This paper proposes a new method, which combines the Power operator and the evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS) method to deal with the fuzzy multi-criteria group decision problem in the Single-valued triangular Neutrosophic sets (SVTNS) environment. Firstly, we define the normalized Euclidean distance between two single-valued triangular Neutrosophic numbers, and propose the Power weighted averaging (PWA) operator, Power weighted geometric (PWG) operator, generalized Power weighted averaging (GPWA) operator and generalized Power weighted geometric (GPWG) operator of SVTNS. Then, those operators and EDAS method are combined to construct a new multi-criteria group decision-making model. Finally, the model is applied to the problem of the investment projects selection, which proves its applicability and feasibility.
Turksen, Interval valued fuzzy sets based on normal forms, Fuzzy Sets & Systems20(2) (1986), 191–210.
4.
GauW.L. and BuehrerD.J., Vague sets, IEEE Transactions on Systems Man & Cybernetics23(2) (1993), 610–614.
5.
AtanassovK. and GargovG., Interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems31(3) (1989), 343–349.
6.
TorraV. and NarukawaY., On hesitant fuzzy sets and decision, IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems, 2009. Fuzz-Ieee. IEEE, 2009: 1378–1382.
7.
ZhuB., XuZ.S. and XiaM.M., Dual Hesitant Fuzzy Sets, Journal of Applied Mathematics11 (2012), 2607–2645.
8.
YagerR.R., Pythagorean Membership Grades in Multicriteria Decision Making, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems22(4) (2014), 958–965.
9.
SmarandacheF., A unifying field in logics: Neutrosophic logic, Multiple-Valued Logic8(3) (1999), 489–503.
10.
WangH., SmarandacheF., ZhangY.Q. and SunderramanR., Interval Neutrosophic Sets and Logic: Theory and Applications in Computing,vi, Computer Science65(4) (2005), 87.
11.
WangH., SmarandacheF., ZhangY.Q. and SunderramanR., Single Valued Neutrosophic Sets, Review of the Air Force Academy (1) (2010), 10–14.
12.
YeJ., Vector similarity measures of simplified Neutrosophic sets and their application in multicriteria decision making, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems16(2) (2014), 204–211.
13.
BiswasP., PramanikS. and GiriB.C., Aggregation of triangular fuzzy Neutrosophic set information and its application to multi-attribute decision making, Neutrosophic Sets & Systems6(12) (2016), 20–40.
14.
WangJ., WeiG.W. and LuM., An Extended VIKOR Method for Multiple Criteria Group Decision Making with Triangular Fuzzy Neutrosophic Numbers, Symmetry10 (2018), 497.
15.
YagerR.R., The power average operator, Systems Man & Cybernetics Part A Systems & Humans IEEE Transactions on31(6) (2001), 724–731.
16.
XuZ.S. and YagerR.R., Power-Geometric Operators and Their Use in Group Decision Making, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems18(1) (2010), 94–105.
17.
ZhouL.G., ChenH.Y. and LiuJ.P., Generalized power aggregation operators and their applications in group decision making, Computers & Industrial Engineering62(4) (2012), 989–999.
18.
JuD.W., JuY.B. and WangA.H., Multi-attribute group decision making based on power generalized Heronian mean operator under hesitant fuzzy linguistic environment, Soft Computing23(2019), 3823–3842.
19.
LiuP.D. and LiH.G., Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Power Bonferroni Aggregation Operators and Their Application to Group Decision Making, Cognitive Computation9(4) (2017), 494–512.
20.
LiuP.D. and LiuW.Q., Multiple-attribute group decision-making based on power Bonferroni operators of linguistic q-rung orthopair fuzzy numbers, International Journal of Intelligent Systems34(6) (2019), 652–689.
21.
WeiG.W. and ZhangZ.P., Some single-valued Neutrosophic Bonferroni power aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making, Journal of Ambient Intelligence & Humanized Computing10(3) (2019), 863–882.
22.
KhanQ., LiuP.D., MahmoodT., SmarandacheF. and UllahK., Some Interval Neutrosophic Dombi Power Bonferroni Mean Operators and Their Application in Multi-Attribute Decision-Making, Symmetry10(2018), 459.
23.
LiuP.D., Multiple attribute group decision making method based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy power Heronian aggregation operators, Computers & Industrial Engineering108(2017), 199–212.
24.
YangY., ChenZ.S., ChenY.H. and ChinK.S., Interval-valued Pythagorean Fuzzy Frank Power Aggregation Operators based on An Isomorphic Frank Dual Triple, International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems11(1) (2018), 1091–1110.
25.
WeiG.W. and LuM., Pythagorean fuzzy power aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making, International Journal of Intelligent Systems33(1) (2018), 169–186.
26.
LiuP.D. and LiuX., The Neutrosophic number generalized weighted power averaging operator and its application in multiple attribute group decision making, International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics9(2) (2018), 347–358.
27.
KhanQ., HassanN. and TahirT.M., Neutrosophic Cubic Power Muirhead Mean Operators with Uncertain Data for Multi-Attribute Decision-Making, Symmetry10 (2018), 444.
28.
LiaL., ZhangR.T., WangJ., ZhuX.M. and XingY.P., Pythagorean fuzzy power Muirhead mean operators with their application to multi-attribute decision making, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems35 (2018), 2035–2050.
29.
LiuP.D., KhanQ., MahmoodT. and HassanN., T-Spherical Fuzzy Power Muirhead Mean Operator Based on Novel Operational Laws and Their Application in Multi-Attribute Group Decision Making, Digital Object Identifier7 (2019), 22613–22632.
30.
GhorabaeeM.K., ZavadskasE.K., OlfatL. and TurskisZ., Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS), Informatica26(3) (2015), 435–451.
31.
GhorabaeeM.K., ZavadskasE.K., AmiriM. and TurskisZ., Extended EDAS method for fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making: An application to supplier selection, International Journal of Computers Communications & Control11(3) (2016), 358–371.
32.
GhorabaeeM.K., AmiriM., ZavadskasE.K., TurskisZ. and AntuchevicieneJ., A new multi-criteria model based on interval type-2 fuzzy sets and EDAS method for supplier evaluation and order allocation with environmental considerations, Computers & Industrial Engineering112 (2017), 156–174.
33.
PengX.D. and LiuC., Algorithms for Neutrosophic Soft Decision Making Based on EDAS and New Similarity Measure, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems32(1) (2017), 955–968.
34.
KaraşanA. and KahramanC., A novel interval-valued Neutrosophic EDAS method: Prioritization of the United Nations national sustainable development goals, Soft Computing22(15) (2018), 4891–4906.
35.
LiangW.Z., ZhaoG.Y. and LuoS.Z., An Integrated EDAS-ELECTRE Method with Picture Fuzzy Information for Cleaner Production Evaluation in Gold Mines, IEEE Access6 (2018), 65747–65759.
36.
EcerF., Third-party logistics (3PLs) provider selection via Fuzzy AHP and EDAS integrated model, Technological and Economic Development of Economy24(2) (2018), 615–634.
37.
LiY.Y., WangJ.Q. and WangT.L., A Linguistic Neutrosophic Multi-criteria Group Decision-Making Approach with EDAS Method, Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering44(3) (2019), 2737–2749.
38.
PabloA.B., FidelC.G., et al., An AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process)/ANP (Analytic Network Process)-based multi-criteria decision approach for the selection of solar-thermal power plant investment projects, Energy66(2) (2014), 222–238.
39.
AltuntasS. and DereliT., A novel approach based on DEMATEL method and patent citation analysis for prioritizing a portfolio of investment projects, Expert Systems with Applications42(3) (2015), 1003–1012.
40.
KilişM. and Kayaİ., Investment project evaluation by a decision making methodology based on type-2 fuzzy sets, Applied Soft Computing27 (2015), 399–410.
41.
MohagheghiV., MousaviS.M., VahdaniB., et al., R&D project evaluation and project portfolio selection by a new interval type-2 fuzzy optimization approach, Neural Computing and Applications28(12) (2017), 3869–3888.
