不确定条件下装备送修级别粗糙群决策方法

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1001-506X.2020.12.19

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

针对装备健康管理过程中送修级别的不确定信息和多源决策问题,研究了一种不确定信息的粗糙群决策方法。定义了群决策信息系统以描述多源决策问题,并用不协调群决策信息系统解释决策信息的不协调特性。结合不协调信息的群决策与不完备信息的粗糙决策两种方法长处,设计了不确定条件下的粗糙群决策方法。最后,将粗糙群决策方法应用于某型雷达的送修级别决策,应用实例验证了粗糙群决策方法处理不确定信息的有效性,可显著提高装备送修级别决策的吻合率。

关键词: 粗糙群决策, 送修级别, 不确定信息, 群决策信息系统

Abstract:

To solve the uncertain information and the multi-source decision-making problems of maintenance level, one rough group decision-making approach is proposed with uncertain information for weapons' health management. Firstly, the group decision-making information system is defined to describe the multi-source problem, and the inconsistent-information group decision-making information system is used to describe inconsistent information. Then, based on the rough decision-making method for incomplete information and the group decision-making method for inconsistent information, one rough group decision-making approach is designed for uncertain information. At last, the designed approach is used for the maintenance level of some-type radar. And the cases verifies the validity of the rough group decision-making approach on uncertain information, which can increase the accuracy of the decision remarkably.

Key words: rough group decision-making, maintenance level, uncertain information, group decision-making information system

中图分类号:

V263

胡雷刚, 李五洲, 张佳强, 高伏. 不确定条件下装备送修级别粗糙群决策方法[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2020, 42(12): 2819-2824.

Leigang HU, Wuzhou LI, Jiaqiang ZHANG, Fu GAO. Rough group decision-making method of equipment repair level under uncertainty[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2020, 42(12): 2819-2824.

图/表 7

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

表6

表7

参考文献 31

1	肖明清, 方甲永, 王邑, 等. 军用飞机二线测试设备现状及发展趋势[J]. 空军工程大学学报(自然科学版), 2010, 11 (1): 9- 14.
	XIAO M Q , FANG J Y , WANG Y , et al. Present situation and prospect of military aircraft depot test equipment[J]. Journal of Air Force Engineering University (Natural Science Edition), 2010, 11 (1): 9- 14.
2	ZHANG H J , ZUO H F , LIANG J . Maintenance level decision of aero-engine based on VPRS theory[J]. Transactions of Nanjing University of Aeronautics & Astronautic, 2005, 22 (4): 281- 284.
3	谢庆华, 梁剑, 左洪福. 基于变精度粗糙集的航空发动机送修级别决策[J]. 系统工程理论方法应用, 2006, 15 (4): 380- 384.
	XIE Q H , LIANG J , ZUO H F . Studies on maintenance level decision of aero-engine based on variable precision rough sets theory[J]. Systems Engineering-Theory Methodology Applications, 2006, 15 (4): 380- 384.
4	BAI K Y , ZHU X M , WANG J . Power partitioned Heronian mean operators for q-rung orthopair uncertain linguistic sets with their application to multiattribute group decision making[J]. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 2020, 35 (1): 3- 37.
5	LIU S , YU W , LIU L . Variable weights theory and its application to multi-attribute group decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy numbers on determining decision maker's weights[J]. PLoS One, 2019, 14 (3): e0212636. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212636
6	ANSHU A , BEN G L V , ESTHER B V G , et al. Development and validation of a patient decision aid for prostate cancer therapy: from paternalistic towards participative shared decision making[J]. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 2019, 19 (1): 0862- 0865.
7	张文修, 仇国芳. 基于粗糙集的不确定决策[M]. 北京: 清华大学出版社, 2005.
	ZHANG W X , QIU G F . Uncertain decision making based on rough sets[M]. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press, 2015.
8	ANJU V . Type 1 diabetes in india: the numbers show the way ahead[J]. Indian Pediatr, 2019, 56 (3): 189- 190.
9	LIU P D , LIU J L . A multiple attribute group decision-making method based on the partitioned Bonferroni mean of linguistic intuitionistic fuzzy numbers[J]. Cognitive Computation, 2020, 12 (1): 49- 70. doi: 10.1007/s12559-019-09676-6
10	BILAL E , ÖZGVR K . A cumulative belief degree approach for group decision-making problems with heterogeneous information[J]. Expert Systems, 2019, 36 (6): e12458.
11	胡雷刚, 肖明清, 方甲永. 不协调信息的协调近似表示空间诊断方法[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2011, 33 (8): 1810- 1815.
	HU L G , XIAO M Q , FANG J Y . Diagnosis with inconsistent information based on consistent approximate indication space[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2011, 33 (8): 1810- 1815.
12	CHEN W J , ZOU Y . Group decision making under generalized fuzzy soft sets and limited cognition of decision makers[J]. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 2020, 87, 103344. doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2019.103344
13	徐选华, 余艳粉. 大群体应急决策中考虑专家犹豫的不完全信息补值方法[J]. 信息与控制, 2019, 48 (6): 678- 686, 693.
	XU X H , YU Y F . Incomplete information complement method based on the hesitation of experts in large-group emergency decision making[J]. Information and Control, 2019, 48 (6): 678- 686, 693.
14	MENGSHOEL O J , CHAVIRA M , CASCIO K , et al. Probabilistic model-based diagnosis: an electrical power system case study[J]. IEEE Trans.on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, 2010, 40 (5): 874- 885. doi: 10.1109/TSMCA.2010.2052037
15	BALAGNA J , WILLIAMS C R , WANG J , et al. Consensus-driven approach for decision-making in diverse groups[J]. American Journal of Public Health, 2020, 110 (1): 5- 7. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2019.305427
16	ZHAO S Y , TSANG E C C , CHEN D G . The model of fuzzy variable precision rough sets[J]. IEEE Trans.on Fuzzy Systems, 2009, 17 (2): 451- 467. doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2009.2013204
17	YAO L M , XU Z W , LYU C W . Incomplete interval type-2 fuzzy preference relations based on a multi-criteria group decision-making model for the evaluation of wastewater treatment technologies[J]. Measurement, 2020, 151, 107137. doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2019.107137
18	ZHANG C , LI D Y , LIANG J Y . Interval-valued hesitant fuzzy multi-granularity three-way decisions in consensus processes with applications to multi-attribute group decision making[J]. Information Sciences, 2020, 511, 192- 211. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2019.09.037
19	KOLBA M P , SCOTT W R . A framework of information-based sensor management for detection of static target[J]. IEEE Trans.on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, 2011, 41 (1): 105- 120. doi: 10.1109/TSMCA.2010.2058098
20	PLOSKAS N , PAPATHANASIOU J . A decision support system for multiple criteria alternative ranking using TOPSIS and VIKOR in fuzzy and nonfuzzy environments[J]. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2019, 377, 1- 30. doi: 10.1016/j.fss.2019.01.012
21	LIU F , ZOU S C , WU Y H . A consensus model for group decision making under additive reciprocal matrices with flexibility[J]. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2019, 398, 61- 77.
22	徐玖平, 李军. 多目标决策的理论与方法[M]. 北京: 清华大学出版社, 2006.
	XU J P , LI J . Multiple objective decision making theory and methods[M]. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press, 2006.
23	KOOSHA K , SEONGMIN P A , MIRBAGHERI S . Modeling other minds: Bayesian inference explains human choices in group decision-making[J]. Science Advances, 2019, 5 (11): eaax8783. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aax8783
24	HOYLE C , TUMER I Y , MEHER A F , et al. Health management allocation conceptual system design[J]. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, 2009, 9 (2): 021002. doi: 10.1115/1.3130775
25	ZHAO M , LIU M Y , SU J . A shape similarity-based ranking method of hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations using discrete fuzzy number for group decision making[J]. Soft Computing, 2019, 23 (24): 13569- 13589. doi: 10.1007/s00500-019-03895-7
26	WANG F , WAN S P . Possibility degree and divergence degree based method for interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute group decision making[J]. Expert Systems with Appli-cations, 2020, 141, 112929. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2019.112929
27	SUN B Z , ZHOU X M , LIN N N . Diversified binary relation-based fuzzy multigranulation rough set over two universes and application to multiple attribute group decision making[J]. Information Fusion, 2020, 2, 91- 104.
28	HOU F J , ZHAI Y B , YOU X L . An equilibrium in group decision and its association with the Nash equilibrium in game theory[J]. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 2020, 139, 106138.
29	TANG J , MENG F Y . A procedure for group decision making with interval-valued intuitionistic linguistic fuzzy preference relations[J]. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 2019, 18 (4): 493- 527. doi: 10.1007/s10700-019-09304-w
30	FAHMI A , AMIN F . Triangular cubic linguistic uncertain fuzzy TOPSIS method and application to group decision making[J]. Soft Computing, 2019, 23 (23): 12221- 12231. doi: 10.1007/s00500-019-04213-x
31	禹航, 肖明清, 胡雷刚, 等. 面向远程测试与支援的不完备信息粗糙群决策[J]. 探测与控制学报, 2013, 35 (1): 59- 64.
	YU H , XIAO M Q , HU L G , et al. Incomplete information rough group decision-making in remote test and support[J]. Journal of Detection & Control, 2013, 35 (1): 59- 64.

U	a₁	a₂	a₃	a₄	a₅	a₆	a₇	a₈	d₁	d₂	d₃	d₄	d₅
x₁	3	2	1	3	1	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	0
x₂	2	1	X	3	1	2	2	3	0	0	0	1	0
x₃	3	1	2	3	1	2	2	2	1	1	1	1	1
x₄	1	3	2	1	2	1	2	1	1	1	0	1	1
x₅	2	2	3	3	1	2	3	2	1	1	1	0	0
x₆	2	1	1	4	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0
x₇	2	3	2	3	2	3	1	1	1	0	0	0	0
x₈	1	2	2	2	2	1	2	1	1	1	1	1	1
x₉	2	3	1	2	2	1	3	X	1	0	0	1	1
x₁₀	2	1	3	1	3	1	1	4	0	0	0	0	0
x₁₁	3	1	1	3	1	2	3	4	1	1	1	1	1
x₁₂	2	2	2	1	3	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	0
x₁₃	1	3	1	2	X	1	2	1	1	0	0	0	0
x₁₄	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0
x₁₅	1	1	3	4	2	2	1	2	1	0	1	1	1
x₁₆	3	2	1	3	3	1	3	1	0	0	0	0	0
x₁₇	1	1	1	1	2	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0
x₁₈	2	3	2	2	1	2	2	3	1	0	1	1	1
x₁₉	1	1	2	1	2	3	2	3	1	1	1	1	1
x₂₀	1	1	2	2	2	1	2	1	1	0	1	1	1
x₂₁	2	2	1	2	2	1	3	1	0	1	1	1	1
x₂₂	1	3	1	1	2	X	1	1	0	0	1	0	0
x₂₃	1	3	2	2	1	2	1	2	1	0	0	0	0
x₂₄	2	3	2	2	1	2	2	3	0	1	1	1	1
x₂₅	1	1	2	2	2	1	2	1	1	0	1	1	1
x₂₆	2	2	X	3	1	2	3	3	1	1	0	1	0
x₂₇	1	1	1	1	1	2	1	2	0	0	1	0	0
x₂₈	2	1	1	4	1	1	X	1	1	0	0	0	0
x₂₉	3	2	1	1	1	1	2	1	0	0	0	0	0
x₃₀	2	1	1	4	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	1
x₃₁	1	3	1	2	X	1	2	1	1	1	0	0	0
x₃₂	3	1	2	3	1	2	2	2	1	1	1	1	1

U	V_d	S_D
x₁	0	1.0
x₁	1	0
x₂	0	0.8
x₂	1	0.2
x₃	0	0
x₃	1	1.0
x₄	0	0.2
x₄	1	0.8
x₅	0	0.4
x₅	1	0.6
x₆	0	1.0
x₆	1	0
x₇	0	0.8
x₇	1	0.2
x₈	0	0
x₈	1	1.0
x₉	0	0.4
x₉	1	0.6
x₁₀	0	1.0
x₁₀	1	0
x₁₁	0	0
x₁₁	1	1.0
x₁₂	0	1.0
x₁₂	1	0
x₁₃	0	0.8
x₁₃	1	0.2
x₁₄	0	1.0
x₁₄	1	0
x₁₅	0	0.2
x₁₅	1	0.8
x₁₆	0	1.0
x₁₆	1	0
x₁₇	0	1.0
x₁₇	1	0
x₁₈	0	0.2
x₁₈	1	0.8
x₁₉	0	0
x₁₉	1	1.0
x₂₀	0	0.2
x₂₀	1	0.8

U	d_max
x₁	0
x₂	0
x₃	1
x₄	1
x₅	1
x₆	0
x₇	0
x₈	1
x₉	1
x₁₀	0
x₁₁	1
x₁₂	0
x₁₃	0
x₁₄	0
x₁₅	1
x₁₆	0
x₁₇	0
x₁₈	1
x₁₉	1
x₂₀	1

最大分布约简集	精度
{a₃, a₅, a₇}	0.67
{a₁, a₂, a₃, a₅}	0.50
{a₁, a₃, a₅, a₈}	0.50
{a₃, a₄, a₅, a₈}	0.50
{a₁, a₅, a₆, a₈}	0.50
{a₃, a₆, a₇, a₈}	0.50
{a₄, a₅, a₇, a₈}	0.50
{a₂, a₃, a₅, a₆, a₈}	0.50

U	a₃	a₅	a₇	d
r₁	1	1	1	0
r₂	1	1	2	0
r₃	2	2	2	1
r₄	3	1	3	1
r₅	2	2	1	0
r₆	2	1	2	1
r₇	1	2	3	1
r₈	1	2	1	0
r₉	1	1	3	1
r₁₀	2	3	1	0
r₁₁	1	2	2	0
r₁₂	3	2	1	1
r₁₃	1	3	3	0
r₁₄	3	3	1	0