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

Newly defined fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index with application in multi-criteria decision-making

  • Received: 22 March 2024 Revised: 23 May 2024 Accepted: 05 June 2024 Published: 21 June 2024
  • MSC : 05C15

  • In crisp graph theory, there are numerous topological indices accessible, including the Misbalance Prodeg Index, which is one of the most well-known degree-based topological indexes. In crisp graphs, both vertices and edges have membership values of 1 or 0, whereas in fuzzy graphs, both vertices and edges have different memberships. This is an entire contrast to the crisp graph. In this paper, we introduce the Fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index of a fuzzy graph, which is a generalized form of the Misbalance Prodeg Index of a graph. We find bounds of this index and find bounds of certain classes of graphs such as path graph, cycle graph, complete graph, complete bipartite graph, and star graph. We give an algorithm to find the Fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index of a graph for the model of multi-criteria decision-making is established. We present applications from daily life in multi-criteria decision-making. We apply our obtained model of the Fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index for the multi-criteria decision-making to the choice of the best supplier and we also show the graphical analysis of our index with the other indices that show how our index is better than other existing indices.

    Citation: Shama Liaqat, Zeeshan Saleem Mufti, Yilun Shang. Newly defined fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index with application in multi-criteria decision-making[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(8): 20193-20220. doi: 10.3934/math.2024984

    Related Papers:

    [1] Zeeshan Saleem Mufti, Ali Tabraiz, Qin Xin, Bander Almutairi, Rukhshanda Anjum . Fuzzy topological analysis of pizza graph. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(6): 12841-12856. doi: 10.3934/math.2023647
    [2] Nasser Aedh Alreshidi, Muhammad Rahim, Fazli Amin, Abdulaziz Alenazi . Trapezoidal type-2 Pythagorean fuzzy TODIM approach for sensible decision-making with unknown weights in the presence of hesitancy. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(12): 30462-30486. doi: 10.3934/math.20231556
    [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] Mohammed M. Ali Al-Shamiri, Adeel Farooq, Muhammad Nabeel, Ghous Ali, Dragan Pamučar . Integrating TOPSIS and ELECTRE-Ⅰ methods with cubic m-polar fuzzy sets and its application to the diagnosis of psychiatric disorders. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(5): 11875-11915. doi: 10.3934/math.2023601
    [5] Jingjie Zhao, Jiale Zhang, Yu Lei, Baolin Yi . Proportional grey picture fuzzy sets and their application in multi-criteria decision-making with high-dimensional data. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(1): 208-233. doi: 10.3934/math.2025011
    [6] Min Woo Jang, Jin Han Park, Mi Jung Son . Probabilistic picture hesitant fuzzy sets and their application to multi-criteria decision-making. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(4): 8522-8559. doi: 10.3934/math.2023429
    [7] 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
    [8] Muhammad Tanveer, Imran Ahmed, Ali Raza, Sumaira Nawaz, Yu-Pei Lv . New escape conditions with general complex polynomial for fractals via new fixed point iteration. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(6): 5563-5580. doi: 10.3934/math.2021329
    [9] Yuanlu Qiao, Jingpeng Wang . An intuitionistic fuzzy site selection decision framework for waste-to-energy projects from the perspective of "Not In My Backyard" risk. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(2): 3676-3698. doi: 10.3934/math.2023184
    [10] Muhammad Riaz, Khadija Akmal, Yahya Almalki, S. A. Alblowi . Cubic m-polar fuzzy topology with multi-criteria group decision-making. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(7): 13019-13052. doi: 10.3934/math.2022721
  • In crisp graph theory, there are numerous topological indices accessible, including the Misbalance Prodeg Index, which is one of the most well-known degree-based topological indexes. In crisp graphs, both vertices and edges have membership values of 1 or 0, whereas in fuzzy graphs, both vertices and edges have different memberships. This is an entire contrast to the crisp graph. In this paper, we introduce the Fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index of a fuzzy graph, which is a generalized form of the Misbalance Prodeg Index of a graph. We find bounds of this index and find bounds of certain classes of graphs such as path graph, cycle graph, complete graph, complete bipartite graph, and star graph. We give an algorithm to find the Fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index of a graph for the model of multi-criteria decision-making is established. We present applications from daily life in multi-criteria decision-making. We apply our obtained model of the Fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index for the multi-criteria decision-making to the choice of the best supplier and we also show the graphical analysis of our index with the other indices that show how our index is better than other existing indices.



    Graph theory originated with Euler's 1736 study on the Seven Bridges of Königsberg issue. To answer this difficulty, Euler created the concept of a graph, and his book "Solution of a Problem Related to the Geometry of Position" is recognised as the fundamental work in graph theory. The development of fuzzy notions in graphs involves expanding classical graph theory to enable the representation of imprecision via fuzzy logic. Fuzzy graph theory is an area of graph theory that addresses uncertainty or imprecision in the representation of connections among objects or entities. Traditional graph theory defines graphs as nodes (vertices) connected by edges (links) that express specific relationships between them. However, in many real-world settings, object relationships may be ambiguous or imprecise. Fuzzy graph theory presents the concept of fuzzy sets, which indicate the degree of membership or resemblance between nodes and edges. Various fundamental research and examples of applications of fuzzy graph theory in diverse disciplines, proving its adaptability in handling uncertainty and ambiguity in real-world circumstances, are described in [1,2,3] The notion of the fuzzy set was established in [4] to describe the concept of vagueness in a classical set. This served as the inspiration for Rosenfeld [5], who proposed the fuzziness for graphs in 1975 and gave them the name fuzzy graph (FG). Topological indices (TIs) are molecular descriptors that are determined on the molecular graph of a chemical compound in the areas of mathematical chemistry known as chemical graph theory, molecular topology, and molecular topology. These molecular descriptors are numerical quantities that characterize a graph's topology. The first topological descriptor, named as Wiener index (WI), which is deployed to find the BP(Boiling Point) of alkane(Paraffin), was initially examined in 1947 [6]. In order to determine the special types of energy namely π-electron energy of hydrocarbons, the Zagreb index (ZI) was developed in [7]. Following the definition of this molecular descriptive, authors investigated the forgotten topological index (F-index), another index based on the degree of vertices in [8]. Mondal et al. discuss a few neighborhood degree-based topological indices [9,10]. Topological indices are important in fields such as molecular chemistry, chemical graph theory, spectral graph theory, and network theory. Numerous scholars are investigating the concept of topological indices (TIs) in fuzzy graphs as well, owing to the extensive applicability of TIs in crisp graphs across various domains. Uzma et al. discussed the algebraic perspective of TIs using the automorphism of group action [11]. Extremal values of benzenoid structures have been discussed via degree-based topological indices [12,13]. Distance degree-based indices have been in [14]. For the study on the general Randic index, one can see in [15,16]. Researchers initially concentrated on extending standard topological indices, such as the Wiener, Randić, and Zagreb indices, to fuzzy graphs. These ´ additions involved generating suitable fuzzy versions of distance, degree, and associated concepts. Aside from enhancing classical indices, researchers created totally new fuzzy topological indices specifically designed to capture the unique characteristics of fuzzy graphs. These indices frequently entail aggregating the fuzzy memberships of vertices and edges in a graph to obtain a scalar value that represents a specific topological attribute. For fuzzy graphs, Kalathian et al. [17] defined the first degree-based topological indices.

