基于Vague拓扑融合和改进博弈论的雷达侦察系统作战效能评估

doi:10.12305/j.issn.1001-506X.2025.11.18

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

针对传统效能评估时评估结果偏模糊、评估方法适应性差、评估指标难以定性定量等问题，提出基于Vague拓扑融合和改进博弈论的评估方法。该方法在合理构建评价指标体系的基础上，设计主观赋权法的模糊层次分析法与客观赋权法的准则重要性相关法进行改进博弈论的组合赋权，然后提出Vague拓扑融合理论，并建立综合评估模型。实例计算结果表明，该方法能较好地解决效能评估中的难点问题。所提方法可为雷达侦察系统效能评估提供较好的方法指引。

关键词: Vague拓扑融合, 改进博弈论, 雷达侦察系统, 效能评估

Abstract:

Aiming at the problems of fuzzy evaluation results, poor adaptability of evaluation methods, and difficulty in characterization and quantification of evaluation index in traditional effectiveness evaluation, an evaluation method based on Vague topology fusion and improved game theory is proposed. Based on the reasonable construction of the evaluation index system, the method designs the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process of subjective weighting method and the criteria importance through intercriteria correlation of objective weighting method to obtain the combined weighting based on the improved game theory, and then puts forward the Vague topology fusion theory and establishes a comprehensive assessment model. Example calculation results show that the method better solves the difficult problems in the effectiveness evaluation. The method proposed provides a better methodological guideline for the effectiveness evaluation of radar reconnaissance system.

Key words: Vague topology fusion, improved game theory, radar reconnaissance system, effectiveness evaluation

中图分类号:

TN 974

朱自强, 刘松涛, 彭锐晖. 基于Vague拓扑融合和改进博弈论的雷达侦察系统作战效能评估[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2025, 47(11): 3699-3707.

Ziqiang ZHU, Songtao LIU, Ruihui PENG. Operational effectiveness evaluation of radar reconnaissance system based on Vague topology fusion and improved game theory[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2025, 47(11): 3699-3707.

图/表 11

表1

图1

图2

图3

表2

表3

表4

表5

表6

表7

表8

参考文献 31

1	ZHANG C D, WANG L, JIANG R D, et al. Radar jamming decision-making in cognitive electronic warfare: a review[J]. IEEE Sensors Journal, 2023, 23 (11): 11383- 11403. doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2023.3267068
2	MATOUSEK Z, PERDOCH J, PACEK M, et al. Radar signal waveform based on Costas and Walsh-Hadamard codes as electronic counter‐countermeasure[J]. IET Radar, Sonar & Navigation, 2023, 17(6): 1023−1039.
3	LONGO G, MERLO A, ARMANDO A, et al. Electronic attacks as a cyber false flag against maritime radars systems[C]//Proc. of the IEEE 48th Conference on Local Computer Networks, 2023.
4	ZHANG W X, MA D, ZHAO Z K, et al. Design of cognitive jamming decision-making system against MFR based on reinforcement learning[J]. IEEE Trans. on Vehicular Technology, 2023, 72 (8): 10048- 10062. doi: 10.1109/TVT.2023.3261318
5	BALLERI A, MATTHES D, MONTE L L, et al. Guest editorial: electronic attack and protection for modern radar systems and radar networks[J]. IET Radar, Sonar & Navigation, 2024, 18(11): 2077−2080.
6	SHI L K, PEI Y, YUN Q J, et al. Agent-based effectiveness evaluation method and impact analysis of airborne laser weapon system in cooperation combat[J]. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 2023, 36 (4): 442- 454. doi: 10.1016/j.cja.2022.11.006
7	CHEN Z W, ZHOU Z M, ZHANG L G, et al. Mission reliability modeling and evaluation for reconfigurable unmanned weapon system-of-systems based on effective operation loop[J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2023, 34 (3): 588- 597. doi: 10.23919/JSEE.2023.000082
8	CHANG H Z, SUN S Z. Effectiveness evaluation of marine law enforcement unmanned aerial vehicle based on ADC model[C]//Proc. of the IEEE 3rd International Conference on Information Technology, Big Data and Artificial Intelligence, 2023.
9	BERROW D J, PARSONS M A, SHANE A, et al. Capability modeling for assessing mission effectiveness in surface ship concept and requirements exploration[J]. Naval Engineers Journal, 2023, 135 (3): 87- 106.
10	SUN Q, LI H X, ZENG Y F, et al. Resilience-driven cooperative reconfiguration strategy for unmanned weapon system-of-systems[J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2024, 35 (4): 932- 944. doi: 10.23919/JSEE.2024.000088
11	GAO F, ZHANG A, BI W H. Weapon system operational effectiveness evaluation based on the belief rule-based system with interval data[J]. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 2020, 39 (5): 6687- 6701.
12	尹航, 李少洪, 李良驯. 侦察雷达效能模型研究[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2004, 26 (2): 206- 208. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-506X.2004.02.019
	YIN H, LI S H, LI L X. Study of reconnaissance radar effect model[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2004, 26 (2): 206- 208. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-506X.2004.02.019
13	刘仕雷, 李昊. 改进ADC方法及其在武器装备系统效能评估中的应用[J]. 国防科技大学学报, 2017, 39 (3): 130- 135. doi: 10.11887/j.cn.201703020
	LIU S L, LI H. Modified ADC method and its application for weapon system effectiveness evaluation[J]. Journal of National University of Defense Technology, 2017, 39 (3): 130- 135. doi: 10.11887/j.cn.201703020
14	胡昌栋, 滑楠, 杨琪, 等. 基于改进ADC法的高原信息通信装备作战效能评估[J]. 火力与指挥控制, 2021, 46 (8): 26- 33. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-0640.2021.08.005
	HU C D, HUA N, YANG Q, et al. Operational effectiveness evaluation of information and communication equipment of plateau based on the improved ADC method[J]. Fire Control & Command Control, 2021, 46 (8): 26- 33. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-0640.2021.08.005
15	王中敬, 王昆, 李志斌, 等. 基于层次分析法复杂电磁环境下防空效能评估[J]. 现代防御技术, 2008, 36 (6): 28- 31. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-086X.2008.06.005
	WANG Z J, WANG K, LI Z B, et al. Air defense efficiency evaluation under complicated electromagnetism environment based on analytical hierarchy process[J]. Modern Defence Technology, 2008, 36 (6): 28- 31. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-086X.2008.06.005
16	MON D L, CHENG C H, LIN J C. Evaluating weapon system using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process based on entropy weight[J]. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1994, 62 (2): 127- 134. doi: 10.1016/0165-0114(94)90052-3
17	CHANG D Y. Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 1996, 95 (3): 649- 655. doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2
18	GREINER M A, FOULER J W, SHUNK D L, et al. A hybrid approach using the analytic hierarchy process and integer programming to screen weapon systems projects[J]. IEEE Trans. on Engineering Management, 2003, 50 (2): 192- 203. doi: 10.1109/TEM.2003.810827
19	戚宗锋, 王华兵, 李建勋. 基于深度学习的雷达侦察系统作战能力评估方法[J]. 指挥控制与仿真, 2020, 42 (2): 59- 64. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-3819.2020.02.011
	QI Z F, WANG H B, LI J X. Combat capability evaluation method based on deep learning for radar reconnaissance system[J]. Command Control & Simulation, 2020, 42 (2): 59- 64. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-3819.2020.02.011
20	REMENNIKOV A M, ROSE T A. Predicting the effectiveness of blast wall barriers using neural networks[J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2007, 34 (12): 1907- 1923. doi: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2006.11.003
21	邱日升, 潘继飞, 李为圣, 等. 基于Vague集ELINT系统的效能评估算法[J]. 火力与指挥控制, 2021, 46 (1): 62- 66. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-0640.2021.01.011
	QIU R S, PAN J F, LI W S, et al. Effectiveness evaluation on algorithm ELINT system based on Vague sets[J]. Fire Control & Command Control, 2021, 46 (1): 62- 66. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-0640.2021.01.011
22	葛杨, 刘松涛. 基于指数标度层次分析法和Vague集的雷达导引头干扰效能评估[J]. 探测与控制学报, 2020, 42 (3): 69- 74.
	GE Y, LIU S T. Radar seeker jamming effect evaluation based on exponential scale AHP and Vague set[J]. Journal of Detection & Control, 2020, 42 (3): 69- 74.
23	CHEN Y, LI B. Dynamic multi-attribute decision making model based on triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers[J]. Scientia Iranica, 2011, 18 (2): 268- 274. doi: 10.1016/j.scient.2011.03.022
24	YAN G Y. Assessment system for shipborne multi-source intelligence target fusion and track capability[C]//Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Unmanned Systems, 2023.
25	徐华志, 刘松涛, 冯路为. 基于Vague集和组合赋权的舰载雷达侦察系统作战效能评估[J]. 探测与控制学报, 2022, 44 (3): 97- 101.
	XU H Z, LIU S T, FENG L W. Operational effectiveness evaluation of shipborne radar reconnaissance system based on Vague set and combined weighting[J]. Journal of Detection & Control, 2022, 44 (3): 97- 101.
26	SUN C C. A performance evaluation model by integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods[J]. Expert Systems with Applications, 2010, 37 (12): 7745- 7754. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.04.066
27	PENG X D, GARG H. Intuitionistic fuzzy soft decision making method based on CoCoSo and CRITIC for CCN cache placement strategy selection[J]. Artificial Intelligence Review, 2022, 55 (2): 1567- 1604. doi: 10.1007/s10462-021-09995-x
28	MARDEN J R, SHAMMA J S. Game theory and control[J]. Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, 2018, 1 (1): 105- 134. doi: 10.1146/annurev-control-060117-105102
29	李爱华. 岸边集装箱起重机安全评价方法研究[D]. 武汉: 武汉理工大学, 2017.
	LI A H. Research on safety assessment methods of quayside container crane [D]. Wuhan: Wuhan University of Technology, 2017.
30	HONG D H, CHOI C H. Multicriteria fuzzy decision-making problems based on vague set theory[J]. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2000, 114 (1): 103- 113. doi: 10.1016/S0165-0114(98)00271-1
31	邱日升, 潘继飞, 赵君, 等. 基于组合赋权的ELINT系统效能评估算法[J]. 现代雷达, 2020, 42 (8): 13- 18.
	QIU R S, PAN J F, ZHAO J, et al. Efficient evaluation algorithm for ELINT system based on combination weighting[J]. Modern Radar, 2020, 42 (8): 13- 18.

目标层	准则层	指标层
舰载雷达侦察系统效能G	信号截获能力N₁	侦察灵敏度C₁₁
		方位覆盖范围C₁₂
		俯仰角覆盖范围C₁₃
		频率覆盖范围C₁₄
	信号测量能力N₂	测频精度C₂₁
		测向精度C₂₂
		脉宽测量精度C₂₃
		重频测量精度C₂₄
	信号处理能力N₃	识别能力C₃₁
		截获时间C₃₂
		信号密度C₃₃

准则层	指标层	专家1	专家2	专家3
信号处理能力N₃	识别能力C₃₁	1	1.5	3.5
	截获时间C₃₂	0.75	1	2.5
	信号密度C₃₃	0.35	0.42	1

准则层	指标层	专家1	专家2	专家3	专家4
信号处理能力N₃	识别能力C₃₁	1	1.5	3.5	0.82
	截获时间C₃₂	0.75	1	2.5	0.75
	信号密度C₃₃	0.35	0.42	1	1

目标层	准则层	权重	指标层	权重
舰载雷达侦察系统效能G	信号截获能力N₁	0.304	侦察灵敏度C₁₁	0.311
			方位覆盖范围C₁₂	0.182
			俯仰角覆盖范围C₁₃	0.271
			频率覆盖范围C₁₄	0.236
	信号测量能力N₂	0.365	测频精度C₂₁	0.284
			测向精度C₂₂	0.281
			脉宽测量精度C₂₃	0.205
			重频测量精度C₂₄	0.230
	信号处理能力N₃	0.331	识别能力C₃₁	0.461
			截获时间C₃₂	0.298
			信号密度C₃₃	0.241

准则层	指标层	优	良	一般	较差	差
N₁	C₁₁	[0.4, 0.6]	[0.3, 0.5]	[0.1, 0.3]	[0.0, 0.2]	[0.0, 0.2]
	C₁₂	[0.9, 0.9]	[0.1, 0.1]	[0.0, 0.0]	[0.0, 0.0]	[0.0, 0.0]
	C₁₃	[0.3, 0.5]	[0.3, 0.5]	[0.2, 0.4]	[0.0, 0.2]	[0.0, 0.2]
	C₁₄	[0.2, 0.3]	[0.3, 0.4]	[0.4, 0.5]	[0.0, 0.1]	[0.0, 0.1]
N₂	C₂₁	[0.5, 0.6]	[0.3, 0.4]	[0.2, 0.3]	[0.0, 0.1]	[0.0, 0.1]
	C₂₂	[0.2, 0.3]	[0.5, 0.6]	[0.3, 0.4]	[0.0, 0.1]	[0.0, 0.1]
	C₂₃	[0.3, 0.5]	[0.2, 0.4]	[0.2, 0.4]	[0.1, 0.3]	[0.0, 0.2]
	C₂₄	[0.2, 0.3]	[0.5, 0.6]	[0.2, 0.3]	[0.0, 0.3]	[0.0, 0.2]
N₃	C₃₁	[0.1, 0.3]	[0.5, 0.7]	[0.2, 0.4]	[0.0, 0.2]	[0.0, 0.2]
	C₃₂	[0.6, 0.6]	[0.3, 0.3]	[0.1, 0.1]	[0.0, 0.0]	[0.0, 0.0]
	C₃₃	[0.1, 0.2]	[0.2, 0.3]	[0.4, 0.5]	[0.2, 0.4]	[0.0, 0.1]