The logical encoding of Sugeno integrals

International audienceSugeno integrals are a well-known family of qualitative multiple criteria aggregation operators. The paper investigates how the behavior of these operators can be described in a prioritized propositional logic language, namely possibilistic logic. The case of binary-valued criteria, which amounts to providing a logical description of the fuzzy measure underlying the integral, is first considered. The general case of a Sugeno integral when criteria are valued on a discrete scale is then studied

Water Policies and Conflict Resolution of Public Participation Decision-Making Processes Using Prioritized Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA) Operators

[EN] There is a growing interest in environmental policies about how to implement public participation engagement in the context of water resources management. This paper presents a robust methodology, based on ordered weighted averaging (OWA) operators, to conflict resolution decision-making problems under uncertain environments due to both information and stakeholders' preferences. The methodology allows integrating heterogeneous interests of the general public and stakeholders on account of their different degree of acceptance or preference and level of influence or power regarding the measures and policies to be adopted, and also of their level of involvement (i.e., information supply, consultation and active involvement). These considerations lead to different environmental and socio-economic outcomes, and levels of stakeholders' satisfaction. The methodology establishes a prioritization relationship over the stakeholders. The individual stakeholders' preferences are aggregated through their associated weights, which depend on the satisfaction of the higher priority decision maker. The methodology ranks the optimal management strategies to maximize the stakeholders' satisfaction. It has been successfully applied to a real case study, providing greater fairness, transparency, social equity and consensus among actors. Furthermore, it provides support to environmental policies, such as the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), improving integrated water management while covering a wide range of objectives, management alternatives and stakeholders.Llopis Albert, C.; Merigó-Lindahl, JM.; Liao, H.; Xu, Y.; Grima-Olmedo, J.; Grima-Olmedo, C. (2018). Water Policies and Conflict Resolution of Public Participation Decision-Making Processes Using Prioritized Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA) Operators. Water Resources Management. 32(2):497-510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1823-2S497510322Amin GR, Sadeghi H (2010) Application of prioritized aggregation operators in preference voting. Int J Intell Syst 25(10):1027–1034Chen TY (2014) A prioritized aggregation operator-based approach to multiple criteria decision making using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets: A comparative perspective. Inf Sci 281:97–112Chen LH, Xu ZS (2014) A prioritized aggregation operator based on the OWA operator and prioritized measures. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 27:1297–1307Chen LH, Xu ZS, Yu XH (2014a) Prioritized measure-guided aggregation operators. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 22:1127–1138Chen LH, Xu ZS, Yu XH (2014b) Weakly prioritized measure aggregation in prioritized multicriteria decision making. Int J Intell Syst 29:439–461CHJ (2016). Júcar river basin authority http://www.chj.es/CHS (2016). Segura river basin authority http://www.chsegura.es/Dong JY, Wan SP (2016) A new method for prioritized multi-criteria group decision making with triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 30:1719–1733EC (2000). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 23 2000 Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy. Official Journal of the European Communities, L327/1eL327/72 22.12.2000Jackson S, Tan P-L, Nolan S (2012) Tools to enhance public participation and confidence in the development of the Howard East aquifer water plan, Northern Territory. J Hydrol 474:22–28Jin FF, Ni ZW, Chen HY (2016) Note on “Hesitant fuzzy prioritized operators and their application to multiple attribute decision making”. Knowl-Based Syst 96:115–119Kentel E, Aral MM (2007) Fuzzy Multiobjective Decision-Making Approach for Groundwater Resources Management. J Hydrol Eng 12(2):206–217. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2007)12:2(206).Kirchherr J, Charles KJ, Walton MJ (2016) Multi-causal pathways of public opposition to dam project in Asia: A fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). Glob Environ Chang 41:33–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.08.001Llopis-Albert C, Pulido-Velazquez D (2015) Using MODFLOW code to approach transient hydraulic head with a sharp-interface solution. Hydrol Process 29(8):2052–2064. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10354Llopis-Albert C, Palacios-Marqués D, Soto-Acosta P (2015) Decision-making and stakeholders constructive participation in environmental projects. J Bus Res 68:1641–1644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.02.010Llopis-Albert C, Merigó JM, Xu Y, Huchang L (2017) Improving regional climate projections by prioritized aggregation via ordered weighted averaging operators. Environ Eng Sci. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0546Maia R (2017) The WFD Implementation in the European Member States. Water Resour Manag 31(10):3043–3060. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1723-5Malczewski J, Chapman T, Flegel C, Walters D, Shrubsole D, Healy MA (2003) GIS - multicriteria evaluation with ordered weighted averaging (OWA): case study of developing watershed management strategies. Environ Plan A 35:1769–1784. https://doi.org/10.1068/a35156Merigó JM, Casanovas M (2011) The uncertain generalized owa operator and its application to financial decision making. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 10(2):211–230Merigó JM, Yager RR (2013) Generalized moving averages, distance measures and OWA operators. Int J Uncertain, Fuzziness Knowl-Based Syst 21(4):533–559Merigó JM, Palacios-Marqués D, Ribeiro-Navarrete B (2015) Aggregation systems for sales forecasting. J Bus Res 68:2299–2304Mesiar R, Stupnanová A, Yager RR (2015) Generalizations of OWA Operators. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 23(6):2154–2162O’Hagan M (1988) Aggregating Template Rule Antecedents in Real-time Expert Systems with Fuzzy Set Logic. In: Proceedings of 22nd annual IEEE Asilomar Conference on Signals. IEEE and Maple Press, Pacific Grove, Systems and Computers, pp 681–689Rahmani MA, Zarghami M (2013) A new approach to combine climate change projections by ordered weighting averaging operator; applications to northwestern provinces of Iran. Glob Planet Chang 102:41–50Ran LG, Wei GW (2015) Uncertain prioritized operators and their application to multiple attribute group decision making. Technol Econ Dev Econ 21:118–139Ruiz-Villaverde, A., García-Rubio, M.A. (2017). Public Participation in European Water Management: from Theory to Practice. Water Resour Manag 31(8), 2479–2495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-016-1355-1Sadiq R, Tesfamariam S (2007) Probability density functions based weights for ordered weighted averaging (OWA) operators: An example of water quality indices. Eur J Oper Res 182:1350–1368Sadiq R, Rodríguez MJ, Tesfamariam S (2010) Integrating indicators for performance assessment of small water utilities using ordered weighted averaging (OWA) operators. Expert Syst Appl 37:4881–4891Verma R, Sharma B (2016) Prioritized information fusion method for triangular fuzzy information and its application to multiple attribute decision making. Int J Uncertain, Fuzziness Knowl-Based Syst 24:265–290Wang HM, Xu YJ, Merigó JM (2014) Prioritized aggregation for non-homogeneous group decision making in water resource management. Econ Comput Econ Cybern Stud Res 48(1):247–258Wei GW (2012) Hesitant fuzzy prioritized operators. Knowl-Based Syst 31:176–182Wei CP, Tang XJ (2012) Generalized prioritized aggregation operators. Int J Intell Syst 27:578–589Xu ZS (2005) An Overview of Methods for Determining OWA Weights. Int J Intell Syst 20:843–865Yager RR (1988) On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multi-criteria decision making, IEEE Transactions on Systems. Man Cybern B 18(1988):183–190Yager RR (2008) Prioritized Aggregation Operators. Int J Approx Reason 48:263–274Yan H-B, Huynh V-N, Nakamori Y, Murai T (2011) On prioritized weighted aggregation in multi-criteria decision making. Expert Syst Appl 38(1):812–823Ye J (2014) Prioritized aggregation operators of trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their application to multicriteria decision-making. Neural Comput & Applic 25:1447–1454Yu XH, Xu ZS, Liu SS (2013) Prioritized multi-criteria decision making based on preference relations. Comput Ind Eng 66:104–115Zadeh LA (1983) A Computational Approach to Fuzzy Quantifiers in Natural Languages. Comput Math Appl 9:149–184Zarghami M, Szidarovszky F (2009) Revising the OWA operator for multi criteria decision making problems under uncertainty. Eur J Oper Res 198:259–265Zarghami M, Ardakanian R, Memariani A, Szidarovszky F (2008) Extended OWA Operator for Group Decision Making on Water Resources Projects. J Water Resour Plan Manag 134(3):266–275. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2008)134:3(266)Zarghami M, Szidarovszky F, Ardakanian R (2009) Multi-attribute decision making on inter-basin water transfer projects. Transaction E. Ind Eng 16(1):73–80Zhao XF, Li QX, Wei GW (2014) Some prioritized aggregating operators with linguistic information and their application to multiple attribute group decision making. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 26:1619–1630Zhao N, Xu ZS, Ren ZL (2016) On typical hesitant fuzzy prioritized “or” operator in multi-attribute decision making. Int J Intell Syst 31:73–100Zhou LY, Lin R, Zhao XF, Wei GW (2013) Uncertain linguistic prioritized aggregation operators and their application to multiple attribute group decision making. Int J Uncertain, Fuzziness Knowl-Based Syst 21:603–627Zhou LG, Merigó JM, Chen HY, Liu JP (2016) The optimal group continuous logarithm compatibility measure for interval multiplicative preference relations based on the COWGA operator. Inf Sci 328:250–26

