Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/SVG/jax.js
Research article Special Issues

New generalization of fuzzy soft sets: (a,b)-Fuzzy soft sets

  • Many models of uncertain knowledge have been designed that combine expanded views of fuzziness (expressions of partial memberships) with parameterization (multiple subsethood indexed by a parameter set). The standard orthopair fuzzy soft set is a very general example of this successful blend initiated by fuzzy soft sets. It is a mapping from a set of parameters to the family of all orthopair fuzzy sets (which allow for a very general view of acceptable membership and non-membership evaluations). To expand the scope of application of fuzzy soft set theory, the restriction of orthopair fuzzy sets that membership and non-membership must be calibrated with the same power should be removed. To this purpose we introduce the concept of (a,b)-fuzzy soft set, shortened as (a,b)-FSS. They enable us to address situations that impose evaluations with different importances for membership and non-membership degrees, a problem that cannot be modeled by the existing generalizations of intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets. We establish the fundamental set of arithmetic operations for (a,b)-FSSs and explore their main characteristics. Then we define aggregation operators for (a,b)-FSSs and discuss their main properties and the relationships between them. Finally, with the help of suitably defined scores and accuracies we design a multi-criteria decision-making strategy that operates in this novel framework. We also analyze a decision-making problem to endorse the validity of (a,b)-FSSs for decision-making purposes.

    Citation: Tareq M. Al-shami, José Carlos R. Alcantud, Abdelwaheb Mhemdi. New generalization of fuzzy soft sets: (a,b)-Fuzzy soft sets[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(2): 2995-3025. doi: 10.3934/math.2023155

    Related Papers:

    [1] Maliha Rashid, Akbar Azam, Maria Moqaddas, Naeem Saleem, Maggie Aphane . Ciric fixed point theorems of £-fuzzy soft set-valued maps with applications in fractional integral inclusions. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(3): 4641-4661. doi: 10.3934/math.2025215
    [2] Asit Dey, Tapan Senapati, Madhumangal Pal, Guiyun Chen . A novel approach to hesitant multi-fuzzy soft set based decision-making. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(3): 1985-2008. doi: 10.3934/math.2020132
    [3] Adel Fahad Alrasheedi, Jungeun Kim, Rukhsana Kausar . q-Rung orthopair fuzzy information aggregation and their application towards material selection. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(8): 18780-18808. doi: 10.3934/math.2023956
    [4] Admi Nazra, Jenizon, Yudiantri Asdi, Zulvera . Generalized hesitant intuitionistic fuzzy N-soft sets-first result. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(7): 12650-12670. doi: 10.3934/math.2022700
    [5] Sumbal Ali, Asad Ali, Ahmad Bin Azim, Abdul Samad Khan, Fuad A. Awwad, Emad A. A. Ismail . TOPSIS method based on q-rung orthopair picture fuzzy soft environment and its application in the context of green supply chain management. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(6): 15149-15171. doi: 10.3934/math.2024735
    [6] Atiqe Ur Rahman, Muhammad Saeed, Hamiden Abd El-Wahed Khalifa, Walaa Abdullah Afifi . Decision making algorithmic techniques based on aggregation operations and similarity measures of possibility intuitionistic fuzzy hypersoft sets. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(3): 3866-3895. doi: 10.3934/math.2022214
    [7] Sumbal Ali, Asad Ali, Ahmad Bin Azim, Ahmad ALoqaily, Nabil Mlaiki . Averaging aggregation operators under the environment of q-rung orthopair picture fuzzy soft sets and their applications in MADM problems. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(4): 9027-9053. doi: 10.3934/math.2023452
    [8] Sana Shahab, Mohd Anjum, Ashit Kumar Dutta, Shabir Ahmad . Gamified approach towards optimizing supplier selection through Pythagorean Fuzzy soft-max aggregation operators for healthcare applications. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(3): 6738-6771. doi: 10.3934/math.2024329
    [9] Jabbar Ahmmad, Tahir Mahmood, Ronnason Chinram, Aiyared Iampan . Some average aggregation operators based on spherical fuzzy soft sets and their applications in multi-criteria decision making. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(7): 7798-7832. doi: 10.3934/math.2021454
    [10] Ibtesam Alshammari, Islam M. Taha . On fuzzy soft β-continuity and β-irresoluteness: some new results. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(5): 11304-11319. doi: 10.3934/math.2024554
  • Many models of uncertain knowledge have been designed that combine expanded views of fuzziness (expressions of partial memberships) with parameterization (multiple subsethood indexed by a parameter set). The standard orthopair fuzzy soft set is a very general example of this successful blend initiated by fuzzy soft sets. It is a mapping from a set of parameters to the family of all orthopair fuzzy sets (which allow for a very general view of acceptable membership and non-membership evaluations). To expand the scope of application of fuzzy soft set theory, the restriction of orthopair fuzzy sets that membership and non-membership must be calibrated with the same power should be removed. To this purpose we introduce the concept of (a,b)-fuzzy soft set, shortened as (a,b)-FSS. They enable us to address situations that impose evaluations with different importances for membership and non-membership degrees, a problem that cannot be modeled by the existing generalizations of intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets. We establish the fundamental set of arithmetic operations for (a,b)-FSSs and explore their main characteristics. Then we define aggregation operators for (a,b)-FSSs and discuss their main properties and the relationships between them. Finally, with the help of suitably defined scores and accuracies we design a multi-criteria decision-making strategy that operates in this novel framework. We also analyze a decision-making problem to endorse the validity of (a,b)-FSSs for decision-making purposes.



    The purpose of this paper is to launch a novel model of uncertain knowledge that combines an expanded view of fuzziness (with original expressions of partial memberships and non-memberships) with parameterization abilities (in the standard form of multiple subsethood indexed by a parameter set). In order to fully grasp the expected impact of such an innovation, let us first recall the streamlined sequence of improvements leading to the state-of-the-art.

    It is well known that Zadeh [48] expanded crisp sets by allowing the membership of an element to a set to lie in the closed interval [0,1], rather than being limited to {0,1}. He called this type of set a fuzzy set in 1965, and nowadays it has been extensively applied in many areas such as medicinal sciences, engineering, economics, etc. Afterwards Atanassov [16] defined the notion of intuitionistic fuzzy set (IF-set) which handles problems where the non-membership degree does not necessarily derive from the membership degree. Like the case of fuzzy sets, this notion attracted many researchers that investigated its main properties and demonstrated how it can be applied in practical situations [6,19].

    Once the independence of membership and non-membership had been laid out, many authors engaged in the task of enlarging the admissible combinations of membership and non-membership, while keeping mathematical tractability. Two new kinds of sets generalizing IF-sets, namely, Pythagorean fuzzy sets (PF-sets) and Fermatean fuzzy sets (FF-sets), were defined by Yager [43] and Senapati and Yager [39]. Their contribution hinges on the utilization of powers (either 2 in PF-sets or 3 in FF-sets) to calibrate the membership and non-membership evaluations. A wider range of situations producing a satisfactory generalization is encapsulated by q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets (q-ROF sets), introduced by Yager [44]. All the aforementioned extensions of fuzzy sets are particular cases of q-ROF sets: IFSs, PFSs, and FFSs arise by giving the values 1, 2, 3 to q.

    However, there are some cases and situations requiring evaluations with different importance (whence calibration) for the membership and non-membership degrees. This requirement cannot be met by the aforementioned generalizations of IF-sets. To achieve this goal, Al-shami [9] defined a family of (a,b)-fuzzy sets (abbreviated (a,b)-FSs), where a,b1. Special cases of this family have been introduced and studied, e.g., (2, 1)-fuzzy sets [8], SR-fuzzy sets [11] and (3, 2)-fuzzy sets [24]. Aggregation operators, as a prominent technique allowing to approach decision-making issues, have been defined for some of these fuzzy environments [26,27,29,33,35]

    The soft set defines another altogether different scenario to address vagueness and uncertainty [32]. A list of characteristics yields a family of subsets which are considered as approximate descriptions of a concept (one for each viewpoint defined by a property). Soft sets quickly drew the attention of many researchers with different goals [3,5,10,12,13,14,20,25].

    With the progression of communication and technology, the solutions to many complicated issues need to resort to more than one analytical tool. In relation with this, Maji et al. [30] showed that fuzzy and soft set theories can work in tandem. They prompted the 'fuzzification of soft sets paradigm' which describes a larger class of phenomena more accurately. These models were further investigated in many articles like [7,18,28,31,38]. As an expected reaction, researchers developed this type of hybridization further by introducing intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets (IFS-sets) [41], Pythagorean fuzzy soft sets (PFS-sets) [34], Fermatean fuzzy soft sets (FFS-sets) [37] and q-rung orthopair fuzzy soft sets (q-ROFS sets) [23]. Of course, these generalizations of IFS-sets have reasonable motivations that led to studying them.

    To complete this landscape and provide a more general instrument for the mathematical analysis of uncertainty, in this article we introduce the novel concept of (a,b)-fuzzy soft sets, abbreviated as (a,b)-FSSs, which is produced by hybridization of (a,b)-fuzzy sets and soft sets.

    The motivation for this research is threefold. First, we shall launch a new family of generalized fuzzy soft sets that encompass the IFS-sets. This family called (a,b)-fuzzy soft sets enlarges the space jointly defined by membership and non-membership specifications beyond the space allowed by IFS-sets. We shall also show that this new family does not obtain from the class of q-ROFS sets, i.e., it is a rigthful novel extension of IFS-sets. Secondly, we shall present novel kinds of weighted aggregation operators which have a potential to be applied to practical problems. They are especially adept for those problems that need to be evaluated with different importance for membership and non-membership grades. Finally, we shall design a multi-criteria decision-making method based on the accuracy and score functions for the purpose of choosing optimal alternative(s) in the framework defined by the new model.

    The content of the rest of this manuscript is arranged as follows:

    (ⅰ) In Section 2, we recall some the main concepts of fuzzy set theory and its extensions via classical and soft settings.

    (ⅱ) We devote Section 3 to introducing the class of (a,b)-FSSs, which expands the grade space of q-ROFS sets and provides a suitable environment to model some real-life issues. We study the main properties of this class and define a set of operations via this class.

    (ⅲ) In Section 4, we present some new operations and aggregation operators on (a,b)-FSSs and show the relationships between them.

    (ⅳ) In Section 5, we provide an application showing how the current class is applied to address practical problems. For simplicity and preciseness, we have proceeded in the case where a=1 and b=2.

    (ⅴ) In the end, we outline the main contributions of the manuscript and propose some future work in Section 6.

    In this section we give some antecedents that lay the ground for the presentation of our novel model. We need background on two initially independent areas, namely, fuzzy models and soft set theory. Both approaches to uncertainty have been combined in various forms, and we shall describe the necessary ideas too.

    Many models have succeeded in improving the scope of applications of fuzzy sets. The fundamental fuzzy model is given in the next definition:

    Definition 2.1. [48] The fuzzy set is defined over a universal set U as follows:

    O={ˆx,φO(ˆx):ˆxU},whereφOisafunctionfromUto[0,1]whichrepresentsthemembershipdegreeofeveryˆxUtoOundertheconstraint0φO(ˆx)1.

    A key improvement consisted of the separation of membership from non-membership evaluations. This achievement was first formalized by the next concept:

    Definition 2.2. [16] The IF-set is defined over a universal set U as follows.

    O={ˆx,φO(ˆx),ϖO(ˆx):ˆxU},wherethefunctionsφOandϖOfromUto[0,1]respectivelyrepresentthemembershipandnonmembershipdegreesofeveryˆxUtoOundertheconstraint0φO(ˆx)+ϖO(ˆx)1.

    The indeterminacy degree of each ˆxU with respect to this IFS is given by

    ζO(ˆx)=1(φO(ˆx)+ϖO(ˆx)).

    One should bear in mind that if an IF set O satisfies φO(ˆx)=1ϖO(ˆx) for every element ˆxU, then O can be identified with a fuzzy set without loss of information.

    Remark 2.3. If no confusion is likely to arise, we shall drop the subindex and simply write φ, ϖ and ζ instead of φO, ϖO and ζO, respectively.

    Afterwards the power of the membership and non-membership degrees was introduced in order to expand the mathematical tractability of wider sets of evaluations. The next concept subsumes other interesting cases:

    Definition 2.4. [44] Fix q1. The q-ROF set is defined over a universal set U as follows:

    O={ˆx,φ(ˆx),ϖ(ˆx):ˆxU},wherethefunctionsφandϖfromUinto[0,1]respectivelyrepresentthemembershipandnonmembershipdegreesofeveryˆxUtoOundertheconstraint0(φ(ˆx))q+(ϖ(ˆx))q1.

    The indeterminacy degree of each ˆxU with respect to this qROFS is given by

    ζ(ˆx)=q1((φ(ˆx))q+(ϖ(ˆx))q).

    PF-sets [43] amount to the case q=2, whereas FF-set s[39] consist of the case q=3.

    A different procedure for the expansion of the field of admissible membership and non-membership evaluations has been recently introduced in [8]. The key idea is that membership and non-membership evaluations are raised to the power of different indices. As a result, the model that arises lies strictly in between IF-sets and PF-sets:

    Definition 2.5. [8] The (2, 1)-FS O over the universal set U is defined as follows.

    O={ˆx,φ(ˆx),ϖ(ˆx):ˆxU},wherethefunctionsφandϖfromUinto[0,1]respectivelyrepresentthemembershipandnonmembershipdegreesofeveryˆxUtoOundertheconstraint0(φ(ˆx))2+ϖ(ˆx)1.

