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

A novel approach to hesitant multi-fuzzy soft set based decision-making

  • Received: 03 November 2019 Accepted: 13 February 2020 Published: 21 February 2020
  • MSC : 06D72, 90B50, 94D05

  • In this article, we present the idea of a hesitant multi-fuzzy set. We join the characteristics of a hesitant multi-fuzzy set with the parametrization of the soft set and constructs the hesitant multi-fuzzy soft set. We center around the fundamental operations for the instance of the hesitant multi-fuzzy soft subsets. Also, we look at the root mean square sum level soft set or RMSS-level soft set to deal with uncertainties. We also provide the utilization of hesitant multi-fuzzy soft set into the decision-making issues. Finally, we deliver a standard algorithm to resolve decision-making issues and test the effectiveness of it by a socialistic decision-making problem.

    Citation: Asit Dey, Tapan Senapati, Madhumangal Pal, Guiyun Chen. A novel approach to hesitant multi-fuzzy soft set based decision-making[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(3): 1985-2008. doi: 10.3934/math.2020132

    Related Papers:

    [1] Feng Feng, Zhe Wan, José Carlos R. Alcantud, Harish Garg . Three-way decision based on canonical soft sets of hesitant fuzzy sets. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(2): 2061-2083. doi: 10.3934/math.2022118
    [2] 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
    [3] Tareq M. Al-shami, José Carlos R. Alcantud, Abdelwaheb Mhemdi . New generalization of fuzzy soft sets: $ (a, b) $-Fuzzy soft sets. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(2): 2995-3025. doi: 10.3934/math.2023155
    [4] S. Meenakshi, G. Muhiuddin, B. Elavarasan, D. Al-Kadi . Hybrid ideals in near-subtraction semigroups. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(7): 13493-13507. doi: 10.3934/math.2022746
    [5] Rukchart Prasertpong . Roughness of soft sets and fuzzy sets in semigroups based on set-valued picture hesitant fuzzy relations. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(2): 2891-2928. doi: 10.3934/math.2022160
    [6] Maliha Rashid, Akbar Azam, Maria Moqaddas, Naeem Saleem, Maggie Aphane . Ciric fixed point theorems of $ \mathtt{£} $-fuzzy soft set-valued maps with applications in fractional integral inclusions. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(3): 4641-4661. doi: 10.3934/math.2025215
    [7] 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
    [8] T. M. Athira, Sunil Jacob John, Harish Garg . A novel entropy measure of Pythagorean fuzzy soft sets. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(2): 1050-1061. doi: 10.3934/math.2020073
    [9] Muhammad Ihsan, Muhammad Saeed, Alhanouf Alburaikan, Hamiden Abd El-Wahed Khalifa . Product evaluation through multi-criteria decision making based on fuzzy parameterized Pythagorean fuzzy hypersoft expert set. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(6): 11024-11052. doi: 10.3934/math.2022616
    [10] 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
  • In this article, we present the idea of a hesitant multi-fuzzy set. We join the characteristics of a hesitant multi-fuzzy set with the parametrization of the soft set and constructs the hesitant multi-fuzzy soft set. We center around the fundamental operations for the instance of the hesitant multi-fuzzy soft subsets. Also, we look at the root mean square sum level soft set or RMSS-level soft set to deal with uncertainties. We also provide the utilization of hesitant multi-fuzzy soft set into the decision-making issues. Finally, we deliver a standard algorithm to resolve decision-making issues and test the effectiveness of it by a socialistic decision-making problem.


    To solve complicated real-life problems in different disciplines such as engineering, economics and social science, the available techniques in classical mathematics are not fruitful because of the presence of different kinds of uncertainties. There are many mathematical tools and approaches to deal with managing uncertainty. However, all these proposed approaches have their own specific limitations. Soft set theory is a powerful mathematical tool for handling uncertainty and vagueness. The idea of soft set was first presented by Molodtsov [25]. In recent times, works on soft set theory are growing rapidly. Maji and co-workers [23] considered the new notion of the soft set and gave a utilization of soft set in a decision-making issue. Ali and co-workers [3] defined a few new types of operations in soft set theory. Chen and co-workers [7] discussed the parameterizations minimization of soft sets and its utilizations. Cagman and Enginoglu [5,6] proposed the idea of a soft matrix and utilized it in uni-int decision-making problems. Meanwhile, Feng and co-workers [13] proposed the generalized uni-int decision-making schemes based on choice values of soft sets. Ignatius and co-workers [15] illustrated hybrid models in decision-making under uncertainty. Zhang and co-workers [54] presented a new technique for positioning fuzzy numbers.

    In 2001, Maji and co-workers [22] originally proposed the idea of a fuzzy soft set. After that Roy and Maji [31] discussed the utilization of a fuzzy soft set in the decision-making problem. Feng and co-workers [12] gave the limitations of the decision-making method discussed in [31] and proposed a customizable methodology to fuzzy soft set based decision-making. Guan and co-workers [14] defined a new order relation on a fuzzy soft set and discussed its utilization. In view of grey theory, Kong et al. [17,18] proposed utilization of a fuzzy soft set in decision-making issues. In 2010 Majumder et al. [24] proposed the idea of generalized fuzzy soft sets. Sebastain and Ramakrishnan [32] proposed a new kind of fuzzy set, namely a multi-fuzzy set and discussed a few fundamental paradigms of multi-fuzzy subsets. Meanwhile, Yang and co-workers [44] introduced the concept of a multi-fuzzy soft set (MFSS) and discussed an application of an MFSS in the decision-making problem. Yang and co-workers [45] introduced the notion of bipolar MFSS. Zhang and co-workers [52] discussed the application of the possibility of an MFSS in decision-making. Dey and Pal [10] introduced the idea of the generalized MFSS and gave an application in decision-making problems.

    In 2010 a new type of fuzzy set called hesitant fuzzy set (HFS) was proposed by Torra [34]. Rodryguez et al. [30] studied the art and future direction for a HFS. Xia et al. [40] studied some interesting properties of HFSs. Bedregal et al. [4] introduced the agammaegation functions for typical hesitant fuzzy elements and the action of automorphism. Wei et al. [36] illustrated the concept of hesitant interval-valued agammaegation operators for MADM issues. Xu and Xia [41] discussed the distance and similarity measure for HFSs. The concept of hesitant fuzzy power agammaegation operators introduced by Zhang [50]. Also, Zhang et al. [48,49,51] discussed the induced generalized hesitant fuzzy operators for multiple attribute group decision-making. Wei [38] investigated the MADM issue based on the agammaegation operators with interval-valued hesitant fuzzy uncertain linguistic data. Ren and Wei [29] discussed the MADM technique with a prioritization relationship and dual hesitant fuzzy selection statistics. Dey and Pal [11] extended the MFSS to HFS theory and applied it in topological spaces. Liang et al. [19,20,21] introduced hesitant fuzzy three-way decision making problems. Xia and Xu [39] applied hesitant fuzzy information agammaegation in decision-making. For recent developments of hesitant set theory and related topics, the readers are referred to [1,2,8,9,16,26,27,28,33,35,42,43,46,47,53,55].

    Motivated by the extensive works on multi-fuzzy soft set [44], hesitant fuzzy soft set [35], interval-valued hesitant fuzzy soft set [53], hesitant power agammaegation operators [50] and their applications, we combine hesitant fuzzy set and multi-fuzzy soft set, and introduce hesitant multi-fuzzy soft set. We present a few interesting operations on hesitant multi-fuzzy soft subsets. In order to give a new approach to decision-making problems, we introduce a new level soft set named as RMSS-level soft set and propose a general algorithm to take care of decision-making methods by using hesitant MFSS theory. We briefly discusses the basic definition and results which are needed in this article such as soft set, fuzzy soft set, MFSS and HFS. We introduce a hesitant multi-fuzzy set, hesitant MFSS and also established the operations of this model in detail. Next, we establishes the RMSS-level soft set and also gives a general algorithm to decision-making based on the hesitant MFSS. Meantime, a socialistic problem, in reality, is proposed to discuss the decision-making method and validity is also verified successfully. At last we conclude our research and set up a future research direction.

    From the literature, we recall some definitions for the improvement of hesitant MFSS. Throughout this paper, U refers to an initial universal set, E is a set of parameters, P(U) is the power set of U and AE.

    Definition 2.1. [25](Soft set) A soft set over U is the pair (F,A), where F is a mapping given by F:AP(U).

    Thus, a soft set over is a mapping from a set of parameters A to P(U), and it is not a set, but a parameterized family of subsets of U.

    Example 2.2. Let U={b1,b2,b3,b4,b5} be a set of bikes under consideration. Let A={e1,e2,e3} be a set of parameters, where e1= expensive, e2= beautiful and e3= good milage. Suppose that F(e1)={b2,b4}, F(e2)={b1,b4,b5}, F(e3)={b1,b3}. The soft set (F,A) describes the "attractiveness of the bikes". F(e1) means "bikes (expensive)" whose function value is the set {b2,b4}, F(e2) means "bikes (beautiful)" whose function value is the set {b1,b4,b5} and F(e3) means "bikes (good milage)" whose function value is the set {b1,b3}.

    Definition 2.3. [22](Fuzzy soft set) Let ˜P(U) be all fuzzy subsets of U. A fuzzy soft set over U is a pair (˜F,A), where ˜F is a mapping given by ˜F:A˜P(U).

    Thus, a soft set over is a mapping from a set of parameters A to a fuzzy subset of ˜P(U).

    Example 2.4. Consider Example 1. The fuzzy soft set (˜F,A) can describe the "attractiveness of the bikes" under the fuzzy circumstances.

    ˜F(e1)={b1/0.3,b2/0.8,b3/0.4,b4/0.7,b5/0.5},

    ˜F(e2)={b1/0.7,b2/0.2,b3/0.4,b4/0.8,b5/0.9},

    ˜F(e3)={b1/0.6,b2/0.4,b3/0.7,b4/0.2,b5/0.1}.

    Definition 2.5. [32] (Multi-fuzzy sets) Let k be a positive integer. A multi-fuzzy set ˜A in U is a set of ordered sequences ˜A={u/(μ1(u),μ2(u),,μk(u)):uU}, where μi˜P(U), i=1,2,,k.

