Tabular representation of the IVIFSS ( F { A} , E )

U E s1 s2 s3 s4 s5
d1  (0.2, 0.4)   (0.6, 0.7)   (0.6, 0.7) 
  0   0  
 (0.5, 0.6)   (0.2, 0.3)   (0.1, 0.2) 
d2  (0.4, 0.5)   (0.6, 0.8)   (0.2, 0.3)   (0.5.0.7) 
      0  
 (0.3, 0.4)   (0.1, 0.2)   (0.6, 0.7)   (0.2, 0.3) 
d3  (0.7, 0.8)   (0.1, 0.2),   (0.6, 0.8)   (0.4, 0.6) 
      0  
 (0.1, 0.2)   (0.7, 0.8)   (0.1, 0.2)   (0.2, 0.3) 
d4  (0.6, 0.7)   (0.5, 0.7)   (0.7, 0.8) 
    0 0  
 (0.2, 0.3)   (0.2, 0.3)   (0.1, 0.2) 
d5 0 0 0 0 0

73
 Interval-valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Soft
Matrix
• Let ( F A , E ) be an interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy soft set over the initial universe U.
• Let E be a set of parameters and A  E.
• Then a subset of U  E is uniquely defined by RA = {(u, e) : e  A, u  F A (e)}, which is called a relation

of ( F A , E ).
• The membership function of RA is written as  RA : U  E →Int ([0,1]) and defined by

{[  Fl ( e ) (u ),  Fr ( e ) (u )],[ Fl ( e ) (u ), Fr ( e ) (u )] if e  A

 RA (u, e) =  A A A A

[0, 0], if e  A,

where Int ([0,1]) stands for the set of all closed subintervals of [0,1] and [  Fl (e)
(u ),  r
F
(u )] and
A A (e)

[ Fl (e)
(u ), r
F
(u )] respectively denote the interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy membership and non-
A A (e)
membership degrees of the object u associated with the parameter e .

74
 Interval-valued Intuitionistic
Fuzzy Soft Matrix (Contd…)
• If U = {x1 , x2 ,..., xm } and E = {e1 , e2 ,..., en } , then RA is represented as shown below.
th
• For simplicity, if we take the [ij ] entry of the relation F as

aij = {[  Fl ( xi ),  r
( xi )],[ l
( xi ), r
( xi )]},
A (e j ) F A (e j ) F A (e j ) F A (e j )

then the matrix is defined as

 a11 a12 a1n 
a a a2 n 
[ a ij ]mn =  21 22 .
 
 
 am1 am 2 amn 

❖ The above matrix is called an interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy soft matrix of order m n
corresponding to the interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy soft set ( F A , E ) over U .

75
 IVIFSM Example
The IVIFSM corresponding to previous IVIFSS is given below.

  (0.2, 0.4)   (0, 0)   (0.6, 0.7)   (0, 0)   (0.6, 0.7)  

         
  (0.5, 0.6)   (0, 0)   (0.2, 0.3)   (0, 0)   (0.1, 0.2)  
  (0.4, 0.5)   (0.6, 0.8)   (0.2, 0.3)   (0, 0)   (0.5.0.7)  
         
  (0.3, 0.4)   (0.1, 0.2)   (0.6, 0.7)   (0, 0)   (0.2, 0.3)  
 
 (0.7, 0.8)   (0.1, 0.2),   (0.6, 0.8)   (0, 0)   (0.4, 0.6)  
[a ij ] =  
  (0.1, 0.2)    
 (0.7, 0.8)   (0.1, 0.2) 
 
 (0, 0) 
 
 (0.2, 0.3)
 .

 
  (0.6, 0.7)   (0.5, 0.7)   (0, 0)   (0, 0)   (0.7, 0.8)  
  (0.2, 0.3)         
   (0.2, 0.3)   (0, 0)   (0, 0)   (0.1, 0.2)  
  (0, 0)   (0, 0)   (0, 0)   (0, 0)   (0, 0)  
           
  (0, 0)   (0, 0)   (0, 0)   (0, 0)   (0, 0)  

76
 Choice Matrix
• Choice Matrix is a square matrix whose rows and columns both indicate
the parameters. If  is a choice matrix, then its element  (i , j ) is defined
as follows:

(1, 1), (1,1) when i th and jth parameters both are the choice

parameters of the decision makers
 (i, j ) = 
P
th
(0, 0), (0,0) otherwise, i.e., when at least one of the i
or jth parameters is not under choice of the decision makers.


• In combined choice matrix,

✓ Rows indicate choice parameters of single decision maker,
✓ Columns indicate combined choice parameters (obtained by the
intersection of parameters sets) of decision makers.

77
 Combined Choice Matrix Example
P1 = {s1 , s2 , s3 , s4 }
P2 = {s1 , s2 , s3 , s5 }
P3 = {s1 , s2 , s4 , s5 }
s{ P2 P3 }
  (1,1),   (1,1),   (0,0),   (0,0),   (1,1),  
         
  (1,1)   (1,1)   (0,0)   (0,0)   (1,1)  
  (1,1),   (1,1),   (0,0),   (0,0),   (1,1),  
         
  (1,1)   (1,1)   (0,0)   (0,0)   (1,1) 
 
  (1,1),   (1,1),   (0,0),   (0,0),   (1,1),  
         
s{ P1 }
 (1,1)   (1,1)   (0,0)   (0,0)   (1,1)  
 
  (1,1),   (1,1),   (0,0),   (0,0),   (1,1),  
  (1,1)         
   (1,1)   (0,0)   (0,0)   (1,1)  
  (0,0),   (0,0),   (0,0),   (0,0),   (0,0),  