    The indeterminacy degree with respect to a (2, 1)-FS O is a function ζ:U[0,1] given by

    ζ(ˆx)=(1((φ(ˆx))2+ϖ(ˆx)))23foreachˆxU.

    As mentioned above, it is pretty obvious that the next implications hold true:

    IF-set (2,1)FSPF-set FF-set q-ROF set. 

    The next example shows that the converse of these implications fail to be true:

    Example 2.6. Let O1={ˆx,0.7,0.5,ˆy,0.6,0.3}, O2={ˆx,0.4,0.1,ˆy,0.8,0.4}, O3={ˆx,0.9,0.5,ˆy,0.5,0.3} and O4={ˆx,0.75,0.1,ˆy,0.8,0.8} be defined over U={ˆx,ˆy}. Now, by direct calculation we can check that O1, O2, O3, O4 are (2, 1)-FS, PF-set, FF-set, and q-ROF set (for all q>3), respectively. On the other hand, we have the following:

    (ⅰ) O1 is not an IF-set because φ(ˆx)+ϖ(ˆx)=1.21.

    (ⅱ) O2 is not a (2, 1)-FS because (φ(ˆy))2+ϖ(ˆy)=1.131.

    (ⅲ) O3 is not a PF-set because (φ(ˆx))2+(ϖ(ˆx))2=1.061.

    (ⅳ) O4 is not an FF-set because (φ(ˆx))3+(ϖ(ˆx))3=1.0241.

    Motivated by the tractability and flexibility of the (2, 1)-FS model, a related concept has been defined recently:

    Definition 2.7. [9] Let a,b be positive real numbers greater than or equal to one. The (a,b)-FS O over the universal set U is given as follows.

    O={ˆx,φ(ˆx),ϖ(ˆx):ˆxU},whereφ,ϖ:U[0,1]arefunctionsthatrespectivelydeterminethedegreesofmembershipandnonmembershipforeveryˆxUundertheconstraint0(φ(ˆx))a+(ϖ(ˆx))b1.

    The degree of indeterminacy with respect to an (a,b)-FS O is a function ζ:U[0,1] given by

    ζ(ˆx)=(1((φ(ˆx))a+(ϖ(ˆx)b))1ab for each ˆxU.

    In relation with the later definition, an (a,b)-FN or (a,b)-fuzzy number is a pair θ=φ,ϖ, where φ,ϖ[0,1] and 0φa+ϖb1.

    Figure 1 illustrates the boundaries of the acceptable evaluations in the IFS, PFS, and FFS models, in addition to the case of a (2,5)-FS. Together with Example 2.6, it is a further evidence that the (a,b)-FS model has distinctive traits as compared to the previous IFS, PFS, FFS, and q-ROFS models.

    Figure 1.  A graphical comparison of the models in Definitions 2.4 and 2.7.

    The set-theoretic operations of subsethood, union and intersection via the fuzzy soft environments were formulated by integrating their counterparts via soft and fuzzy environments. To illustrate this matter, we present these operations via the environment of IF-sets. Recall that:

    (ⅰ) {ˆx,φ1(ˆx),ϖ1(ˆx):ˆxU}{ˆx,φ2(ˆx),ϖ2(ˆx):ˆxU} provided that φ1(ˆx)φ2(ˆx) and ϖ2(ˆx)ϖ1(ˆx) for each ˆxU.

    (ⅱ) Union is defined by the expression {ˆx,φ1(ˆx),ϖ1(ˆx):ˆxU}{ˆx,φ2(ˆx),ϖ2(ˆx):ˆxU}= {ˆx,max{φ1(ˆx),φ2(ˆx)},min{ϖ1(ˆx),ϖ2(ˆx):ˆxU}.

    (ⅲ) Intersection is defined by the expression {ˆx,φ1(ˆx),ϖ1(ˆx):ˆxU}{ˆx,φ2(ˆx),ϖ2(ˆx):ˆxU}= {ˆx,min{φ1(ˆx),φ2(ˆx)},max{ϖ1(ˆx),ϖ2(ˆx):ˆxU}.

    The operations above were generalized to the environments of PF-sets, FF-sets and q-OPF sets. They follow a similar structure.

    The crude idea of a soft set means an expansion of subsethood of a set that embeds a multiplicity of subsets, indexed by a set of parameters, attributes, or characteristics:

    Definition 2.8. [32] An ordinary mapping f from nonempty set of parameters Δ to the power set 2U of the universal set of objects U is called a "soft set". It is denoted by the pair (f,Δ) and one can write this as (f,Δ)={(σ,f(σ)):σΔ and f(σ)2U}. We call f(σ) a σ-component of (f,Δ).

    A deep discussion of the semantical interpretation of this definition has been given in [47], see also [4] for an update view.

    We have discussed how subsethood can be understood in generalized fuzzy manners in Section 2.1. Whence these ideas can be naturally added to the notion of a soft set as follows:

    Definition 2.9. Let Δ be a set of parameters and FS(U),IFS(U),PFS(U), FFS(U) and qROS(U) be respectively the families of all fuzzy sets, IF-sets, PF-sets, FF-sets and q-ROF sets defined over the universal set U. Then

    (ⅰ) [30] a mapping f from Δ to FS(U) is called a fuzzy soft set (briefly, FS-set). It can be written as follows:

    (f,Δ)={(σ,ˆx,φ(ˆx)):σΔ and ˆx,φ(ˆx)FS(U)}.

    (ⅱ) [41] a mapping f from Δ to IFS(U) is called an intuitionistic fuzzy soft set (briefly, IFS-set). It can be written as follows:

    (f,Δ)={(σ,ˆx,φ(ˆx),ϖ(ˆx)):σΔ and ˆx,φ(ˆx),ϖ(ˆx)IFS(U)}.

    (ⅲ) [37] a mapping f from Δ to PFS(U) is called a Pythagorean fuzzy soft set (briefly, PFS-set). It can be written as follows:

    (f,Δ)={(σ,ˆx,φ(ˆx),ϖ(ˆx)):σΔ and ˆx,φ(ˆx),ϖ(ˆx)PFS(U)}.

    (ⅳ) [37] a mapping f from Δ to FFS(U) is called a Fermatean fuzzy soft set (briefly, FFS-set). It can be written as follows:

    (f,Δ)={(σ,ˆx,φ(ˆx),ϖ(ˆx)):σΔ and ˆx,φ(ˆx),ϖ(ˆx)FFS(U)}.

    (ⅴ) [23] a mapping f from Δ to qROS(U) is called a q-rung orthopair fuzzy soft set (briefly, q-ROFS set). It can be written as follows:

    (f,Δ)={(σ,ˆx,φ(ˆx),ϖ(ˆx)):σΔ and ˆx,φ(ˆx),ϖ(ˆx)qROS(U)}.

    Put shortly, what is requested in the previous definition is that for each σΔ, f(σ) must respectively be a fuzzy set, an IF-set, a PS-set, an FF-set, and a q-ROF set.

    For our purposes it will suffice to recall the performance of algebraic concepts in the IFS-set setting.

    Definition 2.10. (see [1]) Let (f,Δ) and (h,Ω) be two IFS-sets. We say that (f,Δ) is an IFS subset of (h,Ω), denoted by (f,Δ)(h,Ω), if ΔΩ and f(σ)h(σ) for each σΔ.

    Definition 2.11. (see [1]) Let (f,Δ) and (h,Ω) be two IFS-sets, where ΔΩ. Then

    (ⅰ) the IFS-union of them, denoted by (f,Δ)(h,Ω), is an IFS-set (g,ΔΩ) given by

    g(θ)={f(θ)when θΔΩ,h(θ)when θΩΔ,f(θ)h(θ)when θΔΩ,

    (ⅱ) the IFS-intersection of them, denoted by (f,Δ)(h,Ω), is an IFS-set (g,ΔΩ) given by g(θ)=f(θ)h(θ).

    In this section, we shall introduce the novel model that justifies our study. Afterwards in Section 4 we shall define operations and aggregation mechanisms that apply to this framework.

    Definition 3.1. Let Δ be a set of parameters and (a,b)-FS(U) be the family of all (a,b)-FSs defined over the universal set U. Then, a mapping f from Δ to (a,b)-FS(U) is called an (a,b)-fuzzy soft set (briefly, (a,b)-FSS). It can be written as: (f,Δ)={(σ,ˆx,φ(ˆx),ϖ(ˆx)):σΔ and ˆx,φ(ˆx),ϖ(ˆx)(a,b)-FS(U)}.

    The degree of indeterminacy with respect to an (a,b)-FSS (f,Δ) is a function ζ:U[0,1] given by: For each ˆxU,

    ζ(ˆx)=(1((φ(ˆx))a+(ϖ(ˆx)b))1ab.

    It is obvious that this degree of indeterminacy satisfies the equality (φ(ˆx))a+(ϖ(ˆx))b+(ζ(ˆx))ab=1. Note that ζ(ˆx)=0 whenever (φ(ˆx))a+(ϖ(ˆx))b=1.

    Remark 3.2. For the sake of simplicity, an (a,b)-FSS (f,Δ)={(σ,ˆx,φ(ˆx),ϖ(ˆx)):σΔ and ˆx,φ(ˆx),ϖ(ˆx)(a,b)-FS(U)} is denoted by the symbol (f,Δ)=(σ,φ,ϖ). The family of all (a,b)-FSSs defined over U is symbolized by I(a,b)FSS.

    Throughout this manuscript, we deal with (a,b)-FSSs that are defined with respect to a fixed set of parameters Δ.

    Remark 3.3. The family of all (a,b)-FSSs coincides with

    (1) IFS(U) if a=b=1.

    (2) PFS(U) if a=b=2.

    (3) FFS(U) if a=b=3.

    (4) qROFS(U) if a=b=q.

    In the next result we compare (a,b)-FSS with the previous generalizations of IFSs.

    Proposition 3.4. The following statements hold true:

    (1) Any IFS-set is an (a,b)-FSS.

    (2) If a2 and b2, then any PFS-set is an (a,b)-FSS.

    (3) If a3 and b3, then any FFS-set is an (a,b)-FSS.

    (4) If aq and bq, then any q-ROFS set is an (a,b)-FSS.

    Proof. Straightforward.

    Example 2.6 demonstrates that the converses of the assertions given in Proposition 3.4 are generally not true.

    Now we proceed to define algebraic operations on the new model. We begin with union, intersection, and complement.

    Definition 3.5. Let (f1,Δ)=(σ,φ1,ϖ1) and (f2,Δ)=(σ,φ2,ϖ2) be (a,b)-FSSs on U. Then

    (1) (f1,Δ)(f2,Δ)=(σ,max{φ1,φ2},min{ϖ1,ϖ2}).

    (2) (f1,Δ)(f2,Δ)=(σ,min{φ1,φ2},max{ϖ1,ϖ2}).

    (3) (f1,Δ)c=(σ,ϖba1,φab1).

    These concepts are well defined. Note that it can be easily seen that the family of (a,b)-FSSs is closed under the operators of and , i.e., (f1,Δ)(f2,Δ)I(a,b)FSS and (f1,Δ)(f2,Δ)I(a,b)FSS. Also, (ϖba)a+(φab)b=ϖb+φa1, so (f,Δ)c is an (a,b)-FSS. It is obvious that ((f,Δ)c)c=(σ,φ,ϖ)=(f,Δ).

    The next example shows how these operators are calculated in practice.

    Example 3.6. Assume that (f1,Δ)=(σ,0.6,0.45) and (f2,Δ)=(σ,0.8,0.5) are (5,3)-FSSs on U. Then

    (1) (f1,Δ)(f2,Δ)=(σ,max{φ1,φ2},min{ϖ1,ϖ2})

    =(σ,max{0.6,0.8},min{0.45,0.5})=(σ,0.8,0.45).

    (2) (f1,Δ)(f2,Δ)=(σ,min{φ1,φ2},max{ϖ1,ϖ2})

    =(σ,min{0.6,0.8},max{0.45,0.5})=(0.6,0.5).

    (3) (fc1,Δ)(σ,0.736,0.55186).

    The operators and given in Definition 3.5, can be generalized for arbitrary numbers of (a,b)-FSSs as follows.

    Definition 3.7. Let {(fi,Δ)=(σ,φi,ϖi):iI} be a family of (a,b)-FSSs on U. Then

    (1) iI(fi,Δ)=(σ,sup{φi:iI},inf{ϖi:iI}).

    (2) iI(fi,Δ)=(σ,inf{φi:iI},sup{ϖi:iI}).

    It is straightforward to prove that the operators and are commutative:

    Proposition 3.8. Let (f1,Δ)=(σ,φ1,ϖ1) and (f2,Δ)=(σ,φ2,ϖ2) be (a,b)-FSSs on U. Then

    (1) (f1,Δ)(f2,Δ)=(f2,Δ)(f1,Δ).

    (2) (f1,Δ)(f2,Δ)=(f2,Δ)(f1,Δ).

    With respect to associativity, the next proposition assures that it holds true for the operators and too:

    Proposition 3.9. Let (f1,Δ)=(σ,φ1,ϖ1), (f2,Δ)=(σ,φ2,ϖ2) and (f3,Δ)=(σ,φ3,ϖ3) be (a,b)-FSSs on U. Then

    (1) (f1,Δ)((f2,Δ)(f3,Δ))=((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ))(f3,Δ).

