Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making

Abstract

This article has been retracted, and the online PDF replaced with this retraction notice.

Keywords

Multiple attribute decision making (MADM)pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic set P2TLWA operator P2TLOWG operator enterprise resource planning (ERP) system selection

1 Introduction

Multiple attribute decision making (MADM) problems under linguistic information processing environment is an interesting research topic having received more and more attention during the last several years. One of the well-known linguistic information processing models are the 2-tuple linguistic computational model [1 –18]. Liao et al. [19] used linguistic information processing model for selecting an ERP system. Wang [20] presented a 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic evaluation model for selecting appropriate agile manufacturing system. Tai and Chen [21] developed the intellectual capital evaluation model linguistic variable. Xu et al. [22] developed some methods to deal with unacceptable incomplete 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic preference relations in group decision making. Wang et al. [23] developed the multi-criteria group decision making method based on interval 2-tuple linguistic information and Choquet integral aggregation operators. Qin & Liu [24] proposed the 2-tuple linguistic Muirhead mean operators for multiple attribute group decision making and its application to supplier selection. Zhang et al. [25] developed the consensus reaching model for 2-tuple linguistic multiple attribute group decision making with incomplete weight information.

More recently, Pythagorean fuzzy set (PFS) [26, 27] has emerged as an effective tool for depicting uncertainty of the MADM problems. The PFS is also characterized by the membership degree and the non-membership degree, whose sum of squares is less than or equal to 1, the PFS is more general than the IFS. In some cases, the PFS can solve the problems that the IFS cannot, for example, if a DM gives the membership degree and the non-membership degree as 0.8 and 0.6, respectively, then it is only valid for the PFS. In other words, all the intuitionistic fuzzy degrees are a part of the Pythagorean fuzzy degrees, which indicates that the PFS is more powerful to handle the uncertain problems. Zhang and Xu [28] provided the detailed mathematical expression for PFS and introduced the concept of Pythagorean fuzzy number(PFN). Meanwhile, they also developed a Pythagorean fuzzy TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) for handling the MADM problem within PFNs. Peng and Yang [29] proposed the division and subtraction operations for PFNs, and also developed a Pythagorean fuzzy superiority and inferiority ranking method to solve MAGDM with PFNs. Afterwards, Beliakov and James [30] focused on how the notion of “averaging” should be treated in the case of PFNs and how to ensure that the averaging aggregation functions produce outputs consistent with the case of ordinary fuzzy numbers. Reformat and Yager [31] applied the PFNs in handling the collaborative-based recommender system. Gou et al. [32] investigate the Properties of Continuous Pythagorean Fuzzy Information. Ren et al. [33] proposed the Pythagorean fuzzy TODIM approach to MADM. Garg [34] proposed the new generalized Pythagorean fuzzy information aggregation by using Einstein operations. Zeng et al. [35] developed a hybrid method for Pythagorean fuzzy multiple-criteria decision making. Garg [36] studied a novel accuracy function under interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy environment for solving MADM problem.

Although, Pythagorean fuzzy set theory has been successfully applied in some areas, the PFS is also characterized by the membership degree and the non-membership degree, whose sum of squares is less than or equal to 1, the PFS is more general than the IFS. In some cases, the PFS can solve the problems that the IFS cannot, for example, if a DM gives the membership degree and the non-membership degree as 0.8 and 0.6, respectively, then it is only valid for the PFS. In other words, all the intuitionistic fuzzy degrees are a part of the Pythagorean fuzzy degrees, which indicates that the PFS is more powerful to handle the uncertain problems. However, all the above approaches are unsuitable to describe the membership degree and the non-membership degree of an element to a linguistic label, which can reflect the decision maker’s confidence level when they are making an evaluation. In order to overcome this limit, we shall propose the concept of Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic set to solve this problem based on the Pythagorean fuzzy sets [26, 27] and 2-tuple linguistic information processing model [1, 2]. Thus, how to aggregate these Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic numbers is an interesting topic. To solve this issue, in this paper, we shall develop some Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic information aggregation operators on the basis of the traditional arithmetic and geometric operations. In order to do so, the remainder of this paper is set out as follows. In the next section, we shall propose the concept of Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic set on the basis of the Pythagorean fuzzy set and 2-tuple linguistic information processing model. In Section 3, we shall propose some Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic arithmetic aggregation operators. In Section 4, we shall propose some Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic geometric aggregation operators. In Section 5, based on these operators, we shall present some models for MADM problems with Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic information. In Section 6, we shall present a numerical example for enterprise resource planning (ERP) system selection with Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic information in order to illustrate the method proposed in this paper. Section 7 concludes the paper with some remarks.

2 Preliminaries

In the following, we introduced some basic concepts related to 2-tuple linguistic term sets and Pythagorean fuzzy sets. And we shall propose the concepts and basic operations of the Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic sets.

2.1 2-tuple linguistic term sets

Let S ={ s_i |i = 1, 2, ⋯ t } be a linguistic term set with odd cardinality. Any label, s_i represents a possible value for a linguistic variable, and it should satisfy the following characteristics [1, 2]:

(1) The set is ordered: s_i > s_j, if i > j; (2) Max operator:max(s_i, s_j) = s_i, if s_i ≥ s_j; (3) Min operator: min(s_i, s_j) = s_i, if s_i ≤ s_j. For example, S can be defined as $\begin{matrix} S & = & {s_{1} = extremely poor, s_{2} = very poor, \\ s_{3} = poor, s_{4} = medium, s_{5} = good, \\ s_{6} = very good, s_{7} = extremely good} \end{matrix}$

Herrera and Martinez [1, 2] developed the 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model based on the concept of symbolic translation. It is used for representing the linguistic assessment information by means of a 2-tuple (s_i, α_i), where s_i is a linguistic label from predefined linguistic term set S and α_i is the value of symbolic translation, and α_i ∈ [- 0.5, 0.5) .

Definition 1. [1, 2] Let β be the result of an aggregation of the indices of a set of labels assessed in a linguistic term set S, i.e., the result of a symbolic aggregation operation, β ∈ [1, t], being t the cardinality of S. Let i = round (β) and α = β - i be two values, such that, i ∈ [1, t] and α ∈ [- 0.5, 0.5) then α is called a symbolic translation.

Definition 2. [1, 2] Let S ={ s₁, s₂, ⋯ , s_t } be a linguistic term set and β ∈ [1, t] is a number value representing the aggregation result of linguistic symbolic. Then the function Δ used to obtain the 2-tuple linguistic information equivalent to β is defined as: $Δ : [1, t] \to S \times [- 0.5, 0.5)$ (1) $Δ (β) = {\begin{matrix} s_{i}, i = round (β) \\ α = β - i, α \in [- 0.5, 0.5) \end{matrix}$ (2) where round(.) is the usual round operation, s_i has the closest index label to β and α is the value of the symbolic translation.

Definition 3. [1, 2] Let S ={ s₁, s₂, ⋯ , s_t } be a linguistic term set and (s_i, α_i) be a 2-tuple. There is always a function Δ^-1 can be defined, such that, from a 2-tuple (s_i, α_i) it return its equivalent numerical value β ∈ [1, t] ⊂ R, which is. $Δ^{- 1} : S \times [- 0.5, 0.5) \to [1, t]$ (3) $Δ^{- 1} (s_{i}, α) = i + α = β$ (4)

From Definitions 1 and 2, we can conclude that the conversion of a linguistic term into a linguistic 2-tuple consists of adding a value 0 as symbolic translation: $Δ (s_{i}) = (s_{i}, 0)$ (5)

2.2 Pythagorean fuzzy set

Yager [26] developed the concept of the Pythagorean fuzzy sets.

Definition 4. [26] Let X be a fix set. A PFS is an object having the form $P = {〈 x, (μ_{P} (x), ν_{P} (x)) 〉 | x \in X}$ (6) where the function μ_P : X → [0, 1] defines the degree of membership and the function ν_P : X → [0, 1] defines the degree of non-membership of the element x ∈ X to P, respectively, and, for every x ∈ X, it holds that ${(μ_{p} (x))}^{2} + {(ν_{p} (x))}^{2} \leq 1 .$ (7)

Definition 5. Let $\tilde{a} = (μ, ν)$ be a Pythagorean fuzzy number, a score function S of a Pythagorean fuzzy number can be represented as follows: $S (\tilde{a}) = \frac{1}{2} (1 + μ^{2} - ν^{2}), S (\tilde{a}) \in [0, 1] .$ (8)

Definition 6. [28] Let $\tilde{a} = (μ, ν)$ be a Pythagorean fuzzy number, an accuracy function H of a Pythagorean fuzzy value can be represented as follows: $H (\tilde{a}) = μ^{2} + ν^{2}, H (\tilde{a}) \in [0, 1] .$ (9) to evaluate the degree of accuracy of the Pythagorean fuzzy number $\tilde{a} = (μ, ν)$ , where $H (\tilde{a}) \in [0, 1]$ . The larger the value of $H (\tilde{a})$ , the more the degree of accuracy of the Pythagorean fuzzy number $\tilde{a}$ .