  (0,0)         
   (0,0)   (0,0)   (0,0)   (0,0)  

78
 Operation on IVIFSM
Addition
• Two interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy soft matrices A and B are said
to be conformable for addition,
✓ if they are of the same order and after addition, the obtained sum
is also an IVIFSM of the same order.
• If both A = ( a ij ) and B = (b ij ) be the same order m n , then the addition

of A and B is denoted by A  B and is defined by [c ij ] = [a ij ]  [bij ],

where
[max{ al , bl },max{ ar , br }], 
 ij ij ij ij 
cij =   i, j.
 [min{ a , b },min{ a ,  b }] 
l l r r
 ij ij ij ij 

79
 Operation on IVIFSM
Complement
•
c
Complement of an IVIFSM ( a ij ) mn is denoted by ( a ij ) mn , where

( a ij ) mn is the matrix representation of the interval-valued intuitionistic

fuzzy soft set ( F A , E ) .

• ( a ij ) cmn is the matrix representation of the interval-valued intuitionistic

c
fuzzy soft set ( F A , E ) and defined as


( ) ( ) 
( ) ( )
 
c c c c
(a ) c
= aij , aij
l r
,  aij ,  arij
l
ij m n
   
= [1 − arij ,1 −  al ij ],[1 − arij ,1 − al ij ].

80
 Operation on IVIFSM
Product
• Product of Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Soft Matrix and
Choice Matrix can be implemented
✓ If the number of columns of interval-valued intuitionistic
fuzzy soft matrix A be equal to the number of rows of the
choice matrix  .

• Then A and  are said to be conformable for the product (A  )

and the product ( A   ) becomes interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy
soft matrix. The product ( A   ) is also denoted simply by A .
• If A = [ a ij ]mn and  = [  jk ]n p , then A = [c ik ]m p , where
[max nj =1 min{ al ,  l }, max nj =1 min{ ar ,  r }], 
 
=
ij jk ij jk
c ik .
[min j =1 min{ aij ,  }, min j =1 min{ aij ,  }]
n l l n r r

 jk jk 

81
 Cardinal Set of IVIFSS and Cardinal Score
The cardinal set of IVIFSS ( F { A} , E ) is denoted by (cF { A} , E ) and defined by
(cF { A} , E ) = {[ cl F { A} ( x), crF { A} ( x)],[ cl F { A} ( x), crF { A} ( x)]}/ x : x  E}.

It is an interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy set over E. The membership function [ c F ( x), crF { A} ( x)] and
l
{ A}

non-membership function [ c F ( x), crF { A} ( x)] of (cF { A} , E ) are respectively defined by

l
{ A}

 
  l ( x) = dU
 Fl { A} (d )   Fr { A} (d ) 
 x  E and
,  r
( x ) = d U
 c F { A} U c F { A}
U 
 
 
 l ( x) = dU
 Fl { A} (d )   Fr { A} (d ) 
 x  E.
,  r
( x ) = d U
 c F { A} U c F { A}
U 
 
Here U is the cardinality of the universe U.

82
 Cardinal Set of IVIFSS and Cardinal
Score (contd.)
The sets of all cardinal sets of IVIFSS ( F { A} , E ) over U is denoted by cIVIFS ( E ) . Let
F { A}  IVIFS (U ), cF { A}  cIVIFS (U ), E = {x1 , x2 ,..., xn }, and A  E , then cF { A} is presented in
below.

Cardinal set of IVIFSS

E x1 x2 xn
 cl F ( x1 ), crF ( x1 )   cl F ( x2 ), crF ( x2 )   cl F ( xn ), crF ( xn ) 
cF { A}  { A} { A}
  { A} { A}
 …  { A} { A}

 l
( x ), r
( x ),   l
( x ), r
( x ),   l
( x ), r
( x ), 
 c F { A} 1 c F { A} 1   c F { A} 2 c F { A} 2   c F { A} n c F { A} n 

(
If a1 j = {c F
l
{ A}
)
( x j ), crF{ A} ( x j )},{ cl F{ A} ( x j ), crF{ A} ( x j )} for j = 1, 2,..., n, then the cardinal set is

uniquely characterized by a matrix  aij  = [a11 a12 ... a1n ], which is called the cardinal matrix of the
1n

cardinal set cF { A} over E.

Cardinal score of a cardinal set cF { A} is denoted by S (cF { A} ) and defined as
1 
S (cF { A} ) =   cl F { A} ( x) +  crF { A} ( x) −  cl F { A} ( x) −  crF { A} ( x)  .
2  xE xE xE xE 
83
Cardinal Set of IVIFSS and Cardinal Score Example
  (0.3.0.7),   (0.3,0.4),   (0.5,0.6),   (0.5,0.6),   (0.0,0.0),  
         
  (0.1,0.2)   (0.4,0.5)   (0.2,0.4)   (0.2,0.4)   (0.0,0.0)  
  (0.4,0.5),   (0.3,0.7),   (0.3,0.6),   (0.3,0.7),   (0.0,0.0),  
         
  (0.3,0.5)   (0.2,0.3)   (0.1,0.3)   (0.1,0.2)   (0.0,0.0)  
 
 (0.3,0.6),   (0.4,0.6),   (0.4,0.6),   (0.4,0.6),   (0.0,0.0),  
{P1 (i, j )} =  
  (0.3,0.4)  
 (0.2,0.3) 
 
 (0.2,0.4) 
 
 (0.2,0.4) 
   ,
 (0.0,0.0)  
 