    (2) (f1,Δ)((f2,Δ)(f3,Δ))=((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ))(f3,Δ).

    Proof. For the three (a,b)-FSSs (f1,Δ),(f2,Δ) and (f3,Δ) on U, according to Definition 3.5, we obtain:

    (1) (f1,Δ)((f2,Δ)(f3,Δ))=(σ,φ1,ϖ1)(σ,max{φ2,φ3},min{ϖ2,ϖ3})=(σ,max{φ1,max{φ2,φ3}},min{ϖ1,min{ϖ2,ϖ3}})=(σ,max{max{φ1,φ2},φ3},min{min{ϖ1,ϖ2},ϖ3})=(σ,max{φ1,φ2},min{ϖ1,ϖ2})(σ,φ3,ϖ3)=((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ))(f3,Δ).

    (2) Similar to 1 above.

    Theorem 3.10. Let (f1,Δ)=(σ,φ1,ϖ1), (f2,Δ)=(σ,φ2,ϖ2) and (f3,Δ)=(σ,φ3,ϖ3) be (a,b)-FSSs. Then

    (1) ((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ))(f3,Δ)=((f1,Δ)(f3,Δ))((f2,Δ)(f3,Δ)).

    (2) ((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ))(f3,Δ)=((f1,Δ)(f3,Δ))((f2,Δ)(f3,Δ)).

    Proof. For the three (a,b)-FSSs (f1,Δ),(f2,Δ) and (f3,Δ), according to Definition 3.5, we obtain:

    (1) ((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ))(f3,Δ)=(σ,max{φ1,φ2},min{ϖ1,ϖ2})(σ,φ3,ϖ3)= (σ,min{max{φ1,φ2},φ3},max{min{ϖ1,ϖ2},ϖ3}). And ((f1,Δ)(f3,Δ))((f2,Δ)(f3,Δ))= (σ,min{φ1,φ3},max{ϖ1,ϖ3})(σ,min{φ2,φ3},max{ϖ2,ϖ3})= (σ,max{min{φ1,φ3},min{φ2,φ3}},min{max{ϖ1,ϖ3},max{ϖ2,ϖ3}}). Then,

    min{max{φ1,φ2},φ3}={φ2 if φ1φ2φ3,φ1 if φ2φ1φ3,φ3 if φ1φ3φ2,φ3 if φ3φ1φ2,φ3 if φ2φ3φ1,φ3 if φ3φ2φ1,
    max{min{ϖ1,ϖ2},ϖ3}={ϖ3 if ϖ1ϖ2ϖ3,ϖ3 if ϖ2ϖ1ϖ3,ϖ3 if ϖ1ϖ3ϖ2,ϖ1 if ϖ3ϖ1ϖ2,ϖ3 if ϖ2ϖ3ϖ1,ϖ2 if ϖ3ϖ2ϖ1,
    max{min{φ1,φ3},min{φ2,φ3}}={φ2 if φ1φ2φ3,φ1 if φ2φ1φ3,φ3 if φ1φ3φ2,φ3 if φ3φ1φ2,φ3 if φ2φ3φ1,φ3 if φ3φ2φ1,
    min{max{ϖ1,ϖ3},max{ϖ2,ϖ3}}={ϖ3 if ϖ1ϖ2ϖ3,ϖ3 if ϖ2ϖ1ϖ3,ϖ3 if ϖ1ϖ3ϖ2,ϖ1 if ϖ3ϖ1ϖ2,ϖ3 if ϖ2ϖ3ϖ1,ϖ2 if ϖ3ϖ2ϖ1.

    It follows that min{max{φ1,φ2},φ3}=max{min{φ1,φ3},min{φ2,φ3}} and max{min{ϖ1,ϖ2},ϖ3}=min{max{ϖ1,ϖ3},max{ϖ2,ϖ3}}. Hence, ((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ))(f3,Δ)=((f1,Δ)(f3,Δ))((f2,Δ)(f3,Δ)).

    (2) ((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ))(f3,Δ)=(σ,min{φ1,φ2},max{ϖ1,ϖ2})(σ,φ3,ϖ3)=(σ,max{min{φ1,φ2},φ3},min{max{ϖ1,ϖ2},ϖ3}). And, ((f1,Δ)(f3,Δ))((f2,Δ)(f3,Δ))=(σ,max{φ1,φ3},min{ϖ1,ϖ3})(σ,max{φ2,φ3},min{ϖ2,ϖ3})= (σ,min{max{φ1,φ3},max{φ2,φ3}},max{min{ϖ1,ϖ3},min{ϖ2,ϖ3}}). Then,

    max{min{φ1,φ2},φ3}={φ3 if φ1φ2φ3,φ3 if φ2φ1φ3,φ3 if φ1φ3φ2,φ1 if φ3φ1φ2,φ3 if φ2φ3φ1,φ2 if φ3φ2φ1,
    min{max{ϖ1,ϖ2},ϖ3}={ϖ2 if ϖ1ϖ2ϖ3,ϖ1 if ϖ2ϖ1ϖ3,ϖ3 if ϖ1ϖ3ϖ2,ϖ3 if ϖ3ϖ1ϖ2,ϖ3 if ϖ2ϖ3ϖ1,ϖ3 if ϖ3ϖ2ϖ1,
    min{max{φ1,φ3},max{φ2,φ3}}={φ3 if φ1φ2φ3,φ3 if φ2φ1φ3,φ3 if φ1φ3φ2,φ1 if φ3φ1φ2,φ3 if φ2φ3φ1,φ2 if φ3φ2φ1,
    max{min{ϖ1,ϖ3},min{ϖ2,ϖ3}}={ϖ2 if ϖ1ϖ2ϖ3,ϖ1 if ϖ2ϖ1ϖ3,ϖ3 if ϖ1ϖ3ϖ2,ϖ3 if ϖ3ϖ1ϖ2,ϖ3 if ϖ2ϖ3ϖ1,ϖ3 if ϖ3ϖ2ϖ1.

    It follows that max{min{φ1,φ2},φ3}=min{max{φ1,φ3},max{φ2,φ3}} and min{max{ϖ1,ϖ2},ϖ3}=max{min{ϖ1,ϖ3},min{ϖ2,ϖ3}}. Hence, ((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ))(f3,Δ)=((f1,Δ)(f3,Δ))((f2,Δ)(f3,Δ)).

    Theorem 3.11. Let (f1,Δ)=(σ,φ1,ϖ1) and (f2,Δ)=(σ,φ2,ϖ2) be (a,b)-FSSs on U. Then

    (1) ((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ))c=(f1,Δ)c(f2,Δ)c.

    (2) ((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ))c=(f1,Δ)c(f2,Δ)c.

    Proof. (1) For the (a,b)-FSSs (f1,Δ) and (f2,Δ), according to Definition 3.5, we obtain ((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ))c=(σ,max{φ1,φ2},min{ϖ1,ϖ2})c=(σ,min{(ϖ1)ba,(ϖ2)ba},max{(φ1)ab,(φ2)ab})=(σ,(ϖ1)ba,(φ1)ab)(σ,(ϖ2)ba,(φ2)ab)=(f1,Δ)c(f2,Δ)c.

    (2) Similar to 1.

    To offer tools for comparisons, we define the score and accuracy functions of (a,b)-FSSs which will be helpful to rank (a,b)-FSSs.

    Proposition 3.12. Let (f,Δ)=(σ,φ,ϖ) be an (a,b)-FSS on U. Then, the value of φaϖb lies in the closed interval [1,1].

    Proof. For any (a,b)-FSS (f,Δ), we have φa+ϖb1. This implies that φaϖbφa1 and φaϖbϖb1. Hence, 1φaϖb1, as required.

    Definition 3.13. The score function score:I(a,b)FS[1,1] of any (a,b)-FSS (f,Δ)=(σ,φ,ϖ) is given by the formula score(f,Δ)=φaϖb.

    Definition 3.14. Let (f1,Δ)=(σ,φ1,ϖ1) and (f2,Δ)=(σ,φ2,ϖ2) be (a,b)-FSSs. We say that

    (ⅰ) If score((f1,Δ))>score((f2,Δ)), then (f1,Δ)(f2,Δ).

    (ⅱ) If score((f1,Δ))<score((f2,Δ)), then (f1,Δ)(f2,Δ).

    (ⅲ) If score((f1,Δ))=score((f2,Δ)), then (f1,Δ)(f2,Δ).

    The score function is not a sufficient tool to specify which better (a,b)-FSSs can be chosen in some cases. This occurs when the two (a,b)-FSSs satisfy φa=λb. But we know that these (a,b)-FSSs may not match with each other. So that, comparison depending on the score function is not acceptable (or appropriate) to address these cases. For this reason, we introduce the concept of accuracy function for (a,b)-FSSs to make a comparison of (a,b)-FSS.

    Definition 3.15. The accuracy function acc:I(a,b)FS[0,1] of an (a,b)-FSS (f,Δ)=(σ,φ,ϖ) is given by the formula acc(f,Δ)=φa+ϖb.

    As is standard in related models, we can make use of the score and accuracy functions to compare between (a,b)-FSSs.

    Definition 3.16. Let (f1,Δ)=(σ,φ1,ϖ1) and (f2,Δ)=(σ,φ2,ϖ2) be (a,b)-FSSs, where score(fk,Δ) and acc(fk,Δ) respectively denote their evaluations by the score and accuracy functions (k=1,2). We declare that:

    (ⅰ) If score((f1,Δ))>score((f2,Δ)), then (f1,Δ)(f2,Δ).

    (ⅱ) If score((f1,Δ))<score((f2,Δ)), then (f1,Δ)(f2,Δ).

    (ⅲ) If score((f1,Δ))=score((f2,Δ)), then

    (1) If acc((f1,Δ))>acc((f2,Δ)), then (f1,Δ)(f2,Δ).

    (2) If acc((f1,Δ))<acc((f2,Δ)), then (f1,Δ)(f2,Δ).

    (3) If acc((f1,Δ))=acc((f2,Δ)), then (f1,Δ)=(f2,Δ).

    Definition 3.17. Let (f1,Δ)=(σ,φ1,ϖ1) and (f2,Δ)=(σ,φ2,ϖ2) be (a,b)-FSSs on U. A natural quasi-ordering on the (a,b)-FSSs is defined as follows.

    (f1,Δ)(f2,Δ)iffφ1φ2andϖ1ϖ2.

    In this section, we do two things. First we deal with some standard arithmetic operations on (a,b)-FSSs. Then we shall start a tentative approach to the combination of (a,b)-FNs.

    Arithmetic operations should at least include the notion of a sum, a product, a product by scalar, and exponentiation. We proceed to define these concepts in the framework of (a,b)-FSSs. Subsequent theorems prove that these operations are well-defined.

    Definition 4.1. Let (f1,Δ)=(σ,φ1,ϖ1) and (f2,Δ)=(σ,φ2,ϖ2) be (a,b)-FSSs on U, and δ be a positive real number (δ>0). We define the following operations.

    (1) (f1,Δ)(f2,Δ)=(σ,aφa1+φa2φa1φa2,ϖ1ϖ2).

    (2) (f1,Δ)(f2,Δ)=(σ,φ1φ2,bϖb1+ϖb2ϖb1ϖb2).

    (3) δ(f1,Δ)=(σ,a1(1φa1)δ,ϖδ1).

    (4) Oδ1=(σ,φδ1,b1(1ϖb1)δ).

    Theorem 4.2. If (f1,Δ)=(σ,φ1,ϖ1) and (f2,Δ)=(σ,φ2,ϖ2) are (a,b)-FSSs on U, then (f1,Δ)(f2,Δ) and (f1,Δ)(f2,Δ) are (a,b)-FSSs.

    Proof. Let (f1,Δ)=(σ,φ1,ϖ1) and (f2,Δ)=(σ,φ2,ϖ2) be (a,b)-FSSs. Then, for each σ we obtain

    0φa1+ϖb11 and 0φa2+ϖb21.

    Then, we have

    φa1φa1φa2, φa2φa1φa2, 0φa1φa21

    and

    ϖb1ϖb1ϖb2, ϖb2ϖb1ϖb2, 0ϖb1ϖb21.

    This implies that aφa1+φa2φa1φa20.

    Since φa21 and 01φa1, φa2(1φa1)(1φa1), we get that φa1+φa2φa1φa21. Thus, aφa1+φa2φa1φa21. It is clear that 0ϖb11φa1 and 0ϖb21φa2.

    Now, (aφa1+φa2φa1φa2)a+ϖb1ϖb2φa1+φa2φa1φa2+(1φa1)(1φa2)=1.

    Hence, 0(aφa1+φa2φa1φ22)a+ϖb1ϖb21 which means that (f1,Δ)(f2,Δ) is an (a,b)-FSS.

    Following similar arguments, we prove that (f1,Δ)(f2,Δ) is an (a,b)-FSS.

    Theorem 4.3. Let (f,Δ)=(σ,φ,ϖ) be an (a,b)-FSS on U and δ be a positive real number. Then, δ(f,Δ) and (f,Δ)δ are (a,b)-FSSs.

    Proof. Since 0φa1, 0ϖb1 and 0(φ)a+ϖb1 for each σ, we find

    0ϖb1φa

    0(1φa)δ

    1(1φa)δ1

    0a1(1φa)δa1=1.

    It is clear that 0ϖδ1, then we get

    0(a1(1φa)δ)a+(ϖδ)b1(1φa)δ+(1φa)δ=1.

    Following similar arguments, we obtain

    0(φδ)a+1(1ϖ)δ1.

    Hence, δ(f,Δ) and (f,Δ)δ are (a,b)-FSSs.

    Theorem 4.4. Let (f1,Δ)=(σ,φ1,ϖ1) and (f2,Δ)=(σ,φ2,ϖ2) be (a,b)-FSSs on U. Then

    (1) (f1,Δ)(f2,Δ)=(f2,Δ)(f1,Δ).

    (2) (f1,Δ)(f2,Δ)=(f2,Δ)(f1,Δ).

    Proof. From Definition 4.1, we obtain:

    (1) (f1,Δ)(f2,Δ)=(σ,aφa1+φa2φa1φa2,ϖ1ϖ2)(σ,aφa2+φa1φa2φa1,ϖ2ϖ1)=(f2,Δ)(f1,Δ).

    (2) (f1,Δ)(f2,Δ)=(σ,φ1φ2,bϖb1+ϖb2ϖb1ϖb2)=(σ,φ2φ1,bϖb2+ϖb1ϖb2ϖb1)=(f2,Δ)(f1,Δ).

    Theorem 4.5. Let (f,Δ)=(σ,φ,ϖ), (f1,Δ)=(σ,φ1,ϖ1) and (f2,Δ)=(σ,φ2,ϖ2) be (a,b)-FSSs on U. Then

    (1) δ((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ))=δ(f1,Δ)δ(f2,Δ).

    (2) (δ1+δ2)(f,Δ)=δ1(f,Δ)δ2(f,Δ).

    (3) ((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ))δ=(f1,Δ)δ(f2,Δ)δ.

    (4) (f,Δ)(δ1+δ2)=(f,Δ)δ1(f,Δ)δ2.

    Proof. 1) δ((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ))=δ(σ,aφa1+φa2φa1φa2,ϖ1ϖ2)=(σ,a1(1φa1φa2+φa1φa2)δ,(ϖ1ϖ2)δ) =(σ,a1(1φa1)δ(1φa2)δ,ϖδ1ϖδ2). And δ(f1,Δ)δ(f2,Δ)=(σ,a1(1φa1)δ,ϖδ1)(σ,1(1φa2)δ,ϖδ2)=(σ,a1(1φa1)δ+1(1φa2)δ(1(1φa1)δ)(1(1φa2)δ),ϖδ1ϖδ2)=(σ,a1(1φa1)δ(1φa2)δ,ϖδ1ϖδ2)=δ((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ)).

    (2) (δ1+δ2)(f,Δ)=(δ1+δ2)(σ,φ,ϖ)=(σ,a1(1φa)δ1+δ2,ϖδ1+δ2)=(σ,a1(1φa)δ1(1φa)δ2,ϖδ1+δ2)=(σ,a1(1φa)δ1+1(1φa)δ2(1(1φa)δ1)(1(1φa)δ2),ϖδ1ϖδ2)=(σ,a1(1φa)δ1,ϖδ1)(σ,a1(1φa)δ2,ϖδ2)=δ1(f,Δ)δ2(f,Δ).

    (3) ((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ))δ=(σ,φ1φ2,bϖb1+ϖb2ϖb1ϖb2)δ=(σ,(φ1φ2)δ,b1(1ϖb1ϖb2+ϖb1ϖb2)δ)=(σ,φδ1φδ2,b1(1ϖb1)δ(1ϖb2)δ)=(σ,φδ1,b1(1ϖb1)δ)(σ,φδ2,b1(1ϖb2)δ)=(f1,Δ)δ(f2,Δ)δ.

    (4) (f,Δ)δ1(f,Δ)δ2=(σ,φδ1,b1(1ϖb)δ1)(σ,φδ2,b1(1ϖb)δ2)=(σ,φδ1+δ2,b1(1ϖb)δ1+1(1ϖb)δ2(1(1ϖb)δ1)(1(1ϖb)δ2))=(σ,φδ1+δ2,b1(1ϖb)δ1+δ2)=(f,Δ)(δ1+δ2).

    Theorem 4.6. Let (f1,Δ)=(σ,φ1,ϖ1) and (f2,Δ)=(σ,φ2,ϖ2) be (a,b)-FSSs on U, and δ>0. Then

    (1) δ((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ))=δ(f1,Δ)δ(f2,Δ).

    (2) ((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ))δ=(f1,Δ)δ(f2,Δ)δ.

    Proof. For the two (a,b)-FSSs (f1,Δ) and (f2,Δ), and δ>0, according to Definitions 3.5 and 4.1, we obtain

    (1) δ((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ))=δ(σ,max{φ1,φ2},min{ϖ1,ϖ2})=(σ,a1(1max{φa1,φa2})δ,min{ϖδ1,ϖδ2}). And δ(f1,Δ)δ(f2,Δ)=(σ,a1(1φa1)δ,ϖδ1)(σ,a1(1φa2)δ,ϖδ2)=(σ,max{a1(1φa1)δ,1(1φa2)δ},min{ϖδ1,ϖδ2})=(σ,1(1max{φa1,φa2})δ,min{ϖδ1,ϖδ2})=δ((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ)).

    (2) Similar to the proof of claim 1.

    Theorem 4.7. Let (f,Δ)=(σ,φ,ϖ), (f1,Δ)=(σ,φ1,ϖ1) and (f2,Δ)=(σ,φ2,ϖ2) be (a,b)-FSSs on U, and δ>0. Then

    (1) ((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ))c=(f1,Δ)c(f2,Δ)c.

    (2) ((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ))c=(f1,Δ)c(f2,Δ)c.

    (3) ((f,Δ)c)δ=(δ(f,Δ))c.

    (4) δ(E)c=((f,Δ)δ)c.

    Proof.

    (1) ((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ))c=(σ,aφa1+φa2φa1φa2,ϖ1ϖ2)c=(σ,aϖb1ϖb2,bφa1+φa2φa1φa2)=(σ,aϖb1aϖb2,bφa1+φa2φa1φa2)=(σ,aϖb1,φa1)(bϖb2,φa2)=(f1,Δ)c(f2,Δ)c.

    (2) ((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ))c=(σ,φ1φ2,bϖb1+ϖb2ϖb1ϖb2)c=(σ,aϖb1+ϖb2ϖb1ϖb2,bφa1φa2)=(σ,aϖb1+ϖb2ϖb1ϖb2,bφa1bφa2)=(σ,aϖb1,bφa1)(σ,aϖb(f,Δ)2,bφa(f,Δ)2) =(f1,Δ)c(f2,Δ)c.

    (3) ((f,Δ)c)δ=(σ,aϖb,bφa)δ=(σ,(aϖb)δ,b1(1φa)δ)=(σ,a1(1φa)δ,ϖδ)c=(δ(f,Δ))c.

    (4) δ(f,Δ)c=δ(σ,aϖb,bφa)=(σ,a1(1ϖb)δ,(bφa)δ)=(σ,φδ,b1(1ϖb)δ)c=((f,Δ)δ)c.

    Theorem 4.8. Let (f1,Δ)=(σ,φ1,ϖ1), (f2,Δ)=(σ,φ2,ϖ2) and (f3,Δ)=(σ,φ3,ϖ3) be (a,b)-FSSs on U. Then

    (1) ((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ))(f3,Δ)=((f1,Δ)(f3,Δ))((f2,Δ)(f3,Δ)).

    (2) ((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ))(f3,Δ)=((f1,Δ)(f3,Δ))((f2,Δ)(f3,Δ)).

    (3) ((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ))(f3,Δ)=((f1,Δ)(f3,Δ))((f2,Δ)(f3,Δ)).

    (4) ((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ))(f3,Δ)=((f1,Δ)(f3,Δ))((f2,Δ)(f3,Δ)).

    Proof. (1) ((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ))(f3,Δ)=(σ,min{φ1,φ2},max{ϖ1,ϖ2})(σ,φ3,ϖ3)=(σ,amin{φa1,φa2}+φa3φa3min{φa1,φa2},max{ϖ1,ϖ2}ϖ3)=(σ,a(1φa3)min{φa1,φa2}+φa3,max{ϖ1ϖ3,ϖ2ϖ3}). And ((f1,Δ)(f3,Δ))((f2,Δ)(f3,Δ))=(σ,aφa1+φa3φa1φa3,ϖ1ϖ3)(σ,φa2+φa3φa2φa3,ϖ2ϖ3)=(σ,min{aφa1+φa3φa1φa3,φa2+φa3φa2φa3},max{ϖ1ϖ3,ϖ2ϖ3})=(σ,min{a(1φa3)φa1+φa3,a(1φa3)φa2+φa3},max{ϖ1ϖ3,ϖ2ϖ3})=(σ,a(1φa3)min{φa1,φa2}+φa3,max{ϖ1ϖ3,ϖ2ϖ3}). Hence, ((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ))(f3,Δ)=((f1,Δ)(f3,Δ))((f2,Δ)(f3,Δ)).

    (2) Similar to the proof of claim 1.

    (3) ((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ))(f3,Δ)=(σ,min{φ1,φ2},max{ϖ1,ϖ2})(f3,Δ)=(σ,min{φ1,φ2}φ3,bmax{ϖb1,ϖb2}+ϖb3ϖb3max{ϖb1,ϖb2})=(σ,min{φ1φ3,φ2φ3},b(1ϖb3)max{ϖb1,ϖb2}+ϖb3). And ((f1,Δ)(f3,Δ))((f2,Δ)(f3,Δ))=(σ,φ1φ3,bϖb1+ϖb3ϖb1ϖb3) (σ,φ2φ3,bϖb2+ϖb3ϖb2ϖb3) =(σ,φ1φ3,b(1ϖb3)ϖb1+ϖb3)(σ,φ2φ3,b(1ϖb3)ϖb2+ϖb3) =(σ,min{φ1φ3,φ2φ3},max{b(1ϖb3)ϖb1+ϖb3,b(1ϖb3)ϖb2+ϖb3})=(σ,min{φ1φ3,φ2φ3},b(1ϖb3)max{ϖb1,ϖb2}+ϖb3). Hence, ((f1,Δ)(f2,Δ))(f3,Δ)=((f1,Δ)(f3,Δ))((f2,Δ)(f3,Δ)).

    (4) Similar to the proof of claim 3.

    Theorem 4.9. Let (f1,Δ)=(σ,φ1,ϖ1), (f2,Δ)=(σ,φ2,ϖ2) and (f3,Δ)=(σ,φ3,ϖ3) be (a,b)-FSSs on U. Then

    (1) (f1,Δ)(f2,Δ)(f3,Δ)=(f1,Δ)(f3,Δ)(f2,Δ).

    (2) (f1,Δ)(f2,Δ)(f3,Δ)=(f1,Δ)(f3,Δ)(f2,Δ).

    Proof. (1) (f1,Δ)(f2,Δ)(f3,Δ)=(σ,φ1,ϖ1)(φ2,ϖ2)(σ,φ3,ϖ3)=(σ,aφa1+φa2φa1φa2,ϖ1ϖ2)(σ,φ3,ϖ3)=(σ,aφa1+φa2φa1φa2+φa3φa3(φa1+φa2φa1φa2),ϖ1ϖ2ϖ3)=(σ,aφa1+φa2+φa3φa1φa2φa1φa3φa2φa3+φa1φa2φa3,ϖ1ϖ2ϖ3)=(σ,aφa1+φa3φa1φa3+φa2φa2(φa1+φa3φa1φa3),ϖ1ϖ2ϖ3)=(σ,aφa1+φa3φa1φa3,ϖ1ϖ3)(σ,φ2,ϖ2)=(f1,Δ)(f3,Δ)(f2,Δ).

    (2) Similar to the proof of claim 1.

    Definition 4.10. Let (fj,Δ)=(σ,φj,ϖj) (j=1,2,...,s) be a family of (a,b)-FNs on U, and w=(ν1,ν2,...,νs)T be a weight vector of (fj,Δ) with νj>0 and sj=1νj=1. Then

    (1) an (a,b)-fuzzy weighted average ((a,b)-FWA) operator is given by

    (a,b)-FWA((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ))=(σ,sj=1νjφj,sj=1νjϖj).

    (2) an (a,b)-fuzzy weighted geometric ((a,b)-FWG) operator is given by

    (a,b)-FWG((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ))=(σ,sj=1φνjj,sj=1ϖνjj).

    (3) an (a,b)-fuzzy weighted power average ((a,b)-FWPA) operator is given by

    (a,b)-FWPA((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(f,Δ)m)=(σ,(sj=1νjφaj)1a,(sj=1νjϖbj)1b).

    (4) an (a,b)-fuzzy weighted power geometric ((a,b)-FWPG) operator is given by

    (a,b)-FWPG((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ))=(σ,(1sj=1(1φaj)νj)1a,(1sj=1(1ϖbj)νj)1b).

    Remark 4.11. It should be noted that the values obtained from the operators presented in the above definition need not be an (a,b)-FSS, in general.

    Theorem 4.12. Let (fj,Δ)=(σ,φj,ϖj)(i=1,2,...,s) be a family of (a,b)-FNs on U, (f,Δ)=(σ,φ,ϖ) be an (a,b)-FN and w=(ν1,ν2,...,νs)T be a weight vector of (fj,Δ) with sj=1νj=1. Then

    (1) (a,b)-FWA((f1,Δ)(f,Δ),(f2,Δ)(f,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)(f,Δ))(a,b)-FWA((f1,Δ)(f,Δ),(f2,Δ)(f,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)(f,Δ)).

    (2) (a,b)-FWG((f1,Δ)(f,Δ),(f2,Δ)(f,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)(f,Δ))(a,b)-FWG((f1,Δ)(f,Δ),(f2,Δ)(f,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)(f,Δ)).