    The function μ˜A=(μ1(u),μ2(u),,μk(u)) is called the multi-membership function of multi-fuzzy set ˜A, k is called dimension of ˜A. The set of all multi-fuzzy sets of dimension k in U is denoted by MkFS(U).

    Note 2.6. A multi-fuzzy set of dimension 1 is a Zadeh's fuzzy set, and a multi-fuzzy set of dimension 2 with μ1(u)+μ2(u)1 is the Atanassov's intuitionistic fuzzy set.

    Definition 2.7. [44](Multi-fuzzy soft set) A MFSS of dimension k over U is a pair (˜F,A), where ˜F is a mapping given by ˜F:AMkFS(U).

    A MFSS is a mapping from parameters to MkFS(U). It is a parameterized family of multi-fuzzy subsets of U. For eA, ˜F(e) may be considered as the set of e-approximate elements of the MFSS (˜F,A).

    Example 2.8. Suppose that U={c1,c2,c3,c4,c5} is the set of cell phones under consideration, A={e1,e2,e3} is the set of parameters, where e1 stands for the parameter ‘color’ which consists of red, green and blue, e2 stands for the parameter ‘ingredient’ which is made from plastic, liquid crystal and metal, and e3 stands for the parameter ‘price’ which can be various: high, medium and low. We define an MFSS of dimension 3 as follows:

    ˜F(e1)={c1/(0.4,0.2,0.3),c2/(0.2,0.1,0.6),c3/(0.1,0.3,0.4),c4/(0.3,0.1,0.3), c5/(0.7,0.1,0.2)},

    ˜F(e2)={c1/(0.1,0.2,0.6),c2/(0.3,0.2,0.4),c3/(0.5,0.3,0.1),c4/(0.6,0.1,0.3), c5/(0.6,0.2,0.1)},

    ˜F(e3)={c1/(0.3,0.4,0.1),c2/(0.4,0.1,0.2),c3/(0.2,0.2,0.5),c4/(0.7,0.1,0.2), c5/(0.5,0.2,0.3)}.

    Definition 2.9. [44] The union of two MFSSs (˜F,A) and (˜G,B) of dimension k over U is the MFSS (˜H,C), where C=AB, and eC,

    ˜H(e)={˜F(e)ifeAB,˜G(e)ifeBA,˜F(e)˜G(e)ifeAB.

    Definition 2.10. [44] The intersection of two MFSSs (˜F,A) and (˜G,B) of dimension k over U with ABϕ is the MFSS (˜H,C), where C=AB, and eC, ˜H(e)=˜F(e)˜G(e).

    We write (˜F,A)˜(˜G,B)=(˜H,C).

    Definition 2.11. [34](Hesitant fuzzy set) A hesitant fuzzy set (HFS) on U is denoted by A={u,hA(u):uU} and it is defined in terms of hA(u) when applied to U and hA(u) is a set of some different values in [0,1], indicating the possible membership degrees of the elements uU to the set A.

    For convenience, we call hA(u) a hesitant fuzzy element (HEE).

    Example 2.12. Let U={x1,x2,x3,x4} and hA(x1)={0.1,0.3,0.7}, hA(x2)={0.6,0.8}, hA(x3)={0.2,0.4,0.6,0.9} and hA(x4)={0.5,0.7,0.8} be the membership degree sets of x1,x2,x3 and x4 respectively. Then the HFS is A={x1,{0.1,0.3,0.7},x2,{0.6,0.8},x3,{0.2,0.4,0.6,0.9},x4,{0.5,0.7,0.8}}.

    Now, we will discuss the concept of comparison table as follows.

    Definition 2.13. (Comparison table) A comparison table is a square table in which number of rows and columns are equal and both are labeled by the object name of the universe such as x1,x2,,xn and the entries dij, where dij= the number of parameters for which the values of di exceed or equal to the value of dj.

    In this section, we introduce the concept of hesitant multi-fuzzy set and then combined this concept with soft set. Also, we discussed some basic operations on hesitant MFSS.

    Definition 3.1. (Hesitant multi-fuzzy set) Let k be a positive integer. A hesitant multi-fuzzy set ˜A of dimension k in U is a set ˜A={u,˜h˜A(u):uU}, where ˜h˜A(u)=(h1˜A(u),h2˜A(u),,hk˜A(u)) and hi˜A(u) is a hesitant fuzzy element for i=1,2,,k.

    The function ˜h˜A(u)=(h1˜A(u),h2˜A(u),,hk˜A(u)) is denoting the possible multi-membership degrees of the element uU to the set ˜A. For convenience, we call ˜h˜A(u) a hesitant multi-fuzzy element.

    Here k is called the dimension of the hesitant multi-fuzzy set ˜A. The set of all hesitant MFSSs of dimension k in U is denoted by HMkFS(U).

    Note 3.2. A hesitant multi-fuzzy set of dimension 1 is a Torra's hesitant fuzzy set.

    Definition 3.3. (Hesitant MFSS) Let U={x1,x2,,xn} be an initial universe set, E={e1,e2,,em} be the universal set of parameters and AE. Also, let HMkFS(U) be the set of all hesitant multi-fuzzy sets of dimension k in U.

    A pair (˜F,A) is called a hesitant MFSS of dimension k over U, where ˜F is a mapping given by ˜F:AHMkFS(U).

    A hesitant MFSS is a mapping from parameters to HMkFS(U) and it is a parameterized family of hesitant multi-fuzzy subsets of U. We can consider, ˜F(e) as the set of e-approximate element of (˜F,A).

    The following is an example of a hesitant MFSS.

    Example 3.4. Let U={c1,c2,c3,c4,c5} be the set of color cloths and E={e1,e2,e3} be the set of parameters, where e1 indicates "color" which consists of red, green and blue, e2 stands for the parameter "ingredient" which is made from wool, cotton and acrylic, and e3 stands for the parameter "price" which consists of high, medium and low.

    Then, hesitant MFSS (˜F,A) describes the characteristics of the color cloth under consideration. We define a hesitant MFSS of dimension 3 as follows:

    ˜F(e1)={c1/({0.3,0.4},{0.6},{0.2,0.3,0.6}),c2/({0.4,0.6},{0.2,0.4},{0.5}),c3/({0.2,0.4,0.6},{0.3,0.7},{0.8}),c4/({0.3,0.5,0.6},{0.4,0.6},{0.2,0.4,0.6}),c5/({0.1,0.4,0.7,0.8},{0.5,0.6,0.9},{0.2})},
    ˜F(e2)={c1/({0.4,0.8,0.9},{0.1,0.4,0.8},{0.4,0.5,0.6}),c2/({0.2,0.7},{0.2,0.4,0.6},{0.5,0.7}),c3/({0.1,0.3,0.4,0.7},{0.3,0.4,0.7},{0.3,0.6}),c4/({0.1,0.6},{0.5},{0.3,0.5,0.6}),c5/({0.5,0.7,0.8},{0.1,0.4,0.6,0.8,0.9},{0.3,0.5,0.6})},
    ˜F(e3)={c1/({0.1},{0.3,0.4},{0.2,0.5,0.7,0.8}),c2/({0.2,0.5,0.7},{0.4},{0.1,0.3,0.5,0.7,0.9}),c3/({0.1,0.3,0.4},{0.7,0.9},{0.6}),c4/({0.1,0.2,0.4},{0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8},{0.3,0.4,0.6,0.7}),c5/({0.5,0.7},{0.1},{0.2,0.3,0.4,0.6})}.

    Similarly, we can also represent the hesitant MFSS in tabular form as follows:

    Table 1.  The tabular representation of the hesitant MFSS (˜F,A).
    U Color
    c1 (0.3,0.4,0.6,0.2,0.3,0.6)
    c2 (0.4,0.6,0.2,0.4,0.5)
    c3 (0.2,0.4,0.6,0.3,0.7,0.8)
    c4 (0.3,0.5,0.6,0.4,0.6,0.2,0.4,0.6)
    c5 (0.1,0.4,0.7,0.8,0.5,0.6,0.9,0.2)

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    U Ingredient
    c1 ({0.4,0.8,0.9},{0.1,0.4,0.8},{0.4,0.5,0.6})
    c2 ({0.2,0.7},{0.2,0.4,0.6},{0.5,0.7})
    c3 ({0.1,0.3,0.4,0.7},{0.3,0.4,0.7},{0.3,0.6})
    c4 ({0.1,0.6},{0.5},{0.3,0.5,0.6})
    c5 ({0.5,0.7,0.8},{0.1,0.4,0.6,0.8,0.9},{0.3,0.5,0.6})

    U Price
    c1 ({0.1},{0.3,0.4},{0.2,0.5,0.7,0.8})
    c2 ({0.2,0.5,0.7},{0.4},{0.1,0.3,0.5,0.7,0.9})
    c3 ({0.1,0.3,0.4},{0.7,0.9},{0.6})
    c4 ({0.1,0.2,0.4},{0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8},{0.3,0.4,0.6,0.7})
    c5 ({0.5,0.7},{0.1},{0.2,0.3,0.4,0.6})

    Definition 3.5. Let A,BE and (˜F,A), (˜G,B) be two hesitant MFSSs of dimension k in U. Then (˜G,B) is said to be a hesitant multi-fuzzy soft subset of (˜F,A) if

    (1) BA, and

    (2) ˜G(e)˜F(e) for all eB.

    Here, we shall write (˜G,B)˜(˜F,A).