Based on the score function S and the accuracy function H, in the following, we shall give an order relation between two Pythagorean fuzzy numbers, which is defined as follows:

Definition 7. Let ${\tilde{a}}_{1} = (μ_{1}, ν_{1})$ and ${\tilde{a}}_{2} = (μ_{2}, ν_{2})$ be two Pythagorean fuzzy numbers, $s ({\tilde{a}}_{1}) = \frac{1}{2} (1 + {(μ_{1})}^{2} - {(ν_{1})}^{2})$ and $s ({\tilde{a}}_{2}) = \frac{1}{2} (1 + {(μ_{2})}^{2} - {(ν_{2})}^{2})$ be the scores of $\tilde{a}$ and $\tilde{b}$ , respectively, and let $H ({\tilde{a}}_{1}) = {(μ_{1})}^{2} + {(ν_{1})}^{2}$ and $H ({\tilde{a}}_{2}) = {(μ_{2})}^{2} + {(ν_{2})}^{2}$ be the accuracy degrees of $\tilde{a}$ and $\tilde{b}$ , respectively, then if $S (\tilde{a}) < S (\tilde{b})$ , then $\tilde{a}$ is smaller than $\tilde{b}$ , denoted by $\tilde{a} < \tilde{b}$ ; if $S (\tilde{a}) = S (\tilde{b})$ , then (1) if $H (\tilde{a}) = H (\tilde{b})$ , then $\tilde{a}$ and $\tilde{b}$ represent the same information, denoted by $\tilde{a} = \tilde{b}$ ; (2) if $H (\tilde{a}) < H (\tilde{b})$ , $\tilde{a}$ is smaller than $\tilde{b}$ , denoted by $\tilde{a} < \tilde{b}$ .

Definition 8. [31] Let ${\tilde{a}}_{1} = (μ_{1}, ν_{1})$ , ${\tilde{a}}_{2} = (μ_{2}, ν_{2})$ , and $\tilde{a} = (μ, ν)$ be three Pythagorean fuzzy numbers, and some basic operations on them are defined as follows:

${\tilde{a}}_{1} \oplus {\tilde{a}}_{2} = (\sqrt{{(μ_{1})}^{2} + {(μ_{2})}^{2} - {(μ_{1})}^{2} {(μ_{2})}^{2}}, ν_{1} ν_{2});$

${\tilde{a}}_{1} \otimes {\tilde{a}}_{2} = (μ_{1} μ_{2}, \sqrt{{(ν_{1})}^{2} + {(ν_{2})}^{2} - {(ν_{1})}^{2} {(ν_{2})}^{2}});$

$λ \tilde{a} = (\sqrt{1 - {(1 - μ^{2})}^{λ}}, ν^{λ}), λ > 0;$

${(\tilde{a})}^{λ} = (μ^{λ}, \sqrt{1 - {(1 - ν^{2})}^{λ}}), λ > 0;$

${\tilde{a}}^{c} = (ν, μ) .$

Based on the Definition 8, we can derive the following properties easily.

Theorem 1. [31] Let ${\tilde{a}}_{1} = (μ_{1}, ν_{1})$ and ${\tilde{a}}_{2} = (μ_{2}, ν_{2})$ be two Pythagorean fuzzy numbers, λ, λ₁, λ₂ > 0, then

${\tilde{a}}_{1} \oplus {\tilde{a}}_{2} = {\tilde{a}}_{2} \oplus {\tilde{a}}_{1};$

${\tilde{a}}_{1} \otimes {\tilde{a}}_{2} = {\tilde{a}}_{2} \otimes {\tilde{a}}_{1};$

$λ ({\tilde{a}}_{1} \oplus {\tilde{a}}_{2}) = λ {\tilde{a}}_{1} \oplus λ {\tilde{a}}_{2};$

${({\tilde{a}}_{1} \otimes {\tilde{a}}_{2})}^{λ} = {({\tilde{a}}_{1})}^{λ} \otimes {({\tilde{a}}_{2})}^{λ};$

$λ_{1} {\tilde{a}}_{1} \oplus λ_{2} {\tilde{a}}_{1} = (λ_{1} + λ_{2}) {\tilde{a}}_{1};$

${({\tilde{a}}_{1})}^{λ_{1}} \otimes {({\tilde{a}}_{1})}^{λ_{2}} = {({\tilde{a}}_{1})}^{(λ_{1} + λ_{2})};$

${({({\tilde{a}}_{1})}^{λ_{1}})}^{λ_{2}} = {({\tilde{a}}_{1})}^{λ_{1} λ_{2}} .$

2.3 Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic sets

In the following, we shall propose the concepts and basic operations of the Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic sets on the basis of the Pythagorean fuzzy sets [26, 27] and 2-tuple linguistic model [1, 2].

Definition 9. A Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic sets A in X is given $P = {(s_{θ (x)}, ρ), (μ_{P} (x), ν_{P} (x)), x \in X}$ (10) where s_θ(a) ∈ S, ρ ∈ [- 0.5, 0.5) , u_P (x) ∈ [0, 1] and v_P (x) ∈ [0, 1], with the condition 0 ≤ (u_P (x)) ² + (v_P (x)) ² ≤ 1, ∀ x ∈ X. The numbers μ_P (x) , ν_P (x) represent, respectively, the degree of membership and degree of non-membership of the element x to linguistic variable (s_θ(x), ρ). Then for x ∈ X, $π_{P} (x) = \sqrt{1 - ({(u_{P} (x))}^{2} + {(v_{P} (x))}^{2})}$ could be called the degree of refusal membership of the element x to linguistic variable (s_θ(x), ρ).

For convenience, we call $\tilde{p} = 〈 (s_{p}, ρ), (u_{p}, v_{p}) 〉$ a Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic number (P2TLN), where μ_p ∈ [0, 1] , ν_p ∈ [0, 1], (μ_p) ² + (ν_p) ² ≤ 1, s_θ(p) ∈ S and ρ ∈ [- 0.5, 0.5) .

Definition 10. Let $\tilde{p} = 〈 (s_{p}, ρ), (u_{p}, v_{p}) 〉$ , a Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic number (P2TLN), a score function $\tilde{a}$ of a Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic number can be represented as follows:

$\begin{matrix} S (\tilde{p}) & = & Δ (Δ^{- 1} (s_{θ (p)}, ρ) \frac{1 + {(μ_{p})}^{2} - {(ν_{p})}^{2}}{2}), \\ Δ^{- 1} (S (\tilde{p})) \in [1, t] . \end{matrix}$ (11)

Definition 11. Let $\tilde{p} = 〈 (s_{p}, ρ), (u_{p}, v_{p}) 〉$ a Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic number (P2TLN), an accuracy function H of a Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic number can be represented as follows: $\begin{matrix} H (\tilde{p}) & = & Δ (Δ^{- 1} (s_{θ (p)}, ρ) \frac{{(μ_{p})}^{2} + {(ν_{p})}^{2}}{2}), \\ Δ^{- 1} (H (\tilde{p})) \in [1, t] . \end{matrix}$ (12) to evaluate the degree of accuracy of the Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic number $\tilde{p} = 〈 (s_{p}, ρ), (u_{p}, v_{p}) 〉$ , where $Δ^{- 1} (H (\tilde{p})) \in [1, t]$ . The larger the value of $H (\tilde{p})$ , the more the degree of accuracy of the Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic number a.

Based on the score function S and the accuracy function H, in the following, we shall give an order relation between two Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic numbers, which is defined as follows:

Definition 12. Let ${\tilde{p}}_{1} = 〈 (s_{p_{1}}, ρ), (u_{p_{1}}, v_{p_{1}}) 〉$ and ${\tilde{p}}_{2} = 〈 (s_{p_{2}}, ρ), (u_{p_{2}}, v_{p_{2}}) 〉$ be two Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic numbers, $S ({\tilde{p}}_{1}) = Δ (Δ^{- 1} (s_{θ (p_{1})}, ρ_{1}) \frac{1 + {(μ_{p_{1}})}^{2} - {(ν_{p_{1}})}^{2}}{2})$ and $S ({\tilde{p}}_{2}) = Δ (Δ^{- 1} (s_{θ (p_{2})}, ρ_{2}) \frac{1 + {(μ_{p_{2}})}^{2} - {(ν_{p_{2}})}^{2}}{2})$ be thescores of ${\tilde{a}}_{1}$ and ${\tilde{a}}_{2}$ , respectively, and let $H ({\tilde{p}}_{1}) = Δ (Δ^{- 1} (s_{θ (p_{1})}, ρ_{1}) \frac{{(μ_{p_{1}})}^{2} + {(ν_{p_{1}})}^{2}}{2})$ and $H ({\tilde{p}}_{2}) = Δ (Δ^{- 1} (s_{θ (p_{2})}, ρ_{2}) \frac{{(μ_{p_{2}})}^{2} + {(ν_{p_{2}})}^{2}}{2})$ be the accuracy degrees of ${\tilde{p}}_{1}$ and ${\tilde{p}}_{2}$ , respectively, then if $S ({\tilde{p}}_{1}) < S ({\tilde{p}}_{2})$ , then ${\tilde{p}}_{1}$ is smaller than ${\tilde{p}}_{2}$ , denoted by ${\tilde{p}}_{1} < {\tilde{p}}_{2}$ ; if $S ({\tilde{p}}_{1}) = S ({\tilde{p}}_{2})$ , then

(1) if $H ({\tilde{p}}_{1}) = H ({\tilde{p}}_{2})$ , then ${\tilde{p}}_{1}$ and ${\tilde{p}}_{2}$ represent the same information, denoted by ${\tilde{p}}_{1} = {\tilde{p}}_{2}$ ; (2) if $H ({\tilde{p}}_{1}) < H ({\tilde{p}}_{2})$ , ${\tilde{p}}_{1}$ is smaller than ${\tilde{p}}_{2}$ , denoted by ${\tilde{p}}_{1} < {\tilde{p}}_{2}$ .

Motivated by the operations of the 2-tuple linguistic information [1, 2] and Definition 8, in the following, we shall define some operational laws of Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic numbers.

Definition 13. Let ${\tilde{p}}_{1} = 〈 (s_{p_{1}}, ρ), (u_{p_{1}}, v_{p_{1}}) 〉$ and ${\tilde{p}}_{2} = 〈 (s_{p_{2}}, ρ), (u_{p_{2}}, v_{p_{2}}) 〉$ be two Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic numbers, then $\begin{matrix} {\tilde{p}}_{1} \oplus {\tilde{p}}_{2} = 〈 Δ (Δ^{- 1} (s_{θ (p_{1})}, ρ_{1}) + Δ^{- 1} (s_{θ (p_{2})}, ρ_{2})), (\sqrt{{(μ_{p_{1}})}^{2} + {(μ_{p_{2}})}^{2} - {(μ_{p_{1}})}^{2} {(μ_{p_{2}})}^{2}}, ν_{p_{1}} ν_{p_{2}}) 〉; \\ {\tilde{p}}_{1} \otimes {\tilde{p}}_{2} = 〈 Δ (Δ^{- 1} (s_{θ (p_{1})}, ρ_{1}) Δ^{- 1} (s_{θ (p_{2})}, ρ_{2})), (μ_{p_{1}} μ_{p_{2}}, \sqrt{{(ν_{p_{1}})}^{2} + {(ν_{p_{2}})}^{2} - {(ν_{p_{1}})}^{2} {(ν_{p_{2}})}^{2}}) 〉; \end{matrix}$

$\begin{matrix} λ {\tilde{p}}_{1} = 〈 Δ (λ Δ^{- 1} (s_{θ (p_{1})}, ρ_{1})), (\sqrt{1 - {(1 - {(μ_{p_{1}})}^{2})}^{λ}}, {(ν_{p_{1}})}^{λ}) 〉; \\ {({\tilde{p}}_{1})}^{λ} = 〈 Δ ({(Δ^{- 1} (s_{θ (p_{1})}, ρ_{1}))}^{λ}), ({(μ_{p_{1}})}^{λ}, \sqrt{1 - {(1 - {(ν_{p_{1}})}^{2})}^{λ}}) 〉; \end{matrix}$

Based on the Definition 13, we can derive the following properties easily.

Theorem 2. For any two Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic numbers ${\tilde{p}}_{1} = 〈 (s_{p_{1}}, ρ), (u_{p_{1}}, v_{p_{1}}) 〉$ and ${\tilde{p}}_{2} = 〈 (s_{p_{2}}, ρ), (u_{p_{2}}, v_{p_{2}}) 〉$ , it can be proved the calculation r ules shown as follows

${\tilde{p}}_{1} \oplus {\tilde{p}}_{2} = {\tilde{p}}_{2} \oplus {\tilde{p}}_{1}$

${\tilde{p}}_{1} \otimes {\tilde{p}}_{2} = {\tilde{p}}_{2} \otimes {\tilde{p}}_{1}$

$λ ({\tilde{p}}_{1} \oplus {\tilde{p}}_{2}) = λ {\tilde{p}}_{1} \oplus λ {\tilde{p}}_{2}, 0 \leq λ \leq 1$

$λ_{1} {\tilde{p}}_{1} \oplus λ_{2} {\tilde{p}}_{1} = (λ_{1} \oplus λ_{2}) {\tilde{p}}_{1}, 0 \leq λ_{1}, λ_{2}, λ_{1} + λ_{2} \leq 1$

${\tilde{p}}_{1}^{λ_{1}} \otimes {\tilde{p}}_{1}^{λ_{2}} = ({\tilde{p}}_{1})^{λ_{1} + λ_{2}}, 0 \leq λ_{1}, λ_{2}, λ_{1} + λ_{2} \leq 1$

${\tilde{p}}_{1}^{λ_{1}} \otimes {\tilde{p}}_{2}^{λ_{1}} = ({\tilde{p}}_{1} \otimes {\tilde{p}}_{2})^{λ_{1}}, λ_{1} \geq 0$

${({({\tilde{p}}_{1})}^{λ_{1}})}^{λ_{2}} = {({\tilde{p}}_{1})}^{λ_{1} λ_{2}} .$

3 Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic arithmetic aggregation operators

In this section, we shall develop some arithmetic aggregation operators with Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic information, such as Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic weighted averaging (P2TLWA) operator, Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic ordered weighted averaging (P2TLOWA) operator and Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic hybrid average (P2TLHA) operator.

Definition 14. Let ${\tilde{p}}_{j} = 〈 (r_{j}, α_{j}), (μ_{j}, ν_{j}) 〉$ (j = 1, 2, ⋯ , n) be a collection of Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic numbers. The Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic weighted averaging (P2TLWA) operator is a mapping Pⁿ → P such that

$P 2 {TLWA}_{ω} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{n}) = \oplus_{j = 1}^{n} (ω_{j} {\tilde{p}}_{j})$ (13) where ω = (ω₁, ω₂, ⋯ , ω_n) ^T be the weight vector of ${\tilde{p}}_{j} (j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ , and ω_j > 0, $\sum_{j = 1}^{n} ω_{j} = 1$ .

Based on the Definition 13 and Theorem 2, we can get the following result:

Theorem 3. The aggregated value by using P2TLWA operator is also a Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic numbers, where $\begin{matrix} {P 2 TLWA}_{ω} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{n}) = \oplus_{j = 1}^{n} (ω_{j} {\tilde{p}}_{j}) \\ = 〈 \begin{matrix} Δ (\sum_{j = 1}^{n} ω_{j} Δ^{- 1} (r_{j}, a_{j})), \\ (\sqrt{1 - \prod_{j = 1}^{n} {(1 - {(μ_{j})}^{2})}^{w_{j}}}, \prod_{j = 1}^{n} {(ν_{j})}^{ω_{j}}) \end{matrix} 〉 \end{matrix}$ (14) where ω = (ω₁, ω₂, ⋯ , ω_n) ^T be the weight vector of ${\tilde{p}}_{j} (j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ , and ω_j > 0, $\sum_{j = 1}^{n} ω_{j} = 1$ .

Proof. We prove Equation (14) by mathematical induction on n.

(1) When n = 2, we have ${P 2 TLWA}_{ω} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}) = ω_{1} {\tilde{p}}_{1} \oplus ω_{2} {\tilde{p}}_{2}$

By Theorem 2, we can see that both $ω_{1} {\tilde{p}}_{1}$ and $ω_{2} {\tilde{p}}_{2}$ are P2TLNs, and the value of $ω_{1} {\tilde{p}}_{1} \oplus ω_{2} {\tilde{p}}_{2}$ is also a P2TLN. From the operational laws of Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic number, we have $\begin{matrix} ω_{1} {\tilde{p}}_{1} & = & 〈 Δ (ω_{1} Δ^{- 1} (r_{1}, a_{1})), \\ (\sqrt{1 - {(1 - {(μ_{1})}^{2})}^{ω_{1}}}, ν_{1}^{ω_{1}}) 〉; \\ ω_{2} {\tilde{p}}_{2} & = & 〈 Δ (ω_{2} Δ^{- 1} (r_{2}, a_{2})), \\ (\sqrt{1 - {(1 - {(μ_{2})}^{2})}^{ω_{2}}}, ν_{2}^{ω_{2}}) 〉 \end{matrix}$

Then $\begin{matrix} {P 2 TLWA}_{ω} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}) = ω_{1} {\tilde{p}}_{1} \oplus ω_{2} {\tilde{p}}_{2} = 〈 Δ (ω_{1} Δ^{- 1} (r_{1}, a_{1}) + ω_{2} Δ^{- 1} (r_{2}, a_{2})), \\ (\sqrt{2 - {(1 - {(μ_{1})}^{2})}^{ω_{1}} - {(1 - {(μ_{2})}^{2})}^{ω_{2}} - (1 - {(1 - {(μ_{1})}^{2})}^{ω_{1}}) (1 - {(1 - {(μ_{2})}^{2})}^{ω_{2}})}, ν_{1}^{ω_{1}} ν_{2}^{ω_{2}}) 〉 \\ = 〈 Δ (ω_{1} Δ^{- 1} (r_{1}, a_{1}) + ω_{2} Δ^{- 1} (r_{2}, a_{2})), (\sqrt{1 - {(1 - {(μ_{1})}^{2})}^{ω_{1}} {(1 - {(μ_{2})}^{2})}^{ω_{2}}}, ν_{1}^{ω_{1}} ν_{2}^{ω_{2}}) 〉 \end{matrix}$

(2) Suppose that n = k, Equation (14) holds, i.e., $\begin{matrix} {P 2 TLWA}_{ω} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{k}) = ω_{1} {\tilde{p}}_{1} \oplus ω_{2} {\tilde{p}}_{2} \oplus \dots ω_{k} {\tilde{p}}_{k} \\ = 〈 Δ (\sum_{j = 1}^{k} ω_{j} Δ^{- 1} (r_{j}, a_{j})), (\sqrt{1 - \prod_{j = 1}^{k} {(1 - {(μ_{j})}^{2})}^{ω_{j}}}, \prod_{j = 1}^{k} {(ν_{j})}^{ω_{j}}) 〉 \end{matrix}$ and the aggregated value is a P2TLN, Then when n = k + 1, by the operational laws of Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic number, we have $\begin{matrix} {P 2 TLWA}_{ω} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{k + 1}) = ω_{1} {\tilde{p}}_{1} \oplus ω_{2} {\tilde{p}}_{2} \oplus \dots ω_{k} {\tilde{p}}_{k} \oplus ω_{k + 1} {\tilde{p}}_{k + 1} \\ = 〈 Δ (\sum_{j = 1}^{k} ω_{j} Δ^{- 1} (r_{j}, a_{j}) + ω_{k + 1} Δ^{- 1} (r_{k + 1}, a_{k + 1})), \\ (\sqrt{\begin{matrix} 1 - \prod_{j = 1}^{k} {(1 - {(μ_{j})}^{2})}^{ω_{j}} + (1 - {(1 - {(μ_{k + 1})}^{2})}^{ω_{k + 1}}) \\ - (1 - \prod_{j = 1}^{k} {(1 - {(μ_{j})}^{2})}^{ω_{j}}) (1 - {(1 - {(μ_{k + 1})}^{2})}^{ω_{k + 1}}) \end{matrix}}, \prod_{j = 1}^{k + 1} {(ν_{j})}^{ω_{j}}) 〉 \\ = 〈 Δ (\sum_{j = 1}^{k + 1} ω_{j} Δ^{- 1} (r_{j}, a_{j})), (\sqrt{1 - \prod_{j = 1}^{k + 1} {(1 - {(μ_{j})}^{2})}^{ω_{j}}}, \prod_{j = 1}^{k + 1} {(ν_{j})}^{ω_{j}}) 〉 \end{matrix}$ by which aggregated value is also a P2TLN, Therefore, when n = k + 1, Equation (14) holds.

Thus, by (1) and (2), we know that Equation (14) holds for all n. The proof is completed.

It can be easily proved that the P2TLWA operator has the following properties.

Theorem 4. (Idempotency) If all ${\tilde{p}}_{j} (j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ are equal, i.e. ${\tilde{p}}_{j} = \tilde{p}$ for all j, then ${P 2 TLWA}_{ω} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{n}) = \tilde{p}$ (15)

Theorem 5. (Boundedness) Let ${\tilde{p}}_{j} (j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ be a collection of P2TLNs, and let ${\tilde{p}}^{-} = min_{j} {\tilde{p}}_{j}, {\tilde{p}}^{+} = max_{j} {\tilde{p}}_{j}$

Then ${\tilde{p}}^{-} \leq {P 2 TLWA}_{ω} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{n}) \leq {\tilde{p}}^{+}$ (16)

Theorem 6. (Monotonicity) Let ${\tilde{p}}_{j} (j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ and ${\tilde{p}}_{j}^{'} (j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ be two set of P2TLNs, if ${\tilde{p}}_{j} \leq {\tilde{p}}_{j}^{'}$ , for all j, then

$\begin{matrix} {P 2 TLWA}_{ω} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{n}) \\ \leq {P 2 TLWA}_{ω} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}^{'}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}^{'}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{n}^{'}) \end{matrix}$ (17)

Further, we give a Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic ordered weighted averaging (P2TLOWA) operator below:

Definition 15. Let ${\tilde{p}}_{j} = 〈 (r_{j}, α_{j}), (μ_{j}, ν_{j}) 〉$ (j = 1, 2, ⋯ , n) be a collection of P2TLNs, the Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic ordered weighted averaging (P2TLOWA) operator of dimension n is a mapping P2TLOWA: Pⁿ → P, that has an associated weight vector w = (w₁, w₂, ⋯ , w_n) ^T such that w_j > 0 and $\sum_{j = 1}^{n} w_{j} = 1$ . Furthermore,

$\begin{matrix} {P 2 TLOWA}_{w} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{n}) = \oplus_{j = 1}^{n} (w_{j} {\tilde{p}}_{σ (j)}) \\ = 〈 \begin{matrix} Δ (\sum_{j = 1}^{n} w_{j} Δ^{- 1} (r_{σ (j)}, a_{σ (j)})), \\ (\sqrt{1 - \prod_{j = 1}^{n} {(1 - {(μ_{σ (j)})}^{2})}^{w_{j}}}, \prod_{j = 1}^{n} {(ν_{σ (j)})}^{w_{j}}) \end{matrix} 〉 \end{matrix}$ (18) where (σ (1) , σ (2) , ⋯ , σ (n)) is a permutation of (1, 2, ⋯ , n), such that ${\tilde{p}}_{σ (j - 1)} \geq {\tilde{p}}_{σ (j)}$ for all j = 2, ⋯ , n.

It can be easily proved that the P2TLOWA operator has the following properties.

Theorem 7. (Idempotency) If all ${\tilde{p}}_{j} (j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ are equal, i.e. ${\tilde{p}}_{j} = \tilde{p}$ for all j, then ${P 2 TLOWA}_{w} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{n}) = \tilde{p}$ (19)

Theorem 8. (Boundedness) Let ${\tilde{p}}_{j} (j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ be a collection of P2TLNs, and let ${\tilde{p}}^{-} = min_{j} {\tilde{p}}_{j}, {\tilde{p}}^{+} = max_{j} {\tilde{p}}_{j}$

Then ${\tilde{p}}^{-} \leq {P 2 TLOWA}_{w} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{n}) \leq {\tilde{p}}^{+}$ (20)

Theorem 9. (Monotonicity) Let ${\tilde{p}}_{j} (j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ and ${\tilde{p}}_{j}^{'} (j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ be two set of P2TLNs, if ${\tilde{p}}_{j} \leq {\tilde{p}}_{j}^{'}$ , for all j, then

$\begin{matrix} {P 2 TLOWA}_{w} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{n}) \\ \leq {P 2 TLOWA}_{w} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}^{'}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}^{'}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{n}^{'}) \end{matrix}$ (21)

Theorem 10. (Commutativity) Let ${\tilde{p}}_{j} (j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ and ${\tilde{p}}_{j}^{'} (j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ be two set of P2TLNs, for all j, then

$\begin{matrix} {P 2 TLOWA}_{w} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{n}) \\ = {P 2 TLOWA}_{w} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}^{'}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}^{'}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{n}^{'}) \end{matrix}$ (22) where ${\tilde{p}}_{j}^{'} (j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ is any permutation of ${\tilde{p}}_{j} (j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ .

From Definitions 14– 15, we know that the P2TLWA operators only weights the Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic number itself, while the P2TLOWA operators weights the ordered positions of the Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic number instead of weighting the arguments itself. Therefore, the weights represent two different aspects in both the P2TLWA and P2TLOWA operators. However, both the operators consider only one of them. To solve this drawback, in the following we shall propose the Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic hybrid average (P2TLHA) operator.

Definition 16. Let ${\tilde{p}}_{j} = 〈 (r_{j}, α_{j}), (μ_{j}, ν_{j}) 〉$ (j = 1, 2, ⋯ , n) be a collection of P2TLNs. A Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic hybrid average (P2TLHA) operator is a mapping P2TLHA:Pⁿ → P, such that $\begin{matrix} {P 2 TLHA}_{w, ω} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{n}) = \oplus_{j = 1}^{n} (w_{j} {\dot{\tilde{p}}}_{σ (j)}) \\ = 〈 \begin{matrix} Δ (\sum_{j = 1}^{n} w_{j} Δ^{- 1} ({\dot{r}}_{σ (j)}, {\dot{a}}_{σ (j)})), \\ (\sqrt{1 - \prod_{j = 1}^{n} {(1 - {({\dot{μ}}_{σ (j)})}^{2})}^{w_{j}}}, \prod_{j = 1}^{n} {({\dot{ν}}_{σ (j)})}^{w_{j}}) \end{matrix} 〉 \end{matrix}$ (23) where w = (w₁, w₂, ⋯ , w_n) is the associated weighting vector, with w_j ∈ [0, 1], $\sum_{j = 1}^{n} w_{j} = 1$ , and ${\dot{\tilde{p}}}_{σ (j)}$ is the j-th largest element of the Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic arguments ${\dot{\tilde{p}}}_{j} ({\dot{\tilde{p}}}_{j} = (n ω_{j}) {\tilde{p}}_{j}, j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ , ω = (ω₁, ω₂, ⋯ , ω_n) is the weighting vector of Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic arguments ${\tilde{p}}_{j} (j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ , with ω_i ∈ [0, 1], $\sum_{i = 1}^{n} ω_{i} = 1$ , and n is the balancing coefficient. Especially, if w = (1/ - n, 1/ - n, ⋯ , 1/ - n) ^T, then P2TLHA is reduced to the Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic weighted average (P2TLWA)operator; if ω = (1/ - n, 1/ - n, ⋯ , 1/ - n), then P2TLHA is reduced to the Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic ordered weighted average (P2TLOWA) operator.

4 Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic geometric aggregation operators

In this section, we shall develop some geometric aggregation operators with Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic information, such as Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic weighted geometric (P2TLWG) operator, Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic ordered weighted geometric (P2TLOWG) operator and Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic hybrid geometric (P2TLHG) operator.

Definition 17. Let ${\tilde{p}}_{j} = 〈 (r_{j}, α_{j}), (μ_{j}, ν_{j}) 〉$ (j = 1, 2, ⋯ , n) be a collection of P2TLNs. The Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic weighted geometric (P2TLWG) operator is a mapping Pⁿ → P such that ${P 2 TLWG}_{ω} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{n}) = \otimes_{j = 1}^{n} {({\tilde{p}}_{j})}^{ω_{j}}$ (24) where ω = (ω₁, ω₂, ⋯ , ω_n) ^T be the weight vector of ${\tilde{p}}_{j} (j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ , and ω_j > 0, $\sum_{j = 1}^{n} ω_{j} = 1$ .

Based on the Definition 13 and Theorem 2, we can get the following result:

Theorem 11. The aggregated value by using P2TLWG operator is also a P2TLN, where $\begin{matrix} {P 2 TLWG}_{ω} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{n}) = \otimes_{j = 1}^{n} {({\tilde{p}}_{j})}^{ω_{j}} \\ = 〈 \begin{matrix} Δ (\prod_{j = 1}^{n} (Δ^{- 1} {(r_{j}, a_{j})}^{ω_{j}})), \\ (\prod_{j = 1}^{n} {(μ_{j})}^{ω_{j}}, \sqrt{1 - \prod_{j = 1}^{n} {(1 - {(ν_{j})}^{2})}^{ω_{j}}}) \end{matrix} 〉 \end{matrix}$ (25) where ω = (ω₁, ω₂, ⋯ , ω_n) ^T be the weight vector of ${\tilde{p}}_{j} (j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ , and ω_j > 0, $\sum_{j = 1}^{n} ω_{j} = 1$ .

Proof. We prove Equation (25) by mathematical induction on n.

(1) When n = 2, we have ${P 2 TLWG}_{ω} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}) = {({\tilde{p}}_{1})}^{ω_{1}} \otimes {({\tilde{p}}_{2})}^{ω_{2}}$

By Theorem 2, we can see that both ${({\tilde{p}}_{1})}^{ω_{1}}$ and ${({\tilde{p}}_{2})}^{ω_{2}}$ are P2TLNs, and the value of ${({\tilde{p}}_{1})}^{ω_{1}} \otimes {({\tilde{p}}_{2})}^{ω_{2}}$ is also a P2TLN. From the operational laws of Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic number, we have

$\begin{matrix} {({\tilde{p}}_{1})}^{ω_{1}} = 〈 Δ ({(Δ^{- 1} (r_{1}, a_{1}))}^{ω_{1}}), (μ_{1}^{ω_{1}}, \sqrt{1 - {(1 - {(ν_{1})}^{2})}^{ω_{1}}}) 〉; \\ {({\tilde{p}}_{2})}^{ω_{2}} = 〈 Δ ({(Δ^{- 1} (r_{2}, a_{2}))}^{ω_{2}}), (μ_{2}^{ω_{2}}, \sqrt{1 - {(1 - {(ν_{2})}^{2})}^{ω_{2}}}) 〉 \end{matrix}$

Then

$\begin{matrix} {P 2 TLWG}_{ω} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}) = {({\tilde{p}}_{1})}^{ω_{1}} \otimes {({\tilde{p}}_{2})}^{ω_{2}} = 〈 Δ ({(Δ^{- 1} (r_{1}, a_{1}))}^{ω_{1}} + {(Δ^{- 1} (r_{2}, a_{2}))}^{ω_{2}}), \\ (μ_{1}^{ω_{1}} μ_{2}^{ω_{2}}, \sqrt{2 - {(1 - {(ν_{1})}^{2})}^{ω_{1}} - {(1 - {(ν_{2})}^{2})}^{ω_{2}} - (1 - {(1 - {(ν_{1})}^{2})}^{ω_{1}}) (1 - {(1 - {(ν_{2})}^{2})}^{ω_{2}})}) 〉 \\ = 〈 Δ ({(Δ^{- 1} (r_{1}, a_{1}))}^{ω_{1}} + {(Δ^{- 1} (r_{2}, a_{2}))}^{ω_{2}}), (μ_{1}^{ω_{1}} μ_{2}^{ω_{2}}, \sqrt{1 - {(1 - {(ν_{1})}^{2})}^{ω_{1}} {(1 - {(ν_{2})}^{2})}^{ω_{2}}}) 〉 \end{matrix}$

(2) Suppose that n = k, Equation (25) holds, i.e.,

$\begin{matrix} {P 2 TLWG}_{ω} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{k}) = {({\tilde{p}}_{1})}^{ω_{1}} \otimes {({\tilde{p}}_{2})}^{ω_{2}} \otimes \dots \otimes {({\tilde{p}}_{k})}^{ω_{k}} \\ = 〈 Δ (\prod_{j = 1}^{k} (Δ^{- 1} {(r_{j}, a_{j})}^{ω_{j}})), (\prod_{j = 1}^{k} {(μ_{j})}^{ω_{j}}, \sqrt{1 - \prod_{j = 1}^{k} {(1 - {(ν_{j})}^{2})}^{ω_{j}}}) 〉 \end{matrix}$ and the aggregated value is a P2TLN, Then when n = k + 1, by the operational laws of Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic number, we have $\begin{matrix} {P 2 TLWG}_{ω} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{k}) = {({\tilde{p}}_{1})}^{ω_{1}} \otimes {({\tilde{p}}_{2})}^{ω_{2}} \otimes \dots \otimes {({\tilde{p}}_{k})}^{ω_{k}} \otimes {({\tilde{p}}_{k + 1})}^{ω_{k + 1}} \\ = 〈 Δ ((\prod_{j = 1}^{k} (Δ^{- 1} {(r_{j}, a_{j})}^{ω_{j}})) \cdot (Δ^{- 1} {(r_{k + 1}, a_{k + 1})}^{ω_{k + 1}})), \\ (\prod_{j = 1}^{k + 1} {(μ_{j})}^{ω_{j}}, \sqrt{\begin{matrix} 1 - \prod_{j = 1}^{k} {(1 - {(ν_{j})}^{2})}^{ω_{j}} + (1 - {(1 - {(ν_{k + 1})}^{2})}^{ω_{k + 1}}) \\ - (1 - \prod_{j = 1}^{k} {(1 - {(ν_{j})}^{2})}^{ω_{j}}) (1 - {(1 - {(ν_{k + 1})}^{2})}^{ω_{k + 1}}) \end{matrix}}) 〉 \\ = 〈 Δ (\prod_{j = 1}^{k + 1} (Δ^{- 1} {(r_{j}, a_{j})}^{ω_{j}})), (\prod_{j = 1}^{k + 1} {(μ_{j})}^{ω_{j}}, \sqrt{1 - \prod_{j = 1}^{k + 1} {(1 - {(ν_{j})}^{2})}^{ω_{j}}}) 〉 \end{matrix}$ by which aggregated value is also a P2TLN, Therefore, when n = k + 1, Equation (25) holds.

Thus, by (1) and (2), we know that Equation (25) holds for all n. The proof is completed.

It can be easily proved that the P2TLWG operator has the following properties.

Theorem 12. (Idempotency) If all ${\tilde{p}}_{j} (j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ are equal, i.e. ${\tilde{p}}_{j} = \tilde{p}$ for all j, then ${P 2 TLWG}_{ω} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{n}) = \tilde{p}$ (26)

Theorem 13. (Boundedness) Let ${\tilde{p}}_{j} (j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ be a collection of P2TLNs, and let ${\tilde{p}}^{-} = min_{j} {\tilde{p}}_{j}, {\tilde{p}}^{+} = max_{j} {\tilde{p}}_{j}$

Then ${\tilde{p}}^{-} \leq {P 2 TLWG}_{ω} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{n}) \leq {\tilde{p}}^{+}$ (27)

Theorem 14. (Monotonicity) Let ${\tilde{p}}_{j} (j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ and ${\tilde{p}}_{j}^{'} (j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ be two set of P2TLNs, if ${\tilde{p}}_{j} \leq {\tilde{p}}_{j}^{'}$ , for all j, then

$\begin{matrix} {P 2 TLWG}_{ω} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{n}) \\ \leq {P 2 TLWG}_{ω} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}^{'}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}^{'}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{n}^{'}) \end{matrix}$ (28)

Further, we give a Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic ordered weighted geometric (P2TLOWG) operator below:

Definition 18. Let ${\tilde{p}}_{j} = 〈 (r_{j}, α_{j}), (μ_{j}, ν_{j}) 〉$ (j = 1, 2, ⋯ , n) be a collection of P2TLNs, the Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic ordered weighted geometric (P2TLOWG) operator of dimension n is a mapping P2TLOWG:Pⁿ → P, that has an associated weight vector w = (w₁, w₂, ⋯ , w_n) ^T such that w_j > 0 and $\sum_{j = 1}^{n} w_{j} = 1$ . Furthermore, $\begin{matrix} {P 2 TLOWG}_{w} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{n}) = \otimes_{j = 1}^{n} {({\tilde{p}}_{σ (j)})}^{w_{j}} \\ = 〈 \begin{matrix} Δ (\prod_{j = 1}^{n} (Δ^{- 1} {(r_{σ (j)}, a_{σ (j)})}^{ω_{j}})), \\ (\prod_{j = 1}^{n} {(μ_{σ (j)})}^{w_{j}}, \sqrt{1 - \prod_{j = 1}^{n} {(1 - {(ν_{σ (j)})}^{2})}^{w_{j}}}) \end{matrix} 〉 \end{matrix}$ (29) where (σ (1) , σ (2) , ⋯ , σ (n)) is a permutation of (1, 2, ⋯ , n), such that ${\tilde{p}}_{σ (j - 1)} \geq {\tilde{p}}_{σ (j)}$ for all j = 2, ⋯ , n.

It can be easily proved that the P2TLOWG operator has the following properties.

Theorem 15. (Idempotency) If all ${\tilde{p}}_{j} (j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ are equal, i.e. ${\tilde{p}}_{j} = \tilde{p}$ for all j, then ${P 2 TLOWG}_{w} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{n}) = \tilde{p}$ (30)

Theorem 16. (Boundedness) Let ${\tilde{p}}_{j} (j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ be a collection of P2TLNs, and let ${\tilde{p}}^{-} = min_{j} {\tilde{p}}_{j}, {\tilde{p}}^{+} = max_{j} {\tilde{p}}_{j}$

Then ${\tilde{p}}^{-} \leq {P 2 TLOWG}_{w} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{n}) \leq {\tilde{p}}^{+}$ (31)

Theorem 17. (Monotonicity) Let ${\tilde{p}}_{j} (j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ and ${\tilde{p}}_{j}^{'} (j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ be two set of P2TLNs, if ${\tilde{p}}_{j} \leq {\tilde{p}}_{j}^{'}$ , for all j, then

$\begin{matrix} {P 2 TLOWG}_{w} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{n}) \\ \leq {P 2 TLOWG}_{w} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}^{'}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}^{'}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{n}^{'}) \end{matrix}$ (32)

Theorem 18. (Commutativity) Let ${\tilde{p}}_{j} (j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ and ${\tilde{p}}_{j}^{'} (j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ be two set of P2TLNs, for all j, then

$\begin{matrix} {P 2 TLOWG}_{w} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{n}) \\ = {P 2 TLOWG}_{w} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}^{'}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}^{'}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{n}^{'}) \end{matrix}$ (33) where ${\tilde{p}}_{j}^{'} (j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ is any permutation of ${\tilde{p}}_{j} (j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ .

From Definitions 17– 18, we know that the P2TLWG operators only weights the Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic number itself, while the P2TLOWG operators weights the ordered positions of the Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic number instead of weighting the arguments itself. Therefore, the weights represent two different aspects in both the P2TLWG and P2TLOWG operators. However, both the operators consider only one of them. To solve this drawback, in the following we shall propose the Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic hybrid geometric (P2TLHG) operator.

Definition 19. A Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic hybrid geometric (P2TLHG) operator is a mapping P2TLHG:Pⁿ → P, such that $\begin{matrix} {P 2 TLHG}_{w, ω} ({\tilde{p}}_{1}, {\tilde{p}}_{2}, \dots, {\tilde{p}}_{n}) = \otimes_{j = 1}^{n} {({\dot{\tilde{p}}}_{σ (j)})}^{w_{j}} \\ = 〈 \begin{matrix} Δ (\prod_{j = 1}^{n} (Δ^{- 1} {({\dot{r}}_{σ (j)}, {\dot{a}}_{σ (j)})}^{ω_{j}})), \\ (\prod_{j = 1}^{n} {({\dot{μ}}_{σ (j)})}^{w_{j}}, \sqrt{1 - \prod_{j = 1}^{n} {(1 - {({\dot{ν}}_{σ (j)})}^{2})}^{w_{j}}}) \end{matrix} 〉 \end{matrix}$ (34)

where w = (w₁, w₂, ⋯ , w_n) is the associated weighting vector, with w_j ∈ [0, 1], $\sum_{j = 1}^{n} w_{j} = 1$ , and ${\dot{\tilde{p}}}_{σ (j)}$ is the j-th largest element of the Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic arguments ${\dot{\tilde{p}}}_{j} ({\dot{\tilde{p}}}_{j} = {({\tilde{p}}_{j})}^{n ω_{j}}, j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ , ω = (ω₁, ω₂, ⋯ , ω_n) is the weighting vector of Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic arguments ${\tilde{p}}_{j} (j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ , with ω_j ∈ [0, 1], $\sum_{j = 1}^{n} ω_{j} = 1$ , and n is the balancing coefficient. Especially, if w = (1/ - n, 1/ - n, ⋯ , 1/ - n) ^T, then P2TLHG is reduced to the Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic weighted geometric (P2TLWG) operator; if ω = (1/ - n, 1/ - n, ⋯ , 1/ - n), then P2TLHG is reduced to the Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic ordered weighted geometric (P2TLOWG) operator.

5 Models for MADM with Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic information

Based the P2TLWA (P2TLWG) operators, in this section, we shall propose the model for MADM with Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic information. Let A ={ A₁, A₂, ⋯ , A_m } be a discrete set of alternatives, and G ={ G₁, G₂, ⋯ , G_n } be the set of attributes, ω = (ω₁, ω₂, ⋯ , ω_n) is the weighting vector of the attribute G_j (j = 1, 2, ⋯ , n), where ω_j ∈ [0, 1], $\sum_{j = 1}^{n} ω_{j} = 1$ . Suppose that $\tilde{R} = {({\tilde{r}}_{ij})}_{m \times n} = {〈 (s_{ij}, ρ_{ij}), (μ_{ij}, ν_{ij}) 〉}_{m \times n}$ is the Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic decision matrix, where ${\tilde{r}}_{ij}$ take the form of the Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic numbers, where μ_ij indicates the degree that the alternative A_i satisfies the attribute G_j given by the decision maker, ν_ij indicates the degree that the alternative A_i doesn’t satisfy the attribute G_j given by the decision maker,μ_ij ∈ [0, 1], η_ij ∈ [0, 1] ν_ij ∈ [0, 1], (μ_ij) ² + (ν_ij) ² ≤ 1, $π_{ij} = \sqrt{1 - ({(μ_{ij})}^{2} + {(ν_{ij})}^{2})}$ , s_ij ∈ S, ρ_ij ∈ [- 0.5, 0.5) , i = 1, 2, ⋯ , m, j = 1, 2, ⋯ , n.

In the following, we apply the P2TLWA (P2TLWG) operator to the MADM problems with Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic information.

Step 1. We utilize the decision information given in matrix $\tilde{R}$ , and the P2TLWA operator

$\begin{matrix} {\tilde{p}}_{i} = P 2 TLWA ({\tilde{r}}_{i 1}, {\tilde{r}}_{i 2}, \dots, {\tilde{r}}_{in}) = \oplus_{j = 1}^{n} (ω_{j} {\tilde{r}}_{ij}) \\ = 〈 \begin{matrix} Δ (\sum_{j = 1}^{n} ω_{j} Δ^{- 1} (s_{ij}, ρ_{ij})), \\ (\sqrt{1 - \prod_{j = 1}^{n} {(1 - {(μ_{ij})}^{2})}^{ω_{j}}}, \prod_{j = 1}^{n} {(ν_{ij})}^{ω_{j}}) \end{matrix} 〉, \\ i = 1, 2, \dots, m . \end{matrix}$ (35) Or

$\begin{matrix} {\tilde{p}}_{i} = P 2 TLWG ({\tilde{r}}_{i 1}, {\tilde{r}}_{i 2}, \dots, {\tilde{r}}_{in}) = \otimes_{j = 1}^{n} {({\tilde{r}}_{ij})}^{ω_{j}} \\ = 〈 \begin{matrix} Δ (\prod_{j = 1}^{n} (Δ^{- 1} {(s_{ij}, ρ_{ij})}^{ω_{j}})), \\ (\prod_{j = 1}^{n} {(μ_{ij})}^{ω_{j}}, \sqrt{1 - \prod_{j = 1}^{n} {(1 - {(ν_{ij})}^{2})}^{ω_{j}}}) \end{matrix} 〉, \\ i = 1, 2, \dots, m . \end{matrix}$ (36)

to derive the overall preference values ${\tilde{p}}_{i} (i = 1, 2, \dots, m)$ of the alternative A_i.

Step 2. Calculate the scores $S ({\tilde{p}}_{i}) (i = 1, 2, \dots, m)$ of the overall Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic numbers ${\tilde{p}}_{i} (i = 1, 2, \dots, m)$ to rank all the alternatives A_i (i = 1, 2, ⋯ , m) and then to select the best one(s). If there is no difference between two scores $S ({\tilde{p}}_{i})$ and $S ({\tilde{p}}_{j})$ , then we need to calculate the accuracy degrees $H ({\tilde{p}}_{i})$ and $H ({\tilde{p}}_{j})$ of the overall Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic numbers ${\tilde{p}}_{i}$ and ${\tilde{p}}_{j}$ , respectively, and then rank the alternatives A_i and A_j in accordance with the accuracy degrees $H ({\tilde{p}}_{i})$ and $H ({\tilde{p}}_{j})$ .

Step 3. Rank all the alternatives A_i (i = 1, 2, ⋯ , m) and select the best one(s) in accordance with $S ({\tilde{p}}_{i}) (i = 1, 2, \dots, m)$ .

Step 4. End.

6 Numerical example

In this section, we utilize a practical MADM problem to illustrate the application of the developed approaches. Suppose an organization plans to implement enterprise resource planning (ERP) system (adapted from Liao et al. [19]). The first step is to form a project team that consists of CIO and two senior representatives from user departments. By collecting all possible information about ERP vendors and systems, project term choose five potential ERP systems A_i (i = 1, 2, ⋯ , 5) as candidates. The company employs some external professional organizations (or experts) to aid this decision-making. The project team selects four attributes to evaluate the alternatives: (1) function and technology G₁, (2) strategic fitness G₂, (3) vendor’s ability G₃; (4) vendor’s reputation G₄. The five possible ERP systems A_i (i = 1, 2, ⋯ , 5) are to be evaluated using the Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic numbers by the decision makers under the above four attributes (whose weighting vector is ω = (0.2, 0.1, 0.3, 0.4)), and construct the following matrix $\tilde{R} = {({\tilde{r}}_{ij})}_{5 \times 4}$ is shown in Table 1.

Table 1
The Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic decision matrix

G₁ G₂

A₁ < (S₄,0),(0.50,0.80)> < (S₂,0), (0.60,0.30)>

A₂ < (S₁,0), (0.70,0.50)> < (S₄,0), (0.70,0.20)>

A₃ < (S₅,0), (0.60,0.40)> < (S₁,0), (0.50,0.70)>

A₄ < (S₅,0), (0.80,0.10)> < (S₆,0), (0.60,0.30)>

A₅ < (S₃,0), (0.60,0.40)> < (S₁,0), (0.40,0.80)>

G₃ G₄

A₁ < (S₁,0), (0.30,0.60)> < (S₃,0), (0.50,0.70)>

A₂ < (S₂,0), (0.70,0.20)> < (S₄,0), (0.40,0.50)>

A₃ < (S₄,0), (0.50,0.30)> < (S₂,0), (0.60,0.30)>

A₄ < (S₇,0), (0.30,0.40)> < (S₁,0), (0.50,0.60)>

A₅ < (S₃,0), (0.70,0.60)> < (S₁,0), (0.50,0.80)>

	G₁	G₂
A₁	< (S₄,0),(0.50,0.80)>	< (S₂,0), (0.60,0.30)>
A₂	< (S₁,0), (0.70,0.50)>	< (S₄,0), (0.70,0.20)>
A₃	< (S₅,0), (0.60,0.40)>	< (S₁,0), (0.50,0.70)>
A₄	< (S₅,0), (0.80,0.10)>	< (S₆,0), (0.60,0.30)>
A₅	< (S₃,0), (0.60,0.40)>	< (S₁,0), (0.40,0.80)>

	G₃	G₄
A₁	< (S₁,0), (0.30,0.60)>	< (S₃,0), (0.50,0.70)>
A₂	< (S₂,0), (0.70,0.20)>	< (S₄,0), (0.40,0.50)>
A₃	< (S₄,0), (0.50,0.30)>	< (S₂,0), (0.60,0.30)>
A₄	< (S₇,0), (0.30,0.40)>	< (S₁,0), (0.50,0.60)>
A₅	< (S₃,0), (0.70,0.60)>	< (S₁,0), (0.50,0.80)>

In the following, in order to select the most desirable ERP systems, we utilize the P2TLWA (P2TLWG) operator to develop an approach to MADM problems with Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic information, which can be described as following.

Step 1. According to Table 1, aggregate all Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic numbers ${\tilde{r}}_{ij} (j = 1, 2, \dots, n)$ by using the P2TLWA (P2TLWG) operator to derive the overall Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic numbers ${\tilde{p}}_{i} (i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)$ of the alternative A_i. The aggregating results are shown in Table 2.

Table 2

The aggregating results of the ERP systems by the P2TLWA (P2TLWG) operators

	P2TLWA	P2TLWG
A₁	< (s₃,– 0.50),(0.467,0.4631)>	< (s₂,0.19), (0.437,0.679)>
A₂	< (s₃,– 0.20), (0.614,0.347)>	< (s₂,0.46), (0.560,0.415)>
A₃	< (s₃,0.10), (0.564,0.346)>	< (s₃,– 0.24), (0.558,0.393)>
A₄	< (s₄,0.10), (0.570,0.346)>	< (s₃,– 0.04), (0.480,0.464)>
A₅	< (s₂,0.00), (0.588,0.639)>	< (s₂,– 0.27), (0.561,0.702)>

Step 2. According to the aggregating results shown in Table 2 and the score functions of the ERP systems are shown in Table 3.

Table 3

The score functions of the ERP systems

	P2TLWA	P2TLWG
A₁	(s₂,– 0.48)	(s₁,0.31)
A₂	(s₂,– 0.07)	(s₂,– 0.38)
A₃	(s₂,0.04)	(s₂,– 0.19)
A₄	(s₃,– 0.28)	(s₂,– 0.18)
A₅	(s₁,0.35)	(s₁,0.14)

Step 3. According to the score functions shown in Table 3 and the comparison formula of score functions, the ordering of the ERP systems are shown in Table 4. Note that “> ” means “preferred to”. As we can see, depending on the aggregation operators used, the ordering of the ERP systems is the same, and the best ERP system is A₄.

Table 4

Ordering of the ERP systems

	Ordering
P2TLWA	A₄>A₃>A₂>A₁>A₅
P2TLWG	A₄>A₃>A₂>A₁>A₅

7 Conclusion

In this paper, we investigate the MADM problems with Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic information. Then, we develop some Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic aggregation operators: Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic weighted average (P2TLWA) operator, Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic weighted geometric (P2TLWG) operator, Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic ordered weighted average (P2TLOWA) operator, Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic ordered weighted geometric (P2TLOWG) operator, Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic hybrid average (P2TLHA) operator and Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic hybrid geometric (P2TLHG) operator. The prominent characteristic of these proposed operators are studied. Then, we have utilized these operators to develop some approaches to solve the Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic MADM problems. Finally, a practical example for enterprise resource planning system selection is given to verify the developed approach and to demonstrate its practicality and effectiveness. In the future, the application of the proposed aggregating operators of P2TLSs needs to be explored in the decision making, risk analysis and many other fields under uncertain environment, such as dual hesitant fuzzy linguistic, interval-valued dual hesitant fuzzy linguistic, picture fuzzy set, picture 2-tuple linguistic set, and so on [37 –59].

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 71571128, 61174149 and the Humanities and Social Sciences Foundation of Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China under Grant No. 16YJA630033 and the Sciences Foundation of Sichuan Normal University (14yb18).

References

Herrera

and Martinez

, A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 8 (2000), 746–752.

Herrera

and Martinez

, An approach for combining linguistic and numerical information based on the 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model in decision-making, International Journal of Uncertainty Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 8 (2000), 539–562.

Merigó

J.M.

, Casanovas

and Martínez

, Linguistic aggregation operators for linguistic decision making based on the Dempster-Shafer theory of Evidence, International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 18(3) (2010), 287–304.

Wei

G.W.

and Zhao

X.F.

, Methods for probabilistic decision making with linguistic information, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 20(2) (2014), 193–209.

Wei

G.W.

, Interval valued hesitant fuzzy uncertain linguistic aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making, International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics 7(6) (2016), 1093–1114.

Wei

G.W.

, Alsaadi

F.E.

, Hayat

and Alsaedi

, Hesitant fuzzy linguistic arithmetic aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making, Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems 13(4) (2016), 1–16.

Lin

, Wei

G.W.

, Wang

H.J.

and Zhao

X.F.

, Choquet integrals of weighted triangular fuzzy linguistic information and their applications to multiple attribute decision making, Journal of Business Economics and Management 15(5) (2014), 795–809.

Jiang

X.P.

and Wei

G.W.

, Some Bonferroni mean operators with 2-tuple linguistic information and their application to multiple attribute decision making, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems 27 (2014), 2153–2162.

Wei

G.W.

, Extension of TOPSIS method for 2-tuple linguistic multiple attribute group decision making with incomplete weight information, Knowledge and Information Systems 25 (2010), 623–634.

10.

Wei

G.W.

, Grey relational analysis method for 2-tuple linguistic multiple attribute group decision making with incomplete weight information, Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011), 4824–4828.

11.

Q.X.

, Zhao

X.F.

and Wei

G.W.

, Model for software quality evaluation with hesitant fuzzy uncertain linguistic information, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems 26(6) (2014), 2639–2647.

12.

Wei

G.W.

, A method for multiple attribute group decision making based on the ET-WG and ET-OWG operators with 2-tuple linguistic information, Expert Systems with Applications 37(12) (2010), 7895–7900.

13.

Wei

G.W.

, Some generalized aggregating operators with linguistic information and their application to multiple attribute group decision making, Computers & Industrial Engineering 61 (2011), 32–38.

14.

Zhou

L.Y.

, Lin

, Zhao

X.F.

and Wei

G.W.

, Uncertain linguistic prioritized aggregation operators and their application to multiple attribute group decision making, International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 21(4) (2013), 603–627.

15.

Wei

G.W.

, Zhao

X.F.

, Lin

and Wang

H.J.

, Uncertain linguistic Bonferroni mean operators and their application to multiple attribute decision making, Applied Mathematical Modelling 37 (2013), 5277–5285.

16.

Merigo

J.M.

and Casanovas

, Decision making with distance measures and linguistic aggregation operators, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems 12 (2010), 190–198.

17.

Merigo

J.M.

, Gil-Lafuente

A.M.

, Zhou

L.G.

and Chen

H.Y.

, Generalization of the linguistic aggregation operator and its application in decision making, Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics 22 (2011), 593–603.

18.

Y.J.

and Wang

H.M.

, Approaches based on 2-tuple linguistic power aggregation operators for multiple attribute group decision making under linguistic environment, Applied Soft Computing 11(5) (2011), 3988–3997.

19.

Liao

X.W.

, Li

and Lu

, A model for selecting an ERP system based on linguistic information processing, Information Systems 32(7) (2007), 1005–1017.

20.

Wang

W.P.

, Evaluating new product development performance by fuzzy linguistic computing, Expert Systems with Applications 36(6) (2009), 9759–9766.

21.

Tai

W.S.

and Chen

C.T.

, A new evaluation model for intellectual capital based on computing with linguistic variable, Expert Systems with Applications 36(2) (2009), 3483–3488.

22.

Y.J.

, Ma

, Tao

F.F.

and Wang

H.M.

, Some methods to deal with unacceptable incomplete 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic preference relations in group decision making, Knowledge-Based Systems 56 (2014), 179–190.

23.

Wang

J.Q.

, Wang

D.D.

, Zhang

H.Y.

and Chen

X.H.

, Multi-criteria group decision making method based on interval 2-tuple linguistic information and Choquet integral aggregation operators, Soft Computing 19(2) (2015), 389–405.

24.

Qin

J.D.

and Liu

X.W.

, 2-tuple linguistic Muirhead mean operators for multiple attribute group decision making and its application to supplier selection, Kybernetes 45(1) (2016), 22–29.

25.

Zhang

W.C.

, Xu

Y.J.

and Wang

H.M.

, A consensus reaching model for 2-tuple linguistic multiple attribute group decision making with incomplete weight information, Int J Systems Science 47(2) (2016), 389–405.

26.

Yager

R.R.

, Pythagorean fuzzy subsets, in: Proceeding of The Joint IFSA Wprld Congress and NAFIPS Annual Meeting, Edmonton, Canada, 2013, pp. 57–61.

27.

Yager

R.R.

, Pythagorean membership grades in multicriteria decision making, IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 22 (2014), 958–965.

28.

Zhang

X.L.

and Xu

Z.S.

, Extension of TOPSIS to multiple criteria decision making with Pythagorean fuzzy sets, Int J Intell Syst 29 (2014), 1061–1078.

29.

Peng

and Yang

, Some results for Pythagorean fuzzy sets, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 30 (2015), 1133–1160.

30.

Beliakov

and James

, Averaging aggregation functions for preferences expressed as Pythagorean membership grades and fuzzy orthopairs, FUZZ-IEEE (2014), 298–305.

31.

Reformat

and Yager

R.R.

, Suggesting recommendations using Pythagorean, Fuzzy Sets illustrated Using Netflix Movie Data, IPMU (1) (2014), 546–556.

32.

Gou

, Xu

and Ren

, The properties of continuous Pythagorean fuzzy information, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 31(5) (2016), 401–424.

33.

Ren

, Xu

and Gou

, Pythagorean fuzzy TODIM approach to multi-criteria decision making, Applied Soft Computing 42 (2016), 246–259.

34.

Garg

, A new generalized Pythagorean fuzzy information aggregation using Einstein operations and its application to decision making, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 31(9) (2016), 886–920.

35.

Zeng

, Chen

and Li

, A hybrid method for Pythagorean fuzzy multiple-criteria decision making, International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making 15(2) (2016), 403–422.

36.

Garg

, A novel accuracy function under interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy environment for solving multicriteria decision making problem, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems 31(1) (2016), 529–540.

37.

Wei

G.W.

and Zhao

X.F.

, Induced hesitant interval-valued fuzzy Einstein aggregation operators and their application to multiple attribute decision making, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems 24 (2013), 789–803.

38.

Zhao

X.F.

, Lin

and Wei

G.W.

, Hesitant Triangular Fuzzy Information. Aggregation Based on Einstein operations and Their Application to Multiple Attribute Decision Making, Expert Systems with Applications 41(4) (2014), 1086–1094.

39.

Wang

H.J.

, Zhao

X.F.

and Wei

G.W.

, Dual hesitant fuzzy aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems 26(5) (2014), 2281–2290.

40.

Wei

G.W.

, Xu

X.R.

and Deng

D.X.

, Interval-valued dual hesitant fuzzy linguistic geometric aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making, International Journal of Knowledge-based and Intelligent Engineering Systems 20(4) (2016), 189–196.

41.

Wei

G.W.

, Alsaadi

Fuad E.

, Hayat

Tasawar

, Alsaedi

Ahmed

, A linear assignment method for multiple criteria decision analysis with hesitant fuzzy sets based on fuzzy measure, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems 19(3) (2017), 607–614.

42.

Wei

G.W.

, Alsaadi

F.E.

, Hayat

and Alsaedi

, Projection models for multiple attribute decision making with picture fuzzy information, International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics 2016. DOI: 10.1007/s13042-016-0604-1

43.

Wei

G.W.

, Approaches to Interval Intuitionistic Trapezoidal Fuzzy Multiple Attribute. Decision Making with Incomplete Weight Information, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems 17(3) (2015), 484–489.

44.

Wei

G.W.

, Picture fuzzy cross-entropy for multiple attribute decision making problems, Journal of Business Economics and Management 17(4) (2016), 491–502.

45.

and Wei

G.W.

, Models for multiple attribute decision making with dual hesitant fuzzy uncertain linguistic information, International Journal of Knowledge-based and Intelligent Engineering Systems 20(4) (2016), 217–227.

46.

Wei

G.W.

, Hesitant Fuzzy prioritized operators and their application to multiple attribute group decision making, Knowledge-Based Systems 31 (2012), 176–182.

47.

Wei

G.W.

, Zhao

X.F.

and Lin

, Some hesitant interval-valued fuzzy aggregation operators and their applications to multiple attribute decision making, Knowledge-Based Systems 46 (2013), 43–53.

48.

Zhou

L.Y.

, Zhao

X.F.

and Wei

G.W.

, Hesitant fuzzy hamacher aggregation operators and their application to multiple attribute decision making, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems 26(6) (2014), 2689–2699.

49.

Zhao

X.F.

, Li

Q.X.

and Wei

G.W.

, Model for multiple attribute decision making Based on the Einstein correlated Information Fusion with Hesitant Fuzzy Information, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems 26(6) (2014), 3057–3064.

50.

Wei

G.W.

and Zhang

, A multiple criteria hesitant fuzzy decision making with Shapley value-based VIKOR method, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems 26(2) (2014), 1065–1075.

51.

Wei

G.W.

, Alsaadi

F.E.

, Hayat

and Alsaedi

, Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Arithmetic. Aggregation Operators in Multiple Attribute Decision Making, Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems 13(4) (2016), 1–16.

52.

Wei

G.W.

, Some geometric aggregation functions and their application to dynamic multiple attribute decision making in intuitionistic fuzzy setting, International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge- Based Systems 17(2) (2009), 179–196.

53.

Wei

G.W.

, Some induced geometric aggregation operators with intuitionistic fuzzy information and their application to group decision making, Applied Soft Computing 10(2) (2010), 423–431.

54.

Wei

G.W.

and Zhao

X.F.

, Some induced correlated aggregating operators with intuitionistic fuzzy information and their application to multiple attribute group decision making, Expert Systems with Applications 39(2) (2012), 2026–2034.

55.

Zhao

X.F.

and Wei

G.W.

, Some Intuitionistic Fuzzy. Einstein Hybrid Aggregation Operators and Their Application to Multiple Attribute Decision Making, Knowledge-Based Systems 37 (2013), 472–479.

56.

Tang

, Wen

L.L.

and Wei

G.W.

, Approaches to multiple attribute group decision making based on the generalized Dice similarity measures with intuitionistic fuzzy information, International Journal of Knowledge-based and Intelligent Engineering Systems 21(2) (2017), 85–95.

57.

Q.X.

, Zhao

X.F.

and Wei

G.W.

, Model for Software Quality Evaluation with Hesitant Fuzzy Uncertain Linguistic Information, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems 26(6) (2014), 2639–2647.

58.

Wei

G.W.

, Wang

J.M.

and Chen

, Potential optimality and robust optimality in multiattribute decision analysis with incomplete information: A comparative study, Decision Support Systems 55(3) (2013), 679–684.

59.

Wei

G.W.

, Wang

J.M.

, A comparative study of robust efficiency analysis and data envelopment analysis with imprecise data, Expert Systems with Applications 81 (2017), 28–38.