    (3) (a,b)-FWPA((f1,Δ)(f,Δ),(f2,Δ)(f,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)(f,Δ))(a,b)-FWPA((f1,Δ)(f,Δ),(f2,Δ)(f,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)(f,Δ)).

    (4) (a,b)-FWPG((f1,Δ)(f,Δ),(f2,Δ)(f,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)(f,Δ))(a,b)-FWPG((f1,Δ)(f,Δ),(f2,Δ)(f,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)(f,Δ)).

    Proof. We shall give the proofs of 1 and 4. Following similar technique, one can prove the other affirmations.

    (1) For any (fj,Δ)=(σ,φj,ϖj) (j=1,2,...,s) and (f,Δ)=(σ,φ,ϖ), we obtain for each σ aφaj+φaφajφaa2φajφaφajφa=φjφ, and

    bϖbj+ϖbϖbjϖbb2ϖbjϖbϖbjϖb=ϖjϖ.

    That is,

    sj=1νjaφaj+φaφajφasj=1νjφjφ (4.1)

    and

    sj=1νjbϖbj+ϖbϖbjϖbsj=1νjϖjϖ. (4.2)

    According to item 1 of Definition 4.10 and items 1 and 2 of Definition 4.1, we have (a,b)-FWA((f1,Δ)(f,Δ),(f2,Δ)(f,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)(f,Δ))=(σ,sj=1νjaφaj+φaφajφa,sj=1νjϖjϖ) and (a,b)-FWA((f1,Δ)(f,Δ),(f2,Δ)(f,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)(f,Δ))=(σ,sj=1νjφjφ,sj=1νjbϖbj+ϖbϖbjϖb).

    Hence, from (4.1) and (4.2), we complete the proof.

    (4) For any (fj,Δ)=(σ,φj,ϖj)(j=1,2,...,s) and (f,Δ)=(σ,φ,ϖ), we obtain φaj+φaφajφa2φajφaφajφa=φajφa 1(φaj+φaφajφa)1φajφa (1(φaj+φaφajφa))νj(1φajφa)νj sj=1(1(φaj+φaφajφa))νjsj=1(1φajφa)νj 1sj=1(1(φaj+φaφajφa))νj1sj=1(1φajφa)νj.

    Similarly, 1sj=1(1(ϖbj+ϖbϖbjϖb))νj1sj=1(1ϖbjϖb)νj.

    According to items 1 and 2 of Definition 4.1, we have (a,b)-FWPG((f1,Δ)(f,Δ),(f2,Δ)(f,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)(f,Δ))=(σ,(1sj=1(1(φaj+φaφajφa))νj)1a,(1sj=1(1ϖbjϖb)νj)1b), and (a,b)-FWPG((f1,Δ)(f,Δ),(f2,Δ)(f,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)(f,Δ))=(σ,(1sj=1(1φajφa)νj)1a,(1sj=1(1(ϖbj+ϖbϖbjϖb))νj)1b).

    Hence, (a,b)-FWPG((f1,Δ)(f,Δ),(f2,Δ)(f,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)(f,Δ))(a,b)-FWPG((f1,Δ)(f,Δ),(f2,Δ)(f,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)(f,Δ)), as required.

    Theorem 4.13. Let (fj,Δ)=(σ,φj,ϖj) and (hj,Δ)=(σ,αj,βj) (with j=1,2,...,s) be two families of (a,b)-FSSs on U, and w=(ν1,ν2,...,νs)T be a weight vector of them with sj=1νj=1. Then

    (1) (a,b)-FWA((f1,Δ)(h1,Δ),(f2,Δ)(h2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)(hs,Δ))(a,b)-FWA((f1,Δ)(h1,Δ),(f2,Δ)(h2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)(hs,Δ)).

    (2) (a,b)-FWG((f1,Δ)(h1,Δ),(f2,Δ)(h2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)(hs,Δ))(a,b)-FWG((f1,Δ)(h1,Δ),(f2,Δ)(h2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)(hs,Δ)).

    (3) (a,b)-FWPA((f1,Δ)(h1,Δ),(f2,Δ)(h2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)(hs,Δ))(a,b)-FWPA((f1,Δ)(h1,Δ),(f2,Δ)(h2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)(hs,Δ)).

    (4) (a,b)-FWPG((f1,Δ)(h1,Δ),(f2,Δ)(h2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)(hs,Δ))(a,b)-FWPG((f1,Δ)(h1,Δ),(f2,Δ)(h2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)(hs,Δ)).

    Proof. We shall give the proof for 1. Following similar technique, one can prove the other affirmations.

    (1) For any (fj,Δ)=(σ,φj,ϖj) and (hj,Δ)=(αj,βj) (j=1,2,...,s), we find for each σ

    aφaj+αajφajαaja2φajαajφajαaj=φjαj.

    That is,

    sj=1νjaφaj+αajφajαajsj=1νjφjαj.

    Similarly,

    sj=1νjbϖbj+βbjϖbjβbjsj=1νjϖjβj.

    By items 1 and 2 of Definition 4.1, we have (a,b)FWA((f1,Δ)(h1,Δ),(f2,Δ)(h2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)(hs,Δ))=(σ,sj=1νjaφaj+αajφajαaj,sj=1νjϖjβj)

    and (a,b)FWA((f1,Δ)(h1,Δ),(f2,Δ)(h2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)(hs,Δ))=(σ,sj=1νjφjαj,sj=1νjbϖbj+βbjϖbjβbj).

    Hence, (a,b)-FWA((f1,Δ)(h1,Δ),(f2,Δ)(h2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)(hs,Δ))(a,b)-FWA((f1,Δ)(h1,Δ),(f2,Δ)(h2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)(hs,Δ)), as required.

    Theorem 4.14. Let (fj,Δ)=(σ,φj,ϖj)(j=1,2,...,s) be a family of (a,b)-FNs on U, and w=(ν1,ν2,...,νs)T be a weight vector of (fj,Δ) with sj=1νj=1 and δ1. Then

    (1) (a,b)-FWA(δ(f1,Δ),δ(f2,Δ),...,δ(fs,Δ))(a,b)-FWA((f1,Δ)δ,(f2,Δ)δ,...,(fs,Δ)δ).

    (2) (a,b)-FWG(δ(f1,Δ),δ(f2,Δ),...,δ(fs,Δ))(a,b)-FWG((f1,Δ)δ,(f2,Δ)δ,...,(fs,Δ)δ).

    (3) (a,b)-FWPA(δ(f1,Δ),δ(f2,Δ),...,δ(fs,Δ))(a,b)-FWPA((f1,Δ)δ,(f2,Δ)δ,...,(fs,Δ)δ).

    (4) (a,b)-FWPG(δ(f1,Δ),δ(f2,Δ),...,δ(fs,Δ))(a,b)-FWPG((f1,Δ)δ,(f2,Δ)δ,...,(fs,Δ)δ).

    Proof. We shall give the proof for claim 1. Following a similar technique, one can prove the other statements.

    (1) For any (fj,Δ)=(σ,φj,ϖj) (j=1,2,...,s), we have (a,b)-FWA(δ(f1,Δ),δ(f2,Δ),...,δ(fs,Δ))=(σ,sj=1νja1(1φaj)δ,sj=1νjϖδj), and (a,b)-FWA((f1,Δ)δ,(f2,Δ)δ,...,(fs,Δ)δ)=(σ,sj=1νjφδj,sj=1νjb1(1ϖbj)δ).

    Let g(φj)=1(1φaj)δ(φaj)δ. We demonstrate that g(φj)0. It follows from the Newton generalized binomial theorem that

    (1φaj)δ+(φaj)δ(1φaj+φaj)δ=1.

    This means that g(φj)0. Now,

    1(1φaj)δ(φaj)δ0
    1(1φaj)δ(φaj)δ
    a1(1φaj)δφδj
    sj=1νja1(1φaj)δsj=1νjφδj.

    Similarly,

    sj=1νjb1(1ϖbj)δsj=1νjϖδj.

    Hence, (a,b)-FWA(δ(f1,Δ),δ(f2,Δ),...,δ(fs,Δ))(a,b)-FWA((f1,Δ)δ,(f2,Δ)δ,...,(fs,Δ)δ), as required.

    Theorem 4.15. Let (fj,Δ)=(σ,φj,ϖj) (j=1,2,...,s) be a family of (a,b)-FNs on U, (f,Δ)=(σ,φ,ϖ) be an (a,b)-FN on U and w=(ν1,ν2,...,νs)T be a weight vector of (fj,Δ) with sj=1νj=1 and δ1. Then

    (1) (a,b)-FWA(δ(f1,Δ)(f,Δ),δ(f2,Δ)(f,Δ),...,δ(fs,Δ)(f,Δ))(a,b)-FWA((f1,Δ)δ(f,Δ),(f2,Δ)δ(f,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)δ(f,Δ)).

    (2) (a,b)-FWG(δ(f1,Δ)(f,Δ),δ(f2,Δ)(f,Δ),...,δ(fs,Δ)(f,Δ))(a,b)-FWG((f1,Δ)δ(f,Δ),(f2,Δ)δ(f,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)δ(f,Δ)).

    (3) (a,b)-FWPA(δ(f1,Δ)(f,Δ),δ(f2,Δ)(f,Δ),...,δ(fs,Δ)(f,Δ))(a,b)-FWPA((f1,Δ)δ(f,Δ),(f2,Δ)δ(f,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)δ(f,Δ)).

    (4) (a,b)-FWPG(δ(f1,Δ)(f,Δ),δ(f2,Δ)(f,Δ),...,δ(fs,Δ)(f,Δ))(a,b)-FWPG((f1,Δ)δ(f,Δ),(f2,Δ)δ(f,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)δ(f,Δ)).

    Proof. We shall give the proof for claim 1. Following a similar technique, one can prove the other statements.

    (1) For any (fj,Δ)=(σ,φj,ϖj) (j=1,2,...,s) and (f,Δ)=(σ,φ,ϖ), we have (a,b)-FWA(δ(f1,Δ)(f,Δ),δ(f2,Δ)(f,Δ),...,δ(fs,Δ)(f,Δ))=(σ,sj=1νja1(1φaj)δ(1φa),sj=1νjϖδjϖ), and (a,b)-FWA((f1,Δ)δ(f,Δ),(f2,Δ)δ(f,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)δ(f,Δ))=(σ,sj=1νjφδjφ,sj=1νjb1(1ϖbj)δ(1ϖb)).

    Let g(φj)=1(1φaj)δ(1φa)(φaj)δφa. We demonstrate that g(φj)0. To do this, let h(φj)=(1φaj)δ+(φaj)δ. Then

    h(φj)=2δφj(1φaj)δ1+2δφj(φaj)δ1=2δφj((φaj)δ1(1φaj)δ1).

    Now, if φj>1a2, then h(φj) is monotonic increasing and if φj<1a2, then h(φj) is monotonic decreasing. Therefore, h(φj)h(φj)max=max{h(0),h(1)}=1. Note that (1φaj)δ(1φa)+(φaj)δφa1. This automatically means that g(φj)=1(1φaj)δ(1φa)(φaj)δφa0 sj=1νja1(1φaj)δ(1φa)sj=1νjφδjφ.

    Similarly, sj=1νjb1(1ϖbj)δ(1ϖb)sj=1νjϖδjϖ.

    Hence, (a,b)-FWA(δ(f1,Δ)(f,Δ),δ(f2,Δ)(f,Δ),...,δ(fs,Δ)(f,Δ))(a,b)-FWA((f1,Δ)δ(f,Δ),(f2,Δ)δ(f,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)δ(f,Δ)).

    According to Remark 4.11, we need to impose a further condition to prove the following three results; this condition is that the values obtained from the operators presented in Definition 4.10 is an (a,b)-FSS.

    Theorem 4.16. Let (fj,Δ)=(σ,φj,ϖj)(j=1,2,...,s) be a family of (a,b)-FNs on U, (f,Δ)=(σ,φ,ϖ) be an (a,b)-FN on U and w=(ν1,ν2,...,νs)T be a weight vector of (fj,Δ) with sj=1νj=1. Then

    (1) (a,b)-FWA((f1,Δ)(f,Δ),(f2,Δ)(f,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)(f,Δ))(a,b)-FWA((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ))(f,Δ).

    (2) (a,b)-FWA((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ))(f,Δ)(a,b)-FWA((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ))(f,Δ).

    (3) (a,b)-FWG((f1,Δ)(f,Δ),(f2,Δ)(f,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)(f,Δ))(a,b)-FWG((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ))(f,Δ).

    (4) (a,b)-FWG((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ))(f,Δ)(a,b)-FWG((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ))(f,Δ).

    (5) (a,b)-FWPA((f1,Δ)(f,Δ),(f2,Δ)(f,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)(f,Δ))(a,b)-FWPA((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ))(f,Δ).

    (6) (a,b)-FWPA((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ))(f,Δ)(a,b)-FWPA((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ))(f,Δ).

    (7) (a,b)-FWPG((f1,Δ)(f,Δ),(f2,Δ)(f,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)(f,Δ))(a,b)-FWPG((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ))(f,Δ).

    (8) (a,b)-FWPG((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ))(f,Δ)(a,b)-FWPG((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ))(f,Δ).

    Proof. Similar to the proof of Theorem 4.12.