  (0.4,0.8),   (0.2,0.5),   (0.2,0.5),   (0.2,0.5),   (0.0,0.0),  
  (0.1,0.2)         
   (0.3,0.4)   (0.3,0.4)   (0.3,0.4)   (0.0,0.0)  
  (0.3,0.5),   (0.2,0.3),   (0.2,0.3),   (0.3,0.4),   (0.0,0.0),  
           
  (0.2,0.4)   (0.4,0.7)   (0.5,0.6)   (0.4,0.5)   (0.0,0.0)  
cl F { P1 }
( x1 ) = (0.3 + 0.4 + 0.3 + 0.4 + 0.3) / 5 = 0.34, crF { P } ( x1 ) = (0.7 + 0.5 + 0.6 + 0.8 + 0.5) / 5 = 0.62
1

 l
c F { P1}
( x1 ) = (0.1 + 0.3 + 0.3 + 0.1 + 0.2) / 5 = 0.2, r
c F { P1}
( x1 ) = (0.2 + 0.5 + 0.4 + 0.2 + 0.4) / 5 = 0.34
cl F ( x2 ) = 0.28, crF ( x2 ) = 0.5, cl F ( x2 ) = 0.3, crF ( x2 ) = 0.44, cl F ( x3 ) = 0.32, crF ( x3 ) = 0.52,
{ A} { A} { A} { A} { A} { A}

 l
c F { A}
( x3 ) = 0.26, r
c F { A}
( x3 ) = 0.42,  l
c F { A}
( x4 ) = 0.3,  r
c F { A}
( x4 ) = 0.56, l
c F { A}
( x4 ) = 0.24, r
c F { A}
( x4 ) = 0.38
Cardinal matrix of the IVIFSM [ p1 (i, j )]55 is  p1 (i, j )15 = [a11 a12 ... a15 ], where
 (0.34, 0.62)   (0.28, 0.5)   (0.32, 0.52)   (0.3, 0.56)   (0, 0)  
 p1 (i, j )15 =        
 (0.2, 0.34)   (0.3, 0.44)   (0.26, 0.42)   (0.24, 0.38)   (0, 0)  
Cardinal score
1  1
S (cF { A} ) =   cl F ( x) +  crF ( x) −  cl F ( x) −  crF ( x)  = ( 3.44 − 2.58 ) = 0.43
2  xE xE
{ A}
xE
{ A}
xE  2
{ A} { A}

84
 Proposed Algorithm
Step 1: Opinions of a set of experts / decision makers P = { p1 , p2 ,..., pk } for a given set of alternatives
D = {d1 , d 2 ,..., d m } and a set of attributes S = {s1 , s2 ,..., sn } are represented using IVIFSMs.

Step 2: Cardinal matrix of each IVIFSM is explored and then cardinal score is computed.

Step 3: Cardinal score is multiplied with the corresponding IVIFSM to produce the normalized IVIFSM. Let
 a ( ij )  be an IVIFSM and cardinal score is h, then the normalized IVIFSM, denoted by N IVIFSM , is
  mn
defined by N IVIFSM [a ( ij ) ] =  h * a ( ij )  , for i = 1, 2,..., m and j = 1, 2,..., n.
  mn
Step 4: Choice matrix  (i, j ) P and combined choice matrix  (i , j ) P
C
of each of the decision makers
P = { p1 , p2 ,..., pk } are computed in the context of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy set based on their
choice parameters / attributes.

Step 5: Product IVIFSM ( PIVIFSM ) for each decision maker is calculated by multiplying the normalized
IVIFSM with its combined choice matrix.

85
 Proposed Algorithm (Contd…)
Step 6: Summation of these product IVIFSMs is the resultant IVIFSM ( RIVIFSM ).

Step 7: Weight W ( d i ) of each alternative d i {i = 1, 2,..., m} is estimated by adding the membership and non-
membership values of the entries of the respective row (ith row).
Step 8: d i  D , compute the score S (di ) of di , such that,
S (di ) = {( il − il ) + ( ir − ir )}/ 2, di  D i.
Step 9: If S (di )  S (d j ) d j  D, then alternative d i is selected. If  j , such that, S (di ) = S (d j ), where
i  j for highest score value, then decision is made according to their accuracy values as described in step 10.
Step 10: Accuracy value H (di ), i = 1, 2,..., m, is defined as
H (di ) = {( il + il ) + ( ir + ir )}/ 2, di  D i.
If H (di )  H (d j ) j for which S ( d i ) = S ( d j ), defined in Step 9, alternative d i is selected. If
H (di ) = H (d j ) for any j , then di and d j both are selected.

86
 Case Study
 Let D = { d1, d2, d3, d4, d5 } be the set of five stages of heart disease
(Stage ‘I’, Stage ‘II’, Stage ‘III’, Stage ‘IV’, and Stage ‘V’).
 Patients belonging to Stage ‘I’ are assumed not to be affected by
heart disease.
 Patients belonging to Stage ‘II’ are in initial stage, patients belonging
to Stage ‘III’ are in more unsafe stage than stage ‘II’ and so on.
 Patients belonging to Stage ‘V’ are in the last stage of heart disease
which is unrecoverable.
 Let E be the set of five symptoms (Chest pain, Palpitations,
Dizziness, Fainting, Fatigue) given by E = { s1, s2, s3, s4, s5 }.

87
 Case Study (Contd…)

 Suppose that a group of three experts P = {P1, P2, P3} are

monitoring the symptoms of a patient as per their knowledgebase to
reach a consensus about which stage is more likely to happen for a
patient.
 Expert P1 is aware of symptoms (s1, s2, s3, s4).
 P2 is aware of symptoms (s1, s2, s3, s5) and
 P3 is aware of (s1, s2, s4, s5).
 Opinions of each expert regarding the patient is represented by
interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy soft matrix.

