基于对数模糊偏好规划的层次化对抗策略评估

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1001-506X.2020.08.20

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

针对不完备决策信息条件下的信息化体系对抗策略评估问题,提出了基于对数模糊偏好规划的评估方法。结合对抗策略评估相关要素的分析和领域内专家的经验,构建对抗策略评估的层次化结构。在此基础上，提出了对数模糊偏好规划评估模型以及两阶段集成处理方法,可同时利用定性和定量数据,为模糊两两比较矩阵生成唯一的归一化最优评估优先向量,并直接、同时地处理对抗策略评估过程中的全局模糊比较超矩阵。结合战机突防案例进行实例分析,结果表明该方法可在不同策略准则情况下,给出不同最优对抗策略评估,可用于指导战机飞行员选取相应的最佳行动。

关键词: 信息化体系, 对抗策略评估, 层次化, 对数模糊偏好规划

Abstract:

Aiming at the problem of informatization system countermeasures assessment under the conditions of incomplete decision-making information, a assessment method based on logarithmic fuzzy preference programming (LFPP) is proposed. The method combines the analysis of relevant factors in countermeasures assessment with the experience of field experts, builds the hierarchical structure of the countermeasures assessment, and gives the LFPP assessment model and the two-stage integrated approach, which can utilize both the qualitative and quantitative data, produce the unique normalized optimal assessment priority vector for the fuzzy pairwise comparison matrices, and process all the comparison matrices obtained simultaneously and directly in the form of global fuzzy super-matrix to obtain the final priorities. Using the combat aircraft penetration as case study, the result shows that the method can make different optimal countermeasure assessments under different strategy criterias, which can be used to guide the fighter pilot to select the optimal practice actions.

Key words: informatization system, countermeasures assessment, hierarchical, logarithmic fuzzy preference programming (LFPP)

中图分类号:

葛亚维, 侯西倩. 基于对数模糊偏好规划的层次化对抗策略评估[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2020, 42(8): 1794-1803.

Yawei GE, Xiqian HOU. Hierarchical countermeasures assessment based on logarithmic fuzzy preference programming[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2020, 42(8): 1794-1803.

图/表 10

表1

图1

图2

表2

表3

表4

战机突防对抗策略选择模糊判据"

C₁₁	MFT	RFT	NoJ	4M+C+F	4M+VRGPO	RGPO	4M+MFT
MFT	(1, 1, 1)	(2/9, 1/4, 2/7)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1, 2, 3)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)
RFT	(7/2, 4, 9/2)	(1, 1, 1)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(5/2, 3, 7/2)	(2, 3, 4)
NoJ	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(1, 1, 1)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1, 1, 1)
4M+C+F	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1, 1, 1)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)
4M+VRGPO	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1, 1, 1)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1/2, 1, 2)
RGPO	(1/3, 1/2, 1)	(2/7, 1/3, 2/5)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1, 1, 1)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)
4M+MFT	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(1/4, 1/3, 1/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(1, 1, 1)

C₁₂	MFT	RFT	NoJ	4M+C+F	4M+VRGPO	RGPO	4M+MFT
MFT	(1, 1, 1)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1, 2, 3)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)
RFT	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1, 1, 1)	(1, 2, 3)	(1/3, 1/2, 1)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/7, 1/3, 2/5)
NoJ	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/3, 1/2, 1)	(1, 1, 1)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1/4, 1/3, 1/2)
4M+C+F	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1, 2, 3)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1, 1, 1)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/9, 1/4, 2/7)
4M+VRGPO	(1/3, 1/2, 1)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1, 1, 1)	(1, 2, 3)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)
RGPO	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/3, 1/2, 1)	(1, 1, 1)	(1/2, 1, 2)
4M+MFT	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(5/2, 3, 7/2)	(2, 3, 4)	(7/2, 4, 9/2)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1, 1, 1)

C₁₃	MFT	RFT	NoJ	4M+C+F	4M+VRGPO	RGPO	4M+MFT
MFT	(1, 1, 1)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1, 2, 3)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)
RFT	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1, 1, 1)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1, 2, 3)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)
NoJ	(1/3, 1/2, 1)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1, 1, 1)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/7, 1/3, 2/5)	(1/2, 1, 2)
4M+C+F	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1, 1, 1)	(1, 1, 1)	(1/4, 1/3, 1/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)
4M+VRGPO	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/3, 1/2, 1)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1, 1, 1)	(1, 1, 1)	(2/9, 1/4, 2/7)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)
RGPO	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(5/2, 3, 7/2)	(2, 3, 4)	(7/2, 4, 9/2)	(1, 1, 1)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)
4M+MFT	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(1, 1, 1)

C₂₁	MFT	RFT	NoJ	4M+C+F	4M+VRGPO	RGPO	4M+MFT
MFT	(1, 1, 1)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(2/7, 1/3, 2/5)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)
RFT	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(1, 1, 1)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(1, 2, 3)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)
NoJ	(5/2, 3, 7/2)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(1, 1, 1)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(5/2, 3, 7/2)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(2, 3, 4)
4M+C+F	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(1, 1, 1)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)
4M+VRGPO	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1/3, 1/2, 1)	(2/7, 1/3, 2/5)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1, 1, 1)	(1, 2, 3)	(1/2, 1, 2)
RGPO	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1/3, 1/2, 1)	(1, 1, 1)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)
4M+MFT	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/4, 1/3, 1/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1, 1, 1)

C₂₂	MFT	RFT	NoJ	4M+C+F	4M+VRGPO	RGPO	4M+MFT
MFT	(1, 1, 1)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1/3, 1/2, 1)	(1, 2, 3)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)
RFT	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1, 1, 1)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/3, 1/2, 1)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1, 2, 3)	(2/7, 1/3, 2/5)
NoJ	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1, 1, 1)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/7, 1/3, 2/5)
4M+C+F	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1, 2, 3)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1, 1, 1)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/9, 1/4, 2/7)
4M+VRGPO	(1, 2, 3)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1, 1, 1)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)
RGPO	(1/3, 1/2, 1)	(1/3, 1/2, 1)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1, 1, 1)	(1/4, 1/3, 1/2)
4M+MFT	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(5/2, 3, 7/2)	(5/2, 3, 7/2)	(7/2, 4, 9/2)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(2, 3, 4)	(1, 1, 1)

C₂₃	MFT	RFT	NoJ	4M+C+F	4M+VRGPO	RGPO	4M+MFT
MFT	(1, 1, 1)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(7/2, 4, 9/2)	(5/2, 3, 7/2)	(5/2, 3, 7/2)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)
RFT	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(1, 1, 1)	(1, 2, 3)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)
NoJ	(2/9, 1/4, 2/7)	(1/3, 1/2, 1)	(1, 1, 1)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/3, 1/2, 1)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)
4M+C+F	(2/7, 1/3, 2/5)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1, 1, 1)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)
4M+VRGPO	(2/7, 1/3, 2/5)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1, 2, 3)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1, 1, 1)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)
RGPO	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1, 1, 1)	(1/2, 1, 2)
4M+MFT	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1, 1, 1)

C₃₁	MFT	RFT	NoJ	4M+C+F	4M+VRGPO	RGPO	4M+MFT
MFT	(1, 1, 1)	(7/2, 4, 9/2)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(5/2, 3, 7/2)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(5/2, 3, 7/2)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)
RFT	(2/9, 1/4, 2/7)	(1, 1, 1)	(1/3, 1/2, 1)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)
NoJ	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(1, 2, 3)	(1, 1, 1)	(1/3, 1/2, 1)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)
4M+C+F	(2/7, 1/3, 2/5)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(1, 1, 1)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1/2, 1, 2)
4M+VRGPO	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(1, 2, 3)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1, 1, 1)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)
RGPO	(2/7, 1/3, 2/5)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1, 1, 1)	(1/2, 1, 2)
4M+MFT	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1, 1, 1)

C₃₂	MFT	RFT	NoJ	4M+C+F	4M+VRGPO	RGPO	4M+MFT
MFT	(1, 1, 1)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(1, 2, 3)	(1/2, 1, 2)
RFT	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1, 1, 1)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/7, 1/3, 2/5)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1, 2, 3)
NoJ	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1, 1, 1)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)
4M+C+F	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1, 1, 1)	(1/4, 1/3, 1/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)
4M+VRGPO	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(5/2, 3, 7/2)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(2, 3, 4)	(1, 1, 1)	(5/2, 3, 7/2)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)
RGPO	(1/3, 1/2, 1)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/7, 1/3, 2/5)	(1, 1, 1)	(1/2, 1, 2)
4M+MFT	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1/3, 1/2, 1)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1, 1, 1)

C₃₃	MFT	RFT	NoJ	4M+C+F	4M+VRGPO	RGPO	4M+MFT
MFT	(1, 1, 1)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1, 1, 1)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)
RFT	(1/3, 1/2, 1)	(1, 1, 1)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)
NoJ	(1, 1, 1)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1, 1, 1)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(1/2, 1, 2)
4M+C+F	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1, 1, 1)	(2, 3, 4)	(7/2, 4, 9/2)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)
4M+VRGPO	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/4, 1/3, 1/2)	(1, 1, 1)	(1, 2, 3)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)
RGPO	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(2/9, 1/4, 2/7)	(1/3, 1/2, 1)	(1, 1, 1)	(1/2, 1, 2)
4M+MFT	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1/2, 2/5)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1, 1, 1)

C₄₁	MFT	RFT	NoJ	4M+C+F	4M+VRGPO	RGPO	4M+MFT
MFT	(1, 1, 1)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(5/2, 3, 7/2)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(7/2, 4, 9/2)	(5/2, 3, 7/2)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)
RFT	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(1, 1, 1)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1, 2, 3)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1/3, 1/2, 1)
NoJ	(2/7, 1/3, 2/5)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1, 1, 1)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/3, 1/2, 1)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)
4M+C+F	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1, 1, 1)	(1, 2, 3)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1/2, 1, 2)
4M+VRGPO	(2/9, 1/4, 2/7)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1, 1, 1)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)
RGPO	(2/7, 1/3, 2/5)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1, 1, 1)	(1/2, 1, 2)
4M+MFT	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1, 1, 1)

C₄₂	MFT	RFT	NoJ	4M+C+F	4M+VRGPO	RGPO	4M+MFT
MFT	(1, 1, 1)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)
RFT	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(1, 1, 1)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(1, 2, 3)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)
NoJ	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(1, 1, 1)	(5/2, 3, 7/2)	(5/2, 3, 7/2)	(2, 3, 4)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)
4M+C+F	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(2/7, 1/3, 2/5)	(1, 1, 1)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)
4M+VRGPO	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/3, 1/2, 1)	(2/7, 1/3, 2/5)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1, 1, 1)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)
RGPO	(1/2, 1, 2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/4, 1/3, 1/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1/2, 1, 2)	(1, 1, 1)	(1/2, 1, 2)
4M+MFT	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(1, 1, 1)

表4

表5

表6

表7

图3

参考文献 34

1	LIN P S , OZKUL S , GUO R , et al. Assessment of countermeasure effectiveness and informativeness in mitigating wrong-way entries onto limited-access facilities[J]. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2019, 116, 79- 93.
2	HAMADA Y H , KOKAMI H , MIWA S C , et al. Assessment of the countermeasure improvement of ABWR using RETRAN-3D[J]. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 2016, 94, 223- 229. doi: 10.1016/j.anucene.2016.03.005
3	BACA D , PETERSEN K . Countermeasure graphs for software security risk assessment: An action research[J]. The Journal of Systems and Software, 2013, 86 (9): 2411- 2428. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2013.04.023
4	LU M T , HSU C C , LIOU J J H , et al. A hybrid MCDM and sustainability-balanced scorecard model to establish sustainable performance evaluation for international airports[J]. Journal of Air Transport Management, 2018, 71, 9- 19. doi: 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2018.05.008
5	HONG Z X , FENG Y X , LI Z W , et al. An integrated approach for multi-objective optimization and MCDM of energy internet under uncertainty[J]. Future Generation Computer Systems, 2019, 97, 90- 104. doi: 10.1016/j.future.2019.02.046
6	NASSEREDDINE M , ESKANDARI H . An integrated MCDM approach to evaluate public transportation systems in Tehran[J]. Transportation Research Part A, 2017, 106 (C): 427- 439.
7	STIRBANOVIC Z , STANUJKIC D , MILJANOVIC I , et al. Application of MCDM methods for flotation machine selection[J]. Mine-rals Engineering, 2019, 137, 104- 146.
8	YU X H , ZHANG S J , LIAO X L , et al. ELECTRE methods in prioritized MCDM environment[J]. Information Sciences, 2018, 424, 301- 316. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2017.09.061
9	BARAK S , JAVANMARD S . Outsourcing modelling using a novel interval-valued fuzzy quantitative strategic planning matrix (QSPM) and multiple criteria decision-making (MCDMS)[J]. International Journal of Production Economics, 2020, 222, 107494. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.09.015
10	BERTOLINI M , BEVILACQUA M . A combined goal programming-AHP approach to maintenance selection problem[J]. Reliabi-lity Engineering and System Safety, 2006, 91 (7): 839- 848. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2005.08.006
11	MALETIC D , MALETIC M , LOVRENCIC V , et al. An application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and sensitivity analysis for maintenance policy selection[J]. Organizacija, 2014, 47 (3): 177- 189. doi: 10.2478/orga-2014-0016
12	MAKINDE O A , MPOFU K , RAMATSETSE B . Establishment of the best maintenance practices for optimal reconfigurable vibrating screen management using decision techniq ues[J]. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 2016, 33 (8): 1239- 1267. doi: 10.1108/IJQRM-01-2016-0004
13	WU S H , XIE J , LIU X D , et al. Marginal optimization method to improve the inconsistent comparison matrix in the analytic hierarchy process[J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2017, 28 (6): 1141- 1151.
14	LAARHOVEN P J M V , PEDRYCZ W . A fuzzy extension of Saaty's priority theory[J]. Fuzzy Sets an d Systems, 1983, 11 (1): 199- 227.
15	MIKHAILOV L, SINGH M G. Comparison analysis of methods for deriving priorities in the analytic hierar chy process[C]//Proc.of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1999.
16	THALIA S, TUTEJA A, DUTTA M. Comparative perfor-mance analysis of information system security using crisp and fuzzy AHP methods[C]//Proc.of the 3rd IEEE International Advance Computing Conference, 2013.
17	ISHIZAKA A . Comparison of fuzzy logic, AHP, FAHP and hybrid fuzzy AHP for new supplier selection and its performance analysis[J]. International Journal of Integrated Supply Management, 2016, 9 (1/2): 1- 22.
18	DENG H. Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparison[C]//Proc.of the IEEE International Co nference on Fuzzy Systems, 2002: 726-731.
19	MIKHAILOV L . A fuzzy programming method for deriving priorities in the analytic hierarchy process[J]. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 2000, 51 (3): 341- 349.
20	YU H W , ZHANG B . A heterogeneous network selection algorithm based on network attribute and user preference[J]. Ad Hoc Networks, 2018, 72, 68- 80. doi: 10.1016/j.adhoc.2018.01.011
21	RIBAS J R , ARCE M E , SOHLER F A , et al. Data and calculation approach of the fuzzy AHP risk assessment of a large hydroelectric project[J]. Data in Brief, 2019, 25, 104294. doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2019.104294
22	LI S Y, TAO G, ZHANG L J. Fire risk assessment of high-rise buildings based on Gray-FAHP mathematical model[C]//Proc.of the 8th International Conference on Fire Science and Fire Protection Engineering, 2018: 395-402.
23	CHEN T , LIN Y C , CHIU M C . Approximating alpha-cut operations approach for effective and efficient fuzzy analytic hierarchy process analysis[J]. Applied Soft Computing Journal, 2019, 85, 105855. doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105855
24	陈华友, 周礼刚, 刘金培, 等. 不确定信息环境下多属性决策方法的研究进展[J]. 安徽大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 42 (5): 10- 29. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2162.2018.05.002
	CHEN H Y , ZHOU L G , LIU J P , et al. Research advance in multi-attribute decision making under the environment of uncertain information[J]. Journal of Anhui University(Natural Sciences), 2018, 42 (5): 10- 29. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2162.2018.05.002
25	TAVANA M , KHOSROJERDI G , MINA H , et al. A hybrid mathematical programming model for optimal project portfolio selection using fuzzy inference system and analytic hierarchy process[J]. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2019, 77, 101703. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.101703
26	SITORUS F , CILLIERS J J , BRITO-PARADA P R . An integrated constrained fuzzy stochastic analytic hierarchy process method with application to the choice problem[J]. Expert Systems with Applications, 2019, 138, 112822. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2019.112822
27	BALUSA B C , GORAI A K . Sensitivity analysis of fuzzy-analytic hierarchical process (FAHP) decision-making model in selection of underground metal mining method[J]. Journal of Sustainable Mining, 2019, 18, 8- 17. doi: 10.1016/j.jsm.2018.10.003
28	LI J M, QIAN C, ZHANG Y F, et al. Modeling of the value network in smart manufacturing based on FAHP and text feature extraction[C]//Proc.of the 11th CIRP Conference on Industrial Product-Service Systems, 2019, 83: 694-698.
29	MIKHAILOV L , SINGH M G . Fuzzy analytic network process and its application to the development of decision support systems[J]. IEEE Trans.on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), 2003, 33 (1): 33- 41. doi: 10.1109/TSMCC.2003.809354
30	YU J R , SHING W Y . Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: an integrated fuzzy logarithmic pref erence programming[J]. Applied Soft Computing, 2013, 13 (4): 1792- 1799.
31	MIKHAILOV L . Deriving priorities from fuzzy pairwise comparison judgements[J]. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2003, 134 (3): 365- 385. doi: 10.1016/S0165-0114(02)00383-4
32	WANG Y M , CHIN K S . Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: a logarithmic fuzzy preference programming methodology[J]. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 2011, 52 (4): 541- 553. doi: 10.1016/j.ijar.2010.12.004
33	GE Y W , XIAO M Q , YANG Z , et al. An integrated logarithmic fuzzy preference programming based methodology for optimum maintenance strategies selection[J]. Applied Soft Computing, 2017, 60, 591- 601. doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2017.07.021
34	VISNEVSKI N , KRISHNAMURTHY V , WANG A , et al. Syntactic modeling and signal processing of multifunction radars: a stochastic context-free grammar approach[J]. Proceeding of IEEE, 2007, 95 (5): 1000- 1025. doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2007.893252

步骤	过程或方法	结论或结果
1	结合任务目标,针对问题构建策略网络结构	对抗策略网络结构
2	识别并确定各策略准则以及各准则间的相互关系	对抗策略网络结构中准则与关系模型
3	利用三角模糊判据构建比较矩阵	准则间的模糊成对比较矩阵
4	基于特定方法获取不同层级的规则局部优先级	不同层级的局部优先级
5	利用局部优先级组建未加权的超矩阵¹⁾,并进行归一化处理	归一化的加权超矩阵
6	结合加权超矩阵计算策略准则重要度权重	对抗策略准则的全局优先级序列²⁾

不确定性评估	模糊判据
等或近等	(1, 1, 1)/(1/2, 1, 2)
最有可能x倍更重要于	(x-1, x, x+1)
最有可能x倍不太重要于	(1/(x+1), 1/x, 1/(x-1))
在y和z倍数之间更重要于	(y, (y+z)/2, z)
在y和z倍数之间不太重要于	(1/z, 2/(y+z), 1/y)

敌方探测阵地处于活跃状态(C₁)	Search (C₁₁)	Acquisition (C₁₂)	Non-adaptive Track (C₁₃)
Search (C₁₁)	(1, 1, 1)	(2, 3, 4)	(4, 5, 6)
Acquisition (C₁₂)	(1/4, 1/3, 1/2)	(1, 1, 1)	(1, 2, 3)
Non-adaptive Track (C₁₃)	(1/6, 1/5, 1/4)	(1/3, 1/2, 1)	(1, 1, 1)

探测与跟踪(C₂)	Range Resolution (C₂₁)	Track Maintenance (C₂₂)	Passive Track (C₂₃)
Range Resolution (C₂₁)	(1, 1, 1)	(1/3, 1/2, 1)	(1, 2, 3)
Track Maintenance (C₂₂)	(1, 2, 3)	(1, 1, 1)	(1, 2, 3)
Passive Track (C₂₃)	(1/3, 1/2, 1)	(1/3, 1/2, 1)	(1, 1, 1)

导弹发射与制导(C₃)	Missile Launching (C₃₁)	Mid-Course Guidance (C₃₂)	Terminal Guidance(C₃₃)
Missile Launching (C₃₁)	(1, 1, 1)	(1/9, 1/8, 1/7)	(1/3, 1/2, 1)
Mid-Course Guidance (C₃₂)	(7, 8, 9)	(1, 1, 1)	(2, 3, 4)
Terminal Guidance (C₃₃)	(1, 2, 3)	(1/4, 1/3, 1/2)	(1, 1, 1)

导弹命中(C₄)	Hit (C₄₁)		Miss (C₄₂)
Hit (C₄₁)	(1, 1, 1)		(1/8, 1/7, 1/6)
Miss (C₄₂)	(6, 7, 8)		(1, 1, 1)

战机突防对抗策略评估	敌方探测阵地处于活跃状态(C₁)	探测与跟踪(C₂)	导弹发射与制导(C₃)	导弹命中(C₄)	重要度优先级
敌方探测阵地处于活跃状态(C₁)	(1, 1, 1)	(1/4, 1/3, 1/2)	(1/3, 1/2, 1)	(1, 2, 3)	0.169 4
探测与跟踪(C₂)	(2, 3, 4)	(1, 1, 1)	(1, 2, 3)	(3, 4, 5)	0.448 8
导弹发射与制导(C₃)	(1, 2, 3)	(1/3, 1/2, 1)	(1, 1, 1)	(2, 3, 4)	0.277 2
导弹命中(C₄)	(1/3, 1/2, 1)	(1/5, 1/4, 1/3)	(1/4, 1/3, 1/2)	(1, 1, 1)	0.104 6

突防阶段	对抗策略准则	局部权重值
敌方探测阵地处于活跃状态(C₁, λ=0.834 1)	Search (C₁₁)	0.642 1
	Acquisition (C₁₂)	0.229 2
	Non-adaptive Track (C₁₃)	0.128 7
探测与跟踪(C₂, λ=0.616 7)	Range Resolution (C₂₁)	0.344 1
	Track Maintenance (C₂₂)	0.480 6
	Passive Track (C₂₃)	0.205 3
导弹发射与制导(C₃, λ=0.666 6)	Missile Launching (C₃₁)	0.091 6
	Mid-Course Guidance (C₃₂)	0.697 9
	Terminal Guidance (C₃₃)	0.210 5
导弹命中(C₄, λ=1)	Hit (C₄₁)	0.125 0
导弹命中(C₄, λ=1)	Miss (C₄₂)	0.875 0