    Theorem 4.17. Let (fj,Δ)=(σ,φj,ϖj) and (hj,Δ)=(σ,αj,βj)(j=1,2,...,s) be two families of (a,b)-FSSs on U, and w=(ν1,ν2,...,νs)T be a weight vector of them with sj=1νj=1. Then

    (1) (a,b)-FWA((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ))(a,b)-FWA((h1,Δ),(h2,Δ),...,(hs,Δ))(a,b)-FWA((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ))(a,b)-FWA((h1,Δ),(h2,Δ),...,(hs,Δ)).

    (2) (a,b)-FWG((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ))(a,b)-FWG((h1,Δ),(h2,Δ),...,(hs,Δ))(a,b)-FWG((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ))(a,b)-FWG((h1,Δ),(h2,Δ),...,(hs,Δ)).

    (3) (a,b)-FWPA((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ))(a,b)-FWPA((h1,Δ),(h2,Δ),...,(hs,Δ))(a,b)-FWPA((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ))(a,b)-FWPA((h1,Δ),(h2,Δ),...,(hs,Δ)).

    (4) (a,b)-FWPG((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ))(a,b)-FWPG((h1,Δ),(h2,Δ),...,(hs,Δ))(a,b)-FWPG((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ))(a,b)-FWPG((h1,Δ),(h2,Δ),...,(hs,Δ)).

    Proof. Similar to the proof of Theorem 4.13.

    Theorem 4.18. Let (fj,Δ)=(σ,φj,ϖj)(j=1,2,...,s) be a family of (a,b)-FNs on U, and w=(ν1,ν2,...,νs)T be a weight vector of (fj,Δ) with sj=1νj=1 and δ1. Then

    (1) δ(a,b)-FWA((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ))((a,b)-FWA((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)))δ.

    (2) δ(a,b)-FWG((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ))((a,b)-FWG((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)))δ.

    (3) δ(a,b)-FWPA((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ))((a,b)-FWPA((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)))δ.

    (4) δ(a,b)-FWPG((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ))((a,b)-FWPG((f1,Δ),(f2,Δ),...,(fs,Δ)))δ.

    Proof. Similar to the proof of Theorem 4.14.

    In this section, we integrate the tools that have been defined before in order to produce a multi-criteria decision making (or MCDM) methodology for data in the form of (a,b)-FSSs. Then we provide an illustrative example that clarifies the application of this strategy of solution.

    MCDM concerns the techniques or strategies followed by a decision maker in order to get the best or optimal alternative(s) among a set of feasible options, in such way that its (their) performance(s) with respect to multiple criteria is (are) jointly superior. To illustrate that situation, assume that a set U={ˆxi:i=1,2,...,n} of n different alternatives have been evaluated by a decision maker under a set of m different criteria Δ={σj:j=1,2,...,m}. Let us consider a situation where the decision maker estimates his/her preferences in terms of (a,b)-FNs: θij=φij,ϖiji×j, where 0φaij+ϖbij1 and φij,ϖij[0,1] for all i=1,2,...,n and j=1,2,...,m such that φij and ϖij respectively represent the degree that the alternative bi fulfills and does not fulfill the attribute σj provided by the decision maker.

    We are ready to present the steps used in the proposed methodology for MCDM with the aforesaid information:

    Step 1: Describe a MCDM problem under study using (a,b)-FSSs environment.

    Step 2: Convert the (a,b)-FSSs environment into the normalized (a,b)-FSSs environment.

    Step 3: Produce an (a,b)-FSS for each alternative ˆxU.

    Step 4: Assessment of the alternatives using score and accuracy functions for each (a, b)-FSS.

    Step 5: Determine the optimal ranking order of the alternatives with respect to the values of score and accuracy functions.

    Additionally, we provide Algorithm 1 and Figure 2 in order to show how the optimal alternative(s) is (or are) selected with this methodology.

    Figure 2.  Flow chart explaining the selection of the optimal alternative(s).

    In this part, a synthetic example will be used to illustrate the application of the methodology described in the previous section.

    Example 5.1. Assume that we intend to establish an import company of laptops. So we ask the administration to evaluate four brands of laptops, namely, U={Acer,Lenovo,HP,Dell}, in terms of the criteria Δ={σi:i=1,2,3,4,5}, where:

    σ1 is the processor and dedicated graphics,

    σ2 is RAM and storage capacity,

    σ3 is battery capacity & daily usage

    σ4 is build quality, warranty & support, and

    σ5 is the price.

    After examination and investigation, administration suggested a weight vector corresponding to every criteria as follows ω=(0.1,0.3,0.2,0.1,0.3)T. The performance of these brands is evaluated under a type of an (a, b)-FSSs environment; say, (1, 2)-FSSs. Consider the evaluation as displayed in Table 1, where every ordered pair (φ,ϖ) represents the degrees of membership (which means to what extent this brand fulfills the corresponding criteria) and non-membership (which means to what extent this brand dissatisfies the corresponding criteria), where 0φ+ϖ21 and φ,ϖ lie in [0,1].

    Table 1.  (1, 2)-Fuzzy numbers associated with our case study.
    Brands σ1 σ2 σ3 σ4 σ5
    Acer (0.3, 0.7) (0.6, 0.45) (0.7, 0.3) (0.8, 0.3) (0.5, 0.7)
    Lenovo (0.5, 0.7) (0.7, 0.5) (0.4, 0.5) (0.8, 0.4) (0.9, 0.2)
    HP (0.8, 0.3) (0.7, 0.6) (0.5, 0.6) (0.6, 0.6) (0.75, 0.4)
    Dell (0.7, 0.1) (0.9, 0.1) (0.85, 0.3) (0.9, 0.2) (0.5, 0.3)

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Suppose that the way for accessing the optimal brand with appreciation to every criterion is furnished according to the different types of (1, 2)-FSS operators introduced in Definition 4.10. Now, we summarize the data given in Table 1 by four (1, 2)-FSSs: (fAcer,Δ)={(σ1,0.3,0.7),(σ2,0.6,0.45),(σ3,0.7,0.3),(σ4,0.8,0.3),(σ5,0.5,0.7)}; (fLenovo,Δ)={(σ1,0.5,0.7),(σ2,0.7,0.5),(σ3,0.4,0.5),(σ4,0.8,0.4),(σ5,0.9,0.2)}; (fHP,Δ)={(σ1,0.8,0.3),(σ2,0.7,0.6),(σ3,0.5,0.6),(σ4,0.6,0.6),(σ5,0.75,0.4)}; (fDell,Δ)={(σ1,0.7,0.1),(σ2,0.9,0.1),(σ3,0.85,0.3),(σ4,0.9,0.2),(σ5,0.5,0.3)}.

    To rank these brands we compute their score functions (as given in Table 2), but we deal herein with weighted parameters, so we update the formula given in Definition 3.13 to be as follows.

    score(f,Δ)=σΔwσ(φϖ2).
    Table 2.  Evaluations by the score function under the conditions a=1 and b=2.
    (fAcer,Δ) (fLenovo,Δ) (fHP,Δ) (fDell,Δ) Rank
    Score 0.29625 0.488 0.402 0.697 Dell Lenovo HP Acera

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table Algorithm 1.  The algorithm of selection of optimal alternative(s).

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Remark 5.2. Should some brands have had the same evaluation by the score function, then we would compute their respective accuracies to decide which one(s) is (or are) the most desirable brand(s).

    It can be noted from the above discussion that the selection of the optimal alternative heavily relies on the type of generalization of IFS sets, and on the values of the weight vector.

    Remark 5.3. By the given illustrative example, we remark the following points:

    (ⅰ) The input data of this example cannot be handled by IFS-sets because the sum of membership and non-membership degrees for some parameters is greater than one. Notice that fAcer(σ4)=(0.8,0.3)IFS(U).

    (ⅱ) The evaluation followed by the administration of this company gives different importances for the membership and non-membership degrees, which can be considered neither by IFS-sets not by its generalizations in the existing literature.

    Fuzzy sets and their generalizations have been a fertile ground for research, both as standalone models and as components of more sophisticated frameworks. Almost without exception, every new blend of properties has fostered additional investigations in order to establish comparisons, yield further generalizations, prove additional properties, or produce applications (possibly with the help of newly designed strategies of solution).

    In this paper we have succeeded in producing a novel combination that at the same time, allows for very general expressions of memberships and non-membersips, and parameterized descriptions of the universe of the alternatives. Its fundamental theory has been laid out. It is the basis of a methodology that solves multi-criteria decision making problems whose formulation respects this structure. In addition to the general advantage that the proposed approach provides a more comprehensive instrument for the mathematical analysis of uncertainty, a particular advantage is that it permits to handle situations requiring evaluations with different importances for the membership and non-membership degrees. This feature is peculiar to our model.

    In future works we aim at exploring the group decision-making problem associated with the new model. We have prepared the ground with a study of aggregation operators in this framework. In addition to this line of research, we intend to develop the model that arises when we use N-grading for the parameterization of the set of alternatives [20]. This combination should produce (a,b)-fuzzy N-soft sets as a generalization of fuzzy N-soft sets [2], or even more general models (by inspiration of e.g., [21]). Also, we will combine (a,b)-FSSs with rough sets to produce covering approximation spaces like those studied in [45,46]. Moreover, the fuzzy multigranularity uncertainty measures adopted in [42] can be investigated by making use of (a,b)-FSSs as a generalized expression of fuzziness.

    In Tables 3 and 4, we respectively present the main abbreviations and symbols used in this article.

    Table 3.  Abbreviations of the main concepts mentioned in this work.
    Concepts Abbreviation
    intuitionistic fuzzy set IF-set
    Pythagorean fuzzy set PF-set
    Fermatean fuzzy set FF-set
    q-rung orthopair fuzzy set q-ROF set
    (2, 1)-Fuzzy set (2, 1)-FS
    (a,b)-Fuzzy set (a,b)-FS
    fuzzy soft set FS-set
    intuitionistic fuzzy soft set IFS-set
    Pythagorean fuzzy soft set PFS-set
    Fermatean fuzzy soft set FFS-set
    q-rung orthopair fuzzy soft set q-ROFS set
    (2, 1)-Fuzzy soft set (2, 1)-FSS
    (a,b)-Fuzzy soft set (a,b)-FSS
    multi-criteria decision-making MCDM

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 4.  Symbols for the main concepts mentioned in this work.
    Concepts symbols
    membership function φ
    non-membership function ϖ
    indeterminacy function ζ
    universal set U
    set of parameters Δ
    soft set (f,Δ)
    family of fuzzy sets over U FS(U)
    family of IF-sets over U IFS(U)
    family of PF-sets over U PFS(U)
    family of FF-sets over U FFS(U)
    family of q-ROF sets over U qROFS(U)
    family of (a,b)-FSs over U (a,b)FS(U)
    family of (a,b)-FSSs over U I(a,b)FSS

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The authors are extremely grateful to the five anonymous referees for their valuable comments which helped to improve the presentation of this manuscript. This project was supported by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University under the research project (PSAU2022/01/20167)

    The authors declare no conflict of interest.



    [1] B. Ahmad, A. Kharal, On fuzzy soft sets, Adv. Fuzzy Syst., 2009 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1155/2009/586507 doi: 10.1155/2009/586507
    [2] M. Akram, A. Adeel, J. C. R. Alcantud, Fuzzy N-soft sets: A novel model with applications, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., 35 (2018), 4757–4771. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-18244 doi: 10.3233/JIFS-18244
    [3] J. C. R. Alcantud, Convex soft geometries, J. Comput. Cognitive Eng., 1 (2022), 2–12. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewJCCE597820 doi: 10.47852/bonviewJCCE597820
    [4] J. C. R. Alcantud, The semantics of N-soft sets, their applications, and a coda about three-way decision, Inform. Sci., 606 (2022), 837–852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2022.05.084 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2022.05.084
    [5] J. C. R. Alcantud, T. M. Al-shami, A. A. Azzam, Caliber and chain conditions in soft topologies, Mathematics, 9 (2021), 2349. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9192349 doi: 10.3390/math9192349
    [6] J. C. R. Alcantud, A. Z. Khameneh, A. Kilicman, Aggregation of infinite chains of intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their application to choices with temporal intuitionistic fuzzy information, Inform. Sci., 514 (2020), 106–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2019.12.008 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2019.12.008
    [7] J. C. R. Alcantud, G. Varela, B. Santos-Buitrago, G. Santos-García, M. F. Jiménez, Analysis of survival for lung cancer resections cases with fuzzy and soft set theory in surgical decision making, Plos One, 14 (2019), e0218283. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218283 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218283
    [8] T. M. Al-shami, (2, 1)-Fuzzy sets: Properties, weighted aggregated operators and their applications to multi-criteria decision-making methods, Complex Intell. Syst., 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40747-022-00878-4 doi: 10.1007/s40747-022-00878-4
    [9] T. M. Al-shami, Generalized umbral for orthopair fuzzy sets: (m, n)-Fuzzy sets and their applications to multi-criteria decision-making methods, Submitted.
    [10] T. M. Al-shami, Soft somewhat open sets: Soft separation axioms and medical application to nutrition, Comput. Appl. Math., 41 (2022), 216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-022-01919-x doi: 10.1007/s40314-022-01919-x
    [11] T. M. Al-shami, H. Z. Ibrahim, A. A. Azzam, A. I. EL-Maghrabi, SR-fuzzy sets and their applications to weighted aggregated operators in decision-making, J. Funct. Space., 2022 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3653225 doi: 10.1155/2022/3653225
    [12] T. M. Al-shami, L. D. R. Kočinac, Almost soft Menger and weakly soft Menger spaces, Appl. Comput. Math., 21 (2022), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.30546/1683-6154.21.1.2022.35 doi: 10.30546/1683-6154.21.1.2022.35
    [13] T. M. Al-shami, A. Mhemdi, R. Abu-Gdairi, M. E. El-Shafei, Compactness and connectedness via the class of soft somewhat open sets, AIMS Math., 8 (2023), 815–840. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2023040 doi: 10.3934/math.2023040
    [14] T. M. Al-shami, A. Mhemdi, A. Rawshdeh, H. Al-jarrah, Soft version of compact and Lindelöf spaces using soft somewhere dense set, AIMS Math., 6 (2021), 8064–8077. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2021468 doi: 10.3934/math.2021468
    [15] Z. A. Ameen, T. M. Al-shami, A. A. Azzam, A. Mhemdi, A novel fuzzy structure: Infra-fuzzy topological spaces, J. Funct. Space., 2022 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9778069 doi: 10.1155/2022/9778069
    [16] K. T. Atanassov, Intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Set. Syst., 20 (1986), 87–96.
    [17] M. Atef, M. I. Ali, T. M. Al-shami, Fuzzy soft covering-based multi-granulation fuzzy rough sets and their applications, Comput. Appl. Math., 40 (2021), 115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-021-01501-x doi: 10.1007/s40314-021-01501-x
    [18] N. Cağman, S. Enginoğlu, F. Çitak, Fuzzy soft set theory and its application, Iran. J. Fuzzy Syst., 8 (2011), 137–147.
    [19] S. K. De, R. B. Akhil, R. Roy, An application of intuitionistic fuzzy sets in medical diagnosis, Fuzzy Set. Syst., 117 (2001), 209–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(98)00235-8 doi: 10.1016/S0165-0114(98)00235-8
    [20] F. Fatimah, D. Rosadi, R. B. F. Hakim, J. C. R. Alcantud, N-soft sets and their decision-making algorithms, Soft Comput., 22 (2018), 3829–3842. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-017-2838-6 doi: 10.1007/s00500-017-2838-6
    [21] F. Fatimah, J. C. R. Alcantud, The multi-fuzzy N-soft set and its applications to decision-making, Neural Comput. Appl., 33 (2021), 11437–11446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-020-05647-3 doi: 10.1007/s00521-020-05647-3
    [22] M. Gulzar, D. Alghazzawi, M. H. Mateen, N. Kausar, A certain class of t-intuitionistic fuzzy subgroups, IEEE Access, 8 (2020), 163260–163268. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3020366 doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3020366
    [23] M. T. Hamida, M. Riaz, D. Afzal, Novel MCGDM with q-rung orthopair fuzzy soft sets and TOPSIS approach under q-Rung orthopair fuzzy soft topology, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., 39 (2020), 3853–3871. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-192195 doi: 10.3233/JIFS-192195
    [24] H. Z. Ibrahim, T. M. Al-shami, O. G. Elbarbary, (3, 2)-Fuzzy sets and their applications to topology and optimal choices, Comput. Intell. Neurosci., 2021 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/1272266 doi: 10.1155/2021/1272266
    [25] S. J. John, Soft sets: Theory and applications, Springer Cham, 2021.
    [26] H. Liao, Z. Xu, Intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid weighted aggregation operators, Int. J. Intell. Syst., 29 (2014), 971–993. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.21672 doi: 10.1002/int.21672
    [27] A. A. Khan, S. Ashraf, S. Abdullah, M. Qiyas, J. Luo, S. U. Khan, Pythagorean fuzzy Dombi aggregation operators and their application in decision support system, Symmetry, 11 (2019), 383. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11030383 doi: 10.3390/sym11030383
    [28] M. Kirişci, A case study for medical decision making with the fuzzy soft sets, Afr. Mat., 31 (2020), 557–564.
    [29] M. Kirişci, N. Şimşek, Decision making method related to Pythagorean fuzzy soft sets with infectious diseases application, J. King Saud Univ.-Com., 34 (2022), 5968–5978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2021.08.010 doi: 10.1016/j.jksuci.2021.08.010
    [30] P. K. Maji, R. Biswas, A. R. Roy, Fuzzy soft sets, J. Fuzzy Math., 9 (2001), 589–602.
    [31] A. R. Roy, P. K. Maji, A fuzzy soft set theoretic approach to decision making problems, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 203 (2007), 412–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2006.04.008 doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2006.04.008
    [32] D. Molodtsov, Soft set theory–-first results, Comput. Math. Appl., 37 (1999), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-1221(99)00056-5 doi: 10.1016/S0898-1221(99)00056-5
    [33] X. Peng, H. Yuan, Fundamental properties of Pythagorean fuzzy aggregation operators, Fund. Inform., 147 (2016), 415–446. https://doi.org/10.3233/FI-2016-1415 doi: 10.3233/FI-2016-1415
    [34] X. Peng, Y. Yang, J. Song, Y. Jiang, Pythagorean fuzzy soft set and its application, Comput. Eng., 41 (2015), 224–229.
    [35] K. Rahman, S. Abdullah, M. Jamil, M. Y. Khan, Some generalized intuitionistic fuzzy Einstein hybrid aggregation operators and their application to multiple attribute group decision making, Int. J. Fuzzy Syst., 20 (2018), 1567–1575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-018-0452-0 doi: 10.1007/s40815-018-0452-0
    [36] K. Rahman, S. Abdullah, M. S. A. Khan, M. Shakeel, Pythagorean fuzzy hybrid geometric aggregation operator and their applications to multiple attribute decision making, Int. J. Comput. Sci. Inform. Sec., 14 (2016), 837–854.
    [37] A. Sivadas, S. J. John, Fermatean fuzzy soft sets and its applications, Communications in Computer and Information Science, Springer, Singapore, 1345 (2021).
    [38] S. Saleh, R. Abu-Gdairi, T. M. Al-shami, Mohammed S. Abdo, On categorical property of fuzzy soft topological spaces, Appl. Math. Inform. Sci., 16 (2022), 635–641. http://dx.doi.org/10.18576/amis/160417 doi: 10.18576/amis/160417
    [39] T. Senapati, R. R. Yager, Fermatean fuzzy weighted averaging/geometric operators and its application in multi-criteria decision-making methods, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., 85 (2019), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2019.05.012 doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2019.05.012
    [40] T. Senapati, R. R. Yager, Fermatean fuzzy sets, J. Amb. Intell. Hum. Comput., 11 (2020), 663–674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-019-01377-0 doi: 10.1007/s12652-019-01377-0
    [41] Y. J. Xu, Y. K. Sun, D. F. Li, Intuitionistic fuzzy soft set, 2010 2nd International Workshop on Intelligent Systems and Applications, 2010, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/IWISA.2010.5473444
    [42] J. Wan, H. Chen, T. Li, Z. Yuan, J. Liu, W. Huang, Interactive and complementary feature selection via fuzzy multigranularity uncertainty measures, IEEE T. Cybern., 2021. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2021.3112203 doi: 10.1109/TCYB.2021.3112203
    [43] R. R. Yager, Pythagorean membership grades in multicriteria decision making, IEEE T. Fuzzy Syst., 22 (2013), 958–965. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2013.2278989 doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2013.2278989
    [44] R. R. Yager, Generalized orthopair fuzzy sets, IEEE T. Fuzzy Syst., 25 (2017), 1222–1230. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2016.2604005 doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2016.2604005
    [45] B. Yang, Fuzzy covering-based rough set on two different universes and its application, Artif. Intell. Rev., 55 (2022), 4717–4753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-021-10115-y doi: 10.1007/s10462-021-10115-y
    [46] B. Yang, B. Q. Hu, A fuzzy covering-based rough set model and its generalization over fuzzy lattice, Inform. Sci., 367–368 (2016), 463–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2016.05.053 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2016.05.053
    [47] J. Yang, Y. Yao, Semantics of soft sets and three-way decision with soft sets, Inform. Sci., 194 (2020), 105538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2020.105538 doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2020.105538
    [48] L. A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Inform. Control, 8 (1965), 338–353.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Muhammad Kamran, Rashad Ismail, Esmail Hassan Abdullatif Al-Sabri, Nadeem Salamat, Muhammad Farman, Shahzaib Ashraf, An Optimization Strategy for MADM Framework with Confidence Level Aggregation Operators under Probabilistic Neutrosophic Hesitant Fuzzy Rough Environment, 2023, 15, 2073-8994, 578, 10.3390/sym15030578
    2. S. Saleh, Tareq M. Al-shami, Abdelwaheb Mhemdi, Ljubisa Kocinac, On Some New Types of Fuzzy Soft Compact Spaces, 2023, 2023, 2314-4785, 1, 10.1155/2023/5065592
    3. Jeonghwan Gwak, Harish Garg, Naeem Jan, Bushra Akram, A new approach to investigate the effects of artificial neural networks based on bipolar complex spherical fuzzy information, 2023, 2199-4536, 10.1007/s40747-022-00959-4
    4. Sami Ullah Khan, Esmail Hassan Abdullatif Al-Sabri, Rashad Ismail, Maha Mohammed Saeed Mohammed, Shoukat Hussain, Arif Mehmood, Prediction Model of a Generative Adversarial Network Using the Concept of Complex Picture Fuzzy Soft Information, 2023, 15, 2073-8994, 577, 10.3390/sym15030577
    5. Zeeshan Ali, Tahir Mahmood, Jeonghwan Gwak, Naeem Jan, A novel extended Portuguese of Interactive and Multi‐Criteria Decision Making and Archimedean Bonferroni mean operators based on prospect theory to select green supplier with complex q‐rung orthopair fuzzy information, 2023, 2468-2322, 10.1049/cit2.12185
    6. Tareq M. Al-shami, Abdelwaheb Mhemdi, Generalized Frame for Orthopair Fuzzy Sets: (m,n)-Fuzzy Sets and Their Applications to Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods, 2023, 14, 2078-2489, 56, 10.3390/info14010056
    7. Tareq M. Al-shami, Abdelwaheb Mhemdi, Radwan Abu-Gdairi, A Novel Framework for Generalizations of Soft Open Sets and Its Applications via Soft Topologies, 2023, 11, 2227-7390, 840, 10.3390/math11040840
    8. Kemal Taşköprü, Soft order topology and graph comparison based on soft order, 2023, 8, 2473-6988, 9761, 10.3934/math.2023492
    9. Zaibin Chang, Junchao Wei, Tareq Al-shami, Matrix Approaches for Covering-Based Multigranulation Fuzzy Rough Set Models, 2023, 2023, 2314-4785, 1, 10.1155/2023/3051168
    10. Shanmugam Kalaiselvan, Srinivasan Vijayabalaji, Soft Expert Symmetric Group and Its Application in MCDM Problem, 2022, 14, 2073-8994, 2685, 10.3390/sym14122685
    11. M. Hosny, Tareq M. Al-shami, Abdelwaheb Mhemdi, Novel approaches of generalized rough approximation spaces inspired by maximal neighbourhoods and ideals, 2023, 69, 11100168, 497, 10.1016/j.aej.2023.02.008