88
 Opinion of Expert P1
using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy soft matrix

  (0.3.0.7),   (0.3,0.4),   (0.5,0.6),   (0.5,0.6),   (0.0,0.0),  

         
  (0.1,0.2)   (0.4,0.5)   (0.2,0.4)   (0.2,0.4)   (0.0,0.0)  
  (0.4,0.5),   (0.3,0.7),   (0.3,0.6),   (0.3,0.7),   (0.0,0.0),  
         
  (0.3,0.5)   (0.2,0.3)   (0.1,0.3)   (0.1,0.2)   (0.0,0.0) 
 
 (0.3,0.6),   (0.4,0.6),   (0.4,0.6),   (0.4,0.6),   (0.0,0.0),  
{ p1 (i, j )} =  
  (0.3,0.4)  
 (0.2,0.3) 
 
 (0.2,0.4) 
 
 (0.2,0.4) 
 
 (0.0,0.0)
 ,

 
  (0.4,0.8),   (0.2,0.5),   (0.2,0.5),   (0.2,0.5),   (0.0,0.0), 
  (0.1,0.2)         
   (0.3,0.4)   (0.3,0.4)   (0.3,0.4)   (0.0,0.0)  
  (0.3,0.5),   (0.2,0.3),   (0.2,0.3),   (0.3,0.4),   (0.0,0.0),  
           
  (0.2,0.4)   (0.4,0.7)   (0.5,0.6)   (0.4,0.5)   (0.0,0.0) 

89
 Opinion of Expert P2
using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy soft matrix

  (0.3,0.5),   (0.5,0.6),   (0.2,0.5),   (0.0,0.0),   (0.5,0.7),  

         
  (0.3,0.4)   (0.3,0.4)   (0.3,0.4)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.2,0.3)  
  (0.4,0.5),   (0.4,0.7),   (0.3,0.5),   (0.0,0.0),   (0.4,0.5),  
         
  (0.3,0.5)   (0.2,0.3)   (0.2,0.3)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.3,0.4)  
 
 (0.3,0.6),   (0.7,0.8),   (0.2,0.4),   (0.0,0.0),   (0.4,0.6),  
{ p2 (i, k )} =  
  (0.3,0.4)  
 (0.1,0.2) 
 
 (0.3,0.5) 
 
 (0.0,0.0) 
 
 (0.2,0.4)
 ,

 
  (0.2,0.6),   (0.5,0.7),   (0.3,0.6),   (0.0,0.0),   (0.5,0.6), 
  (0.1,0.2)         
   (0.1,0.2)   (0.2,0.3)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.3,0.4)  
  (0.4,0.5),   (0.2,0.3),   (0.4,0.7),   (0.0,0.0),   (0.4,0.5),  
           
  (0.2,0.4)   (0.4,0.5)   (0.1,0.3)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.3,0.4) 

90
 Opinion of Expert P3
using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy soft matrix

  (0.3,0.5),   (0.2,0.7),   (0.0,0.0),   (0.3,0.6),   (0.2,0.4),  

         
  (0.3,0.4)   (0.1,0.3)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.3,0.4)   (0.5,0.6)  
  (0.3,0.7),   (0.3,0.5),   (0.0,0.0),   (0.4,0.8),   (0.7,0.8),  
         
  (0.2,0.3)   (0.3,0.5)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.1,0.2)   (0.1,0.2) 
 
 (0.5,0.7),   (0.5,0.6),   (0.0,0.0),   (0.5,0.6),   (0.4,0.6),  
{ p3 (i, l )} =  
  (0.1,0.3)  
 (0.3,0.4) 
 
 (0.0,0.0) 
 
 (0.3,0.4) 
   .
 (0.3,0.4)  
 
  (0.4,0.6),   (0.4,0.5),   (0.0,0.0),   (0.3,0.7),   (0.3,0.4),  
  (0.2,0.3)         
   (0.3,0.4)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.2,0.3)   (0.4,0.5)  
  (0.1,0.2),   (0.4,0.6),   (0.0,0.0),   (0.2,0.3),   (0.1,0.4),  
           
  (0.5,0.7)   (0.3,0.4)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.5,0.6)   (0.4,0.5) 

91
 Cardinal Matrix and Cardinal Score of IVIFSM
Cardinal matrix of each IVIFSM and the corresponding cardinal score are given below.
Cardinal matrix  p1 (i, j ) 15 for IFSM  p1 (i, j )  is (as shown in Example 8)

 (0.34, 0.62)   (0.28, 0.5)   (0.32, 0.52)   (0.3, 0.56)   (0, 0)  

 p1 (i, j )15 =        
 (0.2, 0.34)   (0.3, 0.44)   (0.26, 0.42)   (0.24, 0.38)   (0, 0)  
and the corresponding cardinal score is S (cF { p1 } ) = 0.43.
Similarly, cardinal matrices for  p2 (i, j )  and  p3 (i, j )  and the corresponding cardinal scores are
respectively,
 (0.32, 0.54)   (0.46, 0.62)   (0.28, 0.54)   (0, 0)   (0.44, 0.54)  
 p2 (i, j )15 =         
 (0.24, 0.38)   (0.22, 0.32)   (0.22, 0.36)   (0, 0)   (0.26, 0.38)  
 (0.32, 0.54)   (0.36, 0.58)   (0, 0)   (0.34, 0.6)   (0.34, 0.52)  
 3
p (i , j ) 15 
=        
  (0.26, 0.4)   (0.26, 0.4)   (0, 0)   (0.28, 0.38)   (0.34, 0.44) 
S (cF { p2 } ) = 0.68 and S (cF { p3 } ) = 0.42.