    Islam and Pal [18] examine the first Zagreb index and prove several related results for several fuzzy graphs, including fuzzy path graph, Fuzzy cycle graph, Fuzzy star graph, and fuzzy subgraphs. Additionally, a method for multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) is presented, which identifies the competent employee in a company by utilizing the fuzzy graph's first Zagreb index. It has been observed that authors found certain bounds along with numerous of its properties and by the use of the Randic index, Akram et al. presented the fuzzy graphs using bipolar concept. They also described an expression for the Randic index of bipolar fuzzy cycles and fuzzy graphs.

    Since 1972, several degree-based topological indices have been introduced and examined in Chemical Graph Theory [19,20]. Gutman [21] invented the Sombor index, a degree-based index. The motivation behind this study is that topological indices (TIs) for crisp graphs have many uses in a variety of contexts, therefore it makes sense to investigate the concept of TIs for fuzzy graphs as well. For fuzzy graphs, the group of Zagreb indices and Wiener indices are the main topics of the literature currently available on topological indices in fuzzy graph theory. This paper introduces a new fuzzy topological index, the fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index (FMPI), as a result of the widespread use and importance of topological indices in fuzzy graphs. We defined this novel index and investigated its features and applications in the area of multi-criteria decision-making, particularly with fuzzy graphs. Numerous research publications have contributed to our understanding of how graphs can be used to improve decision-making processes. Comparing and discussing the outcomes of this line of research is critical for various reasons. Researchers can validate particular study findings by comparing them to other studies, assuring consistency and reliability. Assessing several studies assists in detecting common trends and patterns, which can lead to the creation of best practices and standard techniques for graph-driven decision-making. Comparing studies might sometimes reveal differences or contradicting results, requiring additional research to determine the underlying causes and strengthen decision-making models. Discussing multiple findings allows for a more comprehensive grasp of the subject, combining many perspectives and ways to graph-driven decision-making. For example, the study cited in [22] provides detailed insights into graph-driven decision-making. By comparing this study to others in the field, researchers can examine the robustness of the methodologies utilised, the application of the results in diverse contexts, and the overall contribution to the body of knowledge. In the study of fuzzy graphs, the fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index (FMPI) is an important addition to topological indices, opening up new paths for research and real-world applications. This paper is arranged in the following manner: in Section 2 some basic elements of fuzzy graphs are given which are necessary part for the better understanding of this study. In Section 3, some topological indices along with the Misbalance Prodeg index are defined for fuzzy graphs. Some bounds of these two indices for fuzzy graphs are discussed in section 4. Section 5 explains an algorithm to evaluate these indices for fuzzy graphs. In Section 6, applications in multi-criteria decision-making problems for Misbalance Prodeg indices are considered. Finally, a comparison of related indices on the application's outcome is given, demonstrating the worth of our approach in Section 7, and in Section 8 we have given our conclusion.

    A graph is an ordered pair =(η,τ) with vertex set η() and edge set τ(). The vertex set η() is always non-empty whereas the edge set τ() may or may not be an empty set. There are two types of graphs we are dealing with in this research such as crisp graphs and fuzzy graphs. This paper aims to study fuzzy graphs. All the definitions in this section are taken from [23].

    Let A() be given a finite set. Let Fuzzy graph (FG) is =(η,τ), where η is fuzzy subset (FSS) of A and τ is FSS of A×A with τ(ϖ,ϱ){η(ϖ),η(ϱ)}, where shows the minimum, η(ϖ) is weight of the vertex ϖ, and τ(ϖ,ϱ) is the weight of the edge ϖϱ. We write =(η,τ), where η={ϖA:η(ϖ)} and τ={(ϖ,ϱ)A×A:τ(ϖ,ϱ)0}. Here η and τ are called the vertex and edge set of the FG, respectively. The membership value of all the vertices and edges are taken from the closed interval 0 and 1. If all the membership values are the same and equal to 1, then the fuzzy graph becomes a crisp graph. There are three possibilities for the vertices in a fuzzy graph, the membership value of the vertex in a fuzzy graph is either 0, between 0 and 1, or 1. If the membership value is equal to 0, it means no vertex exists. if the membership value is equal to 1, this shows that the vertex certainly exists in the graph but if the membership value lies between 0 and 1, it indicates that the vertex exists in the graph with some possibilities.

    The degree or the valency of a vertex ϖ is the sum of the membership values of edges joining to vertex ϖ and denoted by Deg(ϖ)=ϖϱτ(ϖ,ϱ). The minimum degree denoted by δ() and is defined as δ()={Deg(ϖ):ϖη}. The maximum degree denoted by Δ() and is defined as Δ()={Deg(ϖ):ϖη}, where shows the minimum and shows the maximum. Let =(η,τ) be a fuzzy graph. The order of fuzzy graph is represented by O() is the sum of all membership values of all vertices and is denoted by O()=ϖηη(ϖ). The size of a fuzzy graph is denoted by S() is the sum of all membership values of all edges and is denoted by S()=(ϖ,ϱ)η×ητ(ϖ,ϱ). A path graph is a graph in which a sequence of vertices are connected in such a way that all vertices are connected except the first and last vertex. A path graph is called a cycle graph if the first and last vertex is also connected. A regular fuzzy graph is a graph if the Deg(ϖ)=l, for all ϖη, where l is a real number and it is also called l regular fuzzy graphs. A fuzzy graph is called an irregular fuzzy graph if two adjacent vertices have different degrees.

    In this section, we discuss the fuzzy topological indices with their uses. We define a new fuzzy topological index Fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index and also find some bounds of different classes of graphs such as path graph, cycle graph, wheel graph, complete graph, and complete bipartite graph. We also give a real-life application of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) give an analysis and show on the basis of our analysis that our index is more useful than other existing indices. The list of some fuzzy topological indices with their definitions is given below:

    Fuzzy first Zagreb Index

    Kalathian discovered the first fuzzy Zagreb Index (FZI) for fuzzy graphs and was denoted by

    M()=ϖηη(ϖ)d2(ϖ)

    here, η(ϖ) and d(ϖ) are the node weight and the degree of the vertex ϖ, respectively.

    Fuzzy modified first Zagreb Index

    Islam and Pal modified the first Zagreb Index for fuzzy graphs in 2021. Suppose =(η,τ) is a fuzzy graph, then first fuzzy Zagreb index (FZI) of the Fuzzy graph () is represented by ZF1() and is expressed as:

    ZF1()=ϖη[η(ϖ)d(ϖ)]2

    Fuzzy second Zagreb Index

    Kalathian et al. presented the second Zagreb index for fuzzy graphs in 2020 Let =(η,τ), be an FG, then the second fuzzy Zagreb Index (SZI) of the Fuzzy graph () is represented by ZF2() and is expressed as:

    ZF2()=ϖϱτη(ϖ)η(ϱ)d(ϖ)d(ϱ)

    Fuzzy randic index

    S. Kalathian established the fuzzy Randic Index(FRI)

    R(G)=12[ni=1σ(ϖi)d(ϖi)σ(ϱj)d(ϱj)]12

    Fuzzy F-index

    Islam explained the F-Index for fuzzy graphs in 2021. Let =(η,τ) is a fuzzy graph, then F-index of the Fuzzy graph is represented by FF() and is defined as:

    FF()=ϖη[η(ϖ)d(ϖ)]3

    Let be a finite, connected graph, and simple graph with the vertex set V() and edge set E() Numerous vertex degree-based topological descriptors have been proposed and thoroughly investigated in Chemical Science [24,25].

    Sum Connectivity Index

    Another index namely Sum Connectivity Index [26] is described as

    SCI()=ϖϱE()1d(ϖ)+d(ϱ)

    Sombor index

    The Sombor Index was discovered by Ivan Gutman in [27] and defined as

    SO()=ϖϱE()d(ϖ)2+d(ϱ)2

    Some other types of Sombor indices were recently investigated. Das et al. discussed the Sombor index in [28]. In [29], Kulli along with Gutman defined the Revan Sombor index. Kulli another invention, Status Sombor index was established in [30]. Some properties of Somber indices were investigated in [31].

    Misbalance Prodeg Index

    In [32] introduced Misbalance Prodeg Index for as:

    MPI()=ϖϱE()d(ϖ)+d(ϱ)

    In this section, we introduce our main results on the Fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg index. We have generated some bounds for certain classes of graphs such as path graph, cycle graph, complete graph, complete bipartite graph, and star graph.

    Fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index

    Let =(η,τ) be a fuzzy graph, then the Misbalance Prodeg Index of the Fuzzy graph is represented by FMPI() and is demonstrated as:

    FMPI()=ϖϱτ()η(ϖ)d(ϖ)+η(ϱ)d(ϱ)

    where, η(ϖ) and η(ϱ) is the weight of vertices ϖ and ϱ and d(ϖ) and d(ϱ) is the degree of the vertex ϖ and ϱ, respectively.

    Example 1

    Suppose be a fuzzy graph (FG) shown in Figure 1 such that V()={a,b,c,d} be the end nodes with η(a)=0.9, η(b)=0.2, η(c)=0.5, and η(d)=0.3. The edge set contains τ(a,b)=0.2, τ(b,c)=0.1, τ(c,d)=0.3, τ(b,d)=0.1. Where d(a)=0.2, d(b)=0.4, d(c)=0.4 and d(d)=0.4 are all the degrees of vertices a, b, c, and d, respectively. Fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg index FMPI() is given as

    FMPI()=[η(a)d(a)+η(b)d(b)]+[η(b)d(b)+η(c)d(c)]=[η(b)d(b)+η(d)d(d)]+[η(c)d(c)+η(d)d(d)]
    Figure 1.  Example of Fuzzy Graph.

    After substituting the values of the vertex weights and the degree of each vertex, we have

    FMPI()=[(0.9)(0.2)+(0.2)(0.4)]+[(0.2)(0.4)+(0.5)(0.4)]=[(0.2)(0.4)+(0.3)(0.4)]+[(0.5)(0.4)+(0.3)(0.4)]Aftersimplification,=2.8599

    Theorem 1. Let =(η,τ) be a FG and η be the set of vertices with order ¨N and τ be the edge set with size ¨M, then the Fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg index FMPI() is given as

    FMPI()¨Mϖϱτ()(η(ϖ)+η(ϱ))

    where ϖ,ϱη. Also, η(ϖ) and η(ϱ) are the weights of the vertices ϖ and ϱ, respectively.

    Proof. For fuzzy graph =(η,τ) the degree of vertex ϖη is denoted d(ϖ) and evaluated as d(ϖ)=ϖϱτ(ϖ,ϱ) then,

    d(ϖ)¨M2

    η(ϖ)>0 be the weight of the vertex ϖ. Multiplying with η(ϖ) both side of the equation

    η(ϖ)d(ϖ)η(ϖ)¨M2

    Taking square root on both sides, we have

    η(ϖ)d(ϖ)η(ϖ)¨M2
    η(ϖ)d(ϖ)η(ϖ)¨M

    Similarly, for vertex ϱ

    η(ϱ)d(ϱ)η(ϱ)¨M

    Summing the square root inequalities over all edges ϖϱτ()

    ϖϱτ()η(ϖ)d(ϖ)+η(ϱ)d(ϱ)ϖϱτ()η(ϖ)¨M+η(ϱ)¨M

    Hence, the Fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index FMPI() is given as

    FMPI()¨Mϖϱτ()(η(ϖ)+η(ϱ))

    Theorem 2. Let Pz=(η,τ) be a fuzzy path graph with η={ϖ1,ϖ2...,ϖz} as vertex set and τ={ϖ1ϖ2,ϖ2ϖ3,...,ϖz2ϖz1,ϖz1ϖz} as edge set.The order of fuzzy path graph Pz is z with size z1, then

    FMPI(Pz)2(1+2(z1))

    Proof. As Pz=(η,τ) be a fuzzy path graph, then:

    dPz(ϖ1)=τ1, dPz(ϖ2)=τ1+τ2, ...dPz(ϖz1)=τz2+τz1 and dPz(ϖz)=τz1 for i=2,3,...z therefore

    FMPI(Pz)[η(ϖ1)dPz(ϖ1)+η(ϖ2)dPz(ϖ2)]+[η(ϖz1)dPz(ϖz1)+η(ϖz)dPz(ϖz)]+z2i=2[η(ϖi)dPz(ϖi)+η(ϖi+1)dPz(ϖi+1)]

    As ηz1 and τz1, η(ϖi) is the vertex weight of a fuzzy graph and dPz(ϖ) be degree of vertex ϖ. In the path graph, there will be two types of partitions: The first partition contains the first and last vertex and the second partition contains from second vertex to the second and last vertex. This formula reflects the contributions of every vertex over the path graph. Since each vertex weight and edge weight has a maximum value equal to 1. The following inequality obtained gets the following result.

    FMPI(Pz)2(1+2)+z2i=2(2+2)=2(1+2(z1))

    Theorem 3. Let Cz=(η,τ) is a fuzzy cycle graph with vertex set η={ϖ1,ϖ2,...,ϖz} and order z where z3. τ={ϖ1ϖ2,ϖ2ϖ3,...,ϖz1ϖz,ϖzϖ1} be an edge set with size z, then

    FMPI(Cz)22(z1)

    Proof. As Cz=(η,τ) be a fuzzy cycle graph then dCz(ϖ1)=τ1+τz, dCz(ϖ2)=τ1+τ2 dCz(ϖz1)=τz2+τz1 and dCz(ϖz)=τz1+τz, then the fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg index is as follows:

    FMPI(Cz)z1i=1[η(ϖi)dCz(ϖi)+η(ϖi+1)dCz(ϖi+1)]

    Since ηz1 and τz1, the fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg index is bounded and after simple calculation, we obtain the following result.

    FMPI(Cz)22z1i=1(1)=22(z1)

    Theorem 4. Let KN=(η,τ) be a complete graph with N vertices in which every ϖiη is connected to all other vertices ϖj where ij, then fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index (FMPI) for KN is given as:

    FMPI(KN)N(N1)32

    Proof. Since in a complete graph KN, every vertex ϖi is linked with all other vertices, having degree d(ϖi)=N1. The fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index (FMPI) for KN takes into account the pairwise connections between each vertex. For every pair of vertices (ϖi,ϖj), the FMPI role is stated as η(ϖi)d(ϖi)+η(ϖj)d(ϖj). Summing this over all pairs of vertices in the complete graph yields:

    FMPI(KN)Ni=1Nj=1η(ϖi)(N1)+η(ϖj)(N1) where ij

    Considering that ϖi1, the complete graph KN contains N(N1)2 edges. Then the upper bound for KN is evaluated as:

    FMPI(KN)N(N1)2[N1+N1]FMPI(KN)N(N1)22N1FMPI(KN)N(N1)32

    The next theorem is about the wheel graph, which has a central hub connected to a peripheral cycle, and is the subject of the following theorem, which looks at its Fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index to reflect its distinct topological structure.

    Theorem 5. For a wheel graph, WN, with N end nodes (N4), the Fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index is given as:

    FMPI(WN)(N1)[N1+33]

    Proof. Let WN be a wheel graph, then the Fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index is given as:

    FMPI(WN)[N1i=1η(ϖh)d(ϖh)+η(ϖi)d(ϖi)]+[N1i=1η(ϖi)d(ϖi)+η(ϖi+1)d(ϖi+1)]

    where ϖh is the hub vertex, ϖi and ϖi+1 are the adjacent vertices on the rim. Since d(ϖh)=N1 and η(ϖh)1, since there are N1 such edges so for hub vertex the FMPI is to be (N1)[N1+3]. Where the rim forms a cycle CN with N1 vertices and edges as well. Let the maximum membership value for η(ϖi) is 1 and d(ϖi)=3, then for N1 edges of rim we have FMPI as (N1)[3+3]. From the above discussion, we conclude fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index() for WN as:

    FMPI(WN)(N1)[N1+3]+(N1)[3+3]FMPI(WN)(N1)[N1+3+23]FMPI(WN)(N1)[N1+33]

    Theorem 6. Let SN=(η,τ) be a star graph with η={ϖ1,ϖ2,...,ϖN} vertex set having N vertices, and τ={ϖ1ϖs,ϖ2ϖs,...,ϖn1ϖs} as an edge set then fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index for SN is explained as:

    FMPI(SN)(N1)[N1+1]

    Proof. In a star graph, each vertex ϖi where 1iN1, is connected to one central vertex ϖs. Here degree of ϖs is N1 where degree of each ϖi is 1, and defined as dSN(ϖs)=N1i=1τ(ϖs,ϖi) with dSN(ϖi)=τ(ϖi,ϖs). (ϖs,ϖi) is the pair of connections between the vertices of the star graph. As there are total N1 edges in SN, so fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index for SN is described as η(ϖs)d(ϖs)+η(ϖi)d(ϖi). Since η(ϖs) and η(ϖi) are bounded by 1, then For N1 edges we get the following result as:

    FMPI(SN)N1i=1[η(ϖs)d(ϖs)+η(ϖi)d(ϖi)]FMPI(SN)(N1)[N1+1]FMPI(SN)(N1)[N1+1]

    Theorem 7. For two sets of vertices U and V in complete bipartite graph Kx,y, we have |U|=x and |V|=y, then the bounds of fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index for Kx,y is given as:

    FMPI(Kx,y)x32y+xy32

    Proof. In complete bipartite graph Kx,y, each vertex in set U has a degree of x, where y is the degree of every vertex contained in V. The FMPI index for Kx,y examines the pairwise relationships between the vertices in various sets. For an edge connecting a vertex ϖiU and vertex ϱjV, the contribution to fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index is η(ϖi)x+η(ϱj)y. As there are xy edges in Kx,y, joining a vertex in U to the vertex in V. Since the membership value of η(ϖi) and η(ϖj) is bounded by 1, so the total fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index for xy edges is described as:

    FMPI(Kx,y)ϖiU,ϱjV[η(ϖi)x+η(ϱj)y]FMPI(Kx,y)xy[x+y]FMPI(Kx,y)x32y+xy32

    Here we present an algorithm to compute the Misbalance Prodeg Index for FG. The pseudo-code is presented below in Table 1. Clearly, the complexity of the fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index is dominated by the calculation of FMPI(), which is of the order O()2.

    Table 1.  FMPI Algorithm.
    Input: A FG =(η,τ)
    Output: Misbalance prodeg index of and each vertex of .
    01:    Let d(ϖ)=ϖητ(ϖ,ϱ) be the degree of each vertex ϖ
    02:    Let ϖ be the fuzzy graph for each ϖη
    03:    The Misbalance Prodeg index of FG is given by
            FMPI()=ϖϱτ()η(ϖ)d(ϖ)+η(ϱ)d(ϱ)
    04:    The Misbalance Prodeg index of a vertex ϖ of FG is given by
            FMPI(ϖ)=FMPI()FMPI(ϖ)

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problems involving fuzzy graphs are complex situation where decision-makers need to consider multiple criteria while dealing with uncertainty represented by fuzzy information. Fuzzy graphs extend traditional graph theory to handle imprecise and vague information. Here's a general framework for addressing multi-criteria decision-making problems with fuzzy graphs:

    Let X={X1,X2,...,Xa} be the set of alternatives and Y={Y1,Y2,...,Yb} be the set of attributes, K={K1,K2,...,Kc} be the weight vector of attributes Yi, where Ki characterize the degree of importance of Yr, fulfilling Ki[0,1] and ci=1Ki=1. Our current goal is to identify the most suitable alternative. For each attribute, we first construct FGs with a vertex set of alternatives in order to determine which alternative is best. Edges are the influencing factors and connections between the available options. The Fuzzy graph βYj related to the attribute Yj having vertex set as a set of alternatives X, for each i=1,2,...,c.

    Consider a manufacturing company that needs to select suppliers for critical components used in their production process. The decision-makers are faced with the challenge of evaluating potential suppliers based on various criteria while dealing with uncertainties and imprecise information. Let us consider five suppliers namely A,B,C,D, and E and we choose three attributes such as Y1= cost, Y2= Quality, and Y3= lead time. Not all suppliers must use the same set of specifications. However, each measure is significant in assessing their performance. In every fuzzy graph for each attribute, Nodes represent potential suppliers. Where edges between nodes denote the fuzzy relationships among suppliers, considering factors like historical performance, collaboration, and shared resources. As Y1, Y2 and Y3 are the attributes and just English words their characteristics may get some membership values. The membership value for these parameters are taken as K1=0.3, K2=0.4, and K3=0.3 and the rank value of each supplier is displayed in Table 2.

    Table 2.  Score values of suppliers.
    Suppliers Y1 = Time Y2 = Quality Y3 = lead time
    A 0.2 0.4 0.9
    B 0.4 0.5 0.7
    C 0.6 0.3 0.5
    D 0.8 0.7 0.2
    E 0.9 0.2 0.2

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Now, we construct different fuzzy graphs βYj related to every attribute. In these fuzzy graph constructions, suppliers are the vertex set and edges are the influence relation between the suppliers, and display their Rank table and associated score table figure along with its detailed explanation. First of all, we construct a fuzzy graph βY1 as shown in Figure 2.

    Figure 2.  βY1.

    All the information about the influence relation among the suppliers is displayed in Table 3. In the first step, we will evaluate the fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index for βY1 by using the FMPI algorithm, we get the value

    FMPI(βY1)=9.3811.
    Table 3.  Score values of influence relations among the suppliers.
    Attributes Suppliers A B C D E
    A 0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1
    B 0.1 0 0.3 0 0
    Y1 C 0.2 0.3 0 0.5 0
    D 0.2 0 0.5 0 0.7
    E 0.1 0 0 0.7 0

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    In the second step, we construct subgraphs for each vertex by deleting that vertex and the edges associated with it. Now, we pick vertex A from Figure 2 and delete that vertex A and all its associated edges. The related fuzzy subgraph βY1(A) by deleting vertex A and all its related edges is obtained and shown in Figure 3.

    Figure 3.  βY1(A).

    For criteria Y1 the fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index of the supplier A, first we calculate FMPI(βY1(A)):

    FMPI(βY1(A))=4.4853

    then fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index for supplier A is calculated by using the following formula:

    FMPI(A)=FMPI(βY1)FMPI(βY1(A))

    by substituting the value of FMPI(βY1) and FMPI(βY1(A)) in the above equation, we have:

    FMPI(A)=9.38114.4853=4.8958

    Now, we pick vertex B from Figure 2 and delete that vertex B and all its associated edges. The related fuzzy subgraph βY1(B) by deleting vertex B and all its related edges is obtained and shown in Figure 4.

    Figure 4.  βY1(B).

    For criteria Y1 the fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index of the supplier B, first we calculate FMPI(βY1(B)):

    FMPI(βY1(B))=7.1166

    then fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index for supplier B is calculated by using the following formula:

    FMPI(B)=FMPI(βY1)FMPI(βY1(B))

    by substituting the value of FMPI(βY1) and FMPI(βY1(B)) in the above equation, we have:

    FMPI(B)=9.38117.1166=2.2645

    Now, we pick vertex C from Figure 2 and delete that vertex C and all its associated edges. The related fuzzy subgraph βY1(C) by deleting vertex C and all its related edges is obtained and shown in Figure 5.

    Figure 5.  βY1(C).

    For criteria Y1 the fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index of the supplier C, first we calculate FMPI(βY1(C)):

    FMPI(βY1(C))=4.4424

    then fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index for supplier C is calculated by using the following formula:

    FMPI(C)=FMPI(βY1)FMPI(βY1(C))

    by substituting the value of FMPI(βY1) and FMPI(βY1(C)) in the above equation, we have:

    FMPI(C)=9.38114.4424=4.9387

    Now, we pick vertex D from Figure 2 and delete that vertex D and all its associated edges. The related fuzzy subgraph βY1(D) by deleting vertex D and all its related edges is obtained and shown in Figure 6.

    Figure 6.  βY1(D).

    For criteria Y1 the fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index of the supplier D, first we calculate FMPI(βY1(D)):

    FMPI(βY1(D))=3.0438

    then fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index for supplier D is calculated by using the following formula:

    FMPI(D)=FMPI(βY1)FMPI(βY1(D))

    by substituting the value of FMPI(βY1) and FMPI(βY1(D)) in the above equation, we have:

    FMPI(D)=9.38113.0438=6.3373

    Now, we pick vertex E from Figure 2 and delete that vertex E and all its associated edges. The related fuzzy subgraph βY1(E) by deleting vertex E and all its related edges is obtained and shown in Figure 7.

    Figure 7.  βY1(E).

    For criteria Y1 the fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index of the supplier E, first we calculate FMPI(βY1(E)):

    FMPI(βY1(E))=5.5689

    then fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index for supplier E is calculated by using the following formula:

    FMPI(E)=FMPI(βY1)FMPI(βY1(E))

    by substituting the value of FMPI(βY1) and FMPI(βY1(E)) in the above equation, we have:

    FMPI(E)=9.38115.5689=3.8122

    Similarly, we have used the same process for attributes Y2 and Y3. The fuzzy graphs βY2 and βY3 shown in Figures 8 and 9 are related to the attributes Y2 and Y3, respectively.

    Figure 8.  βY2.
    Figure 9.  βY3.

    The influence relation between the attributes is given in the matrix in Table 4.

    Table 4.  Score values of influence relations among the suppliers.
    Attributes Suppliers A B C D E
    A 0 0.3 0 0.4 0.2
    B 0.3 0 0.1 0 0.2
    Y2 C 0 0.1 0 0.5 0
    D 0.4 0 0.5 0 0.7
    E 0.2 0.2 0 0.7 0

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The influence relation between the attributes is given in the matrix in Table 5.

    Table 5.  Score Values of Influence Relations Among the Suppliers.
    Attributes Suppliers A B C D E
    A 0 0.6 0.3 0 0.3
    B 0.6 0 0.4 0.3 0.2
    Y3 C 0.3 0.4 0 0 0
    D 0 0.3 0 0 0.1
    E 0.3 0.0 0 0.1 0

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Now, in Table 6, we display all the fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index values of all the suppliers with respect to given attributes Y1 = Time, Y2= Quality, Y3= lead time.

    Table 6.  The Value of FMPI of the Suppliers.
    Suppliers Y1 = Time Y2 = Quality Y3 = lead time
    FMPI(A) 4.8958 3.2193 6.464
    FMPI(B) 2.2645 2.2202 7.4216
    FMPI(C) 4.9387 1.3029 3.9506
    FMPI(D) 6.3373 2.9584 2.2753
    FMPI(E) 3.8122 3.8893 4.2872

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Following that, the next method is used to choose the most suitable alternatives. The steps are as follows:

    Input: The Fuzzy graph βYj related to the attribute Yj having vertex set as a set of alternatives X and the influence relation between the vertices represented by an edge, for each j=1,2,...,c and Kj be the weight of criteria.

    Output: Best Alternative

    Step 1: compute fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index as described in the FMPI algorithm.

    Step 2: Evaluate rank of each vertex by using the formula

    (Xj)=cj=1KjFMPI(Xj;βYj).

    Step 3: Evaluate the normalized rank of each vertex by using the following formula, NS(Xj)=S(Xj)R(Xi)=cj=1KjFMPI(β)

    Step 4: Compare all alternatives Xj with respect to the normalised rank. If NS(Xp)>NS(Xj) of each alternative, then, XpXj and we say Xp is better than Xj.

    By following steps 1 to 3, we have found the rank of each supplier shown in Table 7, and the graphical analysis is shown in Figure 10.

    Table 7.  Comparison of Rank of Suppliers.
    Supplier's rank FMPI for fuzzy graph MPI for crisp graph 2nd ZI for crisp graph 2nd ZI for fuzzy graph Fuzzy F index for fuzzy graph
    A 4.67838 13.49591 44.90000 1.04414 1.1501
    B 3.793904 11.17315 39.50000 0.88292 0.6964
    C 3.18795 9.08443 30.60000 0.86648 0.8449
    D 3.76714 10.76287 29.30000 0.8179 0.7831
    E 3.98554 11.30991 40.60000 0.89213 0.0006
    Best Supplier A A A A A

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Figure 10.  Graphical Analysis of Rank of All Suppliers.

    After following steps 4 and 5, we have found the Normalized rank of each supplier shown in Table 8, and the graphical analysis is shown in Figure 11.

    Table 8.  Comparison of Normalized Rank of All Suppliers.
    Supplier's Normalized rank FMPI MPI for crisp graph 2nd ZI for crisp graph 2nd ZI for fuzzy graph Fuzzy F Index
    A 1 1 1 1 1
    B 0.4066 0.4734 0.6538 0.2874 0.6053
    C 0 0 0.08333 0.2147 0.7345
    D 0.3886 0.3801 0 0 0.6807
    E 0.5346 0.5045 0.7244 0.3281 0
    Best Supplier A A A A A

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Figure 11.  Comparative Analysis of Normalized Rank of All Suppliers.

    Imagine that a city transportation department aims to design the most interactive bus stop to enhance passenger experience and encourage public transportation usage. The goal is to identify a location and design a bus stop that offers the highest level of interactivity based on multiple criteria. Suppose C={C1,C2,C3,C4} are the criteria which include Accessibility(e.g., ramps, tactile markers for visually impaired), Passenger Engagement (interactive touchscreens, QR code information), Passenger Comfort (e.g., seating, shelter, lighting) and Information Availability (e.g., real-time bus schedules, route maps). Assign fuzzy membership values to each criterion to represent the degree to which a potential bus stop location satisfies that criterion.Here we consider it as weight of the criteria as W={W1,W2,W3,W4}. Now consider there are four possible locations for the bus stop L={L1,L2,L3,L4}. Represent potential bus stop locations as nodes in the fuzzy graph. Assign fuzzy values to each node based on each of the criteria. Define edge weights to represent the connectivity or accessibility between different bus stop locations. These edge weights can also have fuzzy values, reflecting the ease of reaching one location from another. Here, we consider 0.25,0.25,0.25,0.25 as the weight value for each characteristic. Now, we construct fuzzy graphs GCi for each criteria.For every GCi each vertex represents locations Lj in Figures 12, 13, 14 and 15.

    Figure 12.  GC1.
    Figure 13.  GC2.
    Figure 14.  GC3.
    Figure 15.  GC4.

    All the score values of locations are shown in Table 9.

    Table 9.  Score Values of Locations.
    Locations C1 C2 C3 C4
    L1 0.5 0.9 0.6 0.3
    L2 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.5
    L3 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.8
    L4 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.7

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    All the score values for the relation between locations in GC1 in Table 10.

    Table 10.  Score Values for the Relation Between Locations in GC1.
    R L1 L2 L3 L4
    L1 0 0.4 0.5
    L2 0.4 0 0.3
    L3 0.5 0 0.2
    L4 0.3 0.2 0

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    All the score values for the relation between locations in GC2 in Table 11.

    Table 11.  Score Values for the Relation Between Locations in GC2.
    R L1 L2 L3 L4
    L1 0 0.4 0.4
    L2 0.4 0 0.2 0.3
    L3 0.2 0 0.3
    L4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    All the score values for the relation between locations in GC3 in Table 12.

    Table 12.  Score Values for the Relation Between Locations in GC3.
    R L1 L2 L3 L4
    L1 0 0.5 0.4 0.5
    L2 0.5 0 0.5 0.6
    L3 0.4 0.5 0 0.5
    L4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    All the score values for the relation between locations in GC4 in Table 13.

    Table 13.  Score Values for the Relation Between Locations in GC4.
    R L1 L2 L3 L4
    L1 0 0.3 0.2
    L2 0 0.4 0.5
    L3 0.3 0.4 0 0.6
    L4 0.2 0.5 0.6 0

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    All the Modified Fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index of the Locations for GCi in Table 14.

    Table 14.  Modified Fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index of the Locations for GCi.
    FMPI(Lj) C1 C2 C3 C4
    FMPI(L1) 3.2339 4.1186 6.7831 3.7648
    FMPI(L2) 2.6672 4.6099 7.2282 4.069
    FMPI(L3) 2.7689 3.1929 6.648 5.8924
    FMPI(L4) 2.3890 4.9033 7.3437 5.7935

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Now, the grade of each location is evaluated by using the following formula given in Table 15:

    G(Lj)=4i=1Wi×FMPI(Ci,Lj)
    Table 15.  Grades of the locations.
    Lj L1 L2 L3 L4
    Grades 4.4764 4.6435 4.6255 5.1073

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    In this section, the comparative analysis of location grades given in Table 16 and graphical analysis in Figure 16. The normalized grades of all locations are shown in Table 17 and graphical analysis in Figure 17.

    Table 16.  Location Grades.
    Location's Grade FMPI for fuzzy graph MPI for crisp graph 2nd ZI for fuzzy graph Fuzzy F Index for Fuzzy Graph
    L1 4.4764 7.0638 1.6287 1.2331
    L2 4.6435 7.978 1.8917 1.4170
    L3 4.6255 7.978 1.7575 1.3242
    L4 5.1073 8.8922 2.0086 1.5793

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Figure 16.  Comparative Analysis of Grades of All Locations.
    Table 17.  Location Grades.
    Normalized Location's Grade FMPI for fuzzy graph MPI for crisp graph 2nd ZI for fuzzy graph Fuzzy F Index for Fuzzy Graph
    L1 0 0 0 0
    L2 0.2649 0.5 0.6923 0.5312
    L3 0.2363 0.5 0.339 0.2631
    L4 1 1 1 1

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Figure 17.  Comparative Analysis of Normalized Grades of All Locations.

    In this paper, we have defined a new topological index named fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index and also we have found some bounds of this index. By using this bound, we have defined bounds for certain classes of graphs. We have presented an algorithm for multi-criteria decision-making in daily life and applied this algorithm to a manufacturing company that needs to select suppliers for critical components used in their production process. The decision-makers are faced with the challenge of evaluating potential suppliers based on various criteria while dealing with uncertainties and imprecise information. By using the algorithm displayed in Sections 5 and 6, the fuzzy Misbalance prodeg index of every supplier with respect to all attributes is displayed in Table 6. The comparative analysis of fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index with Misbalance Prodeg Index, second Zagreb Index, and fuzzy second Zagreb Index is displayed in Table 7 and the graphical analysis of fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index with Misbalance Prodeg Index, second Zagreb Index, and fuzzy second Zagreb Index are displayed in Figure 10. The normalized rank of each supplier is computed and given in Table 8 and its graphical analysis is shown in Figure 11. Now, we display the order of the alternatives as AEBDC. Hence, A is the most suitable supplier. The same algorithm is applied in identifying the Most Interactive Bus Stop. The goal is to identify a location and design a bus stop that offers the highest level of interactivity based on multiple criteria. All the values are displayed in Tables from 9 to 15 and the comparative analysis shown in Tables 16 and 17 with graphical representation in Figures 16 and 17. So the modified fuzzy Misbalance Prodeg Index has great importance in multi-criteria decision-making analysis. In future, we will use the same idea for intuitionistic fuzzy graphs, bipolar fuzzy graphs, and Pythagorean fuzzy graphs and investigate other topological indices.

    Shama Liaqat: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal Analysis; Zeeshan Saleem Mufti:Conceptualization, Investigation, writing---review and editing; Yilun Shang; Methodology, Validation, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript for publication.

    The author declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.

    The author declare that they have no conflict of interest.



    [1] N. R. Pal, S. K. Pal, A review on image segmentation techniques, Pattern Recogn., 26 (1993), 1277–1294. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-3203(93)90135-J doi: 10.1016/0031-3203(93)90135-J
    [2] R. K. Shukla, D. Garg, A. Agarwal, An integrated approach of Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS in modeling supply chain coordination, Prod. Manuf. Res., 2 (2014), 415–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/21693277.2014.919886 doi: 10.1080/21693277.2014.919886
    [3] K. M. Prabusankarlal, P. Thirumoorthy, R. Manavalan, Computer aided breast cancer diagnosis techniques in ultrasound: A survey, J. Med. Imag. Health In., 4 (2014), 331–349. https://doi.org/10.1166/jmihi.2014.1269 doi: 10.1166/jmihi.2014.1269
    [4] L. A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Inf. Control, 8 (1965), 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X doi: 10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X
    [5] B. R. Gaines, Foundations of fuzzy reasoning, Int. J. Man-Machine Stud., 8 (1976), 623–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(76)80027-2 doi: 10.1016/S0020-7373(76)80027-2
    [6] S. Mondal, N. De, A. Pal, On some new neighbourhood degree based indices, (2019), arXiv preprint arXiv: 1906.11215, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1906.11215
    [7] M. Pal, S. Samanta, G. Ghorai, Modern trends in fuzzy graph theory, Berlin: Springer, (2020).
    [8] A. A. Dobrynin, I. Gutman, S. Klavžar, P. Žigert, Wiener index of hexagonal systems. Acta Appl. Math., 72 (2002), 247–294.
    [9] H. Hosoya, Topological index, A newly proposed quantity characterizing the topological nature of structural isomers of saturated hydrocarbons, B. Chem. Soc. Jan., 44 (1971), 2332–2339.
    [10] S. Mondal, N. De, A. Pal, Topological properties of Graphene using some novel neighborhood degree-based topological indices, Int. J. Math. Industry, 11 (2019), 1950006. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2661335219500060 doi: 10.1142/S2661335219500060
    [11] S. Hameed, U. Ahmad, Extremal values in a class of basic peri-condensed benzenoids with respect to VDB topological indices, Ars Combinatoria, 145 (2019), 367–376. https://doi:10.2298/JSC160718096A doi: 10.2298/JSC160718096A
    [12] S. R. Islam, M. Pal, Hyper-Wiener index for fuzzy graph and its application in share market, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., 41 (2021), 2073–2083. 10.3233/JIFS-210736 doi: 10.3233/JIFS-210736
    [13] S. Poulik, S. Das, G. Ghorai, Randic index of bipolar fuzzy graphs and its application in network systems, J. Appl. Math. Comput., 68 (2022), 2317–2341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12190-021-01619-5 doi: 10.1007/s12190-021-01619-5
    [14] J. Xu, J. B. Liu, A. Bilal, U. Ahmad, H. M. A. Siddiqui, B. Ali, et al., Distance degree index of some derived graphs, Mathematics, 7 (2019), 283–292. https://doi.org/10.3390/math7030283 doi: 10.3390/math7030283
    [15] A. Jahanbani, H. Shooshtari, Y. Shang, Extremal trees for the Randic index, Acta U. Sapientiae-Ma., 14 (2022), 239–249. https://doi.org/10.2478/ausm-2022-0016 doi: 10.2478/ausm-2022-0016
    [16] S. R. Islam, M. Pal, First Zagreb index on a fuzzy graph and its application, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., 40 (2021), 10575–10587. 10575-10587.10.3233/JIFS-201293
    [17] S. Kalathian, S. Ramalingam, S. Raman, N. Srinivasan, Some topological indices in fuzzy graphs, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., 39 (2020), 6033–6046. 10.3233/JIFS-189077 doi: 10.3233/JIFS-189077
    [18] S. R. Islam, M. Pal, Hyper-Wiener index for fuzzy graph and its application in share market, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., 41 (2021), 2073–2083. 10.3233/JIFS-210736 doi: 10.3233/JIFS-210736
    [19] V. R. Kulli, Some new multiplicative status indices of graphs, Int. J. Recent Sci. Res., 10 (2019), 35568–35573. http://dx.doi.org/10.24327/ijrsr.2019.1010.4131 doi: 10.24327/ijrsr.2019.1010.4131
    [20] R. Todeschini, V. Consonni, Molecular descriptors for chemoinformatics: volume Ⅰ: alphabetical listing/volume Ⅱ: appendices, references, John Wiley Sons, (2009).
    [21] I. Gutman, Geometric approach to degree-based topological indices: Sombor indices, MATCH Commun. Math. Comput. Chem., 86 (2021), 11–16.
    [22] W. Bai, J. Ding, C. Zhang, Dual hesitant fuzzy graphs with applications to multi-attribute decision making, Int. J. Cognitive Comput. Eng., 1 (2020), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcce.2020.09.002 doi: 10.1016/j.ijcce.2020.09.002
    [23] M. Randić, Novel molecular descriptor for structure—property studies, Chem. Phys. Lett., 211 (1993), 478–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2614(93)87094-J doi: 10.1016/0009-2614(93)87094-J
    [24] R. Todeschini, V. Consonni, Molecular descriptors for chemoinformatics: volume Ⅰ: alphabetical listing/volume Ⅱ: appendices, references, John Wiley Sons, (2009).
    [25] V. R. Kulli, Nirmala index, Int. J. Math. Trends Technol., 67 (2021), 8–12. https://doi.org/10.14445/22315373/IJMTT-V67I3P502
    [26] B. Zhou, N. Trinajstić, On a novel connectivity index, J. Math. Chem., 46 (2009), 1252–1270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10910-008-9515-z doi: 10.1007/s10910-008-9515-z
    [27] I. Gutman, Geometric approach to degree-based topological indices: Sombor indices, MATCH Commun. Math. Comput. Chem, 86 (2021), 11–16.
    [28] K. C. Das, A. S. Çevik, I. N. Cangul, Y. Shang, On Sombor index, Symmetry, 13 (2021), 140–151. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13010140 doi: 10.3390/sym13010140
    [29] V. R. Kulli, I. Gutman, Revan Sombor index, J. Appl. Math. Inform., 2 (2022), 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.22457/jmi.v22a03205 doi: 10.22457/jmi.v22a03205
    [30] V. R. Kulli, Status Sombor indices, Int. J. Math. Comput. Res., 10 (2022), 2726–2730. https://doi.org/10.47191/ijmcr/v10i6.05 doi: 10.47191/ijmcr/v10i6.05
    [31] I. Milovanovic, E. Milovanovic, M. Matejic, On some mathematical properties of Sombor indices, Bull. Int. Math. Virtual Inst., 11 (2021), 341–353. https://doi.org/10.7251/BIMVI2102341M doi: 10.7251/BIMVI2102341M
    [32] V. R. Kulli, I. Gutman, On some mathematical properties of Nirmala index, Annals Pure Appl. Math., 23 (2021), 93–99.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Mahdieh Azari, Nasrin Dehgardi, Some basic mathematical properties of the misbalance hadeg index of graphs, 2024, 1598-5865, 10.1007/s12190-024-02250-w
    2. Sk Rabiul Islam, Bandar Bin Mohsin, Madhumangal Pal, Hyper-Zagreb index in fuzzy environment and its application, 2024, 10, 24058440, e36110, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36110
    3. S. N. Suber Bathusha, Ganesh Ghorai, Mufti Mahamud, S. Angelin Kavitha Raj, On signless Laplacian energy of inverse dominating complex interval-valued q-rung orthopair fuzzy graph with application, 2024, 1598-5865, 10.1007/s12190-024-02319-6
    4. Nasrin Dehgardi, Mahdieh Azari, Yilun Shang, Lower bounds on trees and unicyclic graphs with respect to the misbalance rodeg index, 2025, 11, 24058440, e41235, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e41235
    5. P. Sujithra, Sunil Mathew, J.N. Mordeson, Advanced fuzzy connectivity metrics for enhancing security in dynamic network environments, 2025, 700, 00200255, 121857, 10.1016/j.ins.2024.121857
    6. Rakesh Kumar, Janjhyam Venkata Naga Ramesh, Sachi Nandan Mohanty, Muhammad Rafiq, Iskandar Shernazarov, M. Ijaz Khan, Evaluating Consumers Benefits in Electronic-Commerce Using Fuzzy TOPSIS, 2025, 26667207, 100535, 10.1016/j.rico.2025.100535
    7. Mehri Hasani, Masoud Ghods, Sourav Mondal, Muhammad Kamran Siddiqui, Imran Zulfiqar Cheema, Modeling QSPR for pyelonephritis drugs: a topological indices approach using MATLAB, 2025, 81, 1573-0484, 10.1007/s11227-025-06967-8
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2024 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(1016) PDF downloads(56) Cited by(7)

Figures and Tables

Figures(17)  /  Tables(17)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog