Distance Measures for Hesitant Fuzzy Sets and Their Extensions
Distance measures are fundamentally important in various fields such as decision making, market prediction, and pattern recognition. Such an important role of distance measures in decision-making reveals that they should be investigated thoroughly from different aspects, together with their applicable properties. In the present chapter, we first deal with different distance measures that are proposed for HFSs/HFEs, and discuss their issues from different perspectives. Then, we present the other kinds of distance measures related to IVHFSs, DHFSs, HOHFSs, and HFLTSs in the sequel.
- 2.D.H. Peng, Ch.Y. Gao, Zh.F. Gao, Generalized hesitant fuzzy synergetic weighted distance measures and their application to multiple criteria decision making. Appl. Math. Model. 37, 5837–5850 (2013)Google Scholar
- 3.X.Q. Zhou, Q.G. Li, Some new similarity measures for hesitant fuzzy sets and their applications in multiple attribute decision making. Computing Research Repository, arXiv:1211.4125
- 6.X.L. Zhang, Z.S. Xu, Novel distance and similarity measures on hesitant fuzzy sets with applications to clustering analysis. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 28, 2279–2296 (2015)Google Scholar
- 16.G. Wei, R. Lin, H. Wang, Distance and similarity measures for hesitant interval-valued fuzzy sets. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 27, 19–36 (2014)Google Scholar
- 17.B. Zhu, Z.S. Xu, M.M. Xia, Dual hesitant fuzzy sets. J. Appl. Math. (2012), https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/879629.
- 18.L. Wang, X. Zheng, L. Zhang, Q. Yue, Notes on distance and similarity measures of dual hesitant fuzzy sets. Int. J. Appl. Math. 46 (2016). (IJAM-46-4-11)Google Scholar
- 19.P. Singh, Distance and similarity measures for multiple-attribute decision making with dual hesitant fuzzy sets. Comput. Appl. Math. 36, 1–16 (2015)Google Scholar
- 21.Z.S. Xu, J. Chen, Ordered weighted distance measure. J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng. 16, 529–555 (2008)Google Scholar
- 24.Z.S. Xu, Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations in group decision making. Omega 17, 432–445 (2005)Google Scholar