92
 Normalized IVIFSM for P1

N IFSM [ p1 (i, j )] = [0.43* p1 (i, j )]55

  (0.13.0.30),   (0.13,0.17),   (0.22,0.26),   (0.22,0.26),   (0.0,0.0),  
         
  (0.04,0.09)   (0.17,0.22)   (0.09,0.17)   (0.09,0.17)   (0.0,0.0)  
  (0.17,0.22),   (0.13,0.30),   (0.13,0.26),   (0.13,0.30),   (0.0,0.0),  
         
  (0.13,0.22)   (0.09,0.13)   (0.04,0.13)   (0.04,0.09)   (0.0,0.0)  
 
 (0.13,0.29),   (0.17,0.26),   (0.17,0.26),   (0.17,0.26),   (0.0,0.0),  
= 
  (0.13,0.17)  
 (0.09,0.13) 
 
 (0.09,0.17) 
 
 (0.09,0.17) 
 
 (0.0,0.0)
 ,

 
  (0.17,0.34),   (0.09,0.22),   (0.09,0.22),   (0.09,0.22),   (0.0,0.0),  
  (0.04,0.09)         
   (0.13,0.17)   (0.13,0.17)   (0.13,0.17)   (0.0,0.0)  
  (0.13,0.22),   (0.09,0.13),   (0.09,0.13),   (0.13,0.17),   (0.0,0.0),  
           
  (0.09,0.17)   (0.17,0.30)   (0.22,0.26)   (0.17,0.22)   (0.0,0.0) 

93
 Normalized IVIFSM for P2
N IVIFSM [ p2 (i, j )] = [0.68* p2 (i, j )]55
  (0.20,0.34),   (0.34,0.41),   (0.14,0.34),   (0.0,0.0),   (0.34,0.48),  
         
  (0.20,0.27)   (0.20,0.27)   (0.20,0.27)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.14,0.20) 
  (0.27,0.34),   (0.27,0.48),   (0.20,0.34),   (0.0,0.0),   (0.27,0.34),  
         
  (0.20,0.34)   (0.14,0.20)   (0.14,0.20)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.20,0.27) 
 
 (0.20,0.41),   (0.48,0.54),   (0.14,0.27),   (0.0,0.0),   (0.27,0.41),  
= 
  (0.20,0.27)  
 (0.07,0.14) 
 
 (0.20,0.34) 
 
 (0.0,0.0) 
 
 (0.14,0.27)
 ,

 
  (0.14,0.41),   (0.34,0.48),   (0.20,0.41),   (0.0,0.0),   (0.34,0.41), 
  (0.07,0.14)         
   (0.07,0.14)   (0.14,0.20)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.20,0.27)  
  (0.27,0.34),   (0.14,0.20),   (0.27,0.48),   (0.0,0.0),   (0.27,0.34),  
           
  (0.14,0.27)   (0.27,0.34)   (0.07,0.20)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.20,0.27)  

94
 Normalized IVIFSM for P3

N IVIFSM [ p3 (i, j )] = [0.42 * p3 (i, j )]55

  (0.13,0.21),   (0.08,0.29),   (0.0,0.0),   (0.13,0.25),   (0.08,0.17),  
         
  (0.13,0.17)   (0.04,0.13)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.13,0.17)   (0.21,0.25)  
  (0.13,0.29),   (0.13,0.21),   (0.0,0.0),   (0.17,0.34),   (0.29,0.34),  
         
  (0.08,0.13)   (0.13,0.21)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.04,0.08)   (0.04,0.08) 
 
 (0.21,0.29),   (0.21,0.25),   (0.0,0.0),   (0.21,0.25),   (0.17,0.25),  
= 
  (0.04,0.13)  
 (0.13,0.17) 
 
 (0.0,0.0) 
 
 (0.13,0.17) 
   .
 (0.13,0.17)  
 
  (0.17,0.25),   (0.17,0.21),   (0.0,0.0),   (0.13,0.29),   (0.13,0.17), 
  (0.08,0.13)         
   (0.13,0.17)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.08,0.13)   (0.17,0.21)  
  (0.04,0.08),   (0.17,0.25),   (0.0,0.0),   (0.08,0.13),   (0.04,0.17),  
           
  (0.21,0.29)   (0.13,0.17)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.21,0.25)   (0.17,0.21) 

95
 Combined Choice Matrix for P1
P1 = {s1 , s2 , s3 , s4 }
P2 = {s1 , s2 , s3 , s5 }
P3 = {s1 , s2 , s4 , s5 }
s{ P2 P3 }
  (1,1),   (1,1),   (0,0),   (0,0),   (1,1),  
         
  (1,1)   (1,1)   (0,0)   (0,0)   (1,1)  
  (1,1),   (1,1),   (0,0),   (0,0),   (1,1),  
         
  (1,1)   (1,1)   (0,0)   (0,0)   (1,1) 
 
  (1,1),   (1,1),   (0,0),   (0,0),   (1,1),  
         
s{ P1 }
 (1,1)   (1,1)   (0,0)   (0,0)   (1,1)  
 
  (1,1),   (1,1),   (0,0),   (0,0),   (1,1),  
  (1,1)         
   (1,1)   (0,0)   (0,0)   (1,1)  
  (0,0),   (0,0),   (0,0),   (0,0),   (0,0),  

  (0,0)         
   (0,0)   (0,0)   (0,0)   (0,0)  

96
 Combined Choice Matrix for P2
s{ P1P3 }
  (1,1),   (1,1),   (0,0),   (1,1),   (0,0),  
         
 (1,1)   (1,1)   (0,0)   (1,1)   (0,0) 
  (1,1),   (1,1),   (0,0),   (1,1),   (0,0),  
         
  (1,1)   (1,1)   (0,0)   (1,1)   (0,0)  
 
 (1,1),   (1,1),   (0,0),   (1,1),   (0,0), 
s{ P2 }           

  (1,1)   (1,1)   (0,0)   (1,1)   (0,0)  
 
  (0,0),   (0,0),   (0,0),   (0,0),   (0,0),  
  (0,0)   (0,0)   (0,0)   (0,0)   (0,0)  
         
  (1,1),   (1,1),   (0,0),   (1,1),   (0,0),  

  (1,1)   (1,1)   (0,0)   (1,1)   (0,0)   
         

97
 Combined Choice Matrix for P3
s{ P1P2 }
  (1,1),   (1,1),   (1,1),   (0,0),   (0,0),  
         
 (1,1)   (1,1)   (1,1)   (0,0)   (0,0) 
  (1,1),   (1,1),   (1,1),   (0,0),   (0,0),  
         
  (1,1)   (1,1)   (1,1)   (0,0)   (0,0)  
 
  (0,0),   (0,0),   (0,0),   (0,0),   (0,0),  
s{ P3 } 
  (0,0) 

 (0,0) 
 
 (0,0) 
 
 (0,0) 
  
 (0,0)  
 
  (1,1),   (1,1),   (1,1),   (0,0),   (0,0),  
  (1,1)         
   (1,1)   (1,1)   (0,0)   (0,0) 
  (1,1),   (1,1),   (1,1),   (0,0),   (0,0),  

  (1,1)         
   (1,1)   (1,1)   (0,0)   (0,0)  

98
Product of IVFSMs and Combined Choice
Matrices for P1
s{ p2 p3 }
  (0.13.0.30),   (0.13,0.17),   (0.22,0.26),   (0.22,0.26),   (0.0,0.0),     (1,1),   (1,1),   (0,0),   (0,0),   (1,1),  
                   
  (0.04,0.09)   (0.17,0.22)   (0.09,0.17)   (0.09,0.17)   (0.0,0.0)     (1,1)   (1,1)   (0,0)   (0,0)   (1,1)  
  (0.17,0.22),   (0.13,0.30),   (0.13,0.26),   (0.13,0.30),   (0.0,0.0),     (1,1),   (1,1),   (0,0),   (0,0),   (1,1),  
                   
  (0.13,0.22)   (0.09,0.13)   (0.04,0.13)   (0.04,0.09)   (0.0,0.0)     (1,1)   (1,1)   (0,0)   (0,0)   (1,1)  
   
 (0.13,0.29),   (0.17,0.26),   (0.17,0.26),   (0.17,0.26),   (0.0,0.0),     (1,1),   (1,1),   (0,0),   (0,0),   (1,1),  
N IVIFSM { p1 (i, j )}   
  (0.13,0.17)           { p1 }           
s
 (0.09,0.13)   (0.09,0.17)   (0.09,0.17)   (0.0,0.0)   (1,1)   (1,1)   (0,0)   (0,0)   (1,1)  
   
  (0.17,0.34),   (0.09,0.22),   (0.09,0.22),   (0.09,0.22),   (0.0,0.0),     (1,1),   (1,1),   (0,0),   (0,0),   (1,1),  
  (0.04,0.09)            (1,1)         
   (0.13,0.17)   (0.13,0.17)   (0.13,0.17)   (0.0,0.0)      (1,1)   (0,0)   (0,0)   (1,1)  
  (0.13,0.22),   (0.09,0.13),   (0.09,0.13),   (0.13,0.17),   (0.0,0.0),     (0,0),   (0,0),   (0,0),   (0,0),   (0,0),  
                       
  (0.09,0.17)   (0.17,0.30)   (0.22,0.26)   (0.17,0.22)   (0.0,0.0)     (0,0)   (0,0)   (0,0)   (0,0)   (0,0)  
  (0.22.0.30)   (0.22.0.30)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.22.0.30)  
         
  (0.04,0.09)   (0.04,0.09)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.04,0.09)  
  (0.17,0.30)   (0.17,0.30)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.17,0.30)  
         
  (0.04,0.09)   (0.04,0.09)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.04,0.09)  
 
 (0.17,0.29)   (0.17,0.29)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.17,0.29)  
= 
  (0.09,0.13)   
 (0.09,0.13) 
 
 (0.0,0.0) 
 
 (0.0,0.0) 
 
 (0.09,0.13)  
 
  (0.17,0.34)   (0.17,0.34)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.17,0.34)  
  (0.04,0.09)         
   (0.04,0.09)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.04,0.09)  
  (0.13,0.22)   (0.13,0.22)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.13,0.22)  
           
  (0.09,0.17)   (0.09,0.17)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.09,0.17)  

Max-Min composition → for the membership value

Min-Min Composition → for the non-membership value
99
 Sum of these Product Interval-valued
Intuitionistic Fuzzy Soft Matrices
  (0.22.0.30)   (0.22.0.30)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.22.0.30)     (0.34,0.48)   (0.34,0.48)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.34,0.48)   (0.0,0.0)  
                     
