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

net/publication/358554763

Distance and similarity measures for bipolar fuzzy soft sets with application
to pharmaceutical logistics and supply chain management

Article in Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems · February 2022

DOI: 10.3233/JIFS-210873

CITATIONS READS

7 289

4 authors:

Muhammad Riaz Mishal Riaz

University of the Punjab University of the Punjab
156 PUBLICATIONS 3,126 CITATIONS 1 PUBLICATION 7 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Nimra Jamil Zarife Zararsız

University of the Punjab Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University
7 PUBLICATIONS 26 CITATIONS 22 PUBLICATIONS 113 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Pythagorean m-Polar Fuzzy Sets View project

Linear Diophantine Fuzzy Sets View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Riaz on 05 July 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 42 (2022) 3169–3188 3169
DOI:10.3233/JIFS-210873
IOS Press

Distance and similarity measures for bipolar

fuzzy soft sets with application to
pharmaceutical logistics and supply chain
management

PY
Muhammad Riaza,∗ , Mishal Riaza , Nimra Jamila and Zarife Zararsizb
a Department of Mathematics, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan

CO
b Department of Mathematics, Nevsehir Hacı Bektas¸ Veli University, Nevsehir, Turkey

Abstract. Pharmaceutical logistics are primarily concerned with handling transportation and supply chain management of
OR
numerous complex goods most of which need particular requirements for their logistical care. To find the high level of
specialization, suppliers of pharmaceutical logistics must be selected under a mathematical model that can treat vague and
uncertain real-life circumstances. The notion of bipolarity is a key factor to address such uncertainties. A bipolar fuzzy soft set
(BFSS) is a strong mathematical tool to cope with uncertainty and unreliability in various real-life problems including logistics
and supply chain management. In this paper, we introduce new similarity measures (SMs) based on certain properties of
bipolar fuzzy soft sets (BFSSs). The proposed SMs are the extensions of Frobenius inner product, cosine similarity measure,
TH

and weighted similarity measure for BFSSs. The proposed SMs are also illustrated with respective numerical examples. An
innovative multi-attribute decision-making algorithm (MADM) and its flow chart are being developed for pharmaceutical
logistics and supply chain management in COVID-19. Furthermore, the application of the suggested MADM method is
presented for the selection of the best pharmaceutical logistic company and a comparative analysis of the suggested SMs
with some of the existing SMs is also demonstrated.
AU

Keywords: Bipolar fuzzy soft sets, similarity measures, pharmaceutical logistics, multi-attribute decision-making

1. Introduction between the two entities is proportionate to the value

The principle of similarity measurement (SM)
is more or less essential in any field of creativity,
science, and technology. It is usually carved to deter-
mine the trustworthiness of a particular instance,
person, product, object, or system. SM is an important
method of assessing the degree of similarity between
two or more information systems. The similarity
∗ Corresponding author. Muhammad Riaz, Department of
Mathematics, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan. E-mail:
mriaz.math@pu.edu.pk.
of the SM.
For instance, SM may be used in a business case
firm to match resumes with the job description, saving
the recruiter a considerable amount of time. Similarly,
by finding out SM between the symptoms present in a
patient in medical encounter and the symptoms of that
particular disease suspected for the patient, we may
diagnose the patient with a better degree of treatment.
In particular cases, the selection method for a specific
logistics supplier can reduce the cost and time factor
and increase the safety and satisfaction of logistic
care.

ISSN 1064-1246/$35.00 © 2022 – IOS Press. All rights reserved.

3170 M. Riaz et al. / Distance and similarity measures for bipolar fuzzy soft sets with application
Zadeh [1] is the foremost researcher who created
the concept of the fuzzy set (FS) to address vagueness
and uncertainty. A number of theories and mod-
els have been developed for modeling uncertainties
including, intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS) [2, 3], soft set
(SS) [4], bipolar fuzzy set (BFS) [5, 6], Pythagorean
fuzzy set (PyFS) [7–9], q-rung orthopair fuzzy set (q-
ROFS) [10], neutrosophic set (NS) [11], hypersoft set
and plithogenic hypersoft set [12], spherical fuzzy set
(SFS) [13–16], etc.
Molodtsov [4] introduced an abstraction of crisp
set, namely soft set as a robust model that treats ambi-
guities and uncertainties in the parametric ways. The
parameters are evaluated in terms of crisp subsets or
classes by a set-valued mapping which is an essential
component in evaluating the objects in the decision
analysis. In short, the soft set theory has fascinatingly
CO
solved many real-world problems in the implementa-
tion of current hypotheses. In theoretical and science
emphasis, soft set theory has gained great popularity.
Bipolarity of information is a critical factor in
the analysis of data in a number of forms, part of
which must be taken into account when constructing
a mathematical structure for many of the scenarios.
OR
Bipolarity reflects the positive and negative aspects
of a particular topic. For instance, two distinct aspects
of decision analysis are happiness and sadness, sweet
and sour, effects and side effects. Zhang [5, 6] intro-
duced the notion of bipolarity in both crisp and fuzzy
TH
sets, namely bipolar sets and bipolar fuzzy set (BFS),
respectively. Wei et al. [17] proposed the idea of
interval-valued bipolar fuzzy set (IVBFS) and dis-
cussed the multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM)
for emerging technology commercialization evalua-
AU
tion. The abstractions of bipolar fuzzy set and bipolar
fuzzy soft set have been studied in the last decades
by many researchers (see [18–22]).
Lee [23, 24] studied bipolar-valued fuzzy set
(BVFS), their basic operations, and described the
comparison of interval-valued fuzzy sets (IVFSs),
IFSs, and BVFSs. Batyrshin [25, 26] proposed a gen-
eral theory of similarity and association measures,
dissimilarity, resemblance functions, and correla-
tion functions. These concepts play an important
role in information retrieval and information mea-
sures, statistics, data science, recommender systems,
machine learning, and decision-making. Akram [27]
proposed the novel concept of bipolar fuzzy graphs
and their application. Alghamdi et al. [28] proposed
new MCDM approach for bipolar fuzzy environment.
Riaz and Tehrim [29, 30] proposed the notion of bipo-
lar fuzzy soft topology (BFS-topology) and bipolar
fuzzy soft mappings with decision-making in medical
diagnosis and bipolar disorder.
Alcantud et al. [31] proposed the notion of dual
extended hesitant fuzzy sets and their related results.
Zhang and Xu [32] proposed the idea of Pythagorean
fuzzy numbers (PyFNs) and their fundamental oper-
ations. They proposed MCDM approach with a new
extension of TOPSIS based on PyFSs. They devel-
oped an application of proposed MCDM approach to
examine the service quality among domestic airlines.
Decision-making with similarity measures and
distance measures have been studied by many
PY
researchers; for soft sets (SSs) (see [33–37]), for
various fuzzy sets and vague sets (see [38–41]), for
IFSs (see [42–48]), for PyFSs (see [49–54]), for q-
rung orthopair fuzzy sets (qROFS) (see [55–58]), for
bipolar fuzzy set and bipolar neutrosophic set (see
[59–61]), and soft sets and their algebraic structures
(see [62, 66]. Zararsiz [67, 68] proposed similarity
measures of sequence of fuzzy numbers, algebraic
structure of fuzzy numbers, and fuzzy risk analysis.
Zararsiz and sengonul [69] studied the gravity of cen-
ter of sequence of fuzzy numbers. However, distance
and similarity measures for bipolar fuzzy soft sets
have not been studied by the researchers. To fill this
research gap, we introduce some new distance and
similarity measures for bipolar fuzzy soft sets, and
then develop an algorithm for modeling uncertainties
in decision-making.
The remaining paper is arranged as follows: In Sec-
tion 2, some basics concepts of BFSs and BFSSs
are recalled. Distance and similarity measures of
BFSSs are defined in Section 3. Weighted similar-
ity measures for BFSSs are proposed in Section 4.
A robust application to pharmaceutical logistics and
supply chain management is presented in Section 5.
Lastly, the summary of research work is concluded in
Section 6.
2. Preliminaries
In this section, we discuss basic concepts of soft
sets and bipolar fuzzy sets. A detailed study of bipolar
fuzzy sets and bipolar fuzzy soft sets can be seen in
[5, 6, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27].
Definition 2.1. [4] Let M be the universe, P be the
set of parameters, and A ⊆ P. Then, a soft set ϒA
over M is defined by
ϒA = {(p, ϒ(p)) : p ∈ A, ϒ(p) ∈ (M)}
 M. Riaz et al. / Distance and similarity measures for bipolar fuzzy soft sets with application 3171

where (M) is the power set of M, and ϒ maps A to Table 1

Bipolar fuzzy soft set A
(M).
A p1 p2 ··· pn
Definition 2.2. [5] Let M be the universe. A bipolar 1 (μ+ −
11 , μ11 ) (μ+ −
12 , μ12 ) ··· (μ+ −
1n , μ1n )
fuzzy set (BFS) on M is defined by 2 (μ+
21 , μ −
21 ) (μ+
22 , μ −
22 ) ··· (μ+
2n , μ −
2n )
.. .. .. .. ..
  . . . . .
B = (, μ+ −
B (), μB ()): for all  ∈ M m (μ+ −
m1 , μm1 ) (μ+ −
m2 , μm2 ) ··· (μ+ −
mn , μmn )

where μ+ −
B () ∈ [0, 1] and μB () ∈ [−1, 0] represent
the positive membership and negative membership, Definition 2.4. [19] Let M be the universe of dis-
respectively. course, P the set of parameters, and A ⊆ P. Let
The collection of all BFSs on M can be expressed as  : A → BF M be a mapping, then a bipolar fuzzy
BF (M) or BF M . soft set (BFSS) (, A) or A is defined by

PY
  
Definition 2.3. [23] Let B, B1 and B2 ∈ BF (M) be (, A) = p, (p) : p ∈ A, (p) ∈ BF M

BFSs. Then,
  
1. Null BFS: A BFS B ∈ BF (M) is said to be null + −
= p, {, μB (), μB ()} : p ∈ A,  ∈ M

CO
BFS, if μ+ −
B (i ) = 0 and μB (i ) = 0,
 It
for each i ∈ M and we denote it as φB or φ. If M = {1 , · · · , m }, A = {p1 , · · · , pn }, then BFSS
can be expressed as follows: A in the tabular form is expressed in Table 1 . and
  corresponding bipolar fuzzy soft matrix (shortly BFS
φB = (, 0, 0) :  ∈ M matrix) is given by
2. Absolute BFS: A BFS B ∈ BF (M) is called an (, A) = [(μ+ −
OR
ij , μij )]m×n
absolute BFS, if μ+ − ⎛ ⎞
B (i ) = 1 and μB (i ) = −1, (μ+ −
(μ+ −
··· (μ+ −
11 , μ11 ) 12 , μ12 ) 1n , μ1n )

for each i ∈ M and we denote it as MB or M.It ⎜ (μ+21 , μ−21 ) − ⎟
⎜ (μ+ −
22 , μ22 ) ··· (μ+
2n , μ2n ) ⎟
can be expressed as follows: =⎜
⎜ .. .. .. .. ⎟.
⎟
  ⎝ . . . . ⎠
MB = (, 1, −1) :  ∈ M (μ+ −
(μ+ −
··· (μ+ −
m1 , μm1 ) m2 , μm2 ) mn , μmn )
TH

3. Complement: The compliment of BFS, B ∈

BF (M) is defined by
Definition 2.5. [19] A BFSS A ∈ BF M is called a
B = Bc = {(i , 1 − μ+ − null BFSS, if μ+ −
A () = 0 and μA () = 0, for each
B (i ), −1 − μB (i )) :
 ∈ M. It can be expressed as follows:
AU

i ∈ M}  

φA = p, {, 0, 0} : p ∈ P,  ∈ M
4. Inclusion: Consider two BFS B1 and B2 ∈
BF (M), then B1 ⊆ B2 , if and only if
μ+ + − −
B1 (i ) ≤ μB2 (i ) and μB1 (i ) ≥ μB2 (i ). Definition 2.6. [19] A BFSS A ∈ BF M is called
5. Intersection: Let B1 and B2 ∈ BF (M), then the
an absolute BFSS, if μ+ −
C () = 1 and μC = −1, for
intersection of B1 and B2 is a BFS given by
each  ∈ M. It can be expressed as follows:

B1 ∩ B2 = i , min(μ+ +   
B1 (i ), μB2 (i )), 
M A = p, {, 1, −1} : p ∈ P,  ∈ M

max(μ− B1 ( i ), μ−
B2 ( i )) .
(1) (2)
6. Union: Let B1 and B2 ∈ BF (M), then the union Definition 2.7. [19] Let A1 = (1 , A1 ) and A2 =
of B1 and B2 is a BFS given by (2 , A2 ) be BFSSs over M, where A1 , A2 ⊆ P.
(1) (2) (1)  (2)
 Then, A1 is BFS-subset of A2 i.e. A1 ⊆ A2 , if
B1 ∪ B2 = i , max(μ+ +
B1 (i ), μB2 (i )),
the following situations hold
 (i) A1 ⊆ A2
min(μ− −
B1 (i ), μB2 (i )) . (ii) 1 (p) is BF-subset of 2 (p) for all p ∈ A1 .
3172 M. Riaz et al. / Distance and similarity measures for bipolar fuzzy soft sets with application

(1) (2) In short, it can be written as follows:

Two BFSSs A1 and A2 over M are said
(1) (2) 
to be equal, written A1 = A2 , if and only if A = p2 , {(2 , 0.42, −0.79), (3 , 0.72, −0.21),
(1)  (2)  (1)
A ⊆ A ⊆A hold. 
1 2 1
(4 , 0.21, −0.59)} ,


Definition 2.8. [19] Let (1 , A1 ) and (2 , p4 , {(1 , 0.59, −0.41), (3 , 0.92, −0.11),
A2 ) be two BFSSs over M. Then, (, A) = 
 (2 , A2 ) , where A = A1 ∪ A2 and for all
(1 , A1 ) ∪ (4 , 0.69, −0.23)} .
p ∈ A,
⎧ Then, corresponding BFS matrix is obtained as fol-
⎪
⎨ 1 (p) , if p ∈ A1 \A2 lows:
 (p) = 2 (p) , if p ∈ A2 \A1

PY
⎪
⎩ (, A)
1 (p) ∪ 2 (p) , if p ∈ A1 ∩ A2 ⎛ ⎞
(0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0.59, −0.41)
where 1 (p) ∪ 2 (p) is the union of two BFSs. ⎜(0, 0) (0.42, −0.79) (0, 0) ⎟
(0, 0)
⎜ ⎟
=⎜ ⎟.
⎝(0, 0) (0.72, −0.21) (0, 0) (0.92, −0.11)⎠
Definition 2.9. [19] The intersection of two BFSSs

CO
(0, 0) (0.21, −0.59) (0, 0) (0.69, −0.23)
(1 , A1 ) and (2 , A2 ) is a BFS-set (, A) =
 (2 , A2 ), where A = A1 ∩ A2 =
(1 , A1 ) ∩ / φ and
 (p) = 1 (p) ∩ 2 (p) for all p ∈ A.
Definition 2.12. Let B1 , B2 be two BFSs. A measure
Definition 2.10. [19] The complement of the BFSS Sim(B1 , B2 ) is termed as a similarity measure (SM)
    if it fulfill the following requirements:
A = p, , μ+ −
: p ∈ A,  ∈ M
OR
A (), μA ()
1. 0 ≤ Sim(B1 , B2 ) ≤ 1.
2. Sim(B1 , B2 ) = 1 ⇔ B1 = B2 .
is 3. Sim(B1 , B2 ) = Sim(B2 , B1 ).
 
A = cA = p, , 1 − μ+
A (), −1 Definition 2.13. [19] Let (ϒ1 , P1 ) and (ϒ2 , P2 ) be
TH

  two soft sets. If P1 and P2 are coincident (same set

−μ−
A () : p ∈ A,  ∈ M . of parameters), then the similarity between (ϒ1 , P1 )
and (ϒ2 , P2 ) is expressed as
i F1 (pi ).F2 (pi )
Example 2.11. Let M = {1 , 2 , 3 , 4 } be the S(ϒ1 , ϒ2 ) = .
AU

set of four juicer machines under consideration
and P = {p1 = High Speed, p2 = Efficient, p3 =
Modern Technology, p4 = Warranty} such that
A = {p2 , p3 } ⊆ P. Then, the BFSS over M cab be
written as follows:
  empty set.
A = p1 , {(1 , 0, 0), (2 , 0, 0), (3 , 0, 0), (4 , 0, 0)} ,

p2 , {(1 , 0, 0), (2 , 0.42, −0.79),
 weight of i . The weighted similarity of two soft sets
(3 , 0.72, −0.21), (4 , 0.21, −0.59)} ,
 
p3 , {(1 , 0, 0), (2 , 0, 0), (3 , 0, 0), (4 , 0, 0)} ,

p4 , {(1 , 0.59, −0.41), (2 , 0, 0),

(3 , 0.92, −0.11), (4 , 0.69, −0.23)} .
i F1 (pi )2 ∨ F2 (pi )2
We compute S(ϒ1 , ϒ2 ) utilizing above formula if P1
and P2 are overlapping and different, by consider-
ing first definition F1 (p) = ∅ for p ∈ P2 \ (P1 ∩ P2 )
and F2 (p) = ∅ for p ∈ P1 \ (P1 ∩ P2 ), where ∅ is the
Definition 2.14. [35] Let M = {1 , · · · , n } be the
underlying set and wi ∈ [0, 1] (not all zero) be the
(ϒ1 , P) and (ϒ2 , P) defined over M is
1 i wi (ϒ1 (pi ).ϒ2 (pi ))
W(ϒ1 , ϒ2 ) = × .
i w i i ϒ1 (pi )2 ∨ ϒ2 (pi )2
Definition 2.15. [36] Let M = {i : i = 1, · · · , m}
be a crisp set with collection of attributes P =
 M. Riaz et al. / Distance and similarity measures for bipolar fuzzy soft sets with application 3173

{pi : i = 1, 2, · · · , n}. If P1 , P2 ⊆ P, then the SM between them is given by

between the intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets (IFSSs) i G1 (pi ).G2 (pi )
(N, P1 ) and (K, P2 ) is given by S(G1 , G2 ) =
i max[G1 (pi )2 , G2 (pi )2 ]
S(N, K)
Note that G1 (p) = 0 for p ∈ P2 \ (P1 ∩ P2 ) and
−
→ −
→+ −
→− −
→− G2 (p ) = 0 for p ∈ P1 \ (P1 ∩ P2 ).
i [ N + μ (pi ) K μ (pi ) + N μ (pi ) K μ (pi )]
= −
→ −
→+ −
→− −
→− .
μ (pi ) ∨ K μ (pi ) } + { N μ (pi ) ∨ K μ (pi ) }]
i [{ N + 2 2 2 2
Definition 3.3. [35] Let M = {1 , 2 , 3 , · · · } be a
universe, P = {p1 , p2 , p3 , · · · } be the set of parame-
ters, A1 , A2 ⊆ P and ϒA1 , ϒA2 be two soft sets on M
with their approximate function fA1 and kA2 , respec-
3. Distance and similarity measures of BFSSs tively. Then, the distance of ϒA1 and ϒA2 are defined

PY
as,
In this section, we present distance and similarity
1. Hamming distance:
measures for BFSSs. For distance measures between
bipolar fuzzy sets and soft sets the readers can see d 1 (ϒA1 , ϒA2 )
[18, 28, 35]. Throughout this manuscript, M is the  m n 
1 

CO
universe of discourse and P is the set of parameters.
= |fA1 (pi )(j ) − kA2 (pi )(j )|
m
i=1 j=1
Definition 3.1. [18, 28]
Let M = {1 , 2 , · · · , n }, B1 and B2 be two BFSs 2. Normalized Hamming distance:
over M with their positive membership function μ+ B1 d 2 (ϒA1 , ϒA2 )
and μ+ and negative membership function μ −
and
B2 B1  m n 
μ−B2 respectively. Then, Han et al. [18] defined the
1 
OR
= |fA1 (pi )(j ) − kA2 (pi )(j )|
distances between B1 and B2 as follows: mn
i=1 j=1
1. Hamming Distance: 3. Euclidean distance:
1  +
n
d 3 (ϒA1 , ϒA2 )
dh (B1 , B2 ) = (|μB1 (i ) − μ+
B2 (i )| 
TH

2n  
i=1 1 m  n
= (fA1 (pi )(j ) − kA2 (pi )(j ))2
+ |μ− −
B1 (i ) − μB2 (i )|) m
i=1 j=1
2. Poles-weighted Hamming distance: 4. Normalized Euclidean distance:
AU

1 p +
n
d 4 (ϒA1 , ϒA2 )
dph (B1 , B2 ) = (κ |μB1 (i ) − μ+
B2 (i )|
n 

i=1
 1  m  n

+κ |μ− − = (fA1 (pi )(j ) − kA2 (pi )(j ))2

B1 (i ) − μB2 (i )|)
N
mn
i=1 j=1
where κp + κN
= 1.
3. Alghamdi et al. [28] defined Euclidean distance Definition 3.4. [35] Let ϒA1 and ϒA2 be two soft sets
as follows: over M. Then, the similarity measure of ϒA1 and ϒA2
1 + can be defined as by utilizing Euclidean distance,
n
dP (B1 , B2 ) = ( (|μB1 (i ) − μ+
B2 (i )|
2
2 1
i=1 Sim1 (ϒA1 , ϒA2 ) =
1 + d 3 (ϒA1 , ϒA2 )
+ |μ− − 1
B1 (i ) − μB2 (i )| ))
2 2
Another similarity measure can be defined as

Sim2 (ϒA1 , ϒA2 ) = e−σd

3 (ϒ ,ϒ )
A1 A2
Definition 3.2. [35] Let P1 and P2 be the set of param-
eters such that P1 =/ P2 , and (G1 , P1 ) and (G2 , P2 ) where σ is a positive real number called the steepness
be two fuzzy soft sets, then the similarity measure measure.
3174 M. Riaz et al. / Distance and similarity measures for bipolar fuzzy soft sets with application

Now we extend some existing distance measures to Theorem 3.6. Let D(A1 , A2 ) is the distance mea-
BFSSs in the following definition. H , d PH , d P NE
sure defined by dBFS BFS BFS and dBFS between
BFSS A1 and A2 , then D(A1 , A2 ) satisfy the
Definition 3.5. Let M = {1 , 2 , 3 , · · · n } be the following conditions:
universe, and P = {p1 , p2 , p3 , · · · pm } be the set of
parameters. Let A1 , A2 ⊆ P and A1 , A2 be two (i) (Nonnegativity) D(A1 , A2 ) ≥ 0 and
BFSSs over M with their BF-approximate function D(A1 , A2 ) = 0 ⇔ A1 = A2 ;
(ii) (Symmetry) D(A1 , A2 ) = D(A1 , A2 )
δA1 (pi ) = {(, μ+ −
A1 (), μA1 ()) :  ∈ M} (iii) (Triangle inequality) D(A1 , A2 ) ≤
D(A1 , A3 ) + D(A3 , A2 )
and
Proof. We only give proof for dBFS H . If  ,  ,
A1 A2
δA2 (pi ) = {(, μ+ −
A2 (), μA2 ()) :  ∈ M} A3 ∈ BFS(M), then

PY
H ( ,  ) ≥ 0
(i) dBFS A1 A2
respectively. Then, the distances of A1 and A2 are ∀i = 1, 2, · · · , m, j = 1, 2, · · · , n
defined as H ( ,  ) = 0
if dBFS A1 A2

1. Hamming distance: ⇒ |μ+ + −

A1 (pi )(j ) − μA2 (pi )(j )| + |μA1 (pi )(j ) −
μ−A2 (pi )(j )| = 0

=
H
dBFS (A1 , A2 )

1  +
2mn
m

i=1 j=1
n
(|μA1 (pi )(j ) − μ+
A2 (pi )(j )|
CO⇒ μ+
μ−
⇒ A1 = A2
Conversely, let
+ −
A1 (pi )(j ) = μA2 (pi )(j ) ∧ μA1 (pi )(j ) =
A2 (pi )(j )

 A1 = A2 ⇒ μ+ +
A1 (pi )(j ) = μA2 (pi )(j ) ∧
+ |μ− −
A1 (pi )(j ) − μA2 (pi )(i )|) − −
OR
μA1 (pi )(j ) = μA2 (pi )(j )
2. Poles-weighted Hamming distance: ⇒ |μ+ + −
A1 (pi )(j ) − μA2 (pi )(j )| + |μA1 (pi )(j ) −
−
PH
μA2 (pi )(j )| = 0
dBFS (A1 , A2 )
⇒ dBFSH ( ,  ) = 0
A1 A2
1  p +
m n
(ii) Clearly dBFS H ( ,  ) = d H ( ,  )
A1 A2 BFS A2 A1
= (κ |μA1 (pi )(j ) −μ+
A2 (pi )(j )|
TH

mn (iii) Triangular inequality follows easily from the

i=1 j=1
observation that for any three BFS-sets A1 , A2

+κ N
|μ−
A1 (pi )(j ) − μ−
A2 (pi )(j )|)
and A3 ,
∀i = 1, 2, · · · , m, j = 1, 2, · · · , n
|μ+ + −
A1 (pi )(j ) − μA2 (pi )(j )| + |μA1 (pi )(j ) −
AU

where κp + κN = 1. − + +
μA2 (pi )(j )| = |μA1 (pi )(j ) − μA3 (pi )(j ) +
3. Euclidean distance: μ+ + −
A3 (pi )(j ) − μA2 (pi )(j )| + |μA1 (pi )(j ) −
− − −
P
dBFS (A1 , A2 ) μA3 (pi )(j ) + μA3 (pi )(j ) − μA2 (pi )(j )|
≤ |μ+ + +
A1 (pi )(j ) − μA3 (pi )(j )| + |μA3 (pi )(j ) −
 1 
m 
n
+ − −
= [|μ+ + μA2 (pi )(j )| + |μA1 (pi )(j ) − μA3 (pi )(j )| +
A1 (pi )(j ) − μA2 (pi )(j )| ]
2
2m
i=1 j=1 |μ− −
A3 (pi )(j ) − μA2 (pi )(j )|
1 Therefore we have:
+ [|μ− −
A1 (pi )(j ) − μA2 (pi )(j )| ]
2 2 H ( ,  ) ≤ d H ( ,  ) +
dBFS A1 A2 BFS A1 A3
H ( ,  )
dBFS A3 A2
3. Normalized Euclidean distance: The others proof can be made similarly. 
NE
dBFS (A1 , A2 )
Theorem 3.7. Let BFS(M) be a set of all BFSSs over
 1 
m 
n H , d PH , d P
M. Then, each distance function dBFS BFS BFS
= [|μ+ +
A1 (pi )(j ) − μA2 (pi )(j )| ]
2
NE
and dBFS is a metric on BFS(M).
2mn
i=1 j=1

 21 Definition 3.8. Let A1 and A2 be two BFSSs

+ [|μ− −
A1 (pi )(j ) − μA2 (pi )(j )| ]
2
over M. Then, by using the Hamming distance,
 M. Riaz et al. / Distance and similarity measures for bipolar fuzzy soft sets with application 3175

similarity measures of A1 and A2 is defined as in {1, 2, · · · , n} and j ∈ {1, 2, · · · , m},
the following, then
SimBFS (A1 , A2 ) = 1
1
Sim (A1 , A2 ) =
1
.
1 + d H (A1 , A2 )
Example 3.10. Assume that M = {1 , 2 , 3 } is
Another similarity measure can be defined as the universe of discourse, P = {p1 , p2 , p3 , p4 } be
the set of parameters. Let A1 = {p1 , p2 , p3 } and
Sim2 (A1 , A2 ) = e−σd
H ( , )
A1 A2
A2 = {p1 , p2 , p3 } be subsets of P. Consider the
where σ is a positive real number called the steepness 
BFSSs defined over M

measure. A1 = p1 , {(1 , 0.110, −0.871),

(2 , 0.76, −0.500), (3 , 0.571, −0.211)} ,

PY
Definition 3.9. Let M = {1 , 2 , 3 , · · · , n } be
a universe, P = {p1 , p2 , p3 , · · · , pm } be the set p2 , {(1 , 0.811, −0.211),
  (2 , 0.790, −0.122),
of parameters, A1 , A2 ⊆ P and A1 , A2 be two (3 , 0.711, −0.002)} , p3 , {(1 , 0.920, −0.321),

BFSSs on M with their bipolar fuzzy approximate 
(2 , 0.530, −0.530), (3 , 0.560, −0.231)}
function

CO
and 
δA1 (pi ) = {(, μ+ −
A1 (), μA1 ()) :  ∈ M} 
A2 = p1 , {(1 , 0.240, −0.670),
and 
(
 2 , 0.333, −0.551), ( 3 , 0.521, −0.281)} ,
δA2 (pi ) = {(, μ+ −
A2 (), μA2 ()) :  ∈ M} p2 , {(1 , 0.870, −0.100),
  (2 , 0.571, −0.570),
(3 , 0.290, −0.221)} , p3 , {(1 , 0.821, −0.283),

respectively If A1 = A2 and μ+ A1 (pi )(j ) − 
OR
μ−A1 (p i )( j ) =/ 0 or μ +
A2 (p i )( j ) − μ −
A2 (pi )(j ) =
/ 0 (2 , 0.981, −0.022), (3 , 0.511, −0.421)} .
for at least one i ∈ {1, 2, · · · , n} and
j ∈ {1, 2, · · · , m}, The distances, by using Definition 3.5, of BFSSs A1
then the similarity measure between A1 and A2 is and A2 are calculated as follows:
defined by
TH

m n + − + −
i=1 j=1 |(μA1 (pi )(j ) + μA1 (pi )(j )).(μA2 (pi )(j ) + μA2 (pi )(j ))|
SimBFS (A1 , A2 ) = m n  + − + − 
j=1 max ||μA1 (pi )(j ) + μA1 (pi )(j )|| , ||μA2 (pi )(j ) + μA2 (pi )(j )||
2 2
i=1

where
AU

μ+
A1 (pi )(j )

= (μ+ + + H
(A1 , A2 ) = 0.47
A1 (pi )(1 ), μA1 (pi )(2 ), · · · , μA1 (pi )(n ))
dBFS

μ−
PH
dBFS (A1 , A2 ) = 0.32
A1 (pi )(j )

= (μ− − −
A1 (pi )(1 ), μA1 (pi )(2 ), · · · , μA1 (pi )(n )) E
dBFS (A1 , A2 ) = 0.381

μ+
A2 (pi )(j ) NE
dBFS (A1 , A2 ) = 0.213
= (μ+ + +
A2 (pi )(1 ), μA2 (pi )(2 ), · · · , μA2 (pi )(n )) and
1
μ− Sim1 (A1 , A2 ) = = 0.670
A2 (pi )(j ) 1 + d H ( A1 , A2 )

= (μ− − −
A2 (pi )(1 ), μA2 (pi )(2 ), · · · , μA2 (pi )(n )) and

If A1 = A2 and μ+ −
A1 (pi )(j ) + μA1 (pi )(j ) = 0
Sim2 (A1 , A2 ) = e−σd
H ( , )
+ −
and μA2 (pi )(j ) + μA2 (pi )(j ) = 0, for all i ∈
A1 A2
= 0.6866
3176 M. Riaz et al. / Distance and similarity measures for bipolar fuzzy soft sets with application

Now, we can obtain the following calculations: Theorem 3.12. Let P be the set of parameters,
μ+
A1 (p1 )(j ) = (0.110, 0.760, 0.571) A1 , A2 , A3 ⊆ P and A1 , A2 and A3 be three
μ−
A1 (p1 )(j ) = (−0.871, −0.500, −0.211)
BFSSs over M such that A1 is a BFS-subset of A2
μ+
A1 (p2 )(j ) = (0.811, 0.790, 0.711)
and A2 is BFS-subset of A3 . Then,
μ−
A1 (p2 )(j ) = (−0.211, −0.122, −0.002) SimBFS (A1 , A3 ) ≤ SimBFS (A2 , A3 )
μ+
A1 (p3 )(j ) = (0.920, 0.530, 0.560)
μ−
A1 (p3 )(j ) = (−0.321, −0.530, −0.231)
μ+
A2 (p1 )(j ) = (0.240, 0.333, 0.521) Proof. The proof is straightforward. 
μ−
A2 (p1 )(j ) = (−0.670, −0.551, −0.281)
μ+
A2 (p2 )(j ) = (0.870, 0.571, 0.290) Definition 3.13. Let M = {1 , 2 , 3 , · · · } be a uni-
μ− verse, P = {p1 , p2 , p3 , · · · } be the set of parameters,
A2 (p2 )(j ) = (−0.100, −0.570, −0.221)

PY
μ+ A1 , A2 ⊆ P and A1 , A2 be two BFSSs on M with
A2 (p3 )(j ) = (0.821, 0.981, 0.511)
their BF-approximate function
μ−
A2 (p3 )(j ) = (−0.283, −0.022, −0.421)
and
δA1 (pi ) = {(, μ+ −
A1 (), μA1 ()) :  ∈ M}
μ+ + μ− = (−0.761, 0.260, 0.360)

CO
A1 (p1 )(j ) A1 (p1 )(j )
μ+ + μ− = (0.600, 0.668, 0.709) and
A1 (p2 )(j ) A1 (p2 )(j )
μ+ + μ− = (−0.401, 0.000, −0.371)
A1 (p3 )(j ) A1 (p3 )(j ) δA2 (pi ) = {(, μ+ −
A2 (), μA2 ()) :  ∈ M}
μ+
A2 (p1 )(j ) + μ−
A2 (p1 )(j ) = (−0.430, −0.221, 0.240)
μ+
A2 (p2 )(j ) + μ−
A2 (p2 )(j ) = (0.770, 0.001, 0.069) respectively,
μ+
A2 (p3 )(j ) + μ−
A2 (p3 )(j ) = (0.538, 0.959, −0.110) If A1 = A2 , then the SM between A1 and A2 is
defined as
OR

m n + !
j=1 {μA1 (pi )(j ) . μ+ − −
A2 (pi )(j )} + {μA1 (pi )(j ) . μA2 (pi )(j )}
Sim+
i=1
BFS (A1 , A2 ) = m n + !
i=1 j=1 {μA1 (pi )(j ) ∨
2 μ+ 2 − 2 −
A2 (pi )(j ) } + {μA1 (pi )(j ) ∨ μA2 (pi )(j ) }
2

If A1 =/ A2 and P = A1 ∩ A2 = / φ, then we define

TH

Thus the similarity measure between A1 and A2 is δA1 (p) = 0 for p ∈ A2 \ P and δA2 (p) = 0 for p ∈
given by A1 \ P, then we compute Sim+ BFS (A1 , A2 ) by
SimBFS (A1 , A2 ) = 0.630 above formula.
Note: If P = A1 ∩ A2 = φ then Sim+ BFS (A1 ,
Remark: Theorems 3.11 and 3.12 hold for the simi- A2 ) = 0.
AU

larity measure given in Definition 3.9.

Example 3.14. We consider information given in
Theorem 3.11. Let P be the set of parameters, Example 3.10 and compute SM between A1 and
A1 , A2 ⊆ P and A1 and A2 be two BFSSs over A2 by the formula
M. Then, the following hold;

3 3 + !
j=1 {μA1 (pi )(j ) . μ+ − −
A2 (pi )(j )} + {μA1 (pi )(j ) . μA2 (pi )(j )}
Sim+
i=1
BFS (A1 , A2 ) = 3 3 + !
i=1 j=1 {μA1 (pi )(j ) ∨
2 μ+ 2 − 2 −
A2 (pi )(j ) } + {μA1 (pi )(j ) ∨ μA2 (pi )(j ) }
2

Here
μ+ +
A1 (p1 )(j ) . μA2 (p1 )(j ) = (0.110, 0.760, 0.571).
1. SimBFS (A1 , A2 ) = SimBFS (A1 , A2 )
(0.240, 0.330, 0.521) = 0.5747
2. 0 ≤ SimBFS (A1 , A2 ) ≤ 1
μ+ +
A1 (p2 )(j ) . μA2 (p2 )(j ) = (0.811, 0.790, 0.711).
3. SimBFS (A1 , A1 ) = 1
(0.870, 0.571, 0.290) = 1.362
μ+ +
A1 (p3 )(j ) . μA2 (p3 )(j ) = (0.220, 0.530, 0.560).
Proof. The proof is obvious by using Definition 3.9. (0.821, 0.981, 0.511) = 1.771
 μ− −
A1 (pi )(j ) . μA2 (pi )(j ) = (−0.871, −0.500,
 M. Riaz et al. / Distance and similarity measures for bipolar fuzzy soft sets with application 3177

− 0.211).(−0.670, −0.551, −0.281) = 0.9081 From here, there is σ ≥ 0 such that

μ− −
A1 (pi )(j ) . μA2 (pi )(j ) = (−0.211, −0.122,
− 0.002).(−0.100, −0.570, −0.281) = 0.0912
μ− −
A1 (pi )(j ) . μA2 (pi )(j ) = (−0.621, −0.530, [μ+ +
A1 (pi )(j ) . μA2 (pi )(j )] + σ
− 0.931).(−0.283, −0.022, −0.621) = 0.7655
Now the similarity between A1 and A2 is calcu- = [μ+ 2 +
A1 (pi )(j ) ∨ μA1 (pi )(j ) ].
2

lated as
Similarly, there exist ς ≥ 0 such that
Sim+
BFS (A1 , A2 ) = 0.6774
[μ− −
A1 (pi )(j ) . μA2 (pi )(j )] + ς
Remark: Theorems 3.15 and 3.16 hold for the simi-
larity measure given in Definition 3.13. = [μ− 2 −
A1 (pi )(j ) ∨ μA1 (pi )(j ) ].
2

PY
Theorem 3.15. Let P be the set of parameters, So that σ + ς = 0. This implies that σ = −ς which
A1 , A2 ⊆ P and A1 and A2 be two BFSSs over is not true. If, A1 = A2 , hence, it is proved that
M. Then, the followings hold; sim+BFS = 1
Converse can proved trivially from Definition 2. 
1. Sim+ +
BFS (A1 , A2 ) = SimBFS (A1 , A2 )
+

CO
2. 0 ≤ SimBFS (A1 , A2 ) ≤ 1 Theorem 3.16. Let P be the set of parameters,
3. Sim+
BFS (A1 , A2 ) = 1 ⇔ A1 = A2 A1 , A2 , A3 ⊆ P and A1 , A2 and A3 be three
BFSSs over M such that A1 is a BFS-subset of A2
Proof. Condition (1) and (2) can be proved trivially and A2 is BFS-subset of A3 . Then,
from the Definition 3.9. To prove (3) let us claim
that Sim+ Sim+ +
BFS (A1 , A3 ) ≤ SimBFS (A2 , A3 )
BFS (A1 , A2 ) = 1 when A1 = A2 .
OR
By considering the definition of simBFS the follow-
ing eqautions are obtained:

!
{μ+ + − −
A1 (pi )(j ) . μA2 (pi )(j )} + {μA1 (pi )(j ) . μA2 (pi )(j )}
! =1
{μ+ + − −
A1 (pi )(j ) ∨ μA1 (pi )(j ) } + {μA1 (pi )(j ) ∨ μA1 (pi )(j ) }
2 2 2 2
TH

!
⇒ {μ+ + − −
A1 (pi )(j ) . μA2 (pi )(j )} + {μA1 (pi )(j ) . μA2 (pi )(j )}

!
= {μ+ + − −
A1 (pi )(j ) ∨ μA1 (pi )(j ) } + {μA1 (pi )(j ) ∨ μA1 (pi )(j ) } .
2 2 2 2
AU

Now we claim the following equations

μ+ + + +
A1 (pi )(j ) . μA2 (pi )(j ) = μA1 (pi )(j ) ∨ μA1 (pi )(j )
2 2
Proof. Straightforward. 

and Definition 3.17. Let P be the set of parameters

and two BFSSs A1 and A2 are called γ-similar,
μ− − − −
A1 (pi )(j ) . μA2 (pi )(j ) = μA1 (pi )(j ) ∨ μA1 (pi )(j ) .
2 2
indicated as A1 tγ A2 , if SimBFS (A1 , A2 ) ≥ γ
where 0 < γ < 1.
Suppose Proposition 3.18. The relation of two BFSSs being
μ+ +
/ μ+
A1 (pi )(j ) . μA2 (pi )(j ) =
+
A1 (pi )(j ) ∨ μA1 (pi )(j )
2 2 γ-similar is reflexive and symmetric, but is not tran-
sitive.

exists because of the fact that Proof. Reflexive and symmetric properties follow
μ+ + + 2 +
A1 (pi )(j ) . μA2 (pi )(j ) ≤ μA1 (pi )(j ) ∨ μA1 from Definition 3 and given Example 3 shows that
(pi )(j )2 . tγ is not transitive. 
3178 M. Riaz et al. / Distance and similarity measures for bipolar fuzzy soft sets with application

Example 3.19. Let us suppose that M = {1 , 2 , 3 }

and P = {p1 , p2 , p3 }. Now, consider the BFS-
matrices given as below
⎛ ⎞
(0.270, −0.391) (0.421, −0.512) (0.611, −0.431)
⎜ ⎟
A1 = ⎝(0.251, −0.562) (0.580, −0.491) (0.920, −0.361)⎠ ,
(0.762, −0.233) (0.462, −0.480) (0.540, −0.212)
⎛ ⎞
(0.451, −0.212) (0.260, −0.891) (0.542, 0.390)
⎜ (0.290, −0.281) (0.460, −0.440) (0.641, −0.310)⎟
A2 =⎝ ⎠,
(0.272, 0. − 543) (0.280, −0.331) (0.890, −0.163)
⎛ ⎞

PY
(0.931, −0.150) (0.451, −0.590) (0.332, −0.144)
⎜(0.390, −0.282) (0.512, −0.551) (0.642, −0.272)⎟
A3 =⎝ ⎠.
(0.714, −0.323) (0.332, −0.184) (0.091, −0.560)