    12. Arife Atay, Disjoint union of fuzzy soft topological spaces, 2023, 8, 2473-6988, 10547, 10.3934/math.2023535
    13. Tareq M. Al-shami, Abdelwaheb Mhemdi, A weak form of soft α-open sets and its applications via soft topologies, 2023, 8, 2473-6988, 11373, 10.3934/math.2023576
    14. Tiantai Lin, Bin Yang, The resolution of q-rung orthopair fuzzy set based three-way group conflict analysis, 2023, 10641246, 1, 10.3233/JIFS-224589
    15. Shahzaib Ashraf, Harish Garg, Muneeba Kousar, An industrial disaster emergency decision-making based on China’s Tianjin city port explosion under complex probabilistic hesitant fuzzy soft environment, 2023, 123, 09521976, 106400, 10.1016/j.engappai.2023.106400
    16. Muhammad Sajjad Ali Khan, Saeed Ullah Jan, Rahim Jan, Tapan Senapati, Sarbast Moslem, Complex interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy decision support system with application to COVID-19 healthcare facilities, 2023, 9, 2199-4536, 7103, 10.1007/s40747-023-01090-8
    17. A. Josy, S. Mathew, J.N. Mordeson, First and second K Banhatti indices of a fuzzy graph applied to decision making, 2024, 678, 00200255, 120961, 10.1016/j.ins.2024.120961
    18. Rizwan Gul, Muhammad Shabir, Tareq M. Al-shami, M. Hosny, A Comprehensive study on (α,β)-multi-granulation bipolar fuzzy rough sets under bipolar fuzzy preference relation, 2023, 8, 2473-6988, 25888, 10.3934/math.20231320
    19. Meiqin Wu, Jiawen Song, Jianping Fan, Three-way decision based on ITARA and public weights DEA under picture fuzzy environment and its application in new energy vehicles selection, 2023, 2199-4536, 10.1007/s40747-023-01188-z
    20. Tareq M. Al-shami, Rodyna A. Hosny, Abdelwaheb Mhemdi, Radwan Abu-Gdairi, Salem Saleh, RETRACTED: Weakly soft b-open sets and their usages via soft topologies: A novel approach, 2023, 45, 10641246, 7727, 10.3233/JIFS-230436
    21. Linlu Gao, Fuyuan Xiao, Danilo Pelusi, A complex belief χ2 divergence in complex evidence theory and its application for pattern classification, 2023, 126, 09521976, 106752, 10.1016/j.engappai.2023.106752
    22. Shio Gai Quek, Harish Garg, Ganeshsree Selvachandran, M. Palanikumar, K. Arulmozhi, Florentin Smarandache, RETRACTED ARTICLE: VIKOR and TOPSIS framework with a truthful-distance measure for the (t, s)-regulated interval-valued neutrosophic soft set, 2023, 1432-7643, 10.1007/s00500-023-08338-y
    23. Rouhollah Kiani-Ghalehno, Ali Mahmoodirad, Providing bank branch ranking algorithm with fuzzy data, using a combination of two methods DEA and MCDM, 2024, 15, 1868-5137, 3563, 10.1007/s12652-024-04833-8
    24. Tareq M. Al-shami, Murad Arar, Radwan Abu-Gdairi, Zanyar A. Ameen, On weakly soft β-open sets and weakly soft β-continuity, 2023, 45, 10641246, 6351, 10.3233/JIFS-230858
    25. Ghous Ali, Sheng Du, Novel MCDM Methods and Similarity Measures for Extended Fuzzy Parameterized Possibility Fuzzy Soft Information with Their Applications, 2023, 2023, 2314-4785, 1, 10.1155/2023/5035347
    26. Tareq M. Al-shami, Rodyna A. Hosny, Radwan Abu-Gdairi, Murad Arar, A novel approach to study soft preopen sets inspired by classical topologies, 2023, 45, 10641246, 6339, 10.3233/JIFS-230191
    27. Faruk Karaaslan, Fatih Karamaz, Interval-valued (p,q,r)-spherical fuzzy sets and their applications in MCGDM and MCDM based on TOPSIS method and aggregation operators, 2024, 255, 09574174, 124575, 10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124575
    28. K. Tamilselvan, V. Visalakshi, Prasanalakshmi Balaji, Applications of picture fuzzy filters: performance evaluation of an employee using clustering algorithm, 2023, 8, 2473-6988, 21069, 10.3934/math.20231073
    29. Ayesha Razzaq, Muhammad Riaz, Muhammad Aslam, Efficient picture fuzzy soft CRITIC-CoCoSo framework for supplier selection under uncertainties in Industry 4.0, 2024, 9, 2473-6988, 665, 10.3934/math.2024035
    30. Muhammad Qiyas, Neelam Khan, Muhammad Naeem, Samuel Okyere, Tareq Al-Shami, Decision-Making Based on Spherical Linear Diophantine Fuzzy Rough Aggregation Operators and EDAS Method, 2023, 2023, 2314-4785, 1, 10.1155/2023/5839410
    31. Xiao Guo, Qinrong Feng, Lin Zhao, A novel parameter reduction method for fuzzy soft sets, 2023, 45, 10641246, 8805, 10.3233/JIFS-232657
    32. Zengtai Gong, Taiqiang Jiang, Weighted continuous triangular fuzzy conflict analysis and its three-way decision method1, 2024, 46, 10641246, 2077, 10.3233/JIFS-231296
    33. Saman Nessari, Mohssen Ghanavati-Nejad, Fariborz Jolai, Ali Bozorgi-Amiri, Sina Rajabizadeh, A data-driven decision-making approach for evaluating the projects according to resilience, circular economy and industry 4.0 dimension, 2024, 134, 09521976, 108608, 10.1016/j.engappai.2024.108608
    34. Zaibin Chang, Lingling Mao, Matrix methods for some new covering-based multigranulation fuzzy rough set models under fuzzy complementary β-neighborhoods, 2024, 46, 10641246, 5825, 10.3233/JIFS-224323
    35. Jawad Ali, Suhad Ali Osman Abdallah, N. S. Abd EL-Gawaad, Decision Analysis Algorithm Using Frank Aggregation in the SWARA Framework with p,qRung Orthopair Fuzzy Information, 2024, 16, 2073-8994, 1352, 10.3390/sym16101352
    36. Ping-Ping Cao, Jin Zheng, Shuang Wang, Ming-Yang Li, Xin-Yan Wang, Large group decision-making considering multiple classifications for participators: a method based on preference information on multiple elements of alternatives, 2023, 2199-4536, 10.1007/s40747-023-01209-x
    37. Kholood Mohammad Alsager, Hajar Abdullah Alharbi, Exploring Symmetry in Industrial Decision-Making: A New Framework Based on Cubic Type-2 Fuzzy Soft Sets, 2024, 16, 2073-8994, 1491, 10.3390/sym16111491
    38. Jian Zheng, Anti-noise twin-hyperspheres with density fuzzy for binary classification to imbalanced data with noise, 2023, 9, 2199-4536, 6103, 10.1007/s40747-023-01089-1
    39. Nosheen Malik, Muhammad Shabir, Tareq M. Al-shami, Rizwan Gul, Abdelwaheb Mhemdi, Medical decision-making techniques based on bipolar soft information, 2023, 8, 2473-6988, 18185, 10.3934/math.2023924
    40. Zeeshan Ali, Zohaib Ahmad Khan, Tapan Senapati, Sarbast Moslem, Frank-Based TOPSIS Methodology of Development and Operations Challenges Based on Intuitionistic Linguistic Aggregation Operators and Their Applications, 2024, 12, 2169-3536, 91605, 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3420711
    41. Gagandeep Kaur, Harish Garg, A novel algorithm for autonomous parking vehicles using adjustable probabilistic neutrosophic hesitant fuzzy set features, 2023, 226, 09574174, 120101, 10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120101
    42. Lin Shi, Optimized multiple-attribute group decision-making in uncertainty employing TODIM and EDAS technique and application to product styling design quality evaluation, 2024, 46, 10641246, 6093, 10.3233/JIFS-236947
    43. Muhammad Shabir, Saba Ayub, Rizwan Gul, Muhammad Irfan Ali, Algebraic structures of q-rung orthopair fuzzy relations with applications in decision-making, 2024, 0, 2577-8838, 0, 10.3934/mfc.2024035
    44. Jawad Ali, Zareen A. Khan, Interval-Valued p,q-Rung Orthopair Fuzzy Exponential TODIM Approach and Its Application to Green Supplier Selection, 2023, 15, 2073-8994, 2115, 10.3390/sym15122115
    45. José Carlos R. Alcantud, Azadeh Zahedi Khameneh, Gustavo Santos-García, Muhammad Akram, A systematic literature review of soft set theory, 2024, 36, 0941-0643, 8951, 10.1007/s00521-024-09552-x
    46. K. Hamidizadeh, R. Manaviyat, S. Mirvakili, B. Davvaz, Application of soft sets to graph coloring, 2024, 43, 2238-3603, 10.1007/s40314-024-02738-y
    47. Muhammad Saqib, Shahzaib Ashraf, Hafiz Muhammad Athar Farid, Vladimir Simic, Muneeba Kousar, Erfan Babaee Tirkolaee, Benchmarking of industrial wastewater treatment processes using a complex probabilistic hesitant fuzzy soft Schweizer–Sklar prioritized-based framework, 2024, 162, 15684946, 111780, 10.1016/j.asoc.2024.111780
    48. Yibo Dong, Jin Liu, Jiaqi Ren, Zhe Li, Weili Li, Modelling attack and defense games in infrastructure networks with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy set payoffs, 2024, 10, 2199-4536, 6249, 10.1007/s40747-024-01495-z
    49. İzzettin Demir, Murat Saldamli, CONVERGENCE THEORY OF BIPOLAR FUZZY SOFT NETS AND ITS APPLICATIONS, 2024, 54, 0035-7596, 10.1216/rmj.2024.54.1005
    50. Shahzad Faizi, Wojciech Sałabun, Mubashar Shah, Tabasam Rashid, A novel approach employing hesitant intuitionistic fuzzy linguistic Einstein aggregation operators within the EDAS approach for multicriteria group decision making, 2024, 10, 24058440, e31407, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31407
    51. Asad Mubarak, Muhammad Shabir, Waqas Mahmood, Pessimistic multigranulation rough bipolar fuzzy set and their application in medical diagnosis, 2023, 42, 2238-3603, 10.1007/s40314-023-02389-5
    52. Xiaomin Wang, Xueyuan Zhang, Rui Zhou, Group decision-making methods based on probabilistic hesitant N-soft sets, 2023, 45, 10641246, 603, 10.3233/JIFS-222563
    53. Abdulrahman AlAita, Hooshang Talebi, Exact neutrosophic analysis of missing value in augmented randomized complete block design, 2024, 10, 2199-4536, 509, 10.1007/s40747-023-01182-5
    54. Roshdey Mareay, Soft rough sets based on covering and their applications, 2024, 14, 2190-5983, 10.1186/s13362-024-00142-z
    55. Hariwan Z. Ibrahim, Tareq M. Al-shami, Murad Arar, M. Hosny, knm-Rung picture fuzzy information in a modern approach to multi-attribute group decision-making, 2024, 10, 2199-4536, 2605, 10.1007/s40747-023-01277-z
    56. Weijun Liu, Jianming Qi, Yu Jin, Zhiyong Zhou, Xu Zhang, Application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process – multi-layer fuzzy inference system in product design evaluation, 2023, 45, 10641246, 7469, 10.3233/JIFS-230906
    57. Tareq M. Al-shami, Salem Saleh, Alaa M. Abd El-latif, Abdelwaheb Mhemdi, Novel categories of spaces in the frame of fuzzy soft topologies, 2024, 9, 2473-6988, 6305, 10.3934/math.2024307
    58. Muhammad Qiyas, Darjan Karabasevic, Neelam Khan, Srdjan Maričić, Einstein Exponential Operational Laws Based on Fractional Orthotriple Fuzzy Sets and Their Applications in Decision Making Problems, 2024, 12, 2227-7390, 3216, 10.3390/math12203216
    59. Rizwan Gul, Tareq M. Al-shami, Saba Ayub, Muhammad Shabir, M. Hosny, Development of Aczel-Alsina t-norm based linear Diophantine fuzzy aggregation operators and their applications in multi-criteria decision-making with unknown weight information, 2024, 10, 24058440, e35942, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e35942
    60. Tahir Mahmood, Kashif Hussain, Jabbar Ahmmad, Sana Shahab, Ubaid ur Rehman, Mohd Anjum, T-Bipolar soft groups and their fundamental laws, 2024, 46, 10641246, 9479, 10.3233/JIFS-236150
    61. Meiqin Wu, Sining Ma, Jianping Fan, A spherical Z-number multi-attribute group decision making model based on the prospect theory and GLDS method, 2024, 10, 2199-4536, 8501, 10.1007/s40747-024-01552-7
    62. Manivannan Balamurugan, Thukkaraman Ramesh, Anas Al-Masarwah, Kholood Alsager, A New Approach of Complex Fuzzy Ideals in BCK/BCI-Algebras, 2024, 12, 2227-7390, 1583, 10.3390/math12101583
    63. Despina Karamichailidou, Georgios Gerolymatos, Panagiotis Patrinos, Haralambos Sarimveis, Alex Alexandridis, Radial basis function neural network training using variable projection and fuzzy means, 2024, 36, 0941-0643, 21137, 10.1007/s00521-024-10274-3
    64. Nosheen Malik, Muhammad Shabir, Tareq M. Al-shami, Rizwan Gul, Murad Arar, M. Hosny, Rough bipolar fuzzy ideals in semigroups, 2023, 9, 2199-4536, 7197, 10.1007/s40747-023-01132-1
    65. Tareq M. Al-shami, Zanyar A. Ameen, Abdelwaheb Mhemdi, The connection between ordinary and soft σ-algebras with applications to information structures, 2023, 8, 2473-6988, 14850, 10.3934/math.2023759
    66. Muhammad Arshad, Muhammad Saeed, Atiqe Ur Rahman, Mazin Abed Mohammed, Karrar Hameed Abdulkareem, Abed Saif Alghawli, Mohammed A.A. Al-qaness, A robust algorithmic cum integrated approach of interval-valued fuzzy hypersoft set and OOPCS for real estate pursuit, 2023, 9, 2376-5992, e1423, 10.7717/peerj-cs.1423
    67. B. Jebapresitha, Hybrid structure of maximal ideals in near rings, 2024, 10, 2199-4536, 6467, 10.1007/s40747-024-01486-0
    68. Muhammad Akram, Urooj Fatima, José Carlos R. Alcantud, Group decision-making method based on Pythagorean fuzzy rough numbers, 2024, 1598-5865, 10.1007/s12190-024-02317-8
    69. Leticia Amador-Angulo, Oscar Castillo, Patricia Melin, Zong Woo Geem, Generalized Type-2 Fuzzy Approach for Parameter Adaptation in the Whale Optimization Algorithm, 2024, 12, 2227-7390, 4031, 10.3390/math12244031
    70. Minxia Luo, Jianlei Gao, Wenling Li, Some new construction methods of similarity measure on picture fuzzy sets, 2025, 1432-7643, 10.1007/s00500-025-10536-9
    71. Nenad Stojanović, Maja Laković, Ljubica Djurović, Decision-making algorithm based on the energy of interval-valued hesitant fuzzy soft sets, 2025, 0941-0643, 10.1007/s00521-025-11107-7
    72. Zeeshan Ali, Tapan Senapati, Sarbast Moslem, Selection of artificial intelligence tool for blind assistance based on Dombi aggregation operators for intuitionistic linguistic decision-making problems, 2025, 0975-6809, 10.1007/s13198-024-02683-3
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(2574) PDF downloads(215) Cited by(72)

Figures and Tables

Figures(2)  /  Tables(5)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog