Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
π(
y
1
)
=
−
μ(
y
1
)
−
(
y
1
)
=
−
.
−
.
=
.
1
v
1
0
7209
0
1551
0
1240
After that, we get the comprehensive evaluation value
z
(
y
j
)
of the system
y
j
:
z
(
y
1
)
=
(
0
.
7209
,
0
.
1551
,
0
.
1240
),
z
(
y
2
)
=
(
0
.
6351
,
0
.
1966
,
0
.
1683
)
z
(
y
3
)
=
(
0
.
6752
,
0
.
1823
,
0
.
1425
),
z
(
y
4
)
=
(
0
.
6403
,
0
.
1916
,
0
.
1681
)
Using Eq. (
1.15
), we can calculate
ϑ(
z
(
y
j
)) (
j
=
1
,
2
,
3
,
4
)
as:
ϑ(
z
(
y
1
))
=
0
.
7517
,ϑ(
z
(
y
2
))
=
0
.
6877
ϑ(
z
(
y
3
))
=
0
.
7157
,ϑ(
z
(
y
4
))
=
0
.
6921
and thus,
ϑ(
z
(
y
1
)) > ϑ(
z
(
y
3
)) > ϑ(
z
(
y
4
)) > ϑ(
z
(
y
2
))
by which we get the ranking of the systems
y
l
(
l
=
1
,
2
,
3
,
4
)
:
y
1
y
3
y
4
y
2
where “
” denotes “be superior to”. Therefore, the most desirable systems is
y
1
.
From the results above, we can see that the first system has the higher Jamming
capability which is the most important capability of a jamming system, and its other
capabilities are not bad. As a result, the comprehensive evaluation value of this system
is the largest one; while the second system doesn't have particular capability, and all
of its capabilities are rather mediocre, so its comprehensive evaluation result is very
bad, and thus ranks the last. This ranking of the systems is basically in accordance
with our intuition.
1.2 Intuitionistic Fuzzy Power Aggregation Operators
1.2.1 Power Aggregation Operators
Information aggregation is a process that fuses data from various resources by using
a proper aggregation technique. In order to develop a tool to aid and provide more
versatility in the data aggregation process, Yager (2001) introduced a power average
(PA) operator to aggregate a collection of negative real numbers
a
i
(
i
=
1
,
2
,...,
n
)
,
defined as follows:
i
=
1
(
1
+
T
(
a
i
))
a
i
i
=
1
(
PA
(
a
1
,
a
2
,...,
a
n
)
=
(1.17)
1
+
T
(
a
i
))
Search WWH ::
Custom Search