| E-ISSN: 2717-3453 | P-ISSN: 2783-1442

Journal of Fuzzy Extension and Applications

www.journal-fea.com

J. Fuzzy. Ext. Appl. Vol. 1, No. 1 (2020) 15–26.

Paper Type: Research Paper

A New Approach for Ranking of Intuitionistic Fuzzy
Numbers

Suresh Mohan1,*, Arun Prakash Kannusamy1, Vengataasalam Samiappan1

1 Department of Mathematics, Kongu Engineering College, Erode, Tamil Nadu, India.; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]

Citation:
Mohan, S., Kannusamy, A. P., & Samiappan, V. (2020). A new approach for ranking of intuitionistic
fuzzy numbers. Journal of fuzzy extension and application, 1 (1), 15-26.

Received: 08/10/2019 Reviewed: 12/11/2019 Revised: 16/12/2019 Accept: 08/01/2020

Abstract

The concept of an Intuitionistic Fuzzy Number (IFN) is of importance for representing an ill-known quantity. Ranking
fuzzy numbers plays a very important role in the decision process, data analysis and applications. The concept of an IFN
is of importance for quantifying an ill-known quantity. Ranking of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers plays a vital role in
decision making and linear programming problems. Also, ranking of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers is a very difficult
problem. In this paper, a new method for ranking intuitionistic fuzzy number is developed by means of magnitude for
different forms of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. In Particular ranking is done for trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers,
triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers, symmetric trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers, and symmetric triangular
intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. Numerical examples are illustrated for all the defined different forms of intuitionistic fuzzy
numbers. Finally some comparative numerical examples are illustrated to express the advantage of the proposed method.

Keywords: Intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Intuitionistic fuzzy numbers, Trapezoidal intuitionistic, Fuzzy numbers. Triangular
intuitionistic fuzzy numbers, Magnitude of intuitionistic fuzzy number.

1 | Introduction

Licensee Journal
Atanassov [1] introduced the concept of Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets (IFS) which is a generalization of
of Fuzzy Extension and
the concept of fuzzy set. In IFS the degree of non-membership denoting the non-belonging of an
Applications. This rticle
is an open access article element to a set is explicitly specified along with the degree of membership.
distributed under the
terms and conditions of In many real world problems, due to insufficiency in the information available, the evaluation of
the Creative Commons membership values is not possible up to our satisfaction. Also the evaluation of non –membership
Attribution (CC BY) values is not always possible and there remains an indeterministic part in which hesitation survives.
license
A fuzzy number plays a vital role in representation of such unknown quantity. Following this concept,
(http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.0).
the generalized concept of intuitionistic Fuzzy Number (IFN) introduced by Grzegrorzewski [5] in

Corresponding Author: [email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.22105/jfea.2020.247301.1003
 2003 receives high attention and different definitions of IFN’s have been proposed. Grzegrorzewski [6]
defined two families of metrics in the space of IFNs and proposed a ranking method of IFNs.

Mitchell [9] interpreted an IFN as an ensemble of fuzzy numbers and introduced a ranking method.
Wang [18] gave the definition of intuitionistic trapezoidal fuzzy number and interval intuitionistic
trapezoidal fuzzy number. Based on expected values, score functions and accuracy function of 16
intuitionistic trapezoidal fuzzy numbers a new kind of ranking was proposed by Wang et al. in 2009.
They also developed the Hamming distance of intuitionistic trapezoidal fuzzy numbers and Intuitionistic
Trapezoidal Fuzzy Weighted Arithmetic Averaging (ITFWAA) operator, then proposed multi-criteria
decision-making method with incomplete certain information based on intuitionistic trapezoidal fuzzy
number.

In 2011, Salim Rezvani defined a new ranking technique for trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers
based on value-index and ambiguity –index of trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. Similar value-
index and ambiguity – index based ranking method for triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers was given
by Li et al. [7]. Li [8] proposed a ranking order relation of TIFN using lexicographic technique. Nayagam
et al. [12] introduced TIFNs of special type and described a method to rank them which seems to be

Mohan et al.|J. Fuzzy. Ext. Appl. 1(1) (2020) 15-26

unrealistic. Nehi [11] put forward a new ordering method for TIFNs in which two characteristic values
for IFN.

Symmetric trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers are ranked with a special ranking function which has
been applied to solve a class of linear programming problems in which the data parameters are
symmetric trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy number by Parvathi et al. [14] in 2012. Dubey et al. in 2011
developed a ranking technique for special form of triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 some preliminary definitions and concepts regarding
intuitionistic fuzzy numbers were presented. In Section 3, we define the magnitude of different forms
of trapezoidal and triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. Section 4 is devoted to the illustration of some
numerical examples for the concepts defined in the Section 3 and also contains the comparative study
of results obtained by the proposed method with other existing ranking methods. Section 5 concludes
the paper by giving some advantages of the proposed method over other methods.

2. Preliminaries

Definition 1. [1]. An IFS A in X is given by

A = {(x, μA (x), νA (x)), x ∈ X},

where the functions 𝜇𝐴 (𝑥): 𝑋 → [0, 1] and 𝜈𝐴 (𝑥): 𝑋 → [0, 1] define, respectively, the degree of
membership and degree of non-membership of the element 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 to the set A, which is a subset of X,
and for every 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋, 0 ≤ 𝜇𝐴 (𝑥) + 𝜈𝐴 (𝑥) ≤ 1.

Obviously, every fuzzy set has the form {(𝑥, 𝜇𝐴 (𝑥), 𝜇𝐴𝑐 (𝑥)), 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋}.

For each IFS A in X, we will call 𝛱𝐴 (𝑥) = 1 − 𝜇(𝑥) − 𝜈(𝑥) the intuitionistic fuzzy index of x in A. It is
obvious that 0 ≤ 𝛱𝐴 (𝑥) ≤ 1, ∀ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋.

Definition 2. [11]. An IFS 𝐴 = {(𝑥, 𝜇𝐴 (𝑥), 𝛾𝐴 (𝑥)|𝑥 ∈ 𝑋)} is called IF-normal, if there exist at least two
points 𝑥0 , 𝑥1 ∈ 𝑋 such that 𝜇𝐴 (𝑥0 ) = 1, 𝛾𝐴 (𝑥1 ) = 1, It is easily seen that given intuitionistic fuzzy set A is
IF-normal if there is at least one point that surely belongs to A and at least one point which does not
belong to A.
 Definition 3. [11]. An IFS 𝐴 = {(𝑥, 𝜇𝐴 (𝑥), 𝛾𝐴 (𝑥)|𝑥 ∈ 𝑋)} of the real line is called IF-convex, if

∀𝑥1 , 𝑥2 ∈ ℝ, ∀𝜆 ∈ [0,1], 𝜇𝐴 (𝜆𝑥1 + (1 − 𝜆)𝑥2 ) ≥ 𝜇𝐴 (𝑥1 )⋀𝜇𝐴 (𝑥2 ), and 𝛾𝐴 (𝜆𝑥1 + (1 − 𝜆)𝑥2 ) ≥
𝛾𝐴 (𝑥1 )⋀𝛾𝐴 (𝑥2 ).

17 Thus A is IF –convex if its membership function is fuzzy convex and its non-membership function is
fuzzy concave.

Definition 4. [11]. An IFS 𝐴 = {(𝑥, 𝜇𝐴 (𝑥), 𝛾𝐴 (𝑥)|𝑥 ∈ 𝑋)}of the real line is called an IFN if

A is IF-normal, A is IF-convex, and 𝜇𝐴 is upper semicontinuous and 𝛾𝐴 is lower semicontinuous,

𝐴 = {(𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 |𝛾𝐴 (𝑥) < 1} is bounded.

Definition 5. [11]. A is a
trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy number with parameters
A new approach for ranking of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers

𝑏1 ≤ 𝑎1 ≤ 𝑏2 ≤ 𝑎2 ≤ 𝑎3 ≤ 𝑏3 ≤ 𝑎4 ≤ 𝑏4 and denoted by 𝐴 = (𝑏1 , 𝑎1 , 𝑏2 , 𝑎2 , 𝑎3 , 𝑏3 , 𝑎4 , 𝑏4 ). In this case we

will give

0 ; x < a 1,
x − a1
; a1 ≤ x ≤ a2
a2 − a1
μA (x) = 1 ; a2 ≤ x ≤ a3
x − a4
; a3 ≤ x ≤ a4
a3 − a4
{ 0 ; a 4 < x.

0 ; x < b 1,
x − b2
; b1 ≤ x ≤ b2
b1 − b2
γA (x) = 1 ; b2 ≤ x ≤ b3
x − b3
; b3 ≤ x ≤ b4
b4 − b3
{
0 ; b 4 < x.

In the above definition, if we let𝑏2 = 𝑏3 ( 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ℎ𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑎2 = 𝑎3 ), then we will get a triangular intuitionistic fuzzy
number with parameters 𝑏1 ≤ 𝑎1 ≤ (𝑏2 = 𝑎2 = 𝑎3 = 𝑏3) ≤ 𝑎4 ≤ 𝑏4 and denoted by 𝐴 = (𝑏1 , 𝑎1 , 𝑏2 , 𝑎4 , 𝑏4 ).

Fig. 1. Trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy number.

Definition 6. [7]. A TIFN 𝑎̃ = ( 𝑎, 𝑎, 𝑎 ; 𝑤𝑎̃, 𝑢𝑎̃) is a special IF set on the real number set R, whose
membership function and non-membership function are defined as follows:

w ã (x − a)
if a ≤ x < a,
(a − a)
w ã if x = a,
18
μã (x) =
w ã (a − x)
if a < x ≤ a,
(a − a)
{
0 if x < a or x > a.

[a − x + u ã (x − a)]
if a ≤ x < a,
(a − a)
u ã if x = a,
v ã (x) =
[x − a + u a (a − x)]
if a < x ≤ a,
(a − a)
{

Mohan et al.|J. Fuzzy. Ext. Appl. 1(1) (2020) 15-26

0 if x < a or x > a.

Where the values 𝑤𝑎̃ and 𝑢𝑎̃ represent the maximum degree of membership and the minimum degree
of non-membership, respectively, such that they satisfy the conditions 0 ≤ 𝑤𝑎̃ ≤ 1,0 ≤ 𝑢𝑎̃ ≤ 1,0 ≤ 𝑤𝑎̃ +
𝑢𝑎̃ ≤ 1.

Fig. 2. Triangular intuitionistic fuzzy number.

Definition 7. [14]. An IFN 𝐴̃ in R is said to be a symmetric trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers if

there exists real numbers 𝑎1 , 𝑎2 , ℎ, ℎ′ where 𝑎1 ≤ 𝑎2 , ℎ ≤ ℎ′ 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ℎ, ℎ′ > 0 such that the membership and
non-membership functions are as follows:

x − (a 1 − h)
; x ∈ [a 1 − h, a 1 ]
h
1 ; x ∈ [a 1 , a 2 ]
μA
̃ (x) = a + h − x
2
; x ∈ [a 2 , a 2 + h]
h
{
0 ; otherwise

Definition 8. [17]. A Generalized Triangular Intuitionistic Fuzzy Number (GTIFN)

𝜏̃𝑎 = 〈(𝑎, 𝑙𝜇 , 𝑟𝜇 ; 𝑤𝑎 ), (𝑎, 𝑙𝛾 , 𝑟𝛾 ; 𝑢𝑎 )〉 is a special intuitionistic fuzzy set on a real number set ℜ, whose
membership function and non-membership functions are defined as follows:
 x − a + lμ
wa ; a − lμ ≤ x < a
lμ
wa ;x = a
μτ̃ a (x) = a + r μ − x
rμ wa ; a < x ≤ a + rμ

19 {
0 ; otherwise

(a − x) + u a (x − a + l γ )
; a − lγ ≤ x < a
lγ
ua ;x = a
v τ̃ a (x) = (x − a) + u a (a + r γ − x)
rγ ; a < x ≤ a + rγ
{
1 ; otherwise
A new approach for ranking of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers

Where 𝑙𝜇 , 𝑟𝜇 , 𝑙𝛾 , 𝑟𝛾 are called the spreads of membership and non-membership functions, respectively and
a is called mean value. 𝑤𝑎 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑢𝑎 represent the maximum degree of membership and minimum degree of
non-membership respectively such that they satisfy the conditions 0 ≤ 𝑤𝑎 ≤ 1,0 ≤ 𝑢𝑎 ≤ 1 𝑎𝑛𝑑 0 ≤ 𝑤𝑎 + 𝑢𝑎 ≤
1.