Take γ = 0.8415. Then, SimBFS (A2 , A1 ) =

0.9123 > 0.8415 and SimBFS (A1 , A3 ) = 0.8492
> 0.8415. But SimBFS (A2 , A3 ) = 0.8390
0.8415. This shows that γ-similar relation is not
transitive by using similarity measure given in
CO
If A1 = A2 , then weighted similarity measure
(WSM) between A1 and A2 is defined as
Definition 3.9.
WSMBFS (A1 , A2 ) = !
m n
OR
{μ+ + − −
A (pi )(j ) . μA (pi )(j )} + {μA (pi )(j ) . μA (pi )(j )}
n1 !.
i
× m i=1n j=1 1 2 1 2
j=1 i
i=1 j=1
{μ+ + 2 −
A (pi )(j ) ∨ μA (pi )(j ) } + {μA (pi )(j ) ∨
2 2 μ−
A2 (pi )(j ) }
2
1 2 1

Example 3.21. In Example 3.10, consider the weights

Definition 3.20. Let M = {1 , 2 , 3 , · · · } be a uni- 1 = 0.5, 2 = 0.1 and 3 = 0.4 for p1 , p2 and p3 ,
TH

verse, P = {p1 , p2 , p3 , · · · } be the set of parameters respectively. Then, the WSM between A1 and A2
and i be the weights of pi , A1 , A2 ⊆ P and is calculated as
A1 , A2 be two BFS- sets on M with their BFS-
approximate function defined as below, respectively: WSMBFS (A1 , A2 ) = 0.6785.
AU

Theorem 3.22. Let P be the set of parameters,

δA1 (pi ) = {(, μ+ −
A1 (), μA1 ()) :  ∈ M}
A1 , A2 ⊆ P and A1 and A2 be two BFSSs over
M. Then, the following relations hold;
and
1. WSMBFS (A1 , A2 ) = WSMBFS (A1 , A2 )
δA2 (pi ) = {(, μ+ −
A2 (), μA2 ()) :  ∈ M} 2. 0 ≤ WSMBFS (A1 , A2 ) ≤ 1
3. WSMBFS (A1 , A2 ) = 1 ⇔ A1 = A2 .

Proof. Proof can be done easily by using Definition 3.


Definition 3.23. Let M = {i : i = 1, · · · , m} and
P = {pj : j = 1, · · · , n}. If
⎛ ⎞
(μ+ −
11 , μ11 )1 (μ+ −
12 , μ12 )1 ··· (μ+ −
1n , μ1n )1
⎜ + − ⎟
⎜ (μ21 , μ21 )1 (μ+ −
22 , μ22 )1 ··· (μ+ −
2n , μ2n )1 ⎟
⎜ ⎟
1 = ⎜ .. .. .. .. ⎟
⎜ . . . . ⎟
⎝ ⎠
(μ+ −
m1 , μm1 )1 (μ+ −
m2 , μm2 )1 ··· (μ+ −
mn , μmn )1
 M. Riaz et al. / Distance and similarity measures for bipolar fuzzy soft sets with application 3179

and
⎛ ⎞
(μ+ −
11 , μ11 )2 (μ+ −
12 , μ12 )2 ··· (μ+ −
1n , μ1n )2
⎜ + − ⎟
⎜ (μ21 , μ21 )2 (μ+ −
22 , μ22 )2 ··· (μ+ −
2n , μ2n )2 ⎟
⎜ ⎟
2 = ⎜ .. .. .. .. ⎟
⎜ . . . . ⎟
⎝ ⎠
(μm1 , μ−
+
m1 )2 (μ+ −
m2 , μm2 )2 ··· (μ+ −
mn , μmn )2

are BFS-matrices of the BFSSs 1 = (1 , P) and

1 = (2 , P), then the proposed similarity measure
SimR between 1 and 2 is given as Proposition 3.25. The similarity measure defined in
Definition 3 satisfies the following:
< 1 , 2 >
SimR (1 , 2 ) = 1. 0 ≤ SimR (1 , 2 ) ≤ 1

PY
1 2 
2. SimR (1 , 2 ) = 1 ⇔ 1 = 2
where 3. SimR (1 , 2 ) = Sim(2 , 1 ).
< 1 , 2 > = i,j (μ+ − + −
ij , μij )1 .(μij , μij )2
Proof. We prove it for BFSSs (1 , P) and (2 , P)

CO
= tr(T1 2 ), defined over M and the set of parameters P
"
1  = < 1 , 1 >. with positive-membership and negative-membership
functions only.
Here tr(T1 2 ) is the sum of the elements in main Conditions 1 & 3 can be proved straightway from the
diagonal of the matrix T1 2 and is known as trace given Definition 3. Assume that
of the matrix T1 2 .
SimR (1 , 2 ) = 1.
OR

Example 3.24. Taking into consideration the Exam- This results in

ple 3.10, the corresponding BFS-matrices are written
as follows:
⎛ ⎞
(0.110, −0.871) (0.811, −0.211) (0.920, −0.321)
TH

⎜ ⎟
1 = ⎝(0.760, −0.500) (0.790, −0.122) (0.530, −0.530)⎠ ,
(0.571, −0.211) (0.711, −0.002) (0.560, −0.231)
⎛ ⎞
(0.240, −0.670) (0.870, −0.100) (0.821, −0.283)
⎜ (0.981, −0.022)⎟
2 = ⎝(0.330, −0.551) (0.571, −0.570)
AU

⎠.
(0.521, −0.281) (0.290, −0.221) (0.511, −0.421)

Now, we can deduce the following calculation:

< 1 , 2 > = (0.110, −0.871).(0.240, −0.670) + (0.811, −0.211).(0.870, −0.100) + · · ·
+(0.560, −0.231).(0.511, −0.421)
= 3.3853,
"
1  = (0.110)2 + (−0.871)2 + (0.811)2 + · · · + (−0.231)2
= 2.1943,
"
2  = (0.240)2 + (−0.670)2 + (0.870)2 + · · · + (−0.421)2
= 2.2093.
< 1 , 2 >
∴ SimR (1 , 2 ) =
1 2 
= 0.6983.
3180 M. Riaz et al. / Distance and similarity measures for bipolar fuzzy soft sets with application

< 1 , 2 > Corollary 3.29. The relation of two BFSSs being γ-

=1
1 2  similar is not an equivalence relation.

which yield (μ+ − + −

ij , μlm )1 = (μlm , μij )2 , for all val- Example 3.30. Suppose M = {1 , 2 , 3 } be a crisp
ues of l and m. Hence, it is clear that 1 = 2 . set and P = {p1 , p2 , p3 } be the set of parameters.
Conversely, suppose that 1 = 2 . Then, Consider the BFS-matrices

⎛ ⎞
(0.270, −0.391) (0.421, −0.512) (0.611, −0.431)
⎜(0.251, −0.562) (0.580, −0.491) (0.920, −0.361)⎟
(1 , P) = ⎝ ⎠,
(0.762, −0.233) (0.462, −0.480) (0.540, −0.212)
⎛ ⎞
(0.451, −0.212) (0.260, −0.891) (0.542, −0.390)

PY
⎜(0.290, −0.281) (0.460, −0.440) (0.641, −0.310)⎟
(2 , P) = ⎝ ⎠,
(0.272, −0.543) (0.280, −0.331) (0.890, −0.163)
⎛ ⎞
(0.931, −0.150) (0.451, −0.590) (0.332, −0.144)

CO
⎜(0.390, −0.282) (0.512, −0.551) (0.642, −0.272)⎟
(3 , P) = ⎝ ⎠.
(0.714, −0.323) (0.332, −0.184) (0.091, −0.560)

Take γ = 0.8515. Then, SimR (2 , 1 ) = 0.9012 >

0.8515 and SimR (1 , 3 ) = 0.8571 > 0.8515.
< 1 , 2 > = < 1 , 1 > But SimR (2 , 3 ) = 0.8417 0.8515. This shows
OR
= 1 2 that γ-similar relation is not transitive by using sim-
ilarity measure given in Definition 3.
= 1 2 .
< 1 , 2 >
∴ SimR (1 , 2 ) =
1 2  4. Weighted similarity measure for BFSSs
TH

= 1.
In the following section, we discuss weighted SM
 for two BFSSs and give some of its specific charac-
teristics.
Theorem 3.26. Suppose (1 , P), (2 , P) and
AU

(3 , P) be three BFSSs defined over M. If Definition 4.1. Let 1 and 2 be two BFSSs. Sup-
 2 , P) and (2 , P)⊆(
(1 , P)⊆(  3 , P), then pose that the weights of attributes pj are j ∈ [0, 1].
Sim (1 , 3 ) ≤ Sim (2 , 3 ).
R R
The weighted similarity measure SimR W between 1
and 2 is defined by
Proof. Straightforward. 
< 1 , 2 >
W (1 , 2 ) =
SimR
Definition 3.27. Two BFSSs (1 , P1 ) and (2 , P2 ) 1 2 
defined over (M, P) are called γ-similar, indicated as
(1 , P1 ) tγ (2 , P2 ), if SimR (1 , 2 ) ≥ γ where where
0 < γ < 1. + − + −
i,j j (μij , μij )1 .(μij , μij )2
< 1 , 2 > = ,
Theorem 3.28. The relation of two BFSSs being j j
γ-similar is reflexive and symmetric, but is not tran- "
sitive. 1  = < 1 , 1 >.

Proof. Proposition 3 and Theorem 3 proves the

symmetry and reflexivity properties of BPSSs and Example 4.2. Use BFSSs described in Example 3,
Example 3 justifies the non-transitivity of BPFSSs. and take 1 = 0.22, 2 = 0.51 and 3 = 0.42 as
 weights of attributes p1 , p2 and p3 . We obtain,
 M. Riaz et al. / Distance and similarity measures for bipolar fuzzy soft sets with application 3181

< 1 , 2 > = 2.0672, 9. A3HY (1 , 2 ) = 

1  = 1.9020, 1−max |μ+ + − −
 (i )−μ (i )|,|μ (i )−μ (i )|
 1 2 1 2 
1+max |μ+ + − −
1 (i )−μ2 (i )|,|μ1 (i )−μ2 (i )|
2  = 1.5479,
10. S(1 , 2 ) =
∴ SimR i [μ+ + − −
W (1 , 2 ) = 0.6962.  (i )μ (i )+μ (i )μ (i )]
1 2 1 2
i [{μ+ + − −
 (i ) ∨μ (i ) }+{μ (i ) ∨μ (i ) }]
2 2 2 2
1 2 1 2

Proposition 4.3. The weighted similarity measure

proposed in Definition 4 holds the following condi- Example 4.4. Take M = {1 , 2 , 3 } and P =
tions: {p1 , p2 , p3 } as the universe and aggregate of prop-
erties, respectively. Take a look at the BFSSs that
1. 0 ≤ SimR
W (1 , 2 ) ≤ 1 have matrix representations as follow:.
W (1 , 2 ) = 1 ⇔ 1 = 2
2. SimR

PY
(1 , P)
W (1 , 2 ) = SimW (2 , 1 ).
3. SimR ⎛ ⎞
(0.62, −0.21) (0.42, −0.52) (0.81, −0.12)
⎜ (0.64, 0.34) ⎟
= ⎝(0.51, −0.32) (0.71, −0.11) ⎠,
Proof. The proof is obvious by Definition 4. 
(0.83, −0.42) (0.63, 0.0) (0.92, 0.0)

4.1. Comparison analysis

Muthukumar and Krishnan [36] developed some

similarity measures for intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets.
CO (2 , P)
⎛
⎜
(0.54, −0.32)
= ⎝(0.62, −0.22)
(0.92, 0.0)
(0.71, 0.0)
(0.42, 0.0)
(0.54, −0.11)
(0.62, 0.31)
(0.56, −0.11)⎟
(0.81, 0.0)
⎠,
⎞

Now we extend these similarity measures towards

bipolar fuzzy soft sets with some improvements in the (3 , P)
OR
existing similarity measures. The extended similarity ⎛ ⎞
(0.44, −0.42) (0.61, −0.22) (0.54, −0.11)
measures for bipolar fuzzy soft sets are the following:
⎜ (0.54, 0.41) ⎟
= ⎝(0.32, −0.32) (0.74, 0.11) ⎠.
1. AC (1 , 2 ) = 1 − 2n i=1 |(μ+
1 n
1 (i ) − (0.21, 0.0) (0.52, 0.0) (0.11, −0.82)
+ −
μ2 (i )) − (μ1 (i ) − μ− (
2 i ))|
2. AH (1 , 2 ) = 1 − 2n i=1 (|μ+
1 n
1 (i ) −
TH

The Figure 1 and Table 2 shows that the proposed SM

μ+ (
2 i )| + |μ −
(
1 i ) − μ −
(
2 i )|) SimR given in Definition 3.23 provides a significant
3. AL (1 , 2 ) = 1 − 4n i=1 |(μ+
1 n
1 (i ) −
rating as compared to existing SMs.
μ+ (
2 i )) + (μ −
(
1 i ) − μ −
(
2 i ))| −
+ + −
4n i=1 (|μ1 (i ) − μ2 (i )| + |μ1 (i ) −
1 n
AU

−
μ2 (i )|)
#O (1 , 2 ) = 1 −
4. A
+ + − −
2n i=1 {(μ1 (i ) − μ2 (i )) + (μ1 (i ) − μ2 (i )) }
1 n 2 2

$ 1 , 2 ) %=
5. ADC (
%p
+ +
p 1 n % μ1 (i )+1−μ2 (i ) μ− (i )+1−μ−
2 (i ) %
1− n i=1 % 2 − 1 2 %
6. AHB (1 , 2 ) =
⎧ "   " 
⎨ 1− p n1 ni=1 |μ+ (i )−μ+ (i )|p 1
+ 1− p − −
n i=1 |μ (i )−μ (i )|
n p
1 2 1 2
, if p =
/ 1
⎩ 2
AH (1 , 2 ), if p = 1

7. A1HY (1 , 2 ) = 1 − n1 ni=1 max |μ+ 1 (i ) −
+ − − 
μ2 (i )|, |μ1 (i ) − μ2 (i )|
8. A2HY(1 , 2 ) =
 + + − −

exp − n1 ni=1 max |μ (i )−μ (i )|,|μ (i )−μ (i )| −exp(−1)
1 2 1 2
1−exp(−1)
3182 M. Riaz et al. / Distance and similarity measures for bipolar fuzzy soft sets with application

Table 2 rise in competition. The specificity of the pharma-

Comparative analysis of proposed SM with existing SMs ceutical industry is a sector that requires high-level
(1 , 2 ) (2 , 3 ) (1 , 3 ) transport and logistics facilities, such as the protec-
AC 0.5657 0.3933 0.3600 tion and continuous observation of pharmaceutical
AH 0.5433 0.3467 0.300 products due to its important relationship with health
AL 0.5600 0.3700 0.3200
AO 0.6783 0.4383 0.4031 and life, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic,
ADC 0.7072 0.509 0.507 it is extremely relevant. It is more critical than any-
AHB 0.6793 0.4406 0.441 thing tracking down all the agents from production
1
SHY 0.4233 0.0000 0.03233
2 to patients with utmost care since health care qual-
SHY 0.3356 0.0000 0.0208
3
SHY 0.2666 0.0000 0.0170 ity and pharmaceuticals are essential and lives are at
S 0.8229 0.5007 0.4943 stake. Products to patients or customers from the pro-
SimR 0.9420 0.7237 0.73172 duction business. In the pharmaceutical supply chain,

PY
there are many stages. The raw materials are sent to
the pharmaceutical plant, where the drugs are pro-
duced and packaged before being sold. Following
that, a wide shipment is carried out to supply patient
medications to local warehouses. So, in the case of

CO
logistics of pharmaceutical care, there is a great deal
of meaning in human life.
There are many problems that pharmaceutical
logistics must face, such as supply chain visibility.
The big safety issue is the theft and misplacement
of medication. The pharmaceutical industry will face
challenges with maintaining its integrity if the com-
OR
pany is unable to abolish such supply chain leaks. To
Fig. 1. Comparison Chart.
comply with the criteria of the High Quality Standard
(HQS), the logistics service provider must be consis-
5. Application to pharmaceutical logistics and tent and reliable. This attribution is more critical than
supply chain management reliability in the logistics service provider selection
TH

Case Study:
The COVID-19 pandemic has certainly created both
critical health and economic crises. Its impact on
logistics companies is much significant. During these
AU
process (LSP).
The major part of the overall market plan of the
organization is the distribution of medication. LSP
should be safe and reliable in order to show quality
and reliability of products and services. Besides, to

tremendous times, pharmaceutical logistics faced
rough challenges as the nature of the industry is
very spontaneous sales slowed down due to national
closures in the affected areas. The supply of mate-
rials and stocks, as well as the import and export
of pharmaceutical, have been severely affected. Due
to inactive manufacturing activities, delays in the
delivery of goods have a negative impact on major
management operations. To address all these uncer-
tainties in the logistics aspects, company strategy
should be updated with the demand of the customers
and always try to thrive while identifying their char-
acteristics features with care.
The main aim of each logistics company is to
achieve a strong partnership between business part-
ners and customers, exceeding their expectations or
even surpassing the standard requirements of the cus-
tomers in the aiding process as a result of a dramatic
ensure regularity in the pharmaceutical supply chain
also helps productivity of the pharmaceutical indus-
try. In the delivery of medication in the area, phase is
critical. The timely supply of pharmaceutical prod-
ucts helps to satisfy the increasing demand and to
avoid the lack of basic medicine requirements.
Innovation is an instrument that improves per-
formance, lowers costs and creates competitive
advantages. As a result, the pharmaceutical indus-
try is looking for the best LSP to pay more attention
to changes. The key problem is that LSP would not
be apt to maintain solid, profitable and long-lasting
partnerships without sustaining innovation. The regu-
lation of temperature is also a major factor that differs
supply chains for pharmaceutical products from other
supply chain networks.
Keeping the temperature optimized to ensure the
quality and standard of pharmaceutical products
 M. Riaz et al. / Distance and similarity measures for bipolar fuzzy soft sets with application
during the transport and warehousing process is
mandatory.
Because of the rapid increase in sales volumes of
pharmaceutical products, it is not necessary to extend
room for warehousing. Although logistics companies
are not in the current scenario, it is important to meet
the rise in demands of the pharmaceutical industry. In
order to meet the requirements of increased visibility
and overall cost savings, they do not have appro-
priate infrastructure. Huge investments are required
for such specialized warehouses with temperature-
controlled zones. With a more developed set-up, big
corporations already exist in this market, making
it extremely difficult for new businesses to enter.
Besides, reliability and confidentiality of data, knowl-
edge, and expertise shared between manufacturers
and firms in logistics is essential.
CO
Algorithm 1
Step 1: Consider the set of logistic companies
L = {L1 , L2 , · · · , Ln }, the set of param-
eters P = {p1 , p2 , · · · , pm }, the set of
criteria C = {C1 , C2 , · · · , Ct }, and set of
decision-maker D = {D1 , D2 , · · · , Dk },
OR
where t, m, k are positive integers.
Step 2: Write a standard BFSS (, P) as a model
BFSS corresponding the requirements of
the pharmaceutical company.
Step 3: Write the BFS-decision matrices corre-
TH
sponding to the assessment of DMs in
terms of BFSSs (i , P) corresponding to
the profile of each logistic company.
Step 4: Write the unanimous decision matrix in
terms of (i , P) and standard BFSS
AU
(, P).
Step 5: Find SM for each BFSS (i , P) with the
model BFSS (, P) using Definition 3.23.
Step 6: Select the threshold value γ ∈]0, 1[.
Step 7: The logistic company with similarity mea-
sure ≥ γ is the best company to be choose.
Step 8: Write the final ranking and optimal deci-
sion.
Figure 2 shows the procedural steps of Algorithm 1.
5.1. Numerical example:
A pharmaceutical company wants to select a
logistic company for transportation of its products.
Company consults two decision-makers to choose the
3183
Fig. 2. Flow chart of Algorithm 1.
best logistic company that meets their certain crite-
ria among five logistic companies L1 , L2 , L3 , L4 , L5
PY
with a set of criteria C = {C1 , C2 , C3 } as follows:
C1 = Consistency and reliability
C2 = Timely supply & good distribution practices
C3 = Innovation, online tracking system.
Consider the set of parameters
P = {p1 = unsatisfied, p2 = satisfied,
p3 = highly satisfied}
which is linguistic labels used to describe satisfac-
tion level of decision-making in selecting logistic
company.
Assume that (, P) is the standard BFSS treated as
model BFSS corresponding the requirements of the
pharmaceutical company. If the logistic company is
more efficient than the expectation level of customer,
then positive grade is given as large as possible. Like-
wise, if the logistic company is less efficient than the
expectation level of customer, then a negative grade
is assigned as low as possible. To select the best
logistic company to transport pharmaceutical prod-
ucts, the company consults two decision-makers Dk ,
(k = 1, 2). Assume that (i , P) be the BFSS profile
of the logistic companies Li , (i = 1, 2, · · ·, 5) with
parameters pm , (m = 1, 2, 3) under the criteria Ct ,
(t = 1, 2, 3). Then, we find unanimous BFS decision
set according to the necessary criterion. To get the
SM between these BFSSs, we will match the charac-
teristics of the logistic companies with the model in
Table 5.
Table 3 and Table 4 gives BFS decision matri-
ces. Let γ = 0.7 be the threshold value. Compare
this value with the calculated value of SM in Table
5. Then, we see that the model BFSS (, P) is sig-
nificantly similar to (2 , P) and (5 , P). The other
BPFSS are not similar to it. We note that the logistic
companies L2 and L5 are the best logistic companies
 3184
Table 3
BFS decision matrix 1

M. Riaz et al. / Distance and similarity measures for bipolar fuzzy soft sets with application
(p1 , C1 ) (p1 , C2 ) (p1 , C3 ) (p2 , C1 ) (p2 , C2 ) (p2 , C3 ) (p3 , C1 ) (p3 , C2 ) (p3 , C3 )
(1 , P) (0.381, -0.845) (0.380, -0.842) (0.542, -0.681) (0.570, -0.391) (0.681, -0.271) (0.740, -0.512) (0.311, -0.521) (0.911, -0.382) (0.890, -0.415)
(2 , P) (0.542, -0.291) (0.121, -0.760) (0.482, -0.719) (0.823, -0.291) (0.562, -0.551) (0.342, -0.634) (0.861, -0.252) (0.991, -0.132) (0.814, -0.531)
(3 , P) (0.425, -0.261) (0.152, -0.391) (0.331, -0.824) (0.858, -0.046) (0.091, -0.331) (0.382, -0.425) (0.132, -0.942) (0.258, -0.910) (0.110, -0.970)
(4 , P) (0.212, -0.512) (0.526, -0.367) (0.632, -0.110) (0.730, -0.411) (0.290, -0.281) (0.536, -0.431) (0.551, -0.821) (0.821, -0.552) (0.501, -0.492)
(5 , P) (0.542, -0.210) (0.333, -0.490) (0.121, -0.621) (0.932, -0.152) (0.661, -0.453) (0.122, -0.302) (0.133, -0.561) (0.160, 0.931) (0.262, -0.480)

AU
TH
OR
CO
Table 4
BFS decision matrix 2
PY
(p1 , C1 ) (p1 , C2 ) (p1 , C3 ) (p2 , C1 ) (p2 , C2 ) (p2 , C3 ) (p3 , C1 ) (p3 , C2 ) (p3 , C3 )
(1 , P) (0.322, -0.321) (0.433, -0.352) (0.429, -0.071) (0.228, -0.451) (0.115, -0.518) (0.471, -0.228) (0.588, -0.129) (0.661, -0.428) (0.317, -0.191)
(2 , P) (0.117, -0.225) (0.342, -0.521) (0.192, -0.810) (0.261, -0.517) (0.451, -0.284) (0.622, -0.344) (0.251, -0.177) (0.153, -0.462) (0.163, -0.544)
(3 , P) (0.295, -0.610) (0.175, -0.721) (0.313, -0.531) (0.426, -0.522) (0.627, -0.215) (0.221, -0.613) (0.214, -0.519) (0.814, -0.013) (0.625, -0.352)
(4 , P) (0.113, -0.024) (0.641, -0.643) (0.112, -0.359) (0.329, -0.525) (0.454, -0.513) (0.512, -0.054) (0.880, -0.036) (0.172, -0.604) (0.351, 0.652)
(5 , P) (0.100, -0.515) (0.261, -0.356) (0.820, -0.544) (0.414, -0.152) (0.803, -0.251) (0.190, -0.470) (0.251, -0.809) (0.103, -0.055) (0.941, -0.281)
 M. Riaz et al. / Distance and similarity measures for bipolar fuzzy soft sets with application 3185

Table 6

(0.263, -0.534)
(0.890, -0.415)
(0.163, -0.544)
(0.625, -0.352)

(0.941, -0.281)
(0.351, 0.652)
SM between BFSS model and
pharmaceutical logistics

(p3 , C3 )
Logistic companies SimR (, i )
L1 0.6092
L2 0.8108
(0.253, -0.462) L3 0.6678
(0.991, -0.428)
(0.153, -0.462)
(0.814, -0.013)
(0.172, -0.604)
(0.103, -0.055)
L4 0.6903
L5 0.7993
(p3 , C2 )

Table 7
Weighted SM between BFSS model
(0.321, -0.207)
(0.588, -0.521)
(0.251, -0.177)
(0.214, -0.519)
(0.880, -0.036)
(0.251, -0.809)

PY
and pharmaceutical logistics
(p3 , C1 )

Logistic companies SimR

W (, i )
L1 0.6292
L2 0.8308
L3 0.6578
L4 0.6913

CO
(0.642, -0.354)
(0.740, -0.512)
(0.622, -0.344)
(0.221, -0.613)
(0.512, -0.054)
(0.190, -0.470)

L5 0.7893
(p2 , C3 )

that meet the certain criteria. Since L2 is most similar

Unanimous BFS decision matrix

(0.500, -0.294)
(0.681, -0.271)
(0.451, -0.284)
(0.627, -0.215)
(0.454, -0.513)
(0.803, -0.251)

to model in that case pharmaceutical company should

OR
choose it as logistic service provider for their goods.
(p2 , C2 )

The SMs between BFS-model and logistic compa-

Table 5

nies are given in Table 6.

The ranking of pharmaceutical logistic companies
in view of similarity by Table 6 becomes
(0.320, -0.547)
(0.570, -0.451)
(0.261, -0.517)
(0.426, -0.522)
(0.329, -0.525)
(0.414, -0.152)

TH
(p2 , C1 )

L2  L5  L4  L3  L1 .

Weighted SM between BFSS model and pharma-

ceutical logistics is expressed by Table 7. Now, we
(0.510, -0.759)
(0.542, -0.681)
(0.482, -0.719)
(0.313, -0.531)
(0.112, -0.359)
(0.820, -0.544)

AU

consider the weights w1 = 0.321, w2 = 0.524 and

(p1 , C3 )

w3 = 0.812 corresponding to p1 , p2 and p3 , respec-

tively, to compute the weighted SMs. Table 6 presents
the weighted similarity measure of each pharmaceu-
tical logistic company. We see that the ranking of
(0.364, -0.800)
(0.433, -0.842)
(0.342, -0.760)
(0.175, -0.721)
(0.641, -0.643)
(0.261, -0.356)

logistic companies by using weighted similarity mea-

(p1 , C2 )

sure becomes as follows:

L2  L5  L4  L3  L1 .
(0.532, -0.251)
(0.381, -0.845)
(0.542, -0.291)
(0.295, -0.610)
(0.113, -0.024)
(0.100, -0.515)

Here, Figure 3 shows the rankings of these two mea-

(p1 , C1 )

sures for each pharmaceutical logistic company.

These two rankings of logistic companies show that
L2 is more efficient. We note that the ranking of logis-
tics with high preference becomes L5 , L4 , L3 , and L1
(2 , P)
(1 , P)

(3 , P)
(4 , P)
(5 , P)
(, P)

which is similar by both suggested SMs, i.e. SimR and

SimR W.
3186 M. Riaz et al. / Distance and similarity measures for bipolar fuzzy soft sets with application
Fig. 3. Bar chart of SimR and SimR
W of pharmaceutical logistics.
6. Conclusion
The distance and similarity measure for bipolar
CO
fuzzy soft sets (BFSSs) are developed to resolve
various uncertain real-life problems. For these objec-
tives, we developed a new distance measure and
similarity measures (SMs) with the help of cosine
similarity, inner product of matrices, and weighted
measures for bipolar fuzzy soft sets (BFSSs). Some
essential features of the proposed measures are inves-
OR
tigated, including the measure of two similar BFSSs
equal to the unity. A relationship of tγ between two
BFFs is used in this SM. Additionally, an advanced
multi-attribute decision-making (MADM) algorithm
is designed for pharmaceutical logistics and supply
TH
chain management in COVID-19. Furthermore, the
validity of the proposed MADM method is estab-
lished for the selection of the best pharmaceutical
logistics company, and a comparative analysis of
the proposed similarity measures with some of the
AU
existing similarity measures is demonstrated. Apart
from the implementation viewpoint, the proposed
measures have considerable potential for further the-
oretical exploration. The proposed measures could be
effectively implemented with minor modifications to
other extensions of fuzzy sets.
References
[1] L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Inform and Control 8 (1965),
338–356.
[2] K.T. Atanassov, Intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 20 (1986), 87–96.
[3] K.T. Atanassov, Intuitionistic fuzzy sets: Theory and appli-
cation, Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, XVIII,
Physica Verlag, Heidelberg, (1999), 324–330.
[4] D. Molodtsov, Soft set theory-first results, Comput. Math.
Appl. 37(4-5) (1999), 19–31.
[5] W.R. Zhang, Bipolar fuzzy sets and relations: a computa-
tional framework for cognitive modeling and multiagent
decision analysis, NAFIPS/IFIS/NASA94. Proceedings of
the First International Joint Conference of The North
American Fuzzy Information Processing Society Biannual
Conference. The Industrial Fuzzy Control and Intellige
(1994), 305–309.
[6] W.R. Zhang, Bipolar fuzzy sets, Proceedings of IEEE Inter-
national Conference on Fuzzy Systems (1998), 835–840.
[7] R.R. Yager, Pythagorean fuzzy subsets, IFSA World
Congress and NAFIPS Annual Meeting (IFSA/NAFIPS),
2013 Joint, Edmonton, Canada, IEEE, (2013), 57–61.
[8] R.R. Yager and A.M. Abbasov, Pythagorean membership
grades, complex numbers, and decision making, Interna-
tional Journal of Intelligent Systems 28(5) (2013), 436–452.
PY
[9] R.R. Yager, Pythagorean membership grades in multi-
criteria decision making, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy
Systems 22(4) (2014), 958–965.
[10] R.R. Yager, Generalized orthopair fuzzy sets, IEEE Trans-
actions on Fuzzy Systems 25(5) (2017), 1220–1230.
[11] F. Smarandache, Neutrosophy: Neutrosophic Probability,
Set, and Logic: Analytic Synthesis & Synthetic Analysis,
American Research Press, (1998).
[12] F. Smarandache, Extension of soft set to hypersoft set, and
then to plithogenic hypersoft set, Neutrosophic Sets and Sys-
tems 22 (2018), 168–170. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.2159754
[13] T. Mahmood, K. Ullah, Q. Khan and N. Jan, An Approach
towards decision making and medical diagnosis problems
using the concept of spherical fuzzy sets, Neural Computing
and Applications 31 (2019), 7041–7053.
[14] S. Ashraf, S. Abdullah, T. Mahmood, F. Ghani and T.
Mahmood, Spherical fuzzy sets and their applications in
multi-attribute decision making problems, Journal of Intel-
ligent & Fuzzy Systems 36(3) (2019), 2829–2844.
[15] M. Rafiq, S. Ashraf, S. Abdullah, T.Mahmood and M.
Shakoor, The cosine similarity measures of spherical fuzzy
sets and their applications in decision making, Journal of
Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 36(6) (2019), 6059–6073.
[16] F.K. Gundogdu and C. Kahraman, Properties and arithmetic
operations of spherical fuzzy sets, Decision Making with
Spherical Fuzzy Sets: Theory and Applications, Studies in
Fuzziness and Soft Computing (2021), 3–25.
[17] G. Wei, C. Wei and H. Gao, Multiple attribute decision
making with interval-valued bipolar fuzzy information and
their application to emerging technology commercialization
evaluation, IEEE Access 6 (2018), 60930–60955.
[18] Y. Han, Z. Lu, Z. Du, Z. Luo and S. Chen, A Yin Yang bipolar
fuzzy cognitive TOPSIS method to bipolar disorder diagno-
sis, Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 158
(2018), 1–10.
[19] S. Abdullah, M. Aslam and K. Ullah, Bipolar fuzzy soft sets
and its applications in decision making problem, Journal of
Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 27(2) (2014), 729–742.
[20] F. Karaaslan and S. Karatas, A new approach to bipolar soft
sets and its applications, Discrete Mathematics, Algorithms
and Applications 07(4) (2015), 1550054.
[21] M. Naz and M. Shabir, On fuzzy bipolar soft sets, their
algebraic structures and applications, Journal of Intelligent
& Fuzzy Systems 26(4) (2014), 1645–1656.
[22] M. Akram and N. Waseem, Similarity measures for new
hybrid models: mF Sets and mF Soft Sets, Punjab University
Journal of Mathematics 51(6) (2019), 115–130.
[23] K.M. Lee, Bipolar-valued fuzzy sets and their basic oper-
ations, Proceedings of International Conference, Bangkok,
Thailand, (2000), 307–317.
 M. Riaz et al. / Distance and similarity measures for bipolar fuzzy soft sets with application
[24] K.M. Lee, Comparison of interval-valued fuzzy sets, intu-
itionistic fuzzy sets, and bipolar-valued fuzzy sets, Journal
of Korean Institute of Intelligent Systems 14(2) (2004),
125–129.
[25] I. Batyrshin, Towards a general theory of similarity and
association measures: Similarity, dissimilarity and correla-
tion functions, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 36(4)
(2019), 2977–3004.
[26] I.Z. Batyrshin, Data ccience: Similarity, dissimilarity and
correlation functions, In Artificial Intelligence. Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Cham, 11866 (2019),
13–28.
[27] M. Akram, Bipolar fuzzy graphs, Information Sciences
181(24) (2011), 5548–5564.
[28] M.A. Alghamdi, N.O. Alshehri and M. Akram, Multi-
criteria decision-making methods in bipolar fuzzy environ-
ment, Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 20(6) (2018), 20–57.
[29] M. Riaz and S.T. Tehrim, On bipolar fuzzy soft topol-
ogy with decision-making, Soft Computing 24(24) (2020),
18259–18272.
[30] M. Riaz and S.T. Tehrim, Bipolar fuzzy soft mappings with
application to bipolar disorders, International Journal of
CO
Biomathematics 12(7) (2019), 1–31.
[31] J.C.R. Alcantud, G. Santos-García, X.D. Peng and J. Zhan,
Dual extended hesitant fuzzy sets, Symmetry 11(5) (2019),
1–13.
[32] X.L. Zhang and Z.S. Xu, Extension of TOPSIS to multi-
ple criteria decision making with Pythagorean fuzzy sets,
International Journal of Intelligent Systems 29 (2014),
1061–1078.
OR
[33] A. Kharal, Distance and similarity measures for soft sets,
New Math. Nat. Comput. (2010), 1–14.
[34] H. Kamaci, Similarity measure for soft matrices and its
applications, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 36(4)
(2019), 3061–3072.
[35] P. Majumdar and S.K. Samanta, Similarity measure of soft
sets, New Math. Nat.Comput. 4(1) (2008), 1–12.
TH
[36] P. Muthukumar and G.S.S. Krishnan, A similarity measure
of intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets and its application in medical
diagnosis, Applied Soft Computing 41 (2016), 148–156.
[37] M. Saqlain, M. Riaz, M.A. Saleem, M.S. Yang, Distance and
similarity measures for neu-trosophic hypersoft set (NHSS)
with construction of NHSS-TOPSIS and applications, IEEE
AU
Access 9 (2021), 30803–30816.
[38] S.M. Chen, Measures of similarity between vague sets,
Fuzzy Sets Syst. 74 (1995), 217–223.
[39] S.M. Chen, Similarity measures between vague sets and
between elements, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. B 27(1)
(1997), 153–168.
[40] S.M. Chen, M.S. Yeh and P.Y. Hsiao, A comparison of sim-
ilarity measures of fuzzy values, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 72
(1995), 79–89.
[41] L.K. Hyung, Y.S. Song and K.M. Lee, Similarity measure
between fuzzy sets and between elements, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 62(3) (1994), 291–293.
[42] D. Li and C. Cheng, New similarity measures on intuitionis-
tic fuzzy sets and application to pattern recognition, Pattern
Recognit. Lett. 23 (2002), 221–225.
[43] Y.H. Li, D.L. Olson and Q. Zheng, Similarity measures
between intuitionistic fuzzy (vague) sets: a compara-
tive analysis, Pattern Recognition Letters 28(2) (2007),
278–285.
[44] D.H. Hong and C. Kim, Note on similarity measure between
vague sets and elements, Information Sciences 115(1–4)
(1999), 83–96.
3187
[45] Y. Jun, Cosine similarity measures for intuitionistic fuzzy
sets and their applications, Mathematical and Computer
Modeling 53(1-2) (2011), 91–97.
[46] Z. Liang and P. Shi, Similarity measures on intuitionistic
fuzzy sets, Pattern Recognit. Lett. 24 (2003), 2687–2693.
[47] W.L. Hung and M.S. Yang, Similarity measures of intuition-
istic fuzzy sets based on Lp metric, Int. J. Approx. Reason.
46 (2007), 120–136.
[48] Z.S. Xu and X. Cai, Intuitionistic fuzzy information aggre-
gation: theory and applications, Springer Heidelberg New
York Dordrecht London, (2012).
[49] J. Wang, H. Gao and G. Wei, The generalized dice sim-
ilarity measures for Pythagorean fuzzy multiple attribute
group decision making, International Journal of Intelligent
Systems 34(6) (2019), 1158–1183.
PY
[50] Z. Hussain and M.S. Yang, Distance and similarity measures
of Pythagorean fuzzy sets based on the Hausdorff metric
with application to fuzzy TOPSIS, International Journal of
Intelligent Systems 34(10) (2019), 1–22.
[51] Q. Zhang, J. Hu, J. Feng, A. Liu and Y. Li, New similarity
measures of Pythagorean fuzzy sets and their applications,
IEEE Access 7 (2019), 138192–138202.
[52] E.P. Augustine, New similarity measures for Pythagorean
fuzzy sets with applications, International Journal of Fuzzy
Computation and Modelling 3(1) (2020), 75–94.
[53] X.T. Nguyen, V.D. Nguyen, V.H. Nguyen and H. Garg,
Exponential similarity measures for Pythagorean fuzzy sets
and their applications to pattern recognition and decision-
making process, Complex & Intelligent Systems 5 (2019),
217–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40747-019-0105-4.
[54] M. Riaz, K. Naeem and D. Afzal, A similarity measure
under Pythagorean fuzzy soft environment with applica-
tions, Computational and Applied Mathematics 39 (2020),
1–17.
[55] N. Jan, L. Zedam, T. Mahmood, E. Rak and Z. Ali, General-
ized dice similarity measures for q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets
with applications, Complex & Intelligent Systems 6 (2020),
545–558.
[56] H. Garg, Z. Ali and T. Mahmood, Generalized dice similar-
ity measures for complex q-Rung Orthopair fuzzy sets and
its application, International Journal of Intelligent Systems,
(2020), https://doi.org/10.1007/s40747-020-00203-x.
[57] P. Wang, J. Wang, G. Wei and C. Wei, Similarity measures
of q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets based on cosine func-
tion and their applications, Mathematics 7(4) (2019), 340;
https://doi.org/10.3390/math7040340.
[58] D. Liu, X. Chen and D. Peng, Some cosine similarity mea-
sures and distance measures between q-rung orthopair fuzzy
sets, Mathematics 34(7) (2019), 1572–1587.
[59] V. Patrascu, Similarity, cardinality and entropy for bipolar
fuzzy set in the framework of pentavalued representation,
arxiv, (2015).
[60] V. Ulucay, I. Deli and M. Sahin, Similarity measures of
bipolar neutrosophic sets and their application to multiple
criteria decision making, Neural Computing & Applications
29 (2018), 739–748.
[61] R.M. Hashim, M. Gulistan and F. Smarandache, Applica-
tions of neutrosophic bipolar fuzzy sets in hope foundation
for planning to build a children hospital with different types
of similarity measures, Symmetry 10(8) (2018), 1–26.
[62] S. Petchimuthu and H. Kamaci, The row-products of inverse
soft matrices in multicriteria decision making, Journal of
Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 36(6) (2019), 6425–6441.
[63] H. Kamaci, Introduction to N-soft algebraic structures,
Turkish Journal of Mathematics 44(6) (2020), 2356–2379.
3188 M. Riaz et al. / Distance and similarity measures for bipolar fuzzy soft sets with application

[64] H. Kamaci and S. Petchimuthu, Bipolar N-soft set the-
ory with applications, Soft Computing 24(22) (2020),
16727–16743.
[65] H. Kamaci, Selectivity analysis of parameters in soft set
and its effect on decision making, International Jour-
nal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics 11(2) (2020),
313–324.
[66] E. Aygun and H. Kamaci, Some new algebraic structures of
soft sets, Soft Computing 25(13) (2021), 8609–8626.
[67] Z. Zararsiz, Similarity measures of sequence of fuzzy num-
bers and fuzzy risk analysis, Advances in Mathematical
Physics 28 (2015), 1–12.
[68] Z. Zararsiz, A contribution to the algebraic structure of fuzzy
numbers, Annals of Fuzzy Mathematics and Informatics
12(2) (2016), 205–219.
[69] Z. Zararsiz and M. Sengonul, On the gravity of center of
sequence of fuzzy numbers, Annals of fuzzy Mathematics
and Informatics 6(3) (2013), 479–485.

PY
CO
OR
TH
AU

View publication stats