    The example of a hesitant multi-fuzzy soft subset is as follows:

    Example 3.6. Let U={c1,c2,c3,c4,c5} and E={e1,e2,e3} as in Example 6. Considering A={e1,e2,e3}, B={e1,e2} and the hesitant MFSSs (˜F,A), (˜G,B) respectively as follows:

    ˜G(e1)={c1/({0.3,0.4},{0.6},{0.2,0.3,0.6}),c2/({0.4,0.6},{0.2,0.4},{0.5}),c3/({0.2,0.4,0.6},{0.3,0.7},{0.8}),c4/({0.3,0.5,0.6},{0.4,0.6},{0.2,0.4,0.6}),c5/({0.1,0.4,0.7,0.8},{0.5,0.6,0.9},{0.2})},
    ˜G(e2)={c1/({0.4,0.8,0.9},{0.1,0.4,0.8},{0.4,0.5,0.6}),c2/({0.2,0.7},{0.2,0.4,0.6},{0.5,0.7}),c3/({0.1,0.3,0.4,0.7},{0.3,0.4,0.7},{0.3,0.6}),c4/({0.1,0.6},{0.5},{0.3,0.5,0.6}),c5/({0.5,0.7,0.8},{0.1,0.4,0.6,0.8,0.9},{0.3,0.5,0.6})},
    ˜F(e1)={c1/({0.4,0.6},{0.8,0.9},{0.6}),c2/({0.4,0.6},{0.5,0.6},{0.6,0.7,0.8}),c3/({0.6},{0.8,0.9},{0.9}),c4/({0.3,0.5,0.6},{0.4,0.6},{0.4,0.6}),c5/({0.8,0.9},{0.7,0.9},{0.4,0.5})},
    ˜F(e2)={c1/({0.9},{0.5,0.8},{0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8}),c2/({0.7},{0.5,0.6},{0.6,0.6}),c3/({0.7},{0.6,0.7},{0.6}),c4/({0.5,0.6},{0.5,0.7,0.9},{0.5,0.6}),c5/({0.8},{0.6,0.8,0.9},{0.5,0.6})},
    ˜F(e3)={c1/({0.1},{0.3,0.4},{0.2,0.5,0.7,0.8}),c2/({0.2,0.5,0.7},{0.4},{0.1,0.3,0.5,0.7,0.9}),c3/({0.1,0.3,0.4},{0.7,0.9},{0.6}),c4/({0.1,0.2,0.4},{0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8},{0.3,0.4,0.6,0.7}),c5/({0.5,0.7},{0.1},{0.2,0.3,0.4,0.6})}.

    Thus, we have (˜G,B)˜(˜F,A).

    Note 3.7. We shall write (˜F,A)(˜G,B) i.e. hesitant multi-fuzzy soft equal sets if (˜G,B)˜(˜F,A) and (˜F,A)˜(˜G,B).

    Definition 3.8. (Null hesitant MFSSs) A hesitant MFSS (˜F,A) of dimension k over U is called the null hesitant MFSS if ˜F(e)=˜Φk for all eA and it is denoted by ˜ΦAk .

    We elaborate the concept of null hesitant MFSS by the following example.

    Example 3.9. Let U={c1,c2,c3,c4} and A={e1,e2}. Then, the null hesitant MFSS of dimension 3 denoting ˜ΦA3 is as follows:

    ˜F(e1)={c1/({0},{0},{0}),c2/({0},{0},{0}),c3/({0},{0},{0}),c4/({0},{0},{0})},˜F(e2)={c1/({0},{0},{0}),c2/({0},{0},{0}),c3/({0},{0},{0}),c4/({0},{0},{0})}.

    Definition 3.10. (Absolute hesitant MFSSs) A hesitant MFSS (˜F,A) of dimension k over U is called the absolute hesitant MFSS if ˜F(e)=˜1k for all eA and it is denoted by ˜UAk.

    Example 3.11. Let U={c1,c2,c3,c4} and A={e1,e2}. Then, the absolute hesitant MFSS of dimension 3 denoting ˜UA3 is as follows:

    ˜F(e1)={c1/({1},{1},{1}),c2/({1},{1},{1}),c3/({1},{1},{1}),c4/({1},{1},{1})},˜F(e2)={c1/({1},{1},{1}),c2/({1},{1},{1}),c3/({1},{1},{1}),c4/({1},{1},{1})}.

    Definition 3.12. Let (˜F,A) be a hesitant MFSS of dimension k over U. Then the complement of (˜F,A) is denoted by (˜F,A)c and is defined by (˜F,A)c=(˜Fc,A) where ˜Fc:AHMkFS(U) is a mapping given by ˜Fc(e)=(˜F(e))c for all eA.

    Clearly, ((˜F,A)c)c=(˜F,A) and (˜ΦAk)c=˜UAk, (˜UAk)c=˜ΦAk.

    The following is an example of the complement of hesitant MFSS.

    Example 3.13. Consider Example 6, we have (˜F,A)c as follows:

    ˜Fc(e1)={c1/({0.6,0.7},{0.4},{0.4,0.7,0.8}),c2/({0.4,0.6},{0.6,0.8},{0.5}),c3/({0.4,0.6,0.8},{0.3,0.7},{0.2}),c4/({0.4,0.5,0.7},{0.4,0.6},{0.4,0.6,0.8}),c5/({0.2,0.3,0.6,0.9},{0.1,0.4,0.5},{0.8})},
    ˜Fc(e2)={c1/({0.1,0.2,0.6},{0.2,0.6,0.9},{0.4,0.5,0.6}),c2/({0.3,0.8},{0.4,0.6,0.8},{0.3,0.5}),c3/({0.3,0.6,0.7,0.9},{0.3,0.6,0.7},{0.4,0.7}),c4/({0.4,0.9},{0.5},{0.4,0.5,0.7}),c5/({0.2,0.3,0.5},{0.1,0.2,0.4,0.6,0.9},{0.4,0.5,0.7})},
    ˜Fc(e3)={c1/({0.9},{0.6,0.7},{0.2,0.3,0.5,0.8}),c2/({0.3,0.5,0.8},{0.6},{0.1,0.3,0.5,0.7,0.9}),c3/({0.6,0.7,0.9},{0.1,0.3},{0.4}),c4/({0.6,0.8,0.9},{0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5},{0.3,0.4,0.6,0.7}),c5/({0.3,0.5},{0.9},{0.4,0.6,0.7,0.8})}.

    Now, we introduce the concepts of the union and intersection of two hesitant MFSSs.

    Definition 3.14. The union of two hesitant MFSSs (˜F,A) and (˜G,B) of dimension k over U is the hesitant MFSS (˜H,C), where C=AB, and eC,

    ˜H(e)={˜F(e)ifeAB,˜G(e)ifeBA,˜F(e)˜G(e)ifeAB.

    In this case, we shall write (˜F,A)˜(˜G,B)=(˜H,C).

    The union of two hesitant MFSSs is discussed by the following example.

    Example 3.15. Let U={c1,c2,c3,c4,c5} and E={e1,e2,e3} as in Example 6. Considering A={e1,e2}, B={e2,e3} and the hesitant MFSSs (˜F,A), (˜G,B) respectively as follows:

    ˜F(e1)={c1/({0.4,0.6},{0.8,0.9},{0.6}),c2/({0.4,0.6},{0.5,0.6},{0.6,0.7,0.8}),c3/({0.6},{0.8,0.9},{0.9}),c4/({0.3,0.5,0.6},{0.4,0.6},{0.4,0.6}),c5/({0.8,0.9},{0.7,0.9},{0.4,0.5})},
    ˜F(e2)={c1/({0.9},{0.5,0.8},{0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8}),c2/({0.7},{0.5,0.6},{0.6,0.8}),c3/({0.7},{0.6,0.7},{0.6}),c4/({0.5,0.6},{0.5,0.7,0.9},{0.5,0.6}),c5/({0.8},{0.6,0.8,0.9},{0.5,0.6})},
    ˜G(e2)={c1/({0.3,0.4},{0.6},{0.2,0.3,0.6}),c2/({0.4,0.6},{0.2,0.4},{0.5}),c3/({0.2,0.4,0.6},{0.3,0.7},{0.8}),c4/({0.3,0.5,0.6},{0.4,0.6},{0.2,0.4,0.6}),c5/({0.1,0.4,0.7,0.8},{0.5,0.6,0.9},{0.2})},
    ˜G(e3)={c1/({0.4,0.8,0.9},{0.1,0.4,0.8},{0.4,0.5,0.6}),c2/({0.2,0.7},{0.2,0.4,0.6},{0.5,0.7}),c3/({0.1,0.3,0.4,0.7},{0.3,0.4,0.7},{0.3,0.6}),c4/({0.1,0.6},{0.5},{0.3,0.5,0.6}),c5/({0.5,0.7,0.8},{0.1,0.4,0.6,0.8,0.9},{0.3,0.5,0.6})}.

    Let (˜F,A)˜(˜G,B)=(˜H,C), where C=AB={e1,e2,e3}. Therefore, the hesitant MFSS (˜H,C) is as follows:

    ˜H(e1)={c1/({0.4,0.6},{0.8,0.9},{0.6}),c2/({0.4,0.6},{0.5,0.6},{0.6,0.7,0.8}),c3/({0.6},{0.8,0.9},{0.9}),c4/({0.3,0.5,0.6},{0.4,0.6},{0.4,0.6}),c5/({0.8,0.9},{0.7,0.9},{0.4,0.5})},
    ˜H(e2)={c1/({0.9},{0.6,0.8},{0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8}),c2/({0.7},{0.5,0.6},{0.6,0.8}),c3/({0.7},{0.6,0.7},{0.8}),c4/({0.5,0.6},{0.5,0.6,0.7,0.9},{0.5,0.6}),c5/({0.8},{0.6,0.8,0.9},{0.5,0.6})},
    ˜H(e3)={c1/({0.4,0.8,0.9},{0.1,0.4,0.8},{0.4,0.5,0.6}),c2/({0.2,0.7},{0.2,0.4,0.6},{0.5,0.7}),c3/({0.1,0.3,0.4,0.7},{0.3,0.4,0.7},{0.3,0.6}),c4/({0.1,0.6},{0.5},{0.3,0.5,0.6}),c5/({0.5,0.7,0.8},{0.1,0.4,0.6,0.8,0.9},{0.3,0.5,0.6})}.

    We now give the idea of intersection of two hesitant MFSSs.

    Definition 3.16. The intersection of two hesitant MFSSs (˜F,A) and (˜G,B) of dimension k over U with ABϕ is the MFSS (˜H,C), where C=AB, and eC, ˜H(e)=˜F(e)˜G(e).

    We write (˜F,A)˜(˜G,B)=(˜H,C).

    Example 3.17. Let us consider (˜F,A), (˜G,B) as in Example 10. Let (˜F,A)˜(˜G,B) =(˜H,C), where C=AB={e2}. Therefore, the hesitant MFSS (˜H,C) is as follows:

    ˜H(e2)={c1/({0.3,0.4},{0.5,0.6},{0.2,0.3,0.5,0.6}),c2/({0.4,0.6},{0.2,0.4},{0.5}),c3/({0.2,0.4,0.6},{0.3,0.6,0.7},{0.6}),c4/({0.3,0.5,0.6},{0.4,0.5,0.6},{0.2,0.4,0.6}),c5/({0.1,0.4,0.7,0.8},{0.5,0.6,0.9},{0.2})}.

    Now, we shall discuss about some results related with union and intersection between hesitant MFSSs.

    Theorem 3.18. Let (˜F,A) and (˜G,B) are two hesitant MFSSs of dimension k over U. Then

    (i) (˜F,A)˜(˜F,A)=(˜F,A),

    (ii) (˜F,A)˜(˜F,A)=(˜F,A),

    (iii) (˜F,A)˜˜ΦAk=(˜F,A),

    (iv) (˜F,A)˜˜ΦAk=˜ΦAk,

    (v) (˜F,A)˜˜UAk=˜UAk,

    (vi) (˜F,A)˜˜UAk=(˜F,A),

    (vii) (˜F,A)˜(˜G,B)=(˜G,B)˜(˜F,A),

    (viii) (˜F,A)˜(˜G,B)=(˜G,B)˜(˜F,A),

    (ix) (˜F,A)˜((˜F,A)˜(˜G,B))=(˜F,A),

    (x) (˜F,A)˜((˜F,A)˜(˜G,B))=(˜F,A).

    Proof. (ⅰ) (˜F,A)˜(˜F,A)=(˜F,A).

    Let (˜H,C) be the union of two hesitant MFSSs (˜F,A) and (˜F,A). Then, (˜H,C)=(˜F,A)˜(˜F,A), where C=AA. Thus, (˜H,C) is defined by

    ˜H(e)={˜F(e)ifeAA=ϕ,˜F(e)ifeAA=ϕ,˜F(e)˜F(e)ifeAA=A.

    Thus, ˜H(e)=˜F(e) if eAA=ϕ. Also,

    ˜H(e)=˜F(e)˜G(e) if eAA=A=˜F(e) if eA.

    Therefore ˜H(e)=˜F(e) for all eA. Hence, (˜F,A)˜(˜F,A)=(˜F,A).

    (ⅱ) (˜F,A)˜(˜F,A)=(˜F,A).

    Let (˜H,C) be the intersection of two hesitant MFSSs (˜F,A) and (˜F,A). Then, (˜H,C)=(˜F,A)˜(˜F,A), where C=AA. Thus, (˜H,C) is defined by ˜H(e)=˜F(e)˜F(e) if eAA=A. Therefore,

    ˜H(e)=˜F(e)˜F(e) if eAA=A=˜F(e) if eC=A=˜F(e) if eA.

    Therefore, ˜H(e)=˜F(e) for all eA. Hence, (˜F,A)˜(˜F,A)=(˜F,A).

    The proof of (ⅲ), (ⅳ), (ⅴ) and (ⅵ) are directly follow from the definitions of union and intersection of hesitant MFSSs.

    (ⅶ) (˜F,A)˜(˜G,B)=(˜G,B)˜(˜F,A).

    Let (˜H,C) be the union of two hesitant MFSSs (˜F,A) and (˜G,B). Then, (˜H,C)=(˜F,A)˜(˜G,B), where C=AB. Thus, (˜H,C) is defined by

    ˜H(e)={˜F(e)ifeAB˜G(e)ifeBA˜F(e)˜G(e)ifeAB.

    Therefore,

    ˜H(e)={˜F(e)ifeAB˜G(e)ifeBA˜F(e)˜G(e)ifeAB={˜G(e)ifeBA˜F(e)ifeAB˜G(e)˜F(e)ifeBA

    as ˜F(e)˜G(e)=˜G(e)˜F(e). Hence, (˜F,A)˜(˜G,B)=(˜G,B)˜(˜F,A).

    (ⅷ) (˜F,A)˜(˜G,B)=(˜G,B)˜(˜F,A).

    Let (˜H,C)=(˜F,A)˜(˜G,B) and (˜K,D)=(˜G,B)˜(˜F,A), where C=AB and D=BA. Therefore, ˜H(e)=˜F(e)˜G(e) if eC=AB and ˜K(e)=˜G(e)˜F(e) if eD=BA. Since AB=BA i.e. C=D and ˜F(e)˜G(e)=˜G(e)˜F(e). Thus, ˜H(e)=˜K(e) for eC=D. This implies (˜H,C)=(˜K,D). Hence, (˜F,A)˜(˜G,B)=(˜G,B)˜(˜F,A).

    (ⅸ) (˜F,A)˜((˜F,A)˜(˜G,B))=(˜F,A).

    Let (˜H,C) be the intersection of two hesitant MFSSs (˜F,A) and (˜G,B). Then, (˜H,C)=(˜F,A)˜(˜G,B), where C=AB. Thus, (˜H,C) is defined by ˜H(e)=˜F(e)˜G(e) if eAB. Let (˜K,D) be the union of two hesitant MFSSs (˜F,A) and (˜H,C). Then, (˜K,D)=(˜F,A)˜(˜H,C), where D=AC. Thus, (˜K,D) is defined by

    ˜K(e)={˜F(e) if eAC˜H(e) if eCA˜F(e)˜H(e) if eAC.

    Now, there are three cases.

    Case 1 : Let eAC. Then,

    ˜K(e)=˜F(e) if eAC=˜F(e) if eA.

    Therefore, (˜K,D)=(˜F,A).

    Case 2 : Let eCA. Now, CA=(AB)A=ϕ. Then,

    ˜K(e)=˜H(e) if eCA=ϕ=˜ΦAk, the null hesitant MFSS.

    Therefore, (˜K,D) is the null hesitant MFSS.

    Case 3 : Let eAC. Now, AC=A(AB)=AB=C. Then,

    ˜K(e)=˜F(e)˜H(e) if eAC=C=˜F(e)(˜F(e)˜G(e)) if eC=˜F(e) if eC.

    Therefore, (˜K,D)=(˜F,A).

    Now, combining all the cases, we get (˜F,A)˜((˜F,A)˜(˜G,B))=(˜F,A).

    (ⅹ) (˜F,A)˜((˜F,A)˜(˜G,B))=(˜F,A).

    Proceeding with similar arguments as in (ⅸ), we can prove that

    (˜F,A)˜((˜F,A)˜(˜G,B))=(˜F,A).

    Theorem 3.19. Let (˜F,A), (˜G,B) and (˜H,C) are three hesitant MFSSs of dimension k over U. Then

    (i) (˜F,A)˜((˜G,B)˜(˜H,C))=((˜F,A)˜(˜G,B))˜(˜H,C),

    (ii) (˜F,A)˜((˜G,B)˜(˜H,C))=((˜F,A)˜(˜G,B))˜(˜H,C),

    (iii) (˜F,A)˜((˜G,B)˜(˜H,C))=((˜F,A)˜(˜G,B))˜((˜F,A)˜(˜H,C)),

    (iv) (˜F,A)˜((˜G,B)˜(˜H,C))=((˜F,A)˜(˜G,B))˜((˜F,A)˜(˜H,C)).

    Proof. (ⅰ) (˜F,A)˜((˜G,B)˜(˜H,C))=((˜F,A)˜(˜G,B))˜(˜H,C).

    Let (˜L,D) be the intersection of two hesitant MFSSs (˜G,B) and (˜H,C).

    Thus, (˜L,D)=(˜G,B)˜(˜H,C), where D=BC.

    Here, (˜L,D) is defined by ˜L(e)=˜G(e)˜H(e) if eD=BC.

    Also, let (˜M,E) be the intersection of two hesitant MFSSs (˜F,A) and (˜L,D).

    Thus, (˜M,E)=(˜F,A)˜(˜L,D), where E=AD.

    Here, (˜M,E) is defined by ˜M(e)=˜F(e)˜L(e) if eE=AD. Now,

    ˜M(e)=˜F(e)˜L(e) if eE=AD,=˜F(e)(˜G(e)˜H(e)) if eE=AD=A(BC),=(˜F(e)˜G(e))˜H(e) if eE=AD=A(BC).

    Therefore, (˜M,E)=((˜F,A)˜(˜G,B))˜(˜H,C).

    Hence, (˜F,A)˜((˜G,B)˜(˜H,C))=((˜F,A)˜(˜G,B))˜(˜H,C).

    (ⅱ) (˜F,A)˜((˜G,B)˜(˜H,C))=((˜F,A)˜(˜G,B))˜(˜H,C).

    Proceeding with similar arguments as in (ⅰ), we can prove that

    (˜F,A)˜((˜G,B)˜(˜H,C))=((˜F,A)˜(˜G,B))˜(˜H,C).

    (ⅲ) (˜F,A)˜((˜G,B)˜(˜H,C))=((˜F,A)˜(˜G,B))˜((˜F,A)˜(˜H,C)).

    Let (˜L,D) be the union of two hesitant MFSSs (˜G,B) and (˜H,C). Then, (˜L,D)=(˜G,B)˜(˜H,C), where D=BC.

    Thus, (˜L,D) is defined by ˜L(e)={˜G(e) if eBC˜H(e) if eCB˜G(e)˜H(e)ifeBC

    Also, let (˜M,V) be the intersection of two hesitant MFSSs (˜F,A) and (˜L,D).

    Thus, (˜M,V)=(˜F,A)˜(˜L,D), where V=AD.

    Here, (˜M,V) is defined by ˜M(e)=˜F(e)˜L(e) if eV=AD.

    Now, ˜M(e)

    =˜F(e)˜L(e) if eV=AD

    =˜F(e)˜L(e) if eA and eD.

    If eD=BC, then there are three cases.

    Case 1 : Let eBC. Then, ˜L(e)=˜G(e) if eBC.

