See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/352202652

Neutrosophic Hypersoft Matrices with Application to Solve Multiattributive

Decision-Making Problems

Article  in  Complexity · June 2021

DOI: 10.1155/2021/5589874

CITATIONS READS

0 5

6 authors, including:

Abdul Samad
Northwest University
7 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fibonacci polynomials, Lucas polynomials, Chebyshev polynomials, Numerical Integration, Partial Differential equations View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdul Samad on 08 June 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Hindawi
Complexity
Volume 2021, Article ID 5589874, 17 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5589874

Research Article
Neutrosophic Hypersoft Matrices with Application to Solve
Multiattributive Decision-Making Problems

Rana Muhammad Zulqarnain ,1 Imran Siddique,2 Rifaqat Ali ,3 Fahd Jarad ,4,5
Abdul Samad ,6 and Thabet Abdeljawad 7,8
1
Department of Mathematics, University of Management and Technology, Lahore, Sialkot Campus, Pakistan
2
Department of Mathematics, University of Management and Technology, Lahore 54770, Pakistan
3
Department of Mathematics, College of Science and Arts, King Khalid University, Muhayil, 61413 Abha, Saudi Arabia
4
Department of Mathematics, Cankaya University, Etimesgut, Ankara, Turkey
5
Department of Medical Research, China Medical University Hospital, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan
6
School of Mathematics, Northwest University, Xi’an 710127, China
7
Department of Mathematics and General Sciences, Prince Sultan University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
8
Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan

Correspondence should be addressed to Fahd Jarad; [email protected] and Thabet Abdeljawad; [email protected]

Received 26 March 2021; Accepted 22 April 2021; Published 7 June 2021

Academic Editor: Ahmed Mostafa Khalil

Copyright © 2021 Rana Muhammad Zulqarnain et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.
The concept of the neutrosophic hypersoft set (NHSS) is a parameterized family that deals with the subattributes of the parameters
and is a proper extension of the neutrosophic soft set to accurately assess the deficiencies, anxiety, and uncertainty in decision-
making. Compared with existing research, NHSS can accommodate more uncertainty, which is the most significant technique for
describing fuzzy information in the decision-making process. The main objective of the follow-up study is to develop the theory of
neutrosophic hypersoft matrix (NHSM). The NHSM is the generalized form of a neutrosophic soft matrix (NSM). Some fundamental
operations and score function for NHSMs have been introduced with their desirable properties. Furthermore, we introduce the
logical operators such as OR-operator and AND-operator with their fundamental properties in the following research. The necessity
and possibility operations for NHSMs have been established. Utilizing the developed score function, a decision-making methodology
has been developed to solve the multiattribute decision-making (MADM) problem. To ensure the validity of the proposed approach,
a numerical illustration has been described for the selection of competent faculty member. The practicality and effectiveness of the
current approach are proved through comparative analysis with the assistance of some existing studies.

1. Introduction the bivalent condition of whether the elements belong to the

set entirely. In distinction, the fuzzy set theory permits
Decision-making (DM) is one of the most interesting contemporary assessments of the remembrance of elements
problems today, choosing the right alternative for any in the set. This is signified by the Mem function, and the
particular purpose. Primarily, it was supposed that evidence actual unit interval of the Mem function is [0, 1]. The fuzzy
about possible choices was collected in crisp numbers, but in set is a simplification of the classic set since the indicator
real life, collective facts and data are always composed of function of the classic set is a special case of the Mem
inappropriate and erroneous information. A fuzzy set is like function of the fuzzy set (if the latter only takes the value 0 or
a set whose components have a degree of membership 1). In the fuzzy set theory, the classical bivalent set is
(Mem). In the classical set theory, the Mem degree of the generally named the crisp set. Fuzzy set theory can be used in
elements in the set is patterned in binary form conferring to a wide range of fields with imperfect or vague information.
2 Complexity

In some situations, decision-makers consider the Mem and operations for SS. They also merged two well-known the-
nonmembership (Nmem) values of objects. In such cases, ories such as FS and SS and established the concept of fuzzy
Zadeh’s FS is unable to handle the imprecise and vague soft sets (FSSs) [21]. They also proposed the notion of an
information. Atanassov [2] developed the notion of intui- intuitionistic fuzzy soft set (IFSS) [22] and discussed their
tionistic fuzzy sets (IFSs) to deal with the abovementioned basic operations. Garg and Arora [23] extended the notion of
difficulties. The IFS accommodates the imprecise and in- IFSS and presented a generalized form of IFSS with AOs.
accurate information using Mem and Nmem values. They also planned a DM technique to resolve undefined and
Atanassov’s IFS is unable to solve those problems in inaccurate information under IFSS information. Garg and
which decision-makers considered the membership degree Arora [24] presented the correlation and weighted corre-
(MD) and nonmembership degree (NMD) such as MD � 0.5 lation coefficients for IFSS and extended the TOPSIS
and NDM � 0.8, then 0.5 + 0.8≰1. Yager [3, 4] extended the technique using developed correlation measures. Zulqarnain
notion of IFS to Pythagorean fuzzy sets (PFSs) to overcome et al. [25] introduced some AOs and correlation coefficients
the abovediscussed complications by modifying for interval-valued IFSS. They also extended the TOPSIS
MD + NMD ≤ 1 to MD2 + NMD2 ≤ 1. After the develop- technique using their developed correlation measures and
ment of PFSs, Zhang and Xu [5] proposed operational laws utilized them to solve the MADM problem. Peng et al. [26]
for PFSs and established a DM approach to resolve the proposed the Pythagorean fuzzy soft sets (PFSSs) and
MCDM problem. Wei and Lu [6] planned some power presented fundamental operations of PFSSs with their de-
aggregation operators (AOs) and proposed a DM technique sirable properties by merging PFS and SS. Athira et al. [27]
to solve multiattribute decision-making (MADM) problems extended the notion of PFSSs and proposed entropy mea-
under the Pythagorean fuzzy environment. Wang and Li [7] sures for PFSSs. They also presented some distance measures
presented power Bonferroni mean operators for PFSs with for PFSSs and utilized their developed distance measures to
their basic properties using interaction. Gao et al. [8] pre- solve DM [28] issues. Zulqarnain et al. [29] introduced
sented several aggregation operators by considering the operational laws for Pythagorean fuzzy soft numbers
interaction and proposed a DM approach to solving MADM (PFSNs) and developed AOs such as Pythagorean fuzzy soft
difficulties by utilizing the developed operators. Wei [9] weighted average and geometric by using defined opera-
developed the interaction operational laws for Pythagorean tional laws for PFSNs. They also planned a DM approach to
fuzzy numbers (PFNs) by considering interaction and solve MADM problems with the help of presented operators.
established interaction aggregation operators by using the Riaz et al. [30] prolonged the idea of PFSSs and developed
developed interaction operations. Zhang [10] developed the the m polar PFSSs. They also established the TOPSIS method
accuracy function and presented a DM approach to solving under the considered hybrid structure and proposed a DM
multiple criteria group decision-making (MCGDM) prob- methodology to solve the MCGDM problem. Riaz et al. [31]
lems using PFNs. Wang et al. [11] extended the PFSs and developed the similarity measures for PFSS with their
introduced interactive Hamacher operation with some novel fundamental properties. Han et al. [32] protracted the
AOs. They also established a DM method to solve MADM TOPSIS method under PFSS environment and utilized their
problems by using their proposed operators. Wang and Li developed approach to solving the MAGDM problem.
[12] developed some operators for interval-valued PFSs and Zulqarnain et al. [33] planned the TOPSIS methodology in
utilized their operators to resolve multiattribute group de- the PFSS environment based on the correlation coefficient.
cision-making (MAGDM) problems. Peng and Yuan [13] They also established a DM methodology to resolve the
established some novel operators such as Pythagorean fuzzy MCGDM concerns and utilized the developed approach in
point operators and developed a DM technique using their green supply chain management.
proposed operators. Peng and Yang [14] introduced some All the above studies only deal the inadequate infor-
operations with their desirable properties under PFSs and mation because of membership and nonmembership values;
planned DM methodology to solve the MAGDM problem. however, these theories cannot handle the overall incom-
Garg [15] developed the logarithmic operational laws for patible and imprecise information. To address such in-
PFSs and proposed some AOs. Arora and Garg [16] pre- compatible and imprecise records, the idea of the
sented the operational laws for linguistic IFS and developed neutrosophic set (NS) was developed by Smarandache [34].
prioritized AOs. Ma and Xu [17] presented some innovative Maji [35] offered the concept of a neutrosophic soft set (NSS)
AOs for PFSs and proposed the score and accuracy functions with necessary operations and properties. The idea of the
for PFNs. possibility NSS was developed by Karaaslan [36] and in-
The abovementioned theories and their DM method- troduced a possibility of neutrosophic soft DM method to
ologies have been used in several fields of life, but these solve those problems which contain uncertainty based on
theories are unable to deal with the parametrization of the AND-product. Broumi [37] developed the generalized NSS
alternatives. Molodtsov [18] developed the soft sets (SSs) to with some operations and properties and used the projected
overcome the abovementioned complications. Molodtsov’s concept for DM. Deli and Subas [38] developed the single-
SS competently deals with imprecise, vague, and unclear valued neutrosophic numbers (SVNNs) to solve MCDM
information of objects considering their parametrization. problems. They also established the cut sets for SVNNs.
Maji et al. [19] prolonged the concept of SS and introduced Wang et al. [39] proposed the correlation coefficient (CC)
basic operations with their properties. Maji et al. [20] for SVNSs. Ye [40] introduced the simplified NSs with some
established a DM technique using their developed operational laws and AOs such as weighted arithmetic and
Complexity 3

weighted geometric average operators and constructed an Mondal et al. [57] presented a fuzzy and intuitionistic fuzzy
MCDM method based on his proposed AOs. Masooma et al. soft matrix and multicriteria decision-making dependent on
[41] progressed a new concept through combining the three fundamental t-norms operators. Kalaichelvi and
multipolar fuzzy set and NS which is known as the multi- Kanimozhi [58] presented the intuitionistic fuzzy soft ma-
polar NS, and they also established various characterization trices by extending the fuzzy soft matrices. Since uncertainty
and operations with examples. Zulqarnain et al. [42, 43] helps in the detailing of genuine logical numerical problems,
presented the generalized neutrosophic TOPSIS and an we tackle uncertainty with multiattribute decision-making
integrated model of neutrosophic TOPSIS, respectively, and (MADM) problems. In MADM problems, we have different
used their presented technique for supplier selection in the attributes and we select the perfect match but if we have a
production industry. complex selection like multiargument problems, then we use
All the abovementioned studies have some limitations, the concept of hypersoft set. It is observed that fuzzy
such as when any attribute from a set of attributes contains numbers can only measure uncertainty and intuitionistic
further subattribute, and then the abovepresented theories fuzzy numbers can measure the truth and falsity member-
fail to solve such types of problems. To overcome the ship values. But if we want to measure the membership
aforementioned limitations, Smarandache [44] protracted values of truth, indeterminacy, and falsity, we need to work
the idea of SS to hypersoft sets (HSSs) by substituting the in the neutrosophic environment because it is more reliable,
one-parameter function f to a multiparameter (subattribute) logical, and practical for the decision-makers. Dealing with
function. Samarandache claimed that the established HSS is neutrosophic hypersoft set is difficult because of its com-
competently dealing with uncertain objects comparative to plicated framework. From this aspect, we will attempt to
SS. Nowadays, HSS theory and its extensions have been convert neutrosophic hypersoft set to neutrosophic hyper-
arising unexpectedly. Several investigators go through soft matrix in this article.
progressed distinctive operators along with characteristics The rest of the article can be summarized like this. In
under HSS and its extensions [45, 46]. Zulqarnain et al. [47] Section 2, we presented some basic notions such as soft set,
presented the IFHSS which is the generalized version of neutrosophic soft set, hypersoft set, and neutrosophic
IFSS. They established the TOPSIS method to resolve the hypersoft sets, which are used to develop the structure of the
MADM problem utilizing the developed correlation coef- current research. In Section 3, we planned the NHSM with
ficient. Zulqarnain et al. [48] introduced the notion of the some fundamental operations and score function with their
Pythagorean fuzzy hypersoft set (PFHSS) with some fun- desirable properties. Also, we presented some logical op-
damental operations and discussed their desirable proper- erations, necessity, and possibility operators for NHSM with
ties. They also proposed the CC for PFHSS and established a their properties in Section 4. To solve the MADM problem,
decision-making approach to solve decision-making com- an algorithm is established by using the presented score
plications utilizing their developed CC. Zulqarnain et al. [49] function provided in Section 5. Moreover, the planned DM
proposed the AOs for PFHSS and correlation coefficients. method is used for the selection of the most suitable faculty
They also established the TOPSIS technique using their position. Also, we apply some available techniques to pro-
developed correlation coefficient and utilized the presented pose a comparative analysis of our planned approach in
approach for the selection of appropriate antivirus face Section 6.
masks because the above work is considered to examine the
environment of linear inequality between the MD and NMD 2. Preliminaries
of subattributes of the considered attributes. Samad et al.
[50] extended the TOPSIS technique under NHSS based on In the following section, we recalled fundamental concepts
CC and utilized their presented decision-making technique that help us to develop the structure of the current article
to solve the MADM problem. Zulqarnain et al. [51, 52] such as SS, NS, NSS, HSS, and NHSS.
extended the NHSS to interval-valued NHSS with some
fundamental operations and a decision-making technique to Definition 1 (see [18]). Let U be the universal set and E be
solve DM issues utilizing their developed CC. the set of attributes with respect to U. Let (U) be the power
Matrices perform a significant role in a wide area of set of U and A⊆E. A pair (F, A) is called a soft set over U,
science, engineering, and medical. Cagman et al. [53] pre- and its mapping is given as
sented soft matrices and applied them to the decision-
making issue. They also presented fuzzy soft matrices [54] F: A ⟶ P(U). (1)
with fundamental operations and discussed their desirable It is also defined as
properties. Furthermore, Saikia et al. [55] characterized
fuzzy soft matrices with four unique results of generalized (F, A) � {F(e) ∈ P(U): e ∈ E, F(e) � ∅, if e ∉ A}.
intuitionistic fuzzy soft matrices and introduced an appli- (2)
cation in medical diagnosis. Next, Broumi et al. [56] con-
templated a fuzzy soft matrix dependent on reference work
and characterized some new operations, for example, fuzzy Definition 2 (see [34]). Let U be a universe and A be an NS
soft compliment matrix, a trace of fuzzy soft matrix de- on U defined as A � 􏼈v, (TA (v), IA (v), CA (v)): v ∈ U􏼉,
pendent on reference work. Another fuzzy soft matrix de- where T, I, C: U ⟶ ]0− , 1+ [, and 0− ≤ TA (v) +
cision technique dependent on reference work is exhibited. IA (v) + CA (v) ≤ 3+ .
4 Complexity

Definition 3 (see [35]). Let U be the universal set and E be Table 1: Tabular representation of the characteristic function.
the set of attributes with respect to U. Let (U) be the set of La1 Lb2 ... Lzβ
neutrosophic values of U andA⊆E. A pair (F, A) is called a
neutrosophic soft set over U, and its mapping is given as u1
XRL (u , La1 )
1
XRL (u , Lb2 )
1
... XRL (u1 , Lzβ )
u2 XRL (u2 , La1 ) XRL (u2 , Lb2 ) ... XRL (u2 , Lzβ )
F: A ⟶ P(U). (3) ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮
uα XRL (uα , La1 ) XRL (uα , Lb2 ) ... XRL (uα , Lzβ )

Definition 4 (see [43]). Let U be the universal set and(U) be

the power set of U. Consider ℓ1 , ℓ2 , ℓ3 , . . . , ℓn for n ≥ 1 be n Definition 5 (see [43]). Let U be the universal set and (U) be
well-defined attributes, whose corresponding attributive the power set of E. Consider ℓ1 , ℓ2 , ℓ3 , . . . , ℓn for n ≥ 1, be n
values are, respectively, the set L1 , L2 , L3 , . . . , Ln with well-defined attributes, whose corresponding attributive
Li ∩ Lj � ∅, for i ≠ j and i, jε{1, 2, 3, . . . , n}, then the pair values are, respectively, the set L1 , L2 , L3 , . . . , Ln with
(F, L1 × L2 × L3 , . . . , Ln ) is said to be hypersoft set over Li ∩ Lj � ∅, for i ≠ j and i, jε{1, 2, 3, . . . , n} and their re-
U, where lation L1 , L2 , L3 , . . . , Ln � S, then the pair (F, S) is said
to be neutrosophic hypersoft set (NHSS) over U, where
F: L1 × L2 × L3 , . . . , Ln ⟶ P(U). (4)

F: L1 , L2 , L3 , . . . , Ln ⟶ P(U),
(5)
F􏼐L1 , L2 , L3 , . . . , Ln 􏼑 � {x, T(F(S)), I(F(S)), F(F(S)), x ∈ U},

where T is the membership value of truthiness, I is the Definition 6 Let U � 􏼈u1 , u2 , . . . , uα 􏼉 and (U) be the uni-
membership value of indeterminacy, and F is the mem- versal set and power set of universal set, respectively, and
bership value of falsity such that T, I, F: U ⟶ [0, 1] also also consider L1 , L2 , . . . , Lβ for β ≥ 1, β well-defined at-
0 ≤ T(F(S)) + I(F(S)) + F(F(S)) ≤ 3. tributes, whose corresponding attributive values are, re-
spectively, the set La1 , Lb2 , . . . , Lzβ and their relation
3. Development of Neutrosophic Hypersoft La1 × Lb2 × · · · × Lzβ , where a, b, c, . . . , z � 1, 2, . . . , n, then
Matrix with Their Fundamental Operators the pair (F, La1 × Lb2 × · · · × Lzβ ) is said to be neutrosophic
hypersoft set over U, where F: (La1 × Lb2 × · · · × Lzβ )
In this section, we introduced the notion of a neutrosophic ⟶ P(U), and it is defined as
hypersoft matrix with some basic operations and discuss
their desirable properties.

F􏼐La1 × Lb2 × · · · × Lzβ 􏼑 � 􏽮u, TL (u), IL (u), FL (u): u ∈ U, L ∈ La1 × Lb2 × · · · × Lzβ 􏽯. (6)

Let RL � La1 × Lb2 × · · · × Lzβ be the relation, and its Thus, we can represent any neutrosophic hypersoft set in
characteristic function is XRL : La1 × Lb2 × · · · × Lzβ ⟶ terms of neutrosophic hypersoft matrix (NHSM), and it
P(U); it is defined as XRL � 􏼈u, TL (u), IL (u), FL (u): means that they are interchangeable.
u ∈ U, L ∈ La1 × Lb2 × · · · ×Lzβ } and can be a representation
of RL as given in Table 1. Example 1. Let U be the set of candidates for the teaching at
If Oij � XRL (ui , Lkj ), where i � 1, 2, 3, . . . , α, j � 1, 2, 3 the college level:
, . . . , β, k � a, b, c, . . . , z, then a matrix is defined as U � 􏽮T1 , T2 , T3 , T4 , T5 􏽯, (8)
O11 O12 · · · O1β and also consider the set of attributes as
⎜
⎛
⎜ ⎟
⎞
⎟
⎜
⎜
⎜ O21
⎜ O22 · · · O2β ⎟
⎟
⎟
⎟ A1 � Qualification,
􏽨Oij 􏽩α×β � ⎜
⎜ ⎟
⎟ , (7)
⎜ ⎟
⎜
⎜
⎝ ⋮
⎜
⎜ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎟ ⎟
⎟
⎟
⎠ A2 � Experience,
(9)
Oα1 Oα2 · · · Oαβ A3 � Gender,
where Oij � (TLkj (ui ), ILkj (ui ), FLkj (ui ), ui ∈ U, Lkj ∈ La1 × A4 � Publications.
Lb2 × ··· × Lzβ ) � (Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk ). Their respective attributes are given as
Complexity 5

MS The tabular representation is given in Tables 2–5 with

Aa1 � Qualification � 􏼨BS Hons., , Phd, Post Doctorate􏼩, their neutrosophic values from different decision-makers.
Mphill
Neutrosophic hypersoft set is defined as
Ab2 � Experience � 􏼈5 yr, 8 yr, 10 yr, 15 yr􏼉,
F: 􏼐Aa1 × Ab2 × Ac3 × Ad4 􏼑 ⟶ P(U). (11)
Ac3 � Gender � {Male, Female},
Let us assume F(Aa1 × Ab2 × Ac3 × Ad4 ) � F(Mphill,
Ad4 � Publications � {3, 5, 8, 10+}. 5 yr, male, 3) � 􏼈T1 , T2 , T4 , T5 􏼉.
Then, the neutrosophic hypersoft set of aboveassumed
(10) relation is
Let the function be F: Aa1 × Ab2 × Ac3 × Ad4 ⟶ P(U).

F􏼐Aa1 × Ab2 × Ac3 × Ad4 􏼑

� F(Mphill, 5 yr, male, 3)
1
⎪
⎧
⎪ 􏼐T , {0.5, 0.3, 0.6}, {0.3, 0.4, 0.7}, {0.5, 0.6, 0.9}, {0.6, 0.4, 0.5}􏼑, ⎫
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ (12)
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 􏼐T , {0.3, 0.2, 0.1}, {0.6, 0.5, 0.3}, {0.7, 0.8, 0.3}, {0.7, 0.5, 0.3}􏼑, ⎪
⎪
⎨
2 ⎪
⎬
�⎪ ⎪.
⎪ 􏼐T , {0.7, 0.3, 0.6}, {0.6, 0.4, 0.8}, {0.8, 0.5, 0.4}, {0.6, 0.2, 0.1}􏼑, ⎪
4
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎩ 􏼐T5 , {0.5, 0.4, 0.5}, {0.3, 0.6, 0.7}, {0.9, 0.2, 0.1}, {0.4, 0.5, 0.3}􏼑 ⎪
⎪ ⎭

The tabular representation of a characteristic function is Also, it can be represented in matrix form as follows:
given in Table 6.

(0.5, 0.3, 0.6) (0.3, 0.4, 0.7) (0.5, 0.6, 0.9) (0.6, 0.4, 0.5)
⎢
⎡
⎢ ⎤⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢ (0.3, 0.2, 0.1) (0.6, 0.5, 0.3) (0.7, 0.8, 0.3) (0.7, 0.5, 0.3) ⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥
[O]4×4 �⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎥⎥⎥. (13)
⎢
⎢
⎣ (0.7, 0.3, 0.6)
⎢
⎢ (0.6, 0.4, 0.8) (0.8, 0.5, 0.4) (0.6, 0.2, 0.1) ⎥⎥⎥⎥⎦
(0.5, 0.4, 0.5) (0.3, 0.6, 0.7) (0.9, 0.2, 0.1) (0.4, 0.5, 0.3)

Definition 7 Let O � [Oij ] be the NHSM of order α × β, Definition 9 Let O � [Oij ] be the square NHSM of order
where Oij � (Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk ), then O is said to be square α × β, where Oij � (Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk ), then O is said to be
NHSM if α � β. It means that if an NHSM has the same symmetric NHSM if Ot � O, i.e.,
o o o o o o
number of rows (attributes) and columns (alternatives), then (Tijk , Iijk , Fijk ) � (Tjki , Ijki , Fjki ).
it is a square NHSM.
Definition 10 Let O � [Oij ] be the NHSM of order α × β,
Definition 8 Let O � [Oij ] be the square NHSM of order
where Oij � (Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk ) and s be any scalar, then the
α × β, where Oij � (Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk ), then Ot is said to be
product of matrix O and a scalar s is a matrix formed by
the transpose of square NHSM if rows and columns of O are
multiplying each element of matrix O by s. It is denoted as
interchanged. It is denoted as
sO � [sOij ], where 0 ≤ s ≤ 1.
t t
Ot � 􏽨Oij 􏽩 � 􏼐Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk 􏼑 � 􏼐Tojki , Iojki , Fojki 􏼑 � 􏽨Oji 􏽩.
(14) Example 2. Let us consider an NHSM [O]4×4 .

(0.5, 0.3, 0.6) (0.3, 0.4, 0.7) (0.5, 0.6, 0.9) (0.6, 0.4, 0.5)
⎢
⎡
⎢ ⎤⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢ (0.3, 0.2, 0.1) (0.6, 0.5, 0.3) (0.7, 0.8, 0.3) (0.7, 0.5, 0.3) ⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥
[O]4×4 �⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢ ⎥⎥⎥, (15)
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎣ (0.7, 0.3, 0.6)
⎢ (0.6, 0.4, 0.8) (0.8, 0.5, 0.4) (0.6, 0.2, 0.1) ⎥⎥⎥⎥⎦
(0.5, 0.4, 0.5) (0.3, 0.6, 0.7) (0.9, 0.2, 0.1) (0.4, 0.5, 0.3)
6 Complexity

Table 2: Opinion of decision-makers for all alternatives against Aa1 .

Aa1 (Qualification) T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
BS Hons. (0.4,0.5,0.8) (0.7,0.6,0.4) (0.4,0.5,0.7) (0.5,0.3,0.7) (0.5,0.3,0.8)
MS/MPhil. (0.5,0.3,0.6) (0.3,0.2,0.1) (0.3,0.6,0.2) (0.7,0.3,0.6) (0.5,0.4,0.5)
Ph.D. (0.8,0.2,0.4) (0.9,0.5,0.3) (0.9,0.4,0.1) (0.6,0.3,0.2) (0.6,0.1,0.2)
Postdoctorate (0.9,0.3,0.1) (0.5,0.2,0.1) (0.8,0.5,0.2) (0.8,0.2,0.1) (0.7,0.4,0.2)

Table 3: Opinion of decision-makers for all alternatives against Ab2 .

Ab2 (Experience (yr)) T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
5 (0.3,0.4,0.7) (0.6,0.5,0.3) (0.5,0.6,0.8) (0.6,0.4,0.8) (0.3,0.6,0.7)
8 (0.4,0.2,0.5) (0.8,0.1,0.2) (0.4,0.7,0.3) (0.4,0.8,0.7) (0.7,0.5,0.6)
10 (0.7,0.2,0.3) (0.9,0.3,0.1) (0.8,0.3,0.2) (0.5,0.4,0.3) (0.5,0.2,0.1)
15 (0.8,0.2,0.1) (0.6,0.4,0.3) (0.9,0.4,0.1) (0.6,0.2,0.3) (0.5,0.3,0.2)

Table 4: Opinion of decision-makers for all alternatives against Ac3 .

Ac3 (Gender) T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
Male (0.5, 0.6, 0.9) (0.7, 0.8, 0.3) (0.6, 0.4, 0.3) (0.8, 0.5, 0.4) (0.9, 0.2, 0.1)
Female (0.6, 0.4, 0.7) (0.3, 0.6, 0.4) (0.8, 0.2, 0.1) (0.4, 0.5, 0.6) (0.8, 0.4, 0.2)

Table 5: Opinion of decision-makers for all alternatives against Ad4 .

Ad4 (Publication) T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
3 (0.6, 0.4, 0.5) (0.7, 0.5, 0.3) (0.6, 0.4, 0.3) (0.6, 0.2, 0.1) (0.4, 0.5, 0.3)
5 (0.8, 0.2, 0.4) (0.7, 0.3, 0.2) (0.8, 0.3, 0.1) (0.3, 0.4, 0.5) (0.3, 0.5, 0.8)
8 (0.5, 0.3, 0.4) (0.6, 0.3, 0.4) (0.5, 0.7, 0.2) (0.8, 0.4, 0.1) (0.7, 0.4, 0.3)
10 + (0.4, 0.9, 0.6) (0.8, 0.4, 0.2) (0.2, 0.6, 0.5) (0.7, 0.5, 0.2) (0.6, 0.4, 0.7)

Table 6: Characteristic function of NHSS.

Aa1 Ab2 Ac3 Ad4
T1 (0.5, 0.3, 0.6) (0.3, 0.4, 0.7) (0.5, 0.6, 0.9) (0.6, 0.4, 0.5)
T2 (0.3, 0.2, 0.1) (0.6, 0.5, 0.3) (0.7, 0.8, 0.3) (0.7, 0.5, 0.3)
T4 (0.7, 0.3, 0.6) (0.6, 0.4, 0.8) (0.8, 0.5, 0.4) (0.6, 0.2, 0.1)
T5 (0.5, 0.4, 0.5) (0.3, 0.6, 0.7) (0.9, 0.2, 0.1) (0.4, 0.5, 0.3)

and 0.1 be the scalar, then scalar multiplication of NHSM

[O]4×4 is given as

(0.05, 0.03, 0.06) (0.03, 0.04, 0.07) (0.03, 0.04, 0.07) (0.06, 0.04, 0.05)
⎢
⎡
⎢ ⎤⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢ (0.03, 0.02, 0.01)
⎢ (0.06, 0.05, 0.03) (0.07, 0.08, 0.03) (0.07, 0.05, 0.03) ⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥
[(0.1)O]4×4 �⎢
⎢ ⎥⎥⎥. (16)
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎣ (0.07, 0.03, 0.06)
⎢
⎢ (0.06, 0.04, 0.08) (0.08, 0.05, 0.04) (0.06, 0.02, 0.01) ⎥⎥⎥⎥⎦
(0.05, 0.04, 0.05) (0.03, 0.06, 0.07) (0.09, 0.02, 0.01) (0.04, 0.05, 0.03)

s(tO) � s􏽨tOij 􏽩 � s􏽨􏼐tToijk , tIoijk , tFoijk 􏼑􏽩

Proposition 1. Let O � [Oij ] and M � [Mij ] be two
NHSMs, where Oij � (Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk ) and Mij � (TM � 􏽨􏼐stToijk , stIoijk , stFoijk 􏼑􏽩 � st􏽨􏼐Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk 􏼑􏽩 (17)
ijk ,

IM M � st􏽨Oij 􏽩 � (st)O.
ijk , Fijk ). For two scalars s, t ∈ [0, 1], then

(1) s(tO) � (st)O

Since Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk ∈ [0, 1], then sToijk ≤ tToijk ,
(2) If s < t, then sO < tO.
sIoijk ≤ tIoijk , sFoijk ≤ tFoijk .
(3) If O⊆M, then sO⊆sM. Now,

Proof
Complexity 7

sO � 􏽨sOij 􏽩 � 􏽨􏼐sToijk , sIoijk , sFoijk 􏼑􏽩 ≤ 􏽨􏼐tToijk , tIoijk , tFoijk 􏼑􏽩 � 􏽨tOij 􏽩 � tO,

O⊆M⇒􏽨Oij 􏽩⊆􏽨Mij 􏽩
⇒Toijk ≤ TM o M o M
ijk , Iijk ≤ Iijk , Fijk ≥ Fijk
(18)
⇒sToijk ≤ sTM o M o M
ijk , sIijk ≤ sIijk , sFijk ≥ sFijk

⇒s􏽨Oij 􏽩⊆s􏽨Mij 􏽩
⇒sO⊆sM.

Similarly, we can prove assertions 1 and 2. □ Proof. Since Ot ∈ NHSMα×β , then(Ot )t ∈ NHSMα×β . Now,
t t o o o t t
Theorem 1. Let O � [Oij ] be the NHSM of order α × β, 􏼐O 􏼑 � 􏼒􏽨􏼐Tijk , Iijk , Fijk 􏼑􏽩 􏼓
where Oij � (Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk ). Then, t
� 􏼐􏽨􏼐Tojki , Iojki , Fojki 􏼑􏽩􏼑 (20)
(1) (sO)t � sOt , where s ∈ [0, 1].
(2) (Ot )t � O. � 􏽨􏼐Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk 􏼑􏽩 � O.
(3) If O � [Oij ] is the upper triangular NHSM, then Ot is
□
lower triangular NHSM and vice versa.
Definition 11. Let O � [Oij ] be the square NHSM of order
t α × β, where Oij � (Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk ) and α � β. Then, the
Proof. Here, (sO) , sOt ∈ NHSMα×β , so
trace of NHSM is denoted as tr(O) and is defined as
t
(sO)t � 􏽨􏼐sToijk , sIoijk , sFoijk 􏼑􏽩 tr(O) � 􏽐α,z o o o
i�1,k�a [Tiik − (Iiik + Fiik )].

� 􏽨􏼐sTojki , sIojki , sFojki 􏼑􏽩

(19) Example 3. Let us consider an NHSM [O]4×4 .
� s􏽨􏼐Tojki , Iojki , Fojki 􏼑􏽩
t
� s􏽨􏼐Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk 􏼑􏽩 � sOt .
□

(0.5, 0.3, 0.6) (0.3, 0.4, 0.7) (0.5, 0.6, 0.9) (0.6, 0.4, 0.5)
⎢
⎡
⎢ ⎤⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢ (0.3, 0.2, 0.1) (0.6, 0.5, 0.3) (0.7, 0.8, 0.3) (0.7, 0.5, 0.3) ⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥
[O]4×4 �⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢ ⎥⎥⎥. (21)
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎣ (0.7, 0.3, 0.6)
⎢ (0.6, 0.4, 0.8) (0.8, 0.5, 0.4) (0.6, 0.2, 0.1) ⎥⎥⎥⎥⎦
(0.5, 0.4, 0.5) (0.3, 0.6, 0.7) (0.9, 0.2, 0.1) (0.4, 0.5, 0.3)

Then, tr(O) � (0.5 − 0.3 − 0.6) + (0.6 − 0.5 − 0.3) + Proof

(0.8 − 0.5 − 0.4)+ (0.4 − 0.5 − 0.3) � − 1.1.

Proposition 2. Let O � [Oij ] be the square NHSM of order

α × β, where Oij � (Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk ) and α � β, and s be any
scalar, then tr(sO) � str(O).

α,z
tr(sO) � 􏽘 􏼂sToiik − sIoiik + sFoiik 􏼁􏼃
i�1,k�a
α,z
(22)
� s 􏽘 􏼂Toiik − Ioiik + Foiik 􏼁􏼃
i�1,k�a

� str(O).
□
8 Complexity

Definition 12. Let O � [Oij ] and M � [Mjm ] be two columns of O is equal to several rows of M ). If
NHSMs, where Oij � (Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk ) and Mjm � (TM jkm ,
O � [Oij ]α×βand M � [Mjm ]β×c, then OM � [Sim ]α×c,
IM , FM
). Then, O and M are said to be conformable if where
jkm jkm
their dimensions are equal to each other (the number of

o M o M o M
􏼂Sim 􏼃 � 􏼐maxjk min􏼐Tijk , Tjkm 􏼑, minjk max􏼐Iijk , Ijkm 􏼑, minjk max􏼐Fijk , Fjkm 􏼑􏼑. (23)

Theorem 2. Let O � [Oij ]α×βand M � [Mjm ]β×c be two Proof. Let O■M � [Sim ]α×c, then (O■M)t � [Smi ]c×α, Ot
NHSMs, where Oij � (Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk ) and Mjm � (TM
jkm ,
� [Oji ]β×α, Mt � [Mmj ]c×β.
M M t t t Now,
Ijkm , Fjkm ). Then, (O■M) � M ■O .

(O■M)t � 􏼐TS S S
kmi , Ikmi , Fkmi 􏼑c×α

� 􏼐maxjk min􏼐TM o M o M 0
mjk , Tjki 􏼑, minjk max􏼐Imjk , Ijki 􏼑, minjk max􏼐Fmjk , Fjki 􏼑􏼑c×α
(24)
� 􏼐TM M M o o 0
mjk , Imjk , Fmjk 􏼑c×β ■􏼐Tjki , Ijki , Fjki 􏼑β×α

� Mt ■Ot .

□
Definition 13. Let O � [Oij ] and M � [Mij ] be two Mij � (TM M M
ijk , Iijk , Fijk ). Then, their union is defined as
NHSMs, where Oij � (Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk ) and follows:

o M
􏼐Iijk + Iijk 􏼑
O ∪ M � S, where Tsijk � max􏼐Toijk , TM s
ijk 􏼑, Iijk � , Fsijk � min􏼐Foijk , FM
ijk 􏼑.
(25)
2

Definition 14. Let O � [Oij ] and M � [Mij ] be two

NHSMs, where Oij � (Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk ) and Mij � (TM ijk ,
M M
Iijk , Fijk ). Then, their intersection is defined as follows:

o M
􏼐Iijk + Iijk 􏼑
O ∩ M � S, where Tsijk � min􏼐Toijk , TM s
ijk 􏼑, Iijk � , Fsijk � max􏼐Foijk , FM
ijk 􏼑.
(26)
2

Proposition 3. Let O � [Oij ] and M � [Mij ] be two upper Theorem 3. Let O � [Oij ] and M � [Mij ] be two NHSMs,
triangular NHSMs, where Oij � (Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk ) and where Oij � (Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk ) and Mij � (TM M M
ijk , Iijk , Fijk ).
Mij � (TM M M
ijk , Iijk , Fijk ). Then, (O ∪ M), (O ∩ M), (O⊕M), Then,
(O⊕ M), (O ⊙ M), and (O ⊙ w M) are all upper triangular
w
(1) (O ∪ M)◇ � O◇ ∩ M◇ .
NHSMs and vice versa.
Complexity 9

(2) (O ∩ M)◇ � O◇ ∪ M◇ . Proof

o M ◇
⎢ 􏼐Iijk + Iijk 􏼑
(O ∪ M) � ⎡
◇⎝max􏼐To , TM 􏼑,
⎣⎛ , min􏼐Foijk , FM ⎠⎤⎥⎦
⎞
ijk ijk ijk 􏼑
2

o M
􏼐Iijk + Iijk 􏼑
�⎢
⎣⎝min􏼐Fo , FM 􏼑,
⎡⎛
ijk ijk , max􏼐Toijk , TM
ijk 􏼑
⎠⎥⎦⎤
⎞
2
(27)
� 􏼐Foijk , Ioijk , Toijk 􏼑 ∩ 􏼐FM M M
ijk , Iijk , Tijk 􏼑

◇ ◇
� 􏼐Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk 􏼑 ∩ 􏼐TM M M
ijk , Iijk , Fijk 􏼑

� O◇ ∩ M◇ .

□
Proof

◇
⎢ 􏼐Ioijk + IM
ijk 􏼑
(O ∩ M)◇ � ⎡⎝min􏼐To , TM 􏼑,
⎣⎛ , max􏼐Foijk , FM ⎠⎤⎥⎦
⎞
ijk ijk ijk 􏼑
2

o M
⎢ 􏼐Iijk + Iijk 􏼑
�⎡⎝max􏼐Fo , FM 􏼑,
⎣⎛ , min􏼐Toijk , TM ⎠⎤⎥⎦
⎞
ijk ijk ijk 􏼑
2
(28)
� 􏼐Foijk , Ioijk , Toijk 􏼑 ∪ 􏼐FM M M
ijk , Iijk , Tijk 􏼑

◇ ◇
� 􏼐Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk 􏼑 ∪ 􏼐TM M M
ijk , Iijk , Fijk 􏼑

� O◇ ∪ M◇ .

□
Theorem 4. Let O � [Oij ] and M � [Mij ] be two NHSMs, (2) (O ∩ M) � (M ∩ O).
where Oij � (Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk ) and Mij � (TM M M
ijk , Iijk , Fijk ).
Then,
Proof
(1) (O ∪ M) � (M ∪ O).

o M
⎢ 􏼐Iijk + Iijk 􏼑
(O ∪ M) � ⎡⎝max􏼐To , TM 􏼑,
⎣⎛ , min􏼐Foijk , FM ⎠⎤⎥⎦
⎞
ijk ijk ijk 􏼑
2

M o
⎢ 􏼐Iijk + Iijk 􏼑
�⎡⎛max􏼐TM , To 􏼑,
⎣⎝ , min􏼐FM o ⎠ ⎞⎤⎥⎦
ijk ijk ijk , Fijk 􏼑 (29)
2

� 􏼐TM M M o o o
ijk , Iijk , Fijk 􏼑 ∪ 􏼐Tijk , Iijk , Fijk 􏼑

� (M ∪ O).
□
10 Complexity

Proof

o M
􏼐Iijk + Iijk 􏼑
(O ∩ M) � ⎢
⎣⎝min􏼐To , TM 􏼑,
⎡⎛
ijk ijk , max􏼐Foijk , FM
ijk 􏼑
⎠⎥⎦⎤
⎞
2

M o
⎢ 􏼐Iijk + Iijk 􏼑
�⎡⎝min􏼐TM , To 􏼑,
⎣⎛ , max􏼐FM o ⎞ ⎠⎤⎥⎦
ijk ijk ijk , Fijk 􏼑 (30)
2

� 􏼐TM M M o o o
ijk , Iijk , Fijk 􏼑 ∩ 􏼐Tijk , Iijk , Fijk 􏼑

� (M ∩ O).

□
Theorem 5. Let O � [Oij ], M � [Mij ], and N � [Mij ]be Proof
NHSM, where Oij � (Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk ), Mij � (TM M
ijk , Iijk ,
N
FM N N
ijk ), and Nij � (Tijk , Iijk , Fijk ). Then,

(O ∪ M) ∪ N � O ∪ (M ∪ N),
(31)
(O ∩ M) ∩ N � O ∩ (M ∩ N).

o M
⎢ 􏼐Iijk + Iijk 􏼑
(O ∪ M) ∪ N � ⎡⎛max􏼐To , TM 􏼑,
⎣⎝ , min􏼐Foijk , FM ⎞⎤⎥⎦ ∪ 􏽨􏼐TN , IN , FN 􏼑􏽩
⎠
ijk ijk ijk 􏼑 ijk ijk ijk
2

o M N
⎢ 􏼐Iijk + Iijk + Iijk 􏼑
�⎡⎝max􏼐To , TM , TN 􏼑,
⎣⎛ , min􏼐Foijk , FM N ⎞ ⎠⎤⎥⎦
ijk ijk ijk ijk , Fijk 􏼑
3

O M N
⎢ 􏼐Iijk + Iijk + Iijk 􏼑
�⎡⎛max􏼐TO , TM , TN 􏼑,
⎣⎝ , min􏼐FO M N ⎠ ⎞⎤⎥⎦
ijk ijk ijk ijk , Fijk , Fijk 􏼑 (32)
3

􏼐 IM N
ijk + Iijk 􏼑
� 􏼐TO O O ⎡⎢⎣⎛
⎝max􏼐TM , TN 􏼑, , min􏼐FM N ⎞ ⎠⎤⎥⎦
ijk , Iijk , Fijk 􏼑 ∪ ijk ijk ijk , Fijk 􏼑
2

M M M N N N
� 􏼐TO O O
ijk , Iijk , Fijk 􏼑 ∪ 􏼐􏼐Tijk , Iijk , Fijk 􏼑 ∪ 􏼐Tijk , Iijk , Fijk 􏼑􏼑

� O ∪ (M ∪ N).

Assertion 2 is similar to assertion 1. □ IM M

ijk , Fijk ). Then, OR-operation between them is defined as
follows:
M
T(O∨M) � max􏽮TO
ijk , Tijk 􏽯,
4. Logical Operations for NHSMs with
M
Their Properties I(O∨M) � min􏽮IO
ijk , Iijk 􏽯, (33)
M
In this section, we develop some logical operators for NHSM F(O∨M) � min􏽮FO
ijk , Fijk 􏽯.
with their desirable properties and also introduce the no-
tions of necessity and possibility operators for NHSM.
Definition 16. Let O � [Oij ] and M � [Mij ] be two
NHSMs, where Oij � (Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk ) and
Definition 15. Let O � [Oij ] and M � [Mij ] be two M M M
Mij � (Tijk , Iijk , Fijk ). Then, AND-operation between
NHSMs, where Oij � (Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk ) and Mij � (TM
ijk , them is defined as follows:
Complexity 11

T(O∨M) � min􏽮TO M Definition 18. Let O � [Oij ] be an NHSM, where

ijk , Tijk 􏽯,
Oij � (Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk ). Then, the possibility operator for
M
I(O∨M) � max􏽮IO
ijk , Iijk 􏽯, (34) NHSM is represented as ⊗O and defined as follows:
F(O∨M) � max􏽮FO M
ijk , Fijk 􏽯.
⊗ O � 􏼐1 − Foijk , Ioijk , Foijk 􏼑. (36)

Proposition 5. Let O � [Oij ] and M � [Mij ] be two

Proposition 4. Let O � [Oij ], M � [Mij ], and N � [Mij ]
NHSMs, where Oij � (Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk ) and
be three NHSMs, where Oij � (Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk ), M M M
Mij � (Tijk , Iijk , Fijk ). Then,
Mij � (TM M M
ijk , Iijk , Fijk ), and Nij � (TN N N
ijk , Iijk , Fijk ).
Then, (1) ⊕(O ∪ M) � ⊕O ∪ ⊕M.
(1) O∨M � M∨O. (2) ⊕(O ∩ M) � ⊕O ∩ ⊕M.
(2) O∧M � M∧O. (3) ⊗(O ∪ M) � ⊗ O ∪ ⊗ M.
(3) O∨(M∨N) � (O∨M)∨N. (4) ⊗(O ∩ M) � ⊗ O ∩ ⊗ M.
(4) O∧(M∧N) � (O∧M)∧N.
Proof. We know that O � [Oij ] � (Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk ) and
M � [Mij ] � (TM M M
ijk , Iijk , Fijk ) are two NHSMs. Then,
Proof. The proof of the above proposition is utilizing Definition 13, we get
straightforward. □
O ∪ M � 􏼐Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk 􏼑 ∪ 􏼐TM M M
ijk , Iijk , Fijk 􏼑,

Definition 17. Let O � [Oij ] be an NHSM, where 􏼐Ioijk + IM

ijk 􏼑
⎝max􏼐To , TM 􏼑,
O∪ M �⎛ , min􏼐Foijk , FM ⎠
⎞
Oij � (Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk ). Then, the necessity operator for ijk ijk
2 ijk 􏼑 .
NHSM is represented as ⊕O and defined as follows:
(37)
⊕O � 􏼐Toijk , Ioijk , 1 − Toijk 􏼑. (35)
Utilizing Definition 17, we get

o M
􏼐Iijk + Iijk 􏼑
⎝max􏼐To , TM 􏼑,
⊕(O ∪ M) � ⎛ , 1 − max􏼐Toijk , TM ⎠
⎞
ijk ijk ijk 􏼑 . (38)
2

Again, using Definition 17, we have Then, utilizing Definition 13, we have
⊕O � 􏼐Toijk , Ioijk , 1 − Toijk 􏼑,
(39)
⊕M � 􏼐TM M M
ijk , Iijk , 1 − Tijk 􏼑.

􏼐Ioijk + IM
ijk 􏼑
⎝max􏼐To , TM 􏼑,
⊕O ∪ ⊕M � ⎛ , min􏼐1 − Toijk , 1 − TM ⎠
⎞
ijk ijk ijk 􏼑 ,
2
(40)
􏼐 Ioijk + IM
ijk 􏼑
⊕O ∪ ⊕M ⎝max􏼐To , TM 􏼑,
�⎛ ,1 − max􏼐Toijk , TM ⎠
⎞
ijk ijk ijk 􏼑 .
2

O ∪ M � 􏼐Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk 􏼑 ∪ 􏼐TM M M

ijk , Iijk , Fijk 􏼑,
Hence,
⊕(O ∪ M) � ⊕O ∪ ⊕M. (41) 􏼐Ioijk + IM
ijk 􏼑
⎝max􏼐To , TM 􏼑,
O∪ M �⎛ , min􏼐Foijk , FM ⎠
⎞
□ ijk ijk ijk 􏼑 .
2
(42)
Proof. It is similar to assertion 1. □
Utilizing Definition 18, we get
Proof. We know that O � [Oij ] � (Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk ) and
M � [Mij ] � (TM M M
ijk , Iijk , Fijk ) are two NHSMs. Then,
utilizing Definition 14, we get
12 Complexity

o M
􏼐Iijk + Iijk 􏼑
⎝1 − min􏼐Fo , FM 􏼑,
⊗ (O ∪ M) � ⎛ , min􏼐Foijk , FM ⎠
⎞ (43)
ijk ijk ijk 􏼑 .
2

Again, using Definition 18, we have Then, utilizing Definition 13, we get
⊗ O � 􏼐1 − Foijk , Ioijk , Foijk 􏼑,
(44)
⊗ M � 􏼐 1 − FM M M
ijk , Iijk , Fijk 􏼑.

o M
􏼐Iijk + Iijk 􏼑
⎝max􏼐1 − Fo , 1 − FM 􏼑,
⊗O∪ ⊗M �⎛ , min􏼐Foijk , FM ⎠
⎞
ijk ijk ijk 􏼑 ,
2
(45)
o M
􏼐Iijk + Iijk 􏼑
⎝1 − min􏼐Fo , FM 􏼑,
⊗O∪ ⊗M �⎛ , min􏼐Foijk , FM ⎠
⎞
ijk ijk ijk 􏼑 .
2

Hence, score function is also a real matrix that is obtained from two
or more value matrices. The algorithm of the presented
⊗ (O ∪ M) � ⊗ O ∪ ⊗ M. (46)
□ approach is given as follows.

Proof. It is similar to assertion 3. □

5.1. Algorithm. Step 1: construct an NHSM.
Definition 19. Let O � [Oij ] be the NHSM of order α × β, Step 2: calculate the value matrix from NHSM. Let O �
where Oij � (Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk ), then the value of matrix O is [Oij ] be the NHSM of order α × β, where
denoted as V(O) and it is defined as V(O) � [VO ij ] of order
Oij � (Toijk , Ioijk , Foijk ), then the value of matrix O is
α × β, where VO o o o
ij � Tijk − Iijk , − Fijk . The score of two
denoted as V(O) and it is defined as V(O) � [VO ij ] of
NHSMs O � [Oij ] and M � [Mij ] of order α × β is given as order α × β, whereVO ij � T o
ijk − I o
ijk , − Fo
ijk .
S(O, M) � V(O) + V(M) and S(O, M) � [Sij ], where Step 3: compute score matrix with the help of value
M
Sij � VOij + Vij . The total score of each object in the matrices. The score of two NHSMs O � [Oij ] and M �
universal set is | 􏽐nj�1 Sij |. [Mij ] of order α × β is given as S(O, M) � V(O) +
M
V(M) and S(O, M) � [Sij ], where Sij � VO ij + Vij .
5. A Decision-Making Approach for Step 4: compute the total score from the score matrix.
Neutrosophic Hypersoft Matrix Using The total score of each object in the universal set is
Score Function | 􏽐nj�1 Sij |.
A set of decision-makers wants to choose the appropriate Step 5: find the optimal solution by selecting an object
alternative from α number of alternatives. Decision-makers of maximum score from the total score matrix.
select the attributes (β) for the selection of the most suitable
alternative. If anyone attribute has further subattributes
which form a relation like NHSM, every decision-maker 5.2. Application of the Proposed Approach. Let
gives his preference for each alternative according to the U � 􏼈T1 , T2 , T3 , T4 , T5 , T6 , T7 , T8 , T9 , T10 , T11 , T12 ,
subattributes of the considered attributes in form of NHSMs T13 , T14 , T15 } be a collection of applicants for the position
and obtained an NHSM of order α × β. From this NHSM, we of a faculty member in the public sector. The president of the
calculate values of matrices, which help to obtain a scoring institution hires a team of decision-makers {A, B} for the
matrix, and finally, we calculate the total score of each al- selection of the most competent faculty member. Also, the
ternative from the score matrix. The value matrices are president instructs decision-makers about the selection
matrices that obey all properties of the real matrices. The procedure of the alternative such as

A � 􏼈A1 � Qualification, A2 � Experience, A3 � Gender, A4 � Publications􏼉. (47)

Complexity 13

Furthermore, the abovementioned attributes have fur-

ther bifurcation and can be classified as follows:

MS
Aa1 � Qualification � 􏼨BS Hons., , Phd, Post Doctorate􏼩,
Mphill

Ab2 � Experience � 􏼈5 yr, 8 yr, 10 yr, 15 yr􏼉, (48)

Ac3 � Gender � {Male, Female},

Ad4 � Publications � {3, 5, 8, 10+}.

Then, a seniority basis, four are shortlisted 􏼈T2 , T6 , T8 , T14 􏼉

according to the above-defined relation (Mphill,
F: Aa1 × Ab2 × Ac3 × Ad4 ⟶ P(U). (49) 5 yr, male, 3). The team of decision-makers {A, B} interviews
Assume the relation F(Aa1 × Ab2 × Ac3 × Ad4 ) � F the shortlisted candidates. Both decision-makers give their
(Mphill, 5 yr, male, 3) is the actual requirement of the in- opinion for each alternative in the form of NHSM given as
stitute for the selection of the most competent candidate. On follows:

A � F(Mphill, 5 yr, male, 3)

2
⎪
⎧
⎪ 􏼐T , {0.5, 0.3, 0.6}, {0.3, 0.4, 0.7}, {0.5, 0.6, 0.9}, {0.6, 0.4, 0.5}􏼑, ⎫⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 􏼐T , {0.3, 0.2, 0.1}, {0.6, 0.5, 0.3}, {0.7, 0.8, 0.3}, {0.7, 0.5, 0.3}􏼑, ⎪
⎨
6 ⎪
⎬
�⎪ ⎪,
⎪ 􏼐T8 , {0.7, 0.3, 0.6}, {0.6, 0.4, 0.8}, {0.8, 0.5, 0.4}, {0.6, 0.2, 0.1}􏼑, ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎩ 􏼐T , {0.5, 0.4, 0.5}, {0.3, 0.6, 0.7}, {0.9, 0.2, 0.1}, {0.4, 0.5, 0.3}􏼑 ⎭
14

(50)
B � F(Mphill, 5 yr, male, 3)
2
⎪
⎧
⎪ 􏼐T , {0.8, 0.1, 0.2}, {0.7, 0.4, 0.3}, {0.4, 0.6, 0.3}, {0.5, 0.3, 0.5}􏼑, ⎫ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 6 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ 􏼐 T , { 0.8, 0.2, 0.1 }, { 0.7, 0.4, 0.3}, {0.8, 0.2, 0.1 }, { 0.9, 0.3, 0.2 }􏼑, ⎪
⎬
�⎪ ⎪.
⎪
⎪ 􏼐T , {0.5, 0.3, 0.4}, {0.7, 0.3, 0.2}, {0.9, 0.2, 0.1}, {0.4, 0.2, 0.7}􏼑, ⎪
8
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎩ 􏼐T14 , {0.7, 0.4, 0.2}, {0.2, 0.4, 0.7}, {0.7, 0.2, 0.1}, {0.6, 0.3, 0.4}􏼑 ⎪ ⎭

Utilize the above-developed algorithm such as follows: Step 1. The above two NHSSs are given in the form of
NHSMs as

(0.5, 0.3, 0.6) (0.3, 0.4, 0.7) (0.5, 0.6, 0.9) (0.6, 0.4, 0.5)
⎢
⎡
⎢ ⎤⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢ (0.3, 0.2, 0.1) (0.6, 0.5, 0.3) (0.7, 0.8, 0.3) (0.7, 0.5, 0.3) ⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥
[A] � ⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎥⎥⎥,
⎢
⎢
⎣ (0.7, 0.3, 0.6)
⎢
⎢ (0.6, 0.4, 0.8) (0.8, 0.5, 0.4) (0.6, 0.2, 0.1) ⎥⎥⎥⎥⎦
(0.5, 0.4, 0.5) (0.3, 0.6, 0.7) (0.9, 0.2, 0.1) (0.4, 0.5, 0.3)
(51)
(0.8, 0.1, 0.2) (0.7, 0.4, 0.3) (0.4, 0.6, 0.3) (0.5, 0.3, 0.5)
⎢
⎡
⎢ ⎥⎥⎤
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢ (0.8, 0.2, 0.1)
⎢ (0.7, 0.4, 0.3) (0.8, 0.2, 0.1) (0.9, 0.3, 0.2) ⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥
[B] � ⎢
⎢
⎢ ⎥⎥⎥.
⎢
⎢
⎣ (0.5, 0.3, 0.4)
⎢
⎢ (0.7, 0.3, 0.2) (0.9, 0.2, 0.1) (0.4, 0.2, 0.7) ⎥⎥⎥⎥⎦
(0.7, 0.4, 0.2) (0.2, 0.4, 0.7) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.4)
14 Complexity

Table 7: Comparative analysis of final ranking with existing studies.

Methods Ranking of alternatives Optimal alternatives
Cagman and Enginoglu [53] T2 > T14 > T8 > T6 T2
Cagman and Enginoglu [54] T2 > T8 > T14 > T6 T2
Mondal and Roy [57] T2 > T14 > T8 > T6 T2
Deli and Broumi [59] T2 > T14 > T6 > T8 T2
Proposed approach T2 > T14 > T8 > T6 T2

Step 2. Now, calculate the value matrices of NHSMs the object can be interpreted more accurately and objec-
defined in step I. tively. It is also a useful tool for solving inaccurate and
imprecise data in the DM process. Therefore, the inspiration
− 0.4 − 0.8 − 1 − 0.3
⎢
⎡
⎢ ⎤⎥⎥ for the score value corresponding to each parameter will not
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢ 0 − 0.2 − 0.4 − 0.1 ⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥ affect other parameters, so predictable information loss will
[V(A)] � ⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢ ⎥⎥⎥,
occur in the process. On the contrary, there is no serious loss
⎢
⎢
⎣−
⎢
⎢ 0.2 − 0.6 − 0.1 − 0.3 ⎥⎥⎥⎥⎦
of information in our proposed approach. The benefit of the
− 0.4 − 1 − .6 − 0.4 planned method along with related measures over existing
(52)
0.5 0 − 0.5 − 0.3 methods is that it not just notices the degree of discrimi-
⎢
⎡
⎢ ⎤⎥⎥ nation, but the degree of similarity between observations so
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢ 0.5 0 0.5 0.4 ⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥
[V(B)] � ⎢
⎢ ⎥⎥⎥. that avoiding decisions is based on negative reasons.
⎢
⎢
⎢ ⎥⎥
⎣ − 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.5 ⎥⎥⎦
⎢
⎢ Therefore, it is a suitable tool to combine inaccurate and
0.1 − 0.9 0.4 − 0.1 uncertain info in the DM process.

Step 3. Now, compute the score matrix by adding value

6.2. Discussion. By utilizing the methodology of Cagman
matrices obtained in step II.
and Enginoglu [53], we can process the parametric values of
0.1 − 0.8 − 1.5 − 0.6 the alternative, but soft matrices have no information about
⎢
⎡
⎢
⎢ ⎤⎥⎥ the multi-subattributes of the considered parameters.
⎢
⎢
⎢ 0.5 − 0.2 0.1 0.3 ⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥
[S(A, B)] � ⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢ ⎥⎥⎥. (53) Cagman and Enginoglu [54] deal with the uncertainty
⎢
⎢
⎣ − 0.4
⎢
⎢ − 0.4 0.5 − 0.2 ⎥⎥⎥⎥⎦ considering MD, but the fuzzy soft matrix cannot deliver the
− 0.3 − 1.9 1 − 0.5 NMD of any attribute of the alternative. To overcome such
difficulties, Mondal and Roy [57] utilized the intuitionistic
Step 4. Now, a total score of score matrix is given as fuzzy soft matrices using MD and NMD of the parametrized
family of attributes, but intuitionistic fuzzy soft matrices
2.8 provide no information about the indeterminacy part of the
⎢
⎡
⎢
⎢ ⎤⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢ 0.1 ⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥ object. Deli and Broumi [59] established neutrosophic soft
Total score � ⎢
⎢
⎢ ⎥⎥⎥. (54) matrices competently handle the truthiness, indeterminacy,
⎢
⎢ ⎥⎥
⎣ 0.5 ⎥⎥⎦
⎢
⎢ and falsity objects of the attributes, but all the above-
1.7 mentioned studies have no information about the sub-
attributes of the considered attributes, when attributes have
Step 5. The candidate T2 will be selected for a faculty their corresponding subattributes, then all abovementioned
position in the public sector as the total score of T2 is theories fail to handle the situation. On the contrary, our
highest among the rest of the total score of candidates. presented notion competently deals with such difficulties
considering the truthness, indeterminacy, and falsity objects
6. Discussion and Comparative Analysis of any subattribute of the considered parameters with the
following condition 0 ≤ T(v) + I(v) + F(v) ≤ 3. Conse-
In the subsequent section, we are going to compare and quently, relying upon the obtained results, it can be confi-
discuss our proposed decision-making methodology with dently concluded that the proposed methodology indicates a
some existing techniques. higher stability and usability for decision-makers in the DM
procedure. The presented NHSM is unable to deal with the
6.1. Comparative Analysis. Through the current exploration situation, when the information is delivered in interval form.
along with comparative, it can be concluded that the results The final ranking of the proposed technique and prevailing
acquired by the proposed approach overlap with the ac- methodologies is seen in Table 7.
cessible methodologies. However, in connection with ac-
cessible decision-making techniques, the main benefit of the 7. Conclusion
proposed method is that it comprises additional information
utilizing the membership, nonmembership, and indeter- In this paper, we extend the notion of NHSS to a neu-
minacy of subattributes of considered attributes to address trosophic hypersoft matrix with some basic operations and
uncertainty in data. Among them, the information related to discussed their desirable properties. We also proposed the
Complexity 15

score matrix for NHSM and furthermore introduced the [8] H. Gao, M. Lu, G. Wei, and Y. Wei, “Some novel pythagorean
logical operators, necessity, and possibility operators under fuzzy interaction aggregation operators in multiple attribute
considered environment. A decision-making methodology decision making,” Fundamenta Informaticae, vol. 159, no. 4,
has been established with the assistance of the score matrix pp. 385–428, 2018.
to solve the MADM problem. Consequently, relying upon [9] G. Wei, “Pythagorean fuzzy interaction aggregation operators
the obtained outcomes, it can be confidently concluded that and their application to multiple attribute decision making,”
Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, vol. 33, no. 4,
the proposed methodology indicates a greater constancy and
pp. 2119–2132, 2017.
usability for decision-makers in the DM process. To ensure
[10] X. Zhang, “A novel approach based on similarity measure for
the practicality of the established approach, a comparative pythagorean fuzzy multiple criteria group decision making,”
study has been conducted. Future research will surely International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 31, no. 6,
concentrate upon presenting several other operators to solve pp. 593–611, 2016.
decision-making complications utilizing NHSM. The sug- [11] L. Wang, H. Garg, and N. Li, “Pythagorean fuzzy interactive
gested idea can be applied in quite a lot of issues in real life, hamacher power aggregation operators for assessment of
including the medical profession, pattern recognition, and express service quality with entropy weight,” Soft Computing,
economics. We are sure this article will open new vistas for pp. 1–21, 2020.
investigators in this field. [12] L. Wang and N. Li, “Continuous interval-valued Pythagorean
fuzzy aggregation operators for multiple attribute group
decision making,” Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems,
Data Availability
vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 6245–6263, 2019.
No such type of data is used in this research. [13] X. Peng and H. Yuan, “Fundamental properties of pythag-
orean fuzzy aggregation operators,” Fundamenta Informati-
cae, vol. 147, no. 4, pp. 415–446, 2016.
Conflicts of Interest [14] X. Peng and Y. Yang, “Some results for pythagorean fuzzy
sets,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 30,
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest. no. 11, pp. 1133–1160, 2015.
[15] H. Garg, “New logarithmic operational laws and their ag-
Authors’ Contributions gregation operators for pythagorean fuzzy set and their ap-
plications,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems,
Rana Muhammad Zulqarnain, Fahd Jarad, Thabet Abdel- vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 82–106, 2019.
jawad, and Abdul Samad contributed equally to this work. [16] R. Arora and H. Garg, “Group decision-making method based
on prioritized linguistic intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation op-
Acknowledgments erators and its fundamental properties,” Computational and
Applied Mathematics, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 1–36, 2019.
The author Rifaqat Ali would like to express his gratitude to [17] Z. Ma and Z. Xu, “Symmetric pythagorean fuzzy weighted
Deanship of Scientific Research at King Khalid University, geometric/averaging operators and their application in
Saudi Arabia, for funding research groups under the re- multicriteria decision-making problems,” International
search grant number R.G.P. 1/162/42. Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 1198–1219,
2016.
[18] D. Molodtsov, “Soft set theory-First results,” Computers &
References Mathematics with Applications, vol. 37, no. 4-5, pp. 19–31,
1999.
[1] L. A. Zadeh, “Fuzzy sets,” Information and Control, vol. 8,
[19] P. K. Maji, R. Biswas, and A. R. Roy, “Soft set theory,”
no. 3, pp. 338–353, 1965.
Computers & Mathematics with Applications, vol. 45, no. 4-5,
[2] K. T. Atanassov, “Intuitionistic fuzzy sets,” Fuzzy Sets and
Systems, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 87–96, 1986. pp. 555–562, 2003.
[3] R. R. Yager, “Pythagorean fuzzy subsets,” in Proceedings Joint [20] P. K. Maji, A. R. Roy, and R. Biswas, “An application of soft
IFSA World Congress and NAFIPS Annual Meeting, pp. 57–61, sets in a decision making problem,” Computers & Mathe-
Edmonton, Canada, 2013. matics with Applications, vol. 44, no. 8-9, pp. 1077–1083, 2002.
[4] R. R. Yager, “Pythagorean membership grades in multicriteria [21] P. K. Maji, R. Biswas, and A. R. Roy, “Fuzzy soft sets,” Journal
decision making,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, of Fuzzy Mathematics, vol. 9, pp. 589–602, 2001.
vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 958–965, 2014. [22] P. K. Maji, R. Biswas, and A. R. Roy, “Intuitionistic fuzzy soft
[5] X. Zhang and Z. Xu, “Extension of TOPSIS to multiple criteria sets,” Journal of Fuzzy Mathematics, vol. 9, pp. 677–692, 2001.
decision making with pythagorean fuzzy sets,” International [23] H. Garg and R. Arora, “Generalized and group-based gen-
Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 29, no. 12, pp. 1061–1078, eralized intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets with applications in
2014. decision-making,” Applied Intelligence, vol. 48, no. 2,
[6] G. Wei and M. Lu, “Pythagorean fuzzy power aggregation pp. 343–356, 2018.
operators in multiple attribute decision making,” Interna- [24] H. Garg, R. Arora, and R. Arora, “TOPSIS method based on
tional Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 169–186, correlation coefficient for solving decision-making problems
2018. with intuitionistic fuzzy soft set information,” AIMS Math-
[7] L. Wang and N. Li, “Pythagorean fuzzy interaction power ematics, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 2944–2966, 2020.
bonferroni mean aggregation operators in multiple attribute [25] R. M. Zulqarnain, X. L. Xin, M. Saqlain, and W. A. Khan,
decision making,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, “TOPSIS method based on the correlation coefficient of in-
vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 150–183, 2020. terval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets and aggregation
16 Complexity

operators with their application in decision-making,” Journal [43] R. M. Zulqarnain, X. L. Xin, M. Saqlain, F. Smarandache, and
of Mathematics, vol. 2021, Article ID 6656858, 16 pages, 2021. M. I. Ahamad, “An integrated model of neutrosophic TOPSIS
[26] X. Peng, Y. Yang, and J. Song, “Pythagoren fuzzy soft set and with application in multi-criteria decision-making problem,”
its application,” Computer Engineering, vol. 41, no. 7, Neutrosophic Sets, and Systems, vol. 40, pp. 118–133, 2021.
pp. 224–229, 2015. [44] F. Smarandache, “Extension of soft set to hypersoft set, and
[27] T. M. Athira, S. J. John, and H. Garg, “A novel entropy then to plithogenic hypersoft set,” Neutrosophic Sets and
measure of pythagorean fuzzy soft sets,” AIMS Mathematics, Systems, vol. 22, pp. 168–170, 2018.
vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1050–1061, 2020. [45] S. Rana, M. Qayyum, M. Saeed, and F. Smarandache, “Pli-
[28] T. M. Athira, S. J. John, and H. Garg, “Entropy and distance thogenic fuzzy whole hypersoft set: construction of operators
measures of pythagorean fuzzy soft sets and their applica- and their application in frequency matrix multi attribute
tions,” Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, vol. 37, no. 3, decision making technique,” Neutrosophic Sets and Systems,
pp. 4071–4084, 2019. vol. 28, pp. 34–50, 2019.
[29] R. M. Zulqarnain, X. L. Xin, H. Garg, and W. A. Khan, [46] R. M. Zulqarnain, X. L. Xin, M. Saqlain, and F. Smarandache,
“Aggregation operators of pythagorean fuzzy soft sets with “Generalized aggregate operators on neutrosophic hypersoft
their application for green supplier chain management,” set,” Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, vol. 36, pp. 271–281, 2020.
Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, vol. 40, no. 3, [47] R. M. Zulqarnain, X. L. Xin, and M. Saeed, “Extension of
pp. 5545–5563, 2021. TOPSIS method under intuitionistic fuzzy hypersoft envi-
[30] M. Riaz, K. Naeem, and D. Afzal, “Pythagorean m-polar fuzzy ronment based on correlation coefficient and aggregation
soft sets with TOPSIS method for MCGDM,” Punjab Uni- operators to solve decision making problem,” AIMS Mathe-
versity Journal of Mathematics, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 21–46, 2020. matics, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 2732–2755, 2020.
[31] M. Riaz, N. Khalid, and D. Afzal, “A similarity measure under [48] R. M. Zulqarnain, X. L. Xin, and M. Saeed, A Development of
pythagorean fuzzy soft environment with applications,” Pythagorean Fuzzy Hypersoft Set with Basic Operations and
Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol. 39, no. 4, Decision-Making Approach Based on the Correlation Coeffi-
pp. 1–17, 2020. cient, Theory and Application of Hypersoft Set, pp. 85–106,
[32] Q. Han, W. Li, Y. Song, T. Zhang, and R. Wang, “A new Pons Publishing House Brussels, Rotterdam, Netherlands,
method for MAGDM based on improved TOPSIS and a novel 2021.
pythagorean fuzzy soft entropy,” Symmetry, vol. 11, no. 7, [49] R. M. Zulqarnain, I. Saddique, F. Jarad, R. Ali, and
p. 905, 2019. T. Abdeljawad, “Development of TOPSIS technique under
[33] R. M. Zulqarnain, X. L. Xin, I. Siddique, W. Asghar Khan, and pythagorean fuzzy hypersoft environment based on correla-
M. A. Yousif, “TOPSIS method based on correlation coeffi- tion coefficient and its application towards the selection of
cient under pythagorean fuzzy soft environment and its ap- antivirus mask in COVID-19 pandemic,” Complexity,
plication towards green supply chain management,” vol. 2021, Article ID 6634991, 27 pages.
Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 4, p. 1642, 2021. [50] A. Samad, R. M. Zulqarnain, E. Sermutlu et al., “Selection of
[34] F. Smarandache, Neutrosophy: Neutrosophic Probability, Set, an effective hand sanitizer to reduce covid-19 effects and
and Logic: Analytic Synthesis & Synthetic Analysis, Rehoboth extension of topsis technique based on correlation coefficient
Press, Coimbatore, India, 1998. under neutrosophic hypersoft set,” Complexity, Article ID
[35] P. K. Maji, “Neutrosophic soft set,” Annals of Fuzzy Math- 5531830, 19 pages.
ematics and Informatics, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 157–168, 2013. [51] R. M. Zulqarnain, X. L. Xin, M. Saqlain, M. Saeed,
[36] F. Karaaslan, “Possibility neutrosophic soft sets and PNS- F. Smarandache, and M. I. Ahamad, “Some fundamental
decision making method,” Applied Soft Computing Journal, operations on interval valued neutrosophic hypersoft set with
vol. 54, pp. 403–414, 2016. their properties,” Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, vol. 40,
[37] S. Broumi, “Generalized neutrosophic soft set,” International pp. 134–148, 2021.
Journal of Computer Science, Engineering and Information [52] R. M. Zulqarnain, X. L. Xin, B. Ali, S. Broumi, S. Abdal, and
Technology, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 17–30, 2013. M. I. Ahamad, “Decision-making approach based on corre-
[38] I. Deli and Y. Şubaş, “A ranking method of single valued lation coefficient with its properties under interval-valued
neutrosophic numbers and its applications to multi-attribute neutrosophic hypersoft set environment,” Neutrosophic Sets
decision making problems,” International Journal of Machine and Systems, vol. 40, pp. 12–28, 2021.
Learning and Cybernetics, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1309–1322, 2017. [53] N. Cagman and S. Enginoglu, “Soft matrix theory and its
[39] H. Wang, F. Smarandache, and Y. Zhang, “Single valued decision making,” Computers and Mathematics with Appli-
neutrosophic sets,” International Journal of General Systems, cations, vol. 59, pp. 3308–3314, 2010.
vol. 42, pp. 386–394, 2013. [54] N. Cagman and S. Enginolu, “Fuzzy soft matrix theory and its
[40] J. Ye, “A multicriteria decision-making method using ag- applications in decision making,” Iranian Journal of Fuzzy
gregation operators for simplified neutrosophic sets,” Journal Systems, vol. 9/1, pp. 109–119, 2012.
of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 2459–2466, [55] B. K. Saikia, H. Boruah, and H. Boruah, “An appliaction of
2014. generalized fuzzy soft matrices in decision making problem,”
[41] M. R. Hashmi, M. Riaz, and F. Smarandache, “m-Polar IOSR Journal of Mathematics, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 33–41, 2014.
neutrosophic topology with applications to multi criteria [56] S. Broumi, F. Smarandache, and M. Dhar, “On fuzzy soft
decision-making in medical diagnosis and clustering analy- matrix based on reference function,” International Journal of
sis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 2019. Information Engineering and Electronic Business, vol. 5, no. 2,
[42] R. M. Zulqarnain, X. L. Xin, M. Saeed, F. Smarandache, and pp. 52–59, 2013.
N. Ahmad, “Generalized neutrosophic TOPSIS to solve multi- [57] J. I. Mondal and T. K. Roy, “Some properties on intuitionistic
criteria decision-making problems,” Neutrosophic Sets and fuzzy soft matrices,” International Journal of Mathematics
Systems, vol. 38, pp. 276–292, 2020. Research, vol. 5/2, pp. 267–276, 2013.
Complexity 17

[58] A. Kalaichelvi and P. Kanimozhi, “Impact of excessve tele-

vision Viewing by children an analysis using intuitionistic
fuzzy soft Matrces,” Int Jr. Of Mathematics Sciences and
Applications, vol. 3/1, pp. 103–108, 2013.
[59] I. Deli and S. Broumi, “Neutrosophic soft matrices and NSM-
decision making,” Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems,
vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 2233–2241, 2015.

View publication stats