  (0.04,0.09)   (0.04,0.09)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.04,0.09)     (0.14,0.20)   (0.14,0.20)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.14,0.20)   (0.0,0.0)  
  (0.17,0.30)   (0.17,0.30)   (0.0, 0.0)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.17,0.30)     (0.27,0.48)   (0.27,0.48)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.27,0.48)   (0.0,0.0)  
                     
  (0.04,0.09)   (0.04,0.09)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.04,0.09)     (0.14,0.20)   (0.14,0.20)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.14,0.20)   (0.0,0.0)  
   
  (0.17,0.29)   (0.17,0.29)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.17,0.29)     (0.48,0.54)   (0.48,0.54)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.48,0.54)   (0.0,0.0)  
  (0.09,0.13)                     
 (0.09,0.13)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.09,0.13)   (0.07,0.14)   (0.07,0.14)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.07,0.14)   (0.0,0.0) 
   
  (0.17,0.34)   (0.17,0.34)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.17,0.34)     (0.34,0.48)   (0.34,0.48)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.34,0.48)   (0.0,0.0)  
  (0.04,0.09)                    
   (0.04,0.09)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.04,0.09)     (0.07,0.14)   (0.07,0.14)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.07,0.14)   (0.0,0.0)  
  (0.13,0.22)   (0.13,0.22)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.13,0.22)     (0.27,0.48)   (0.27,0.48)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.27,0.48)   (0.0,0.0)  
                       
  (0.09,0.17)   (0.09,0.17)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.09,0.17)     (0.07,0.20)   (0.07,0.20)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.07,0.20)   (0.0,0.0)  
  (0.13,0.29)   (0.13,0.29)   (0.13,0.29)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.0,0.0)     (0.34,0.48)   (0.34,0.48),   (0.13,0.29)   (0.34,0.48)   (0.22,0.30)  
                  
  (0.04,0.13)   (0.04,0.13)   (0.04,0.13)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.0,0.0)     (0.04,0.09)   (0.04,0.09)   (0.04,0.13)   (0.14,0.20)   (0.04,0.09)  
  (0.29,0.34)   (0.29,0.34)   (0.29,0.34)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.0,0.0)     (0.29,0.48)   (0.29,0.48)   (0.29,0.34)   (0.27,0.48)   (0.17,0.30)  
                  
  (0.04,0.08)   (0.04,0.08)   (0.04,0.08)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.0,0.0)     (0.04,0.08)   (0.04,0.08)   (0.04,0.08)   (0.14,0.20)   (0.04,0.09)  
   
  (0.21,0.29)   (0.21,0.29)   (0.21,0.29)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.0,0.0)     (0.48,0.54)   (0.48,0.54)   (0.21,0.29)   (0.48,0.54),   (0.17,0.29)  
  (0.04,0.13)          =          .
 (0.04,0.13)   (0.04,0.13)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.0,0.0)     (0.04,0.13)   (0.04,0.13)   (0.04,0.13)   (0.07,0.14)   (0.09,0.13)  
   
  (0.17,0.29)   (0.17,0.29)   (0.17,0.29)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.0,0.0)     (0.34,0.48)   (0.34,0.48)   (0.17,0.29)   (0.34,0.48)   (0.17,0.34)  
  (0.08,0.13)                   
   (0.08,0.13)   (0.08,0.13)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.0,0.0)     (0.04,0.09)   (0.04,0.09)   (0.08,0.13)   (0.07,0.14)   (0.04,0.09)  
  (0.17,0.25)   (0.17,0.25)   (0.17,0.25)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.0,0.0)     (0.27,0.48)   (0.27,0.48)   (0.17,0.25)   (0.27,0.48)   (0.13,0.22)  
                     
  (0.13,0.17)   (0.13,0.17)   (0.13,0.17)   (0.0,0.0)   (0.0,0.0)     (0.07,0.17)   (0.07,0.17)   (0.13,0.17)   (0.07,0.20)   (0.09,0.17)  

Max-Max composition → for the membership value

Min-Min Composition → for the non-membership value

100
 Weights of the Diseases
Weights of the alternatives W (di ), i = 1, 2,..., 5 are calculated as follows:

[0.34 + 0.34 + 0.13 + 0.34 + 0.22, 

 0.48 + 0.48 + 0.29 + 0.48 + 0.30], 
W ( d1 ) =   = [1.37, 2.03],  .
[0.04 + 0.04 + 0.04 + 0.14 + 0.04,  [0.3, 0.6] 
 
 0.09 + 0.09 + 0.13 + 0.20 + 0.09] 

Similarly,

[1.31, 2.08],  [1.82, 2.2], 

W (d 2 ) =   , W ( d 3 ) = [0.28, 0.66] ,
[0.3, 0.53]   
[1.36, 2.07],  [1.11,1.91], 
W (d 4 ) =   , W (d5 ) =  .
[0.27, 0.54]  [0.43, 0.88]

101
 Computation of Scores

S (d1 ) = {(1.37 − 0.3) + (2.03 − 0.6)}/ 2 = 1.25

S (d 2 ) = {(1.31 − 0.3) + (2.08 − 0.53)}/ 2 = 1.28
S (d3 ) = {(1.82 − 0.28) + (2.2 − 0.66)}/ 2 = 1.54
S (d 4 ) = {(1.36 − 0.27) + (2.07 − 0.54)}/ 2 = 1.31
S (d5 ) = {(1.11 − 0.43) + (1.91 − 0.88)}/ 2 = 0.86
Since score of d3 is maximum, the patient under consideration
belongs to Stage ‘III’ as per the collective opinions of the group of
experts.

102
 Result Discussion
 Medical Knowledgebase is not used
 More importance is given on the parameter selection of experts
 This approach is guided by a confident weight assigning mechanism
 Ordering of diseases in different cases: Case I does not use confident
weight while Case II uses it

Ordering of diseases in different cases

Case I d 2  d3  d 4  d1  d5
Case II d3  d 4  d 2  d1  d5
103
 Thanks

Contact No 9434588993
Email: sujit.das@nitw.ac.in

104
 References
 D. Molodtsov, Soft set theory-first results, Computers and Mathematics with
Applications 37 (4/5), (1999) 19-31
 P. K. Maji and A. R. Roy, An Application of Soft Sets in A Decision Making
Problem, Computers and Mathematics with Applications 44, (2002) 1077-
1083
 A. R. Roy and P. K. Maji, A fuzzy soft set theoretic approach to decision
making problems, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 203
(2), (2007) 412–418
 P.K. Maji, R. Biswas, A.R. Roy, Intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets, Journal of Fuzzy
Mathematics 9 (3), (2001) 677–692.
 S. Das, S. Kar, Group decision making in medical system: An intuitionistic
fuzzy soft set approach, Applied Soft Computing 24, (2014) 196–211
 S. Das, M.B. Kar, T. Pal, S. Kar, Multiple Attribute Group Decision Making
using Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Soft Matrix, Proc. of IEEE
International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE), Beijing, July 6-
11, 2014, pp. 2222 – 2229,
105
 References
 Avijit De, Sujit Das, Samarjit Kar, Ranking of interval type 2 fuzzy numbers using correlation coefficient
and Mellin transform, Opsearch (accepted), 2021 DOI: 10.1007/s12597-020-00504-2
 Sujit Das, Bikash Koli Roy, Mohuya B. Kar, Samarjit Kar, Dragan Pamucˇar, Neutrosophic fuzzy set and its
application in decision making, Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 2020, DOI
10.1007/s12652-020-01808-3
 Avijit De, Sujit Das, Samarjit Kar, Multiple attribute decision making based on probabilistic interval-
valued intuitionistic hesitant fuzzy set and extended TOPSIS method, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems,
2019, DOI: 10.3233/JIFS-190205
 Avijit De, Pradip Kundu, Sujit Das, Samarjit Kar, A ranking method based on interval type-2 fuzzy sets for
multiple attribute group decision making, Soft Computing, 2019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-
019-04285-9
 Jagannath Roy, Sujit Das, Samarjit Kar, and Dragan Pamučar, An Extension of the CODAS Approach
Using Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set for Sustainable Material Selection in Construction Projects
with Incomplete Weight Information, Symmetry 2019, 11, 393; doi:10.3390/sym11030393
 Amalendu Si, Sujit Das, and Samarjit Kar, An approach to rank picture fuzzy numbers for decision making
problems, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 2019, DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame1902049s
 Sujit Das, Debashish Malakar, Samarjit Kar, Tandra Pal, Correlation measure of hesitant fuzzy soft sets and
their application in decision making, Neural Computing and Applications 31 (4) (2019) 1023-1039
 Sujit Das, Mohuya B. Kar, Samarjit Kar, Tandra Pal, An approach for decision making using intuitionistic
trapezoidal fuzzy soft set, Annals of Fuzzy Mathematics And Informatics, 2018 (Volume 16, No. 1, (August
2018), pp. 85–102
 Sujit Das, Debashish Malakar, Samarjit Kar, Tandra Pal, A brief review and future outline on decision
106
making using fuzzy soft set, International journal of fuzzy systems applications 7 (2) (2018) 1-43
 References
 Sujit Das, Samarjit Kar, Tandra Pal, Robust decision making using intuitionistic fuzzy numbers,
Granular Computing 2 (2017) 41–54 DOI 10.1007/s41066-016-0024-3
 Sujit Das, Saurabh Kumar, Samarjit Kar, Tandra Pal, Group decision making using neutrosophic soft
matrix: An algorithmic approach, Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences,
2017, doi http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2017.05.001
 Sujit Das, Sumonta Ghosh, Samarjit Kar, Tandra Pal, An algorithmic approach for predicting
unknown information in incomplete fuzzy soft set, Arabian journal for science and engineering 42 (8)
(2017) 3563–3571
 Avijit De, Amitava Ghosh, Sujit Das, A fuzzy ranking approach for a two-warehouse inventory model
for deteriorating items with ramp type demand, Journal of the Association of Engineers, India 87 (1 & 2)
(2017) 59-77
 Sujit Das, Priyanka Kumari, Archna Kumari Verma, Triangular fuzzy soft set and its application in
MADM, International Journal of Computational Systems Engineering 2 (2) (2015) 85-93
 Sujit Das, Samarjit Kar, Group decision making in medical system: An intuitionistic fuzzy soft set
approach, Applied Soft Computing 24 (2014) 196–211.
 Samarjit Kar, Sujit Das, Pijush Kanti Ghosh, Applications of neuro fuzzy systems: A brief review and
future outline, Applied Soft Computing 15 (2014) 243-259.
 Sujit Das, Samarjit Kar, Tandra Pal, Group Decision Making using Interval-valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy
Soft Matrix and Confident Weight of Experts, Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing
Research 4 (1) (2014) 57-77.
 Sulekha Gope, Sujit Das, Fuzzy Dominance Matrix and its Application in Decision Making Problems,
International Journal of Soft Computing and Engineering 4 (1) (2014) 1-4.
 Sujit Das, Mahuya B. Kar, Samarjit Kar, Group Multi Criteria Decision Making using Intuitionistic
Multi Fuzzy Sets, Journal of Uncertainty Analysis and Applications 2013, 1:10 doi:10.1186/2195-5468-1-10

107