A Novel Technique for Solving the Uncertainty under the Environment of Neutrosophic Theory of Choice
محورهای موضوعی : Transactions on Fuzzy Sets and Systems
Tabasam Rashid
1
,
Aamir Mehboob
2
,
Ismat Beg
3
1 - Department of Mathematics, University of Management & Technology, Lahore, Pakistan.
2 - Department of Mathematics, University of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan.
3 - Department of Mathematics and Statistical Sciences, Lahore School of Economics, Lahore, Pakistan.
کلید واژه: Fuzzy set, Neutrosophic set, Neutrosophic probability, Game theory, Focus theory.,
چکیده مقاله :
When it comes to solving dynamic programming challenges, it is essential to have a well-structured decision theory. As a result, the decision-makers must operate in a dynamically complicated environment where appropriate and rapid reaction in a cooperative way is the fundamental key to effectively completing the task. We express a theory of decision modeling and axiomatizing a decision-making process. The payoffs and probabilities are represented with simplified neutrosophic sets. We therefore, provide the theory of choice with the implementation of simplified neutrosophic sets. By exploiting the idea of pure strategy, we introduce two steps: in the first step, for each attractive point, some particular event is selected that can bring about a relatively neutrosophic upper payoff with a relatively neutrosophic upper probability or a relatively neutrosophic lower payoff with a relatively neutrosophic upper probability. A decision-maker selects the most favored attractive point in the second stage, based on the focus on all attractive points. Neutrosophic focus theory has been introduced to improve overall performance with more flexibility in complex decision-making. The approach suggested in this work has been implemented in a real-life example to determine its effectiveness. The proposed method is shown to be the most useful for ranking scenarios and addressing dynamic programming problems in decision-making.
When it comes to solving dynamic programming challenges, it is essential to have a well-structured decision theory. As a result, the decision-makers must operate in a dynamically complicated environment where appropriate and rapid reaction in a cooperative way is the fundamental key to effectively completing the task. We express a theory of decision modeling and axiomatizing a decision-making process. The payoffs and probabilities are represented with simplified neutrosophic sets. We therefore, provide the theory of choice with the implementation of simplified neutrosophic sets. By exploiting the idea of pure strategy, we introduce two steps: in the first step, for each attractive point, some particular event is selected that can bring about a relatively neutrosophic upper payoff with a relatively neutrosophic upper probability or a relatively neutrosophic lower payoff with a relatively neutrosophic upper probability. A decision-maker selects the most favored attractive point in the second stage, based on the focus on all attractive points. Neutrosophic focus theory has been introduced to improve overall performance with more flexibility in complex decision-making. The approach suggested in this work has been implemented in a real-life example to determine its effectiveness. The proposed method is shown to be the most useful for ranking scenarios and addressing dynamic programming problems in decision-making.
[1] Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control. 1965; 8(3): 338-353. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X
[2] Atanassov KT. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 1986; 20(1): 87-96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(86)80034-3
[3] Smarandache F. A Unifying Field in Logics: Neutrosophic Logic. American Research Press, In Philosophy; 1999. DOI: https://10.6084/M9.FIGSHARE.1014204
[4] Wang H, Smarandache F, Zhang Y, Sunderraman R. Single valued neutrosophic sets. Infinite study. 2010; 410-413.
[5] Wang H, Smarandache F, Sunderraman R, Zhang YQ. Interval Neutrosophic Sets and Logic: Theory and Applications in Computing. Infinite Study; 2005. DOI: https://10.5281/zenodo.8818
[6] Wang JQ, Li XE. TODIM method with multi-valued neutrosophic sets. Control Decis. 2015; 30(6): 1139-1142. DOI: https://10.13195/j.kzyjc.2014.0467
[7] Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princceton University Press; 1944. DOI: https://10.2307/2280142
[8] Cunlin L, Qiang Z. Nash equilibrium strategy for fuzzy non-cooperative games. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 2011; 176(1): 46-55. DOI: https://10.1016/j.fss.2011.03.015
[9] Nishizaki I, Sakawa M. Equilibrium solution in bimatrix games with fuzzy payoffs. Japan. J. Fuzzy Theory Systems. 1997; 9(3): 307-324. DOI: https://10.3156/JFUZZY.9.3 384
[10] Ferguson TS. Game Theory Text. Mathematics Department UCLA; 2008.
[11] Campos L. Fuzzy linear programming models to solve fuzzy matrix games. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 1989; 32(3): 275-289. DOI: https://10.1016/0165-0114(89)90260-1
[12] Li DF. Decision and Game Theory in Management with Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets. Berlin: springer; 2014. DOI: https://10.1007/978-3-642-40712-3
[13] Guo P. Focus theory of choice and its application to resolving the St. Petersburg, Allais, and Ellsberg paradoxes and other anomalies. European Journal of Operational Research. 2019; 276(3): 1034-1043. DOI: https://10.1016/j.ejor.2019.01.019
[14] Mahboob A, Rashid T, Salabun W. An intuitionistic approach for one-shot decision making. Open J. Math. Sci. 2018; 2(1): 164-178. DOI: https://10.30538/oms2018.0026
[15] Mahboob A, Rashid T. Multistage decision approach for short life cycle products using Pythagorean fuzzy set. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems. 2021; 40(1): 1342-1356. DOI: https://10.3233/jifs201661
[16] Mahboob A, Rashid T, Sindhu MS. An optimization preference based approach with hesitant intuitionistic linguistic distribution in group decision making. Expert Systems with Applications. 2022; 187: 115965. DOI: https://10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115965
[17] Rashid T, Mahboob A, Beg I. Bilevel Approach for E-Bidding Auction with Regret Theory. In Real Life Applications of Multiple Criteria Decision Making Techniques in Fuzzy Domain. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore; 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4929-6 15
[18] Bandyopadhyay S, Nayak PK, Pal M. Solution of matrix game in intuitionistic fuzzy environment. International Journal of Computational Engineering Research. 2013; 3(1): 84-89.
[19] Bandyopadhyay S, Nayak PK, Pal M. Solution of matrix game with triangular intuitionistic fuzzy pay-off using score function. Open Journal of Optimization. 2013; 2(1): 9-15. DOI: https://10.4236/ojop.2013.21002
[20] Arunthavanathan S, Goratti L, Maggi L, De Pellegrini F, Kandeepan S, Reisenfield S. An optimal transmission strategy in zero-sum matrix games under intelligent jamming attacks. Wireless Networks. 2019; 25(4): 1777-1789. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11276-017-1629-4
[21] Bhaumik A, Roy SK, Li DF. Analysis of triangular intuitionistic fuzzy matrix games using robust ranking. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems. 2017; 33(1): 327-336. DOI: https://10.3233/JIFS-161631
[22] Jana J, Roy SK. Dual hesitant fuzzy matrix games: Based on new similarity measure. Soft Computing. 2019; 23(18): 8873-8886. DOI: https://10.1007/s00500-018-3486-1
[23] Roy SK, Maiti SK. Reduction methods of type-2 fuzzy variables and their applications to Stackelberg game. Applied Intelligence. 2020; 50(5): 1398-1415. DOI: https://10.1007/s10489-019-01578-2
[24] Sindhu MS, Rashid T, Kashif A. Selection of Alternative under the Framework of Single-Valued Neutrosophic Sets. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems; 2020. DOI: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss journal/vol35/iss1/32
[25] Gl¨ockner A, Herbold AK. An eye-tracking study on information processing in risky decisions: Evidence for compensatory strategies based on automatic processes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2011; 24(1): 71-98. DOI: https://10.1002/BDM.684
[26] Stewart N, Hermens F, Matthews WJ. Eye movements in risky choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2016; 29(2-3): 116-136. DOI: https://10.1002/bdm.1854
[27] Zhou L, Zhang YY, Wang ZJ, Rao LL, Wang W, Li S, Liang ZY. A scanpath analysis of the risky decision-making process. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2016; 29(2-3): 169-182. DOI: https://10.1002/BDM.1943
[28] Wedell DH, B¨ockenholt U. Contemplating single versus multiple encounters of a risky prospect. The American Journal of Psychology. 1994; 107(4): 499-518. DOI: https://10.2307/1422997
[29] Brandst¨atter E, Gigerenzer G, Hertwig R. The priority heuristic: Making choices without trade-offs. Psychological Review. 2006; 113(2): 409-432. DOI: https://10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.409
[30] Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. science. 1981; 211(4481): 453-458. DOI: https://10.1126/SCIENCE.7455683
[31] Ye J. A multicriteria decision-making method using aggregation operators for simplified neutrosophic sets. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems. 2014; 26(5): 2459-2466. DOI: https://10.3233/IFS-130916
[32] S¸ahin R. Multi-criteria neutrosophic decision making method based on score and accuracy functions under neutrosophic environment. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.5202. 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1412.5202
[33] Simon HA. Rational decision making in business organizations. The American Economic Review. 1979; 69(4): 493-513. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1808698
[34] Peng JJ, Wang JQ, Wang J, Zhang HY, Chen XH. Simplified neutrosophic sets and their applications in multi-criteria group decision-making problems. International journal of systems science. 2016; 47(10): 2342-2358. DOI: https://10.1080/00207721.2014.994050
[35] Shafir E, Simonson I, Tversky A. Reason-based choice. Cognition. 1993; 49(1-2): 11-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(93)90034-S
[36] Nisbett RE, Wilson TD. Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review. 1977; 84(3): 231-259. DOI: https://10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231