    Case 2 : Let eCB. Then, ˜L(e)=˜H(e) if eCB.

    Case 3 : Let eBC. Then, ˜L(e)=˜G(e)˜H(e) if eBC.

    Now,

    ˜M(e)=˜F(e)˜L(e) if eA and eD,={˜F(e)˜G(e) if eA and eBC, by case 1˜F(e)˜H(e) if eA and eCB, by case 2˜F(e)(˜G(e)˜H(e)) if eA and eBC, by case 3={˜F(e)˜G(e) if eA and eBC˜F(e)˜H(e) if eA and eCB(˜F(e)˜G(e))(˜F(e)˜H(e)) if eA and eBC

    Therefore, (˜M,V)=((˜F,A)˜(˜G,B))˜((˜F,A)˜(˜H,C)).

    Hence, (˜F,A)˜((˜G,B)˜(˜H,C))=((˜F,A)˜(˜G,B))˜((˜F,A)˜(˜H,C)).

    (ⅳ) (˜F,A)˜((˜G,B)˜(˜H,C))=((˜F,A)˜(˜G,B))˜((˜F,A)˜(˜H,C)).

    Proceeding with similar arguments as in (ⅲ), we can prove that

    (˜F,A)˜((˜G,B)˜(˜H,C))=((˜F,A)˜(˜G,B))˜((˜F,A)˜(˜H,C)).

    Theorem 3.20. Let (˜F,A) and (˜G,A) be two hesitant MFSSs of dimension k over U. Then

    (i) ((˜F,A)˜(˜G,A))c=(˜F,A)c˜(˜G,A)c.

    (ii) ((˜F,A)˜(˜G,A))c=(˜F,A)c˜(˜G,A)c.

    Proof. (ⅰ) ((˜F,A)˜(˜G,A))c=(˜F,A)c˜(˜G,A)c.

    Let (˜F,A)˜(˜G,B)=(˜J,C), where C=AB.

    Thus, (˜J,C) is defined by ˜J(e)={˜F(e) if eAB˜G(e) if eBA˜F(e)˜G(e) if eAB

    Now, ((˜F,A)˜(˜G,A))c=(˜J,C)c=(˜Jc,C) and

    ˜Jc(e)={˜Fc(e) if eAB˜Gc(e) if eBA˜Fc(e)˜Gc(e) if eAB.

    Taking B=A.

    Then, C=AA=A.

    Thus,

    ˜Jc(e)={˜Fc(e) if eAA˜Gc(e) if eAA˜Fc(e)˜Gc(e) if eAA.=˜Fc(e)˜Gc(e) if eA.

    This shows that (˜Jc,C)=(˜F,A)c˜(˜G,A)c.

    Hence, ((˜F,A)˜(˜G,A))c=(˜F,A)c˜(˜G,A)c.

    (ⅱ) ((˜F,A)˜(˜G,A))c=(˜F,A)c˜(˜G,A)c.

    Proceeding with similar arguments as in (ⅰ), we can prove that

    ((˜F,A)˜(˜G,A))c=(˜F,A)c˜(˜G,A)c.

    Molodtsov in [25] introduced the concept of AND and OR operations between two soft sets. Now, we shall present the notion of these two operations between two hesitant MFSSs as follows.

    Definition 3.21. If (˜F,A) and (˜G,B) be two hesitant MFSSs of dimension k over U, the "(˜F,A)AND(˜G,B)", denoted by (˜F,A)˜(˜G,B) is defined by (˜F,A)(˜G,B)=(˜H,A×B), where ˜H(α,β)=˜F(α)˜G(β), for all (α,β)A×B.

    Definition 3.22. If (˜F,A) and (˜G,B) be two hesitant MFSSs of dimension k over U, the "(˜F,A) OR (˜G,B)", denoted by (˜F,A)˜(˜G,B) is defined by (˜F,A)(˜G,B)=(˜O,A×B), where ˜O(α,β)=˜F(α)˜G(β), for all (α,β)A×B.

    Example 3.23. Let U={c1,c2,c3,c4,c5} and E={e1,e2,e3} as in Example 6. Considering A={e1,e2,e3}, B={e1,e2} and the hesitant MFSSs (˜F,A), (˜G,B) respectively as follows:

    ˜F(e1)={c1/({0.4,0.6},{0.8,0.9},{0.6}),c2/({0.4,0.6},{0.5,0.6},{0.6,0.7,0.8}),c3/({0.6},{0.8,0.9},{0.9}),c4/({0.3,0.5,0.6},{0.4,0.6},{0.4,0.6}),c5/({0.8,0.9},{0.7,0.9},{0.4,0.5})},
    ˜F(e2)={c1/({0.9},{0.5,0.8},{0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8}),c2/({0.7},{0.5,0.6},{0.6,0.8}),c3/({0.7},{0.6,0.7},{0.6}),c4/({0.5,0.6},{0.5,0.7,0.9},{0.5,0.6}),c5/({0.8},{0.6,0.8,0.9},{0.5,0.6})},
    ˜F(e3)={c1/({0.1},{0.3,0.4},{0.2,0.5,0.7,0.8}),c2/({0.2,0.5,0.7},{0.4},{0.1,0.3,0.5,0.7,0.9}),c3/({0.1,0.3,0.4},{0.7,0.9},{0.6}),c4/({0.1,0.2,0.4},{0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8},{0.3,0.4,0.6,0.7}),c5/({0.5,0.7},{0.1},{0.2,0.3,0.4,0.6})},
    ˜G(e1)={c1/({0.3,0.4},{0.6},{0.2,0.3,0.6}),c2/({0.4,0.6},{0.2,0.4},{0.5}),c3/({0.2,0.4,0.6},{0.3,0.7},{0.8}),c4/({0.3,0.5,0.6},{0.4,0.6},{0.2,0.4,0.6}),c5/({0.1,0.4,0.7,0.8},{0.5,0.6,0.9},{0.2})},
    ˜G(e2)={c1/({0.4,0.8,0.9},{0.1,0.4,0.8},{0.4,0.5,0.6}),c2/({0.2,0.7},{0.2,0.4,0.6},{0.5,0.7}),c3/({0.1,0.3,0.4,0.7},{0.3,0.4,0.7},{0.3,0.6}),c4/({0.1,0.6},{0.5},{0.3,0.5,0.6}),c5/({0.5,0.7,0.8},{0.1,0.4,0.6,0.8,0.9},{0.3,0.5,0.6})}.

    Then, (˜H,A)(˜G,B)=(˜H,A×B) and (˜F,A)(˜G,B)=(˜O,A×B) are as follows:

    ˜H(e1,e1)={c1/({0.3,0.4},{0.6},{0.2,0.3,0.6}),c2/({0.4,0.6},{0.2,0.4},{0.5}),c3/({0.2,0.4,0.6},{0.3,0.4,0.7},{0.3,0.6}),c4/({0.1,0.3,0.5,0.6},{0.4,0.5},{0.3,0.4,0.5,0.6}),c5/({0.5,0.7,0.8},{0.1,0.4,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.9},{0.3,0.4,0.5})},
    ˜O(e1,e1)={c1/({0.4,0.6},{0.8,0.9},{0.6}),c2/({0.4,0.6},{0.5,0.6},{0.6,0.7,0.8}),c3/({0.6},{0.8,0.9},{0.9}),c4/({0.3,0.5,0.6},{0.5,0.6},{0.4,0.5,0.6}),c5/({0.8,0.9},{0.7,0.8,0.9},{0.4,0.5,0.6})},
    ˜H(e1,e2)={c1/({0.4,0.6},{0.1,0.4,0.8},{0.4,0.5,0.6}),c2/({0.2,0.4,0.6},{0.2,0.4,0.5,0.6},{0.5,0.6,0.7}),c3/({0.1,0.3,0.4,0.6},{0.3,0.4,0.7},{0.3,0.6}),c4/({0.1,0.3,0.5,0.6},{0.4,0.5},{0.3,0.4,0.5,0.6}),c5/({0.5,0.7,0.8},{0.1,0.4,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.9},{0.3,0.4,0.5})},
    ˜O(e1,e2)={c1/({0.4,0.6,0.8,0.9},{0.8,0.9},{0.6}),c2/({0.4,0.6,0.7},{0.5,0.6},{0.6,0.7,0.8}),c3/({0.6,0.7},{0.8,0.9},{0.9}),c4/({0.3,0.5,0.6},{0.5,0.6},{0.4,0.5,0.6}),c5/({0.8,0.9},{0.7,0.8,0.9},{0.4,0.5,0.6})}.

    Similarly, we can find ˜H(e2,e1), ˜O(e2,e1), ˜H(e2,e2), ˜O(e2,e2), ˜H(e3,e1), ˜O(e3, e1), ˜H(e3,e2) and ˜O(e3,e2).

    Theorem 3.24. Let (˜F,A) and (˜G,B) be two hesitant MFSSs of dimension k over U. Then

    (i) ((˜F,A)(˜G,B))c=(˜F,A)c(˜G,B)c.

    (ii) ((˜F,A)(˜G,B))c=(˜F,A)c(˜G,B)c.

    Proof. (ⅰ) ((˜F,A)(˜G,B))c=(˜F,A)c(˜G,B)c.

    Let (˜F,A)(˜G,B)=(˜H,A×B). Then ((˜F,A)(˜G,B))c=(˜H,A×B)c=(˜Hc,A×B).

    Let (α,β)A×B. Thus, ˜Hc(α,β)(x)=(˜F(α)(x)˜G(β)(x))c =˜Fc(α)(x)˜Gc(β)(x) for all xU.

    Also, (˜F,A)c(˜G,B)c=(˜Fc,A)(˜Gc,B) =(˜I,A×B).

    Let (α,β)A×B. Therefore, ˜I(α,β)(x)=˜Fc(α)(x)˜Gc(β)(x) for all xU. Hence, (˜Hc,A×B)=(˜I,A×B).

    (ⅱ) ((˜F,A)(˜G,B))c=(˜F,A)c(˜G,B)c.

    Proceeding with similar arguments as in (ⅰ), we can prove that ((˜F,A)(˜G,B))c=(˜F,A)c(˜G,B)c.

    Hesitant MFSS has many applications in our daily life problem. Here, we propose a new approach for solving a socialistic decision-making problem based on hesitant MFSS theory.

    In the following subsections, we will present the RMSS-level soft set for decision step and the algorithm respectively in detail.

    In this part of the paper, we define the concept of RMSS-level soft set for hesitant MFSS. To avoid theoretical complexity, we will define the RMSS-level soft set for hesitant MFSS of dimension 3.

    Definition 4.1. Let U={x1,x2,,xn} be an initial universe set, E={e1,e2,,em} be the universal set of parameters and AE. Also, let (˜F,A) be a hesitant MFSS of dimension 3 over U, where ˜F is given by ˜F:AM3FS(U).

    Let us assume ˜F(e)

    ={x1/({a11,a12,,a1α1},{b11,b12,,b1β1},{c11,c12,,c1γ1}),x2/({a21,a22,,a2α2},{b21,b22,,b2β2},{c21,c22,,c2γ2}),,xn/({an1,an2,,anαn},{bn1,bn2,,bnβn},{cn1,cn2,,cnγn})}.

    We denote the RMSS-level soft set by rmss and rmss:A˜P(U) on (˜F,A) is defined by

    rmss(˜F(e))={x1/13(1α1α1i=1(a1i)2+1β1β1i=1(b1i)2+1γ1γ1i=1(c1i)2),

    x2/13(1α2α2i=1(a2i)2+1β2β2i=1(b2i)2+1γ2γ2i=1(c2i)2),,

    xn/13(1αnαni=1(ani)2+1βnβni=1(bni)2+1γnγni=1(cni)2)} for all eA.

    In this part of the paper, we present the algorithm for the approach to the decision-making problem based on hesitant MFSS.

    Let U be the universe of the discourse, E be the parameter set and AE. Then we present the decision algorithm for the hesitant MFSS as follows:

    (ⅰ) Input the set AE of choice of parameters.

    (ⅱ) Consider the hesitant MFSS (˜F,A) in tabular form.

    (ⅲ) Compute the RMSS-level soft set for (˜F,A) and present it in tabular form.

    (ⅳ) Compute the comparison table for the RMSS-level soft set.

    (ⅴ) Compute the score table by {row sum(a) - column sum(b)} for comparison table.

    (ⅵ) Find the maximum score, if it occurs in i-th row, then the optimal decision is xi.

    Now, we show the principal and steps of the approach by the following problem as follows:

    Let U={c1,c2,c3,c4,c5} be the set of five cars under consideration and E={e1,e2,e3,e4,e5} be a set of parameters, where e1 indicates "color" which consists of red, green and blue; e2 indicates "ingredient" which is made from of plastic, liquid crystal and metal; e3 indicates "price" which consists of high, medium and low; e4 indicates "fuel type" which consists of petrol, diesel and LPG; e5 indicates "displacement" which consists of 1000cc-1500cc, 1501cc-2000cc and more than 2000cc.

    Suppose a man Mr. X is willing to buy a car on the basis of his wishing parameter set E={e1,e3,e4,e5}. Our aim is to find out the attractive car for Mr. X.

    Let us consider the hesitant MFSS (˜F,A) as follows:

    ˜F(e1)={c1/({0.3,0.4,0.5},{0.6,0.8},{0.2,0.3,0.6}),c2/({0.4,0.6},{0.2,0.4},{0.5}),c3/({0.2,0.4,0.6},{0.3,0.7},{0.8}),c4/({0.3,0.5,0.6},{0.4,0.6},{0.2,0.4,0.6}),c5/({0.1,0.4,0.7,0.8},{0.5,0.6,0.9},{0.2,0.3,0.5})},
    ˜F(e3)={c1/({0.4,0.8,0.9},{0.1,0.4,0.8},{0.4,0.5,0.6}),c2/({0.2,0.7},{0.2,0.4,0.6},{0.5,0.7}),c3/({0.1,0.3,0.4,0.7},{0.3,0.4,0.7},{0.3,0.6}),c4/({0.1,0.6},{0.5},{0.3,0.5,0.6}),c5/({0.5,0.7,0.8},{0.1,0.4,0.6,0.8,0.9},{0.3,0.5,0.6})},
    ˜F(e4)={c1/({0.1},{0.3,0.4},{0.2,0.5,0.7,0.8}),c2/({0.2,0.5,0.7},{0.4},{0.1,0.3,0.5,0.7,0.9}),c3/({0.1,0.3,0.4},{0.7,0.9},{0.6}),c4/({0.1,0.2,0.4},{0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8},{0.3,0.4,0.6,0.7}),c5/({0.5,0.7},{0.1},{0.2,0.3,0.4,0.6})},
    ˜F(e5)={c1/({0.5,0.6,0.8},{0.3,0.4,0.5},{0.5,0.7,0.8}),c2/({0.3,0.4,0.7},{0.4,0.6,0.7},{0.2,0.3,0.5}),c3/({0.3,0.4,0.6},{0.7,0.8,0.9},{0.5,0.6,0.7}),c4/({0.2,0.3},{0.4,0.6,0.7,0.9},{0.3,0.4,0.6,0.7}),c5/({0.5,0.7},{0.1,0.3},{0.3,0.4,0.6})}.

    Now, we present the hesitant MFSS in tabular form as follows:

    Table 2.  The tabular representation of the hesitant MFSS (˜F,A).
    U Color (e1)
    c1 (0.3,0.4,0.5,0.6,0.8,0.2,0.3,0.6)
    c2 (0.4,0.6,0.2,0.4,0.5)
    c3 (0.2,0.4,0.6,0.3,0.7,0.8)
    c4 (0.3,0.5,0.6,0.4,0.6,0.2,0.4,0.6)
    c5 (0.1,0.4,0.7,0.8,0.5,0.6,0.9,0.2,0.3,0.5)

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    U Price (e3)
    c1 ({0.4,0.8,0.9},{0.1,0.4,0.8},{0.4,0.5,0.6})
    c2 ({0.2,0.7},{0.2,0.4,0.6},{0.5,0.7})
    c3 ({0.1,0.3,0.4,0.7},{0.3,0.4,0.7},{0.3,0.6})
    c4 ({0.1,0.6},{0.5},{0.3,0.5,0.6})
    c5 ({0.5,0.7,0.8},{0.1,0.4,0.6,0.8,0.9},{0.3,0.5,0.6})

    U Fuel type (e4)
    c1 ({0.1},{0.3,0.4},{0.2,0.5,0.7,0.8})
    c2 ({0.2,0.5,0.7},{0.4},{0.1,0.3,0.5,0.7,0.9})
    c3 ({0.1,0.3,0.4},{0.7,0.9},{0.6})
    c4 ({0.1,0.2,0.4},{0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8},{0.3,0.4,0.6,0.7})
    c5 ({0.5,0.7},{0.1},{0.2,0.3,0.4,0.6})

    U Displacement (e5)
    c1 ({0.5,0.6,0.8},{0.3,0.4,0.5},{0.5,0.7,0.8})
    c2 ({0.3,0.4,0.7},{0.4,0.6,0.7},{0.2,0.3,0.5})
    c3 ({0.3,0.4,0.6},{0.7,0.8,0.9},{0.5,0.6,0.7})
    c4 ({0.2,0.3},{0.4,0.6,0.7,0.9},{0.3,0.4,0.6,0.7})
    c5 ({0.5,0.7},{0.1,0.3},{0.3,0.4,0.6})

    Now, we calculate RMSS-level soft set for (˜F,A).

    rmss(˜F(e1))={c1/0.505,c2/0.442,c3/0.59,c4/0.475,c5/0.538}

    rmss(˜F(e3))={c1/0.587,c2/0.518,c3/0.468,c4/0.471,c5/0.597}

    rmss(˜F(e4))={c1/0.35,c2/0.495,c3/0.576,c4/0.482,c5/0.37}

    rmss(˜F(e5))={c1/0.577,c2/0.477,c3/0.62,c4/0.485,c5/0.428}.

    Here, we present the RMSS-level soft set in tabular form as follows:

    Now, we calculate the comparison table for the RMSS-level soft set in Table 3 and present it in tabular form.

    Table 3.  Tabular representation of the RMSS-level soft set.
    U e1 e3 e4 e4
    c1 0.505 0.587 0.35 0.577
    c2 0.442 0.518 0.495 0.477
    c3 0.59 0.468 0.567 0.62
    c4 0.475 0.471 0.482 0.485
    c5 0.538 0.597 0.37 0.428

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Here, we compute the row sum(a), column sum(b) and score = {row sum(a) - column sum(b)} and present these values in Table 5.

    Table 4.  Tabular representation of the comparison table for the RMSS-level soft.
    U c1 c2 c3 c4 c5
    c1 4 3 1 3 1
    c2 1 4 1 2 2
    c3 3 3 4 3 3
    c4 1 2 1 4 2
    c5 3 2 1 2 4

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 5.  Tabular representation of row sum(a), column sum(b) and score(a-b).
    U row sum(a) column sum(b) score(a-b)
    c1 12 12 0
    c2 10 14 4
    c3 16 8 8
    c4 10 17 7
    c5 12 12 0

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Decision: The maximum score is 8 scored by the car c3. So, Mr. X will buy c3. Due to certain reason if Mr. X is not willing to buy c3, then the second choice for Mr. X will be c1 or c5.

    Roy et al. [31] introduced an algorithm to solve decision-making problems by comparison of difficult objects. Roy's algorithm had been modified by Kong et al. [17]. Feng at al. [12] presented level soft set and used it in decision-making problems. Yang et al. [44] used Feng's algorithm to solve decision-making problems based on the multi-fuzzy soft set.

    In this paper, we have introduced a new type of level soft set based on a hesitant multi-fuzzy soft set and called it the RMSS-level soft set. Also, we have presented an algorithm and a novel approach to hesitant multi-fuzzy soft set based decision-making problems by using the RMSS-level soft set and this new method successfully applied to some real-life decision-making problems that cannot be solved by using the methods in [12,17,31,44]. Our RMSS-level soft set is completely different from the level soft set used by Feng et al. [12] or Yang et al. [44]. In general, actually there does not exist a unique criterion for the evaluation of decision alternatives. So our presented approach to hesitant multi-fuzzy soft set based decision-making problems are not comparable with approaches used in [12,44].

    In this paper, we have developed the concept of a hesitant multi-fuzzy set by combining the hesitant fuzzy set with the multi-fuzzy set. Also, we have introduced a new concept of hesitant MFSS and studied some basic operations on it in detail. In addition, we have defined the RMSS-level soft set for a hesitant MFSS. Also, we have discussed an application of hesitant MFSS in decision-making problems. We have given a general algorithm to solve decision-making in our daily life problems. Finally, an example is illustrated to show the validity of our method based on a hesitant multi-fuzzy soft set by using the RMSS-level soft set. Thus, this paper presented a new idea for the beginning of a new study about uncertainties. In future work, we will focus on some new approaches to the hesitant MFSS and the modification of the proposed decision method.

    Financial support offered by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No-11671324) is thankfully acknowledged. We also would like to thank the anonymous Reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments and suggestions that have been helpful for providing a better version of the present work.

    The authors declare no conflict of interest.



    [1] M. Akram, A. Adeel, J. C. R. Alcantud, Group decision-making methods based on hesitant N-soft sets, Expert Syst. Appl., 115 (2019), 95-105. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2018.07.060
    [2] J. C. R. Alcantud, A. Giarlotta, Necessary and possible hesitant fuzzy sets: A novel model for group decision making, Inform. Fusion, 46 (2019), 63-76. doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2018.05.005
    [3] M. Ali, F. Feng, X. Liu, et al. On some new operations in soft set theory, Comput. Math. Appl., 57 (2009), 1547-1553. doi: 10.1016/j.camwa.2008.11.009
    [4] B. Bedregal, R. Reiser, H. Bustince, et al. Aggregation functions for typical hesitant fuzzy elements and the action of automorphisms, Inform. Sci., 255 (2014), 82-99. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2013.08.024
    [5] N. Cagman, S. Enginoglu, Soft set theory and uni-int decision making, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 207 (2010), 848-855. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2010.05.004
    [6] N. Cagman, S. Enginoglu, Soft matrix theory and its decision making, Comput. Math. Appl., 59 (2010), 3308-3314. doi: 10.1016/j.camwa.2010.03.015
    [7] D. Chen, E. C. C. Tsang, D. S. Yeung, et al. The parameterization reduction of soft sets and its applications, Comput. Math. Appl., 49 (2005), 757-763. doi: 10.1016/j.camwa.2004.10.036
    [8] J. Chen, X. Huang, J. Tang, Distance measures for higher order dual hesitant fuzzy sets, Comput. Appl. Math., 37 (2018), 1784-1806. doi: 10.1007/s40314-017-0423-3
    [9] N. Chen, Z. S. Xu, M. M. Xia, Interval-valued hesitant preference relations and their applications to group decision making, Knowl. Based Syst., 37 (2013), 528-540. doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2012.09.009
    [10] A. Dey, M. Pal, Genelalised multi-fuzzy soft set and its application in decision making, Pac. Sci. Rev. A, 17 (2015), 23-28.
    [11] A. Dey, M. Pal, On hesitant multi-fuzzy soft topology, Pac. Sci. Rev. B, 1 (2015), 124-130.
    [12] F. Feng, Y. B. Jun, X. Liu, et al. An adjustable approach to fuzzy soft set based decision making, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 234 (2010), 10-20. doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2009.11.055
    [13] F. Feng, Y. Li, N. Cagman, Generalized uni-int decision making schemes based on choice value soft sets, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 220 (2012), 162-170. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2012.01.015
    [14] X. Guan, Y. Li, F. Feng, A new order relation on fuzzy soft sets and its application, Soft Comput., 17 (2013), 63-70. doi: 10.1007/s00500-012-0903-8
    [15] J. Ignatius, S. Motlagh, M. Sepehri, et al. Hybrid models in decision making under uncertainty: The case of training provider evaluation, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., 21 (2010), 147-162. doi: 10.3233/IFS-2010-0443
    [16] P. Kakati, S. Borkotokey, S. Rahman, et al. Interval neutrosophic hesitant fuzzy Einstein Choquet integral operator for multicriteria decision making, Artif. Intell. Rev., (2019), 1-36.
    [17] Z. Kong, L. Gao, L. Wang, A fuzzy soft set theoretic approach to decision making problems, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 223 (2009), 540-542. doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2008.01.011
    [18] Z. Kong, L. Wang, Z. Wu, Application of fuzzy soft set in decision making problems based on grey theory, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 236 (2011), 1521-1530. doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2011.09.016
    [19] D. C. Liang, D. Liu, A novel risk decision making based on decision-theoretic rough sets under hesitant fuzzy information, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., 23 (2015), 237-247. doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2014.2310495
    [20] D. C. Liang, Z. S. Xu, D. Liu, Three-way decisions based on decision-theoretic rough sets with dual hesitant fuzzy information, Inform. Sci., 396 (2017), 127-143. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2017.02.038
    [21] D. C. Liang, M. W. Wang, Z. S. Xu, et al. Risk appetite dual hesitant fuzzy three-way decisions with todim, Inform. Sci., 507 (2020), 585-605. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2018.12.017
    [22] P. K. Maji, R. Biswas, A. R. Roy, Fuzzy soft sets, J. Fuzzy Math., 9 (2001), 589-602.
    [23] P. K. Maji, R. Biswas, A. R. Roy, An application of soft sets in a decision making problem, Comput. Math. Appl., 44 (2002), 1077-1083. doi: 10.1016/S0898-1221(02)00216-X
    [24] P. Majumdar, S. K. Samanta, Generalised fuzzy soft sets, Comput. Math. Appl., 59 (2010), 1425-1432. doi: 10.1016/j.camwa.2009.12.006
    [25] D. A. Molodtsov, Soft set theory-first results, Comput. Math. Appl., 37 (1999), 19-31.
    [26] S. Naz, M. Akram, Novel decision-making approach based on hesitant fuzzy sets and graph theory, Comput. Appl. Math., 38 (2019), 7.
    [27] B. Ozkan, E. Ozceylan, M. Kabak, et al. Evaluating the websites of academic departments through SEO criteria: A hesitant fuzzy linguistic MCDM approach, Artif. Intell. Rev., 53 (2020), 875-905. doi: 10.1007/s10462-019-09681-z
    [28] X. Qi, D. Liang, J. Zhang, Multiple attribute group decision making based on generalized power aggregation operators under interval-valued dual hesitant fuzzy linguistic environment, Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern., 7 (2016), 1147-1193. doi: 10.1007/s13042-015-0445-3
    [29] Z. Ren, C. Wei, A multi-attribute decision-making method with prioritization relationship and dual hesitant fuzzy decision information, Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern., 8 (2017), 755-763. doi: 10.1007/s13042-015-0356-3
    [30] R. M. Rodryguez, L. Martynez, V. Torra, et al. Hesitant fuzzy sets: state of the art and future directions, Int. J. Intell. Syst., 29 (2014), 495-524. doi: 10.1002/int.21654
    [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. doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2006.04.008
    [32] S. Sebastian, T. V. Ramakrishnan, Multi-fuzzy sets: An extension of fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Inf. Eng., 1 (2011), 35-43.
    [33] C. Song, Y. Zhang, Z. Xu, An improved structure learning algorithm of Bayesian Network based on the hesitant fuzzy information flow, Appl. Soft Comput., 82 (2019), 105549.
    [34] V. Torra, Hesitant fuzzy sets, Int. J. Intell. Syst., 25 (2010), 529-539.
    [35] F. Wang, X. Li, X. Chen, Hesitant fuzzy soft set and its applications in multicriteria decision making, J. Appl. Math., 2014 (2014), 643785.
    [36] G. Wei, X. Zhao, R. Lin, Some hesitant intervalvalued fuzzy aggregation operators and their applications to multiple attribute decision making, Knowl. Based Syst, 46 (2013), 43-53. doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2013.03.004
    [37] G. Wei, X. Zhao, Induced hesitant interval-valued fuzzy Einstein aggregation operators and their application to multiple attribute decision making, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., 24 (2013), 789-803. doi: 10.3233/IFS-2012-0598
    [38] G. Wei, Interval valued hesitant fuzzy uncertain linguistic aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making, Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern., 7 (2016), 1093-1114. doi: 10.1007/s13042-015-0433-7
    [39] M. Xia, Z. S. Xu, Hesitant fuzzy information aggregation in decision making, Int. J. Approx. Reason., 52 (2011), 395-407. doi: 10.1016/j.ijar.2010.09.002
    [40] M. Xia, Z. S. Xu, Some studies on properties of hesitant fuzzy sets, Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern., 8 (2017), 489-495. doi: 10.1007/s13042-015-0340-y
    [41] Z. S. Xu, M. Xia, Distance and similarity measures for hesitant fuzzy sets, Inform. Sci., 181 (2011), 2128-2138. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2011.01.028
    [42] Z. Xu, W. Zhou, Consensus building with a group of decision makers under the hesitant probabilistic fuzzy environment, Fuzzy Optim. Decis. Ma., 16 (2017), 481-503. doi: 10.1007/s10700-016-9257-5
    [43] W. Xue, Z. Xu, H. Wang, et al. Hazard assessment of landslide dams using the evidential reasoning algorithm with multi-scale hesitant fuzzy linguistic information, Appl. Soft Comput., 79 (2019), 74-86. doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2019.03.032
    [44] Y. Yang, X. Tan, C. Meng, The multi-fuzzy soft set and its application in decision making, Appl. Math. Model., 37 (2013), 4915-4923. doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2012.10.015
    [45] Y. Yang, X. Peng, H. Chen, A decision making approach based on bipolar multi-fuzzy soft set theory, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., 27 (2014), 1861-1872. doi: 10.3233/IFS-141152
    [46] D. Yu, D. F. Li, J. M. Merigo, Dual hesitant fuzzy group decision making method and its application to supplier selection, Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern., 7 (2016), 819-831. doi: 10.1007/s13042-015-0400-3
    [47] C. Zhang, D. Li, J. Liang, Hesitant fuzzy linguistic rough set over two universes model and its applications, Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern., 9 (2018), 577-588. doi: 10.1007/s13042-016-0541-z
    [48] C. Zhang, D. Li, J. Liang, Multi-granularity three-way decisions with adjustable hesitant fuzzy linguistic multigranulation decision-theoretic rough sets over two universes, Inform. Sci., 507 (2020), 665-683. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2019.01.033
    [49] C. Zhang, D. Li, J. Liang, Interval-valued hesitant fuzzy multi-granularity three-way decisions in consensus processes with applications to multi-attribute group decision making, Inform. Sci., 511 (2020), 192-211. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2019.09.037
    [50] Z. Zhang, Hesitant fuzzy power aggregation operators and their application to multiple attribute group decision making, Inform. Sci., 234 (2013), 150-181. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2013.01.002
    [51] Z. Zhang, C. Wang, D. Tian, et al. Induced generalized hesitant fuzzy operators and their application to multiple attribute group decision making, Comput. Ind. Eng., 67 (2014), 116-138. doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2013.10.011
    [52] Z. Zhang, H. Dong, S. Lan, Possibility multi-fuzzy soft set and its application in decision making, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., 27 (2013), 2115-2125.
    [53] H. Zhang, L. Xiong, W. Ma, On interval-valued hesitant fuzzy soft sets, Math. Probl. Eng., 2015 (2015), 254764.
    [54] F. Zhang, J. Ignatius, C. P. Lim, et al. A new method for ranking fuzzy numbers and its application to group decision making, Appl. Math. Model., 38 (2014), 1563-1582. doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2013.09.002
    [55] W. Zhou, Z. Xu, Hesitant fuzzy linguistic portfolio model with variable risk appetite and its application in the investment ratio calculation, Appl. Soft Comput., 84 (2019), 105719.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Shuker Mahmood Khalil, Decision making using new category of similarity measures and study their applications in medical diagnosis problems, 2021, 1012-9405, 10.1007/s13370-020-00866-2
    2. Cansu Dağsuyu, Ulviye Polat, Ali Kokangül, Integrated process capability and multi-criteria decision-making approach, 2021, 1432-7643, 10.1007/s00500-021-05681-w
    3. Feng Feng, Yujuan Zheng, José Carlos R. Alcantud, Qian Wang, Minkowski Weighted Score Functions of Intuitionistic Fuzzy Values, 2020, 8, 2227-7390, 1143, 10.3390/math8071143
    4. Tapan Senapati, Guiyun Chen, Some novel interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy aggregation operator based on Hamacher triangular norms and their application in MADM issues, 2021, 40, 2238-3603, 10.1007/s40314-021-01502-w
    5. Serdar Koçak, Yusuf Tansel İç, Kumru Didem Atalay, Mustafa Sert, Berna Dengiz, The development of a reviewer selection method: a multi-level hesitant fuzzy VIKOR and TOPSIS approaches, 2021, 1868-5137, 10.1007/s12652-021-03466-5
    6. Mahmoud El-Tourkey, Adel Alshibani, Awsan Mohammed, Ali Shash, Firas Tuffaha, An integrated decision support system for mobile crane selection, 2022, 189, 09574174, 116053, 10.1016/j.eswa.2021.116053
    7. Tapan Senapati, Guiyun Chen, Radko Mesiar, Ronald Robert Yager, Intuitionistic fuzzy geometric aggregation operators in the framework of Aczel-Alsina triangular norms and their application to multiple attribute decision making, 2023, 212, 09574174, 118832, 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118832
    8. Tapan Senapati, Approaches to multi-attribute decision-making based on picture fuzzy Aczel–Alsina average aggregation operators, 2022, 41, 2238-3603, 10.1007/s40314-021-01742-w
    9. Tapan Senapati, Guiyun Chen, Ronald R. Yager, Aczel–Alsina aggregation operators and their application to intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute decision making, 2022, 37, 0884-8173, 1529, 10.1002/int.22684
    10. Tapan Senapati, Guiyun Chen, Radko Mesiar, Ronald R. Yager, Novel Aczel–Alsina operations‐based interval‐valued intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators and their applications in multiple attribute decision‐making process, 2022, 37, 0884-8173, 5059, 10.1002/int.22751
    11. Tapan Senapati, Guiyun Chen, Radko Mesiar, Ronald R. Yager, Abhijit Saha, Novel Aczel–Alsina operations-based hesitant fuzzy aggregation operators and their applications in cyclone disaster assessment, 2022, 51, 0308-1079, 511, 10.1080/03081079.2022.2036140
    12. P. R. Kavyasree, B. Surender Reddy, 2023, Chapter 25, 978-981-19-4928-9, 533, 10.1007/978-981-19-4929-6_25
    13. Faruk Karaaslan, Fatih Karamaz, Hesitant fuzzy parameterized hesitant fuzzy soft sets and their applications in decision-making, 2022, 99, 0020-7160, 1868, 10.1080/00207160.2021.2019715
    14. Ajoy Kanti Das, Carlos Granados, An Advanced Approach to Fuzzy Soft Group Decision-Making Using Weighted Average Ratings, 2021, 2, 2662-995X, 10.1007/s42979-021-00873-5
    15. Asit Dey, Tapan Senapati, Madhumangal Pal, Guiyun Chen, Pythagorean fuzzy soft RMS approach to decision making and medical diagnosis, 2022, 33, 1012-9405, 10.1007/s13370-022-01031-7
    16. Jie Ling, Mingwei Lin, Lili Zhang, Medical waste treatment scheme selection based on single-valued neutrosophic numbers, 2021, 6, 2473-6988, 10540, 10.3934/math.2021612
    17. Tapan Senapati, Guiyun Chen, Picture fuzzy WASPAS technique and its application in multi-criteria decision-making, 2022, 26, 1432-7643, 4413, 10.1007/s00500-022-06835-0
    18. Pannawit Khamrot, Thiti Gaketem, SUP-Hesitant Fuzzy Interior Ideals in \(\Gamma\)-Semigroups, 2024, 53, 2449-836X, 155, 10.18778/0138-0680.2024.09
    19. Tapan Senapati, An Aczel-Alsina aggregation-based outranking method for multiple attribute decision-making using single-valued neutrosophic numbers, 2024, 10, 2199-4536, 1185, 10.1007/s40747-023-01215-z
    20. Jayakumar Vimala, Harish Garg, Kannan Jeevitha, Prognostication of Myocardial Infarction Using Lattice Ordered Linear Diophantine Multi-fuzzy Soft Set, 2023, 1562-2479, 10.1007/s40815-023-01574-2
    21. Rashmi Singh, Prakhar Singh, Gaurav Agarwal, 2024, A System for Authomatic Decision-Making Using Fuzzy Soft -Sets, 979-8-3503-8354-6, 1991, 10.1109/IC2PCT60090.2024.10486223
    22. Lei Zhao, Managing incomplete general hesitant linguistic preference relations and their application, 2024, 9, 2473-6988, 28870, 10.3934/math.20241401
    23. Abhishek Soni, Raman Nateriya, Tapan Senapati, Probabilistic dual hesitant Archimedean–Dombi operators for selection of sustainable materials, 2023, 1432-7643, 10.1007/s00500-023-08679-8
    24. İbrahim Şanlıbaba, Chiranjibe Jana, A novel method for decision-making approach using multi-fuzzy soft systems with applications in analyzing the ımpact of two distinct drug categories, 2024, 43, 2238-3603, 10.1007/s40314-024-02791-7
    25. Suvojit Dhara, Adrijit Goswami, Causal Relationship and Ranking Technique (CRRT): A Novel Group Decision-Making Model and Application in Students’ Performance Assessment in Indian High School Context, 2023, 32, 0926-2644, 835, 10.1007/s10726-023-09827-z
    26. Weiwei Mao, Kaijie Xu, Enhancement of the Classification Performance of Fuzzy C-Means through Uncertainty Reduction with Cloud Model Interpolation, 2024, 12, 2227-7390, 975, 10.3390/math12070975
    27. Mahalakshmi Pethaperumal, Vimala Jayakumar, Jeevitha Kannan, Nithya Sri Shanmugam, Selection of healthcare waste disposal strategies with Lq* q-rung orthopair multi-fuzzy soft set similarity measures, 2024, 10641246, 1, 10.3233/JIFS-219412
    28. Arun Sarkar, Sarbast Moslem, Domokos Esztergár-Kiss, Muhammad Akram, LeSheng Jin, Tapan Senapati, A hybrid approach based on dual hesitant q-rung orthopair fuzzy Frank power partitioned Heronian mean aggregation operators for estimating sustainable urban transport solutions, 2023, 124, 09521976, 106505, 10.1016/j.engappai.2023.106505
    29. Lingyu Meng, Weixin Xie, Liangqun Li, Yanshan Li, Zongxiang Liu, Hesitant hierarchical T–S fuzzy system with fuzzily weighted recursive least square, 2023, 126, 09521976, 106812, 10.1016/j.engappai.2023.106812
    30. Madhumangal Pal, 2024, Chapter 1, 978-3-031-56935-7, 1, 10.1007/978-3-031-56936-4_1
    31. Mahalakshmi Pethaperumal, Vimala Jayakumar, Seyyed Ahmed Edalatpanah, Ashma Banu Kather Mohideen, Surya Annamalai, An enhanced MADM with Lq* q-Rung orthopair multi-fuzzy soft set in healthcare supplier selection, 2024, 10641246, 1, 10.3233/JIFS-219411
    32. ChenQi Li, JingTao Yao, 2024, A Game-Theoretic Framework for Approximation with Soft Sets, 979-8-3503-7488-9, 1780, 10.1109/ICMLA61862.2024.00274
    33. J. Vimala, S. Sabeena Begam, Muhammad Saeed, Khuram Ali Khan, Atiqe Ur Rahman, An Abstract Context to Lattice-Based Ideals (Filters) with Multi-Fuzzy Soft Settings, 2025, 21, 1793-0057, 21, 10.1142/S1793005725500024
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2020 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(4592) PDF downloads(485) Cited by(33)

Figures and Tables

Tables(5)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog