Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Volume 4
155
Advances and Applications of DSmT for Information Fusion. Collected Works. Volume 4
junctive) attitude.
Lets explain a bit more in details the steps of ET and the
computation of the indices necessary for the implementation
of the ET method.
A. ET-Step 1: Partial indices
0 if ( ) ( ) ( )
( , ) 1 if ( ) ( ) < ( )
( )+ ( ) ( ) otherwise
(1)
( ) ( )
and
0 if ( ) ( ) ( )
( , ) 1 if ( ) ( ) < ( )
( )+ ( ) ( ) otherwise.
(2)
( ) ( )
0 if ( ) ( ) < ( )
(3)
( , ) 1 if ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) otherwise
( ) ( )
and
0 if ( ) ( ) ( )
( , ) 1 if ( ) ( ) > ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) otherwise.
(4)
( ) ( )
156
Advances and Applications of DSmT for Information Fusion. Collected Works. Volume 4
The global concordance indices: The global concordance index ( , ) (respectively ( , )) expresses to
which extent the evaluations of and on all criteria
(respectively and ) are concordant with the assertions outranks (respectively outranks ).
In ET method, ( , ) (resp. ( , )) is computed
by the weighted average of partial concordance indices
( , ) (resp. ( , )). That is
( , ) =
( , )
(5)
( , )
(6)
=1
and
( , ) =
=1
S and S
(13)
<
not
and
Based on outranking relations between all pairs of alternatives and profiles of categories, two attitudes can be used in
ET to assign each alternative into a category [6]. These
attitudes yields to a hard assignment solution where each
alternative belongs or doesnt belong to a category (binary
assignment) and there is no measure of the confidence of the
assignment in this last step of ET method. The pessimistic and
optimistic hard assignments are realized as follows:
Pessimistic hard assignment: is compared with ,
1 , 2 , . . . , until outranks where . The
alternative is then assigned to the highest category ,
that is , if ( , ) .
Optimistic hard assignment: is compared successively
to 1 , 2 , . . . , . . . until outranks . The alternative
is assigned to the lowest category , , for
which the upper profile is preferred to .
III. T HE NEW S OFT ELECTRE TRI (SET) METHOD
V1 { J ( , ) > ( , )}
(10)
V2 { J ( , ) > ( , )}
(11)
( , )
V2
1 ( , )
1( , )
if
if
V2 =
(9)
V2 =
157
Advances and Applications of DSmT for Information Fusion. Collected Works. Volume 4
() = 0
and
() = 1
(14)
2
( )
(15)
Bel()
Pl()
( )
2 (.)
0
, ()
1 , ()
(16)
=
2
1 (.)
, ()
0
1 , ()
( , ) () [0, 1]
(17)
( , ) (
) [0, 1]
( , ) ( ) [0, 1].
Of course, a similar approach must be adapted (not
reported here due to space limitation restraint) to
3 Here
that for a sigmoid of parameter , the tangent at its inflection point is /4.
6 see [15] for details on PCR5 with many examples.
158
4 with
Advances and Applications of DSmT for Information Fusion. Collected Works. Volume 4
compute ( , ) = (), ( , ) = (
) and
( , ) = ( ).
Example 1: Lets consider only one alternative and (.)
in range [0, 100], and lets take ( ) = 50 and the following
thresholds: ( ) = 20 (indifference threshold), ( ) = 25
(preference threshold) and ( ) = 40 (veto threshold) for the
profile bound . Then, the inflection points of the sigmoids
1 () , () and 2 () , () have the following
abscisses: = 50 (25 + 20)/2 = 27.5 and = 50 (25 +
40)/2 = 17.5 and parameters: = 4/(25 20) = 4/5 = 0.8
and = 4/(40 25) = 4/15 0.2666. The construction
of the consistent bba (.) is obtained by the PCR5 fusion
of the bbas 1 (.) and 2 (.) given in Table I. The result is
shown in Fig. 2.
( , ) ()( , )
( , ) (
)( , )
( , ) 1 ( , ) ( , ).
(19)
( , )
( , )
with
1.5
cj(ai,bh)
dj(ai,bh)
1 ( , )
V 1 ()
1 ( , )
V 1 (
)
if V =
if V =
(20)
if V =
if V =
(21)
V { J ( , ) > ()}
V { J ( , ) > (
)}
(22)
uj(ai,bh)
0.5
0.5
10
20
30
40
50
gj(ai)
60
70
80
90
100
and
Bel() = ( , )
Bel( ) = ( , )
(23)
Pl() = 1 ( , ) = ( , ) + ( , )
Pl( ) = 1 ( , ) = ( , ) + ( , )
(24)
(.) = [1 2 . . . ](.)
(18)
(.) = [1 2 . . . ](.)
To take into account the weighting factor of the criterion
valued by (.), we suggest to use as fusion operator either:
the weighting averaging fusion rule (as in ET method)
which is simple and compatible with probability calculus
and Bayesian reasoning,
or the more sophisticated operator defined by the PCR5
fusion rule adapted for importance discounting presented
159
Advances and Applications of DSmT for Information Fusion. Collected Works. Volume 4
0.7
0.2
More precisely
>
>
>
>
>
>
<
<
>
<
<
>
<
<
<
<
( ( ))
0.14
0.56
0.24
0.06
(25)
160
Advances and Applications of DSmT for Information Fusion. Collected Works. Volume 4
Categories
Assignment probas
( )
0.24
0.56
0.14
= 0.06
IV. A PPLICATION
EXAMPLE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
Criteria
Choices
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Profiles
Criteria
1 : e/2
2 : /year
3 : {0, 1, . . . , 10}
4 : [0, 10]
5 : {0, 1, . . . , 100}
5
{0, 1, . . . , 100}
18
24
17
20
16
21
13
100
1000
4
4
15
-50
500
7
7
20
Thresholds
Criteria
1 : e/2
2 : /year
3 : {0, 1, . . . , 10}
4 : [0, 10]
5 : {0, 1, . . . , 100}
4
[0, 10]
3.5
4.5
5.5
8.0
7.5
4.0
8.5
3
{0, 1, . . . , 10}
5
2
4
6
8
5
7
2
( /year)
284
269
413
596
1321
734
982
1
(e/2 )
120
150
100
60
30
80
45
(weight)
(indifference)
(preference)
(veto)
0.25
0.45
0.10
0.12
0.08
15
80
1
0.5
1
40
350
3
3.5
5
100
850
5
4.5
8
161
Advances and Applications of DSmT for Information Fusion. Collected Works. Volume 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
1
>
>
>
>
>
2
<
<
<
<
<
3
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
3
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
V. C ONCLUSIONS
A new outranking sorting method, called Soft ELECTRE
TRI (SET), inspired from the classical ELECTRE TRI and
based on beliefs functions and advanced fusion techniques is
proposed. SET method uses the same inputs as ET (same
criteria and thresholds definitions) but in a more effective
way and provides a soft (probabilized) assignment solution.
SET eliminates the inherent problem of classical ET due
to the arbitrary choice of a -cut strategy which forces to
adopt either a pessimistic or optimistic attitude for the final
hard assignment of alternatives to categories. The interest
of SET over ET method is demonstrated on a preexisting
environmental context scenario.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.9858
0.8908
0.9999
1.0000
0.2142
0.9996
0.9975
0.6211
0.1812
0.0570
0.0807
0.0145
0.0006
0.0106
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
R EFERENCES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
0.0054
0.0894
0.0001
0
0.7744
0.0004
0.0025
2
0.3735
0.7294
0.9429
0.9193
0.2111
0.9990
0.9869
3
0.6123
0.1614
0.0570
0.0807
0.0031
0.0006
0.0106
1 = 0.0088
2 = 0.0198
3 = 0
4 = 0
5 = 0.0114
6 = 0
7 = 0
162