Definition 9. [13]. A TIFN is an intuitionistic fuzzy set in R with the following membership function
𝜇𝐴 (𝑥) and non-membership function 𝜗𝐴 (𝑥)

x − a1
, a1 ≤ x ≤ a2
a2 − a1
μA (x) = x − a 3 , a ≤ x ≤ a
2 3
a − a3
{ 2
0, otherwise

a2 − x
, a 1′ ≤ x ≤ a 2
a 2 − a 1′
ϑA (x) = x − a 2 , a 2 ≤ x ≤ a 3′
a ′ − a2
{ 3
1 , otherwise.

Where 𝑎′1 ≤ 𝑎1 ≤ 𝑎2 ≤ 𝑎3 ≤ 𝑎′3 and 𝜇𝐴 (𝑥) + 𝜗𝐴 (𝑥) ≤ 1 or 𝜇𝐴 (𝑥) = 𝜗𝐴 (𝑥) for all 𝑥 ∈ 𝑅. This TIFN is denoted
by 𝐴 = (𝑎1 , 𝑎2 , 𝑎3 ; 𝑎′1 , 𝑎2 , 𝑎′3 ).

Definition 10. [18]. Let 𝑎̃ = 〈([𝑎, 𝑏, 𝑐, 𝑑]; 𝜇𝑎̃), ([𝑎1 , 𝑏, 𝑐, 𝑑1 ]; 𝛾𝑎̃)〉 be a trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy number
whose membership and non-membership is given by

x−a
μ a≤x<b
b − a ã ,
1 , b≤x≤c
μã = d−x
μ , c<x≤d
d − c ã
{
0 , otherwise

b − x + γã (x − a 1 )
, a1 ≤ x < b
b−a
0 , b≤x≤c
γã = x − c + γã (d 1 − x)
, c < x ≤ d1
d1 − c
{
1 , otherwise.
Where 0 ≤ 𝜇𝑎̃ ≤ 1,0 ≤ 𝛾𝑎̃ ≤ 1, 𝜇𝑎̃ + 𝛾𝑎̃ ≤ 1, 𝑎, 𝑏, 𝑐, 𝑑 ∈ 𝑅. When 𝑏 = 𝑐, the intuitionistic trapezoidal fuzzy
number becomes intuitionistic triangular fuzzy number.

3. New Approach for Ranking of Intuitionistic Fuzzy Numbers

In this section we define the concept of magnitude of an intuitionistic fuzzy number and discussed 20
various methods for ranking the different forms of triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and
trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers by means of magnitude.

Definition 11. Let 𝐴 = (𝑏1 , 𝑎1 , 𝑏2 , 𝑎2 , 𝑎3 , 𝑏3 , 𝑎4 , 𝑏4 ) be a Trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy number we define

magnitude as follows:

1
1
Mag(A) = ∫(f A (x) + g A (x) + h A (x) + k A (x)) f(r)dr (1)
2
0

Mohan et al.|J. Fuzzy. Ext. Appl. 1(1) (2020) 15-26

where (𝑟) is a non-negative and increasing weighting function on [0,1] with 𝑓(0) = 0, 𝑓(1) = 1 and
1 1
∫ 𝑓(𝑟)𝑑𝑟 = .
0 2

In this paper we assume 𝑓(𝑟) = 𝑟 for our convenience, we get magnitude of A as

1
Mag(A) = (a + b 1 + a 4 + b 4 + 2(a 2 + a 3 + b 2 + b 3 )) (2)
12 1

Using this definition of 𝑀𝑎𝑔(𝐴), we define the ranking procedure of any two trapezoidal intuitionistic
fuzzy numbers as follows:

𝑀𝑎𝑔(𝐴) > 𝑀𝑎𝑔 (𝐵)𝑖𝑓𝑓 𝐴 ≻ 𝐵,

𝑀𝑎𝑔(𝐴) < 𝑀𝑎𝑔 (𝐵)𝑖𝑓𝑓 𝐴 ≺ 𝐵,

𝑀𝑎𝑔(𝐴) = 𝑀𝑎𝑔 (𝐵)𝑖𝑓𝑓 𝐴 ∽ 𝐵.

Remark 1. If 𝐴 = (𝑏1 , 𝑎1 , 𝑏2 , 𝑎2 , 𝑎3 , 𝑏3 , 𝑎4 , 𝑏4 ) 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐵 = (𝑏′1 , 𝑎′1 , 𝑏′2 , 𝑎′2 , 𝑎′3 , 𝑏′3 , 𝑎′4 , 𝑏′4 ) be any two trapezoidal
intuitionistic fuzzy numbers, then 𝑀𝑎𝑔(𝐴 + 𝐵) = 𝑀𝑎𝑔 𝐴 + 𝑀𝑎𝑔 𝐵.

Definition 12. We define magnitude of a symmetric trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy number,

𝐴 = (𝑏1 , 𝑎1 , 𝑎2 , 𝑎2 , 𝑎3 , 𝑎3 , 𝑎4 , 𝑏4 ) using Eq. (1) as

1
Mag(A) = 12 (a 1 + b 1 + a 4 + b 4 + 4(a 2 + a 3 )). (3)

Remark 2. For any two symmetric trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers

′ ′ ), ′ ′)
𝐴 = (𝑎1 , 𝑎2 , ℎ, ℎ, 𝑎1 , 𝑎2 , ℎ , ℎ 𝐵 = (𝑎1 , 𝑎2 , 𝑘, 𝑘, 𝑎1 , 𝑎2 , 𝑘 , 𝑘 , we have
 Mag(A) = Mag(B) (4)

Remark 3. For any symmetric trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy number

21
A = (−a1 , a1 , h, h, −a1 , a1 , h′ , h′ ), Mag(A) = 0. (5)

Definition 13. For a trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy number 𝐴 = (𝑎1 , 𝑎2 , 𝛼, 𝛽, 𝑎1 , 𝑎2 , 𝛼′ , 𝛽′ )

1
Mag(A) = 12 (β − α + 6(a 1 + a 2 ) + 2(β′ − α′ ). (6)
A new approach for ranking of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers

Definition 14. Let 𝐴 = (𝑎1 , 𝑎2 , ℎ, ℎ, 𝑎1 , 𝑎2 , ℎ′ , ℎ′ ) be a symmetric trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy number.

Then its magnitude defined by

1
Mag(A) = (a 1 + a 2 ). (7)
2

Definition 15. Let 𝐴 = (𝑎1 , 𝑏1 , 𝑐1 , 𝑑1 ; 𝑎′1 , 𝑏1 , 𝑐1 , 𝑑′1 ) be a trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy number, then

1
Mag(A) = 12 (a1 + d1 + 2(a′1 + d1′ ) + 3(b1 + c1 ). (8)

Definition 16. If 𝐴 = (𝑎, 𝑎, 𝑎; 𝑤𝑎 , 𝑢𝑎 ) is a triangular intuitionistic fuzzy number , then

1 4a − 2(a + a) + 3w a (a + a) 2(a + a + a ) − 3u a (a + a )
Mag(A) = + ]. (9)
12 [ wa (1 − u a )

Definition 17. Let 𝐴 = ((𝑎, 𝑙𝜇 , 𝑟𝜇 ; 𝑤𝑎 ), (𝑎, 𝑙𝛾 , 𝑟𝛾 ; 𝑢𝑎 )) be a triangular intuitionistic fuzzy number. Then

1 6aw a − 3w a (l μ − r μ ) + 2(l μ − r μ )
Mag (A) =
12 {( wa
(10)
6(a − au a ) + 3u a (l γ − r γ ) + 2(r γ − l γ )
+ )} .
(1 − u a )

Definition 18. Let 𝐴 = 〈[𝑎, 𝑏, 𝑐, 𝑑]; 𝜇𝑎 , 𝛾𝑎 〉 be a trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy number, then

1 2(b − a + c − d) + 3μa (a + d) 2(a + d) + (b + c) − 3γa (a + d)

Mag(A) = { + }. (11)
12 μa 1 − γa

Definition 19. Consider a triangular intuitionistic fuzzy number of the form 𝐴 = (𝑎1 , 𝑎2 , 𝑎3 ; 𝑎′1 , 𝑎2 , 𝑎′3 ), then

1
Mag(A) = 12 {a 1 + a 3 + 6a 2 + 2(a 1′ + a 3′ )}. (12)
4. Numerical Examples

This section illustrates some examples for comparative analysis of various existing ranking methods

Example 1. Consider two trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers as follows:

A= (0.2,0.4,0.6,0.8,0.11,0.12,0.13,0.15) and B=(0,0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5,0.6,0.7). In [11], Nehi used 22
characteristic values of membership or non-membership functions to rank trapezoidal intuitionistic
fuzzy numbers. The ranking procedure depends on the value of ‘k’. As ‘k’ varies in the interval(0, ∞),
the ranking also varies which leads to an unreasonable result. This can be seen from the following
example.

Table 1. Calculation of 𝐜𝛍𝐤 (𝐀).

a1 a2 a3 a4 b1 b2 b3 b4 k 𝐜𝛍𝐤 (𝐀)
0.4 0.8 0.11 0.13 0.2 0.6 0.12 0.15 1 0.392
0.4 0.8 0.11 0.13 0.2 0.6 0.12 0.15 2 0.408

Mohan et al.|J. Fuzzy. Ext. Appl. 1(1) (2020) 15-26

Table 2. Calculation of 𝐜𝛍𝐤 (𝐁).

a1 a2 a3 a4 b1 b2 b3 b4 k 𝒄𝒌𝝁 (𝑩)
0.1 0.3 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.5 0.7 1 0.350

0.2 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.8 2 0.450

From the table, we see that when k=1, 𝐴 > 𝐵 and when k=2, 𝐵 > 𝐴

Example 2. Consider two symmetric trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers A=(23,25,1,1;23,25,3,3) and
B = (5,7,2,2; 5,7,4,4) as in [15]. Here the ranking of STIFNs are obtained by a special ranking function by
considering all the parameters of both membership and non- membership functions of given STIFNs.
The values obtained by this method are similar to the proposed method.

Example 3. Consider two trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers of the forms

A = (0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5; 0.1,0.3,0.4,0.6) and B = (0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4; 0,0.2,0.3,0.5) discussed in [16]. Rezvani [15] used
value index of membership and non-membership functions separately to rank trapezoidal intuitionistic
fuzzy numbers.

Example 4. Consider three triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers as below A=(0.592,0.774,0.910;0.6,0.4)

, B=(0.769,0.903,1;0.4,0.5) and C=(0.653,0.849,0.956;0.5,0.2) as given in [7]. In the paper [7] Li used ratio
ranking method to rank triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and applied it to multi attribute decision
making problem In the case of ration ranking method, the raking differs on the choice of 𝜆. For the
above IFN’s we have

Table 3. Ranking of IFN’s for values of 𝝀.

S.No 𝝀 Ranking results
1 [ 0, 0.1899) A>C>B
2 (0.1899,0.9667) C>A>B
3 (0.9667,1] C>B>A

So this leads to a conflicted state which yields an unreasonable result.

Example 5. Consider the same IFN’s as in example 4 and ranking developed in [8]. Here the ranking
is done by the extended additive weighted method using the value-index and ambiguity-index. For the
above numbers, we have the following ranking results as tabulated below from [8].
 Table 4. Ranking of IFN’s for values of 𝝀.
S.No. 𝝀 Ranking Results
1 [0,0.793] C > A > B>
2 (0.793,1] A>C>B

23
From the above table, we see that the ranking differs on the basis of given weight 𝜆.

Example 6. Consider the two Generalized triangular fuzzy intuitionistic numbers

𝜏̃𝑎 = ((5,1,2; 0.6), (5,1.5,2.6; 0.3)) and 𝜏̃𝑏 = ((6,2,1; 0.6), (6,2.1,1.5; 0.4)) in [17]. If we use 𝑅𝜇( 𝜏̃𝑎 ) to rank these
numbers we obtain 𝜏̃𝑎 < 𝜏̃𝑏 . But when we rank in terms of 𝑅𝛾 (𝜏̃𝑎 ), we get ̃𝜏𝑎 > 𝜏̃𝑏 . Hence the ranking of
generalized triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers varies with the use of membership and non-membership
value in ranking. This is an unreasonable result. Therefore the proposed method which uses both
membership and non-membership values as a whole is suitable for ranking such GTIFN’s.
A new approach for ranking of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers

Example 7. Consider the two triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers as follows:

A = {(14,15,17;0.9),(10,15,18;0)} and B = {(25,30,34;0.9),(23,30,38;0)}as in [4]. In this paper, Dubey used the
concept of value and ambiguity of a triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers to rank the above numbers.
The ranking obtained in [4] is similar to the proposed method.

Example 8. Consider 5 set of trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy number as in [18].

𝑎̃1 = 〈[0.407,0.539,0.683,0.814]; 0.727,0.21〉.

𝑎̃2 = 〈[0.547,0.679,0.810,0.942]; 0.705,0.230〉.

𝑎̃3 = 〈[0.424,0.572,0.704,0.868]; 0.697,0.252〉.

𝑎̃4 = 〈[0.392,0.557,0.724,0.902]; 0.639,0.280〉.

𝑎̃5 = 〈[0.411,0.555,0.699,0.831]; 0.812,0.137〉.

In [18] ranking is done based on the comparison of score function values and accuracy function values of
integrated intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. The ranking here in [18] differs from our proposed method.

Example 9. Consider two triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers as below

𝐴̃ = {(2.68,3,3.71); (2.2,3,4.67)} and 𝐵 = {(2.75,6,9.375); (2.38,6,16.2)} as in [13]. In this paper ranking is done
by using the score function and the result obtained is similar to the proposed method.

The following table gives a comparative analysis of various ranking methods so far defined in intuitionistic
fuzzy setting with the proposed method.
 Table 5. Comparative analysis of different ranking methods.

S.No Intuitionistic Fuzzy Numbers Existing Method Proposed Method

1 c μk (A) = 0.392; Mag(A) =0.35
A=(0.2,0.4,0.6,0.8,0.11,0.12,0.13,0.15)
c μk (B) = 0.35 , Mag(B) = 0.35
B=(0,0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5,0.6,0.7)
A≻B [11] A~B 24
2 ℜ(A) = 49 Mag (A) = 24;
A=(23,25,1,1;23,25,3,3)
ℜ(B) = 13, Mag(B) = 6,
B=(5,7,2,2;5,7,4,4)
A≻B [15] A≻B
3 v μ (A) = 0.35; Mag(A) = 0.35;
A=(0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5;0.1,0.3,0.4,0.6)
v μ (B) = 0.25, Mag(B) = 0.25
B= (0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4;0,0.2,0.3,0.5)
A≻B [16] A≻B
4 Mag(A) = 0.8282;
A=(0.592,0.774,0.910;0.6,0.4) R(A, λ) = 0.4321; Mag(B) = 0.9688;
B=(0.769,0.903,1;0.4,0.5) R(B, λ) = 0.3455; Mag(C) = 0.9322,
C=(0.653,0.849,0.956;0.5,0.2) R(C, λ) = 0.3858
A≻C≻B [7] B≻C≻A

5 Mag(A) = 0.828;
A=(0.592,0.774,0.910;0.6,0.4) v λ (A) = 0.276;
Mag(B) = 0.969;
B=(0.769,0.903,1;0.4,0.5) v λ (B) = 0.224;

Mohan et al.|J. Fuzzy. Ext. Appl. 1(1) (2020) 15-26

Mag(C) = 0.932,
C=(0.653,0.849,0.956;0.5,0.2) v λ (C) = 0.534,
B>C>A
C>A>B [8]
6 R γ (τa ) = 3.98, Mag(τa ) = 5.12,
τa = ((5,1,2; 0.6), (5,1.5,2.6; 0.3))
R γ (τb ) = 3.51, Mag (τb ) = 5.96,
τb = ((6,2,1; 0.6), (6,2.1,1.5; 0.4)) A≻B [17] A≺B
7 A = {(14,15,17; 0.9), (10,15,18; 0)} F(A, λ) = 13.76; Mag(A) = 15.28;
B = {(25,30,34; 0.9), (23,30,38; 0)} F(B, λ) = 27.47; Mag(B) = 31.74
A≻B [4] A≻B
8 ã1 = 〈[0.407,0.539,0.683,0.814]; 0.727,0.21〉
ã2 = 〈[0.547,0.679,0.810,0.942]; 0.705,0.230〉 S(ã1 ) = 0.236;
Mag(ã1 ) = 0.611;
ã3 = 〈[0.424,0.572,0.704,0.868]; 0.697,0.252〉 S(ã2 ) = 0.261;
Mag(ã2 ) = 0.745;
ã4 = 〈[0.392,0.557,0.724,0.902]; 0.639,0.280〉 S(ã3 ) = 0.206;
Mag(ã3 ) = 0.640;
ã5 = 〈[0.411,0.555,0.699,0.831]; 0.812,0.137〉 S(ã4 ) = 0.153;
Mag(ã4 ) = 0.642;
S(ã5 ) = 0.353;
Mag(ã5 ) = 0.625;
a5 ≻ a2 ≻ a1 ≻ a3 ≻ a4
a2 ≻ a4 ≻ a3 ≻ a5 ≻ a1
[18]

9 ̃ ) = 3.2175
S(A ̃ ) = 3.1772
Mag(A
̃ = {(2.68,3,3.71); (2.2,3,4.67)} and
A
B̃ = {(2.75,6,9.375); (2.38,6,16.2)} S(B̃) = 7.645 Mag(B̃) = 7.12
̃ ≺ B̃
A [13] ̃ ≺ B̃
A

5. Conclusions

In many of the existing ranking methods, ranking is done either by considering the membership or non-
membership values only. But in the newly proposed method the ranking is done directly by taking both
membership and non-membership values in a single formula. This ranking procedure is very simple and
time consuming compared to the existing methods. We also illustrated the advantages of our method
by means of suitable examples. The proposed ranking technique can be applied to multi-criteria decision
making problems, linear programming problems, assignment problems, transportation, some
management problems and industrial problems which are our future research works.

References
[1] Atanassov K. (1986). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy sets and systems, 20, 87-96.
[2] Abbasbandy, S., & Hajjari, T. (2009). A new approach for ranking of trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. Computers
& mathematics with applications, 57(3), 413-419.
[3] Allahviranloo, T., Abbasbandy, S., & Saneifard, R. (2011). A method for ranking of fuzzy numbers using
new weighted distance. Mathematical and computational applications, 16(2), 359-369.
 [4] Dubey, D., & Mehra, A. (2011). Linear programming with triangular intuitionistic fuzzy
number. Proceedings of the 7th conference of the european society for fuzzy logic and technology (pp. 563-569).
Atlantis Press.
[5] Grzegrorzewski, P. (2003). The hamming distance between intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Proceedings of the 10th
IFSA world congress, Istanbul, Turkey (Vol. 30, pp. 35-38).
[6] Li, D. F. (2010). A ratio ranking method of triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and its application to
25 MADM problems. Computers & mathematics with applications, 60(6), 1557-1570.
[7] Li, D. F., Nan, J. X., & Zhang, M. J. (2010). A ranking method of triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and
application to decision making. International journal of computational intelligence Systems, 3(5), 522-530.
[8] Mitchell, H. B. (2004). Ranking-intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. International journal of uncertainty, fuzziness
and knowledge-based systems, 12(03), 377-386.
[9] Mahapatra, G. S., & Mahapatra, G. S. (2010). Intuitionistic fuzzy fault tree analysis using intuitionistic fuzzy
numbers. International mathematical forum, 5(21), 1015-1024.
[10] Nehi, H. M. (2010). A new ranking method for intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. International journal of fuzzy
systems, 12(1).
[11] Nayagam, V.L.G., Venkateshwari, G., Sivaraman, G., (2008). Ranking of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers,
Proc. of international conference on fuzzy systems 2008, Fuzz-IEEE (pp. 1971-1974).
A new approach for ranking of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers

[12] Nagoorgani, A., & Ponnalagu, K. (2012). A new approach on solving intuitionistic fuzzy linear
programming problem. Applied mathematical sciences, 6(70), 3467-3474.
[13] Parvathi, R., & Malathi, C. (2012). Arithmetic operations on symmetric trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy
numbers. International Journal of Soft Computing and Engineering, 2, 268-273.
[14] Parvathi, R., & Malathi, C. (2012). Intuitionistic fuzzy simplex method. International journal of computer
applications, 48(6), 39-48.
[15] Rezvani, S. (2013). Ranking method of trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. Annals of fuzzy
mathematics and informatics, 5(3), 515-523.
[16] Seikh, M. R., Nayak, P. K., & Pal, M. (2012). Generalized triangular fuzzy numbers in intuitionistic fuzzy
environment. International journal of engineering research and development, 5(1), 08-13.
[17] Jianqiang, W., & Zhong, Z. (2009). Aggregation operators on intuitionistic trapezoidal fuzzy number and
its application to multi-criteria decision making problems. Journal of systems engineering and
electronics, 20(2), 321-326.
[18] Wang, J. (2008). Overview on fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making approach. Control and decision, 23(6),
601-606.