Multiple interface scheduling system for heterogeneous wireless vehicular networks: Description and evaluation

Reliable wireless communications between vehicles (V2V) and between vehicles and infrastructure (V2I) will play a key role in future transport networks. Where there is overlapping coverage of multiple Radio Access Technologies, with no cooperation between them, a vehicle can use the different technologies simultaneously. This paper proposes an uplink Multi Interface Scheduling System (MISS) located at an intermediate shim layer on the user side, to achieve efficient bandwidth aggregation, or lower end-to-end packet delay. MISS aims to find all the available networks that can meet multiple criteria based on user preference and required performance. Simulation results show that safety critical traffic can be prioritized where the resources are insufficient for all the services. Video delivery quality is also improved by prioritizing the most important frames. This algorithm is ideally suited to vehicular networks, where delivery of safety traffic and/or video is an essential requirement

A Multi-Factorial Risk Prioritization Framework for Food-Borne Pathogens

To lower the incidence of human food-borne disease, experts and stakeholders have urged the development of a science- and risk-based management system in which food-borne hazards are analyzed and prioritized. A literature review shows that most approaches to risk prioritization developed to date are based on measures of health outcomes and do not systematically account for other factors that may be important to decision making. The Multi-Factorial Risk Prioritization Framework developed here considers four factors that may be important to risk managers: public health, consumer risk perceptions and acceptance, market-level impacts, and social sensitivity. The framework is based on the systematic organization and analysis of data on these multiple factors. The basic building block of the information structure is a three-dimensional cube based on pathogen-food-factor relationships. Each cell of the cube has an information card associated with it and data from the cube can be aggregated along different dimensions. The framework is operationalized in three stages, with each stage adding another dimension to decision-making capacity. The first stage is the information cards themselves that provide systematic information that is not pre-processed or aggregated across factors. The second stage maps the information on the various information cards into cobweb diagrams that create a graphical profile of, for example, a food-pathogen combination with respect to each of the four risk prioritization factors. The third stage is formal multi-criteria decision analysis in which decision makers place explicit values on different criteria in order to develop risk priorities. The process outlined above produces a ‘List A’ of priority food-pathogen combinations according to some aggregate of the four risk prioritization factors. This list is further vetted to produce ‘List B’, which brings in feasibility analysis by ranking those combinations where practical actions that have a significant impact are feasible. Food-pathogen combinations where not enough is known to identify any or few feasible interventions are included in ‘List C’. ‘List C’ highlights areas with significant uncertainty where further research may be needed to enhance the precision of the risk prioritization process. The separation of feasibility and uncertainty issues through the use of ‘Lists A, B, and C’ allows risk managers to focus separately on distinct dimensions of the overall prioritization. The Multi-Factorial Risk Prioritization Framework provides a flexible instrument that compares and contrasts risks along four dimensions. Use of the framework is an iterative process. It can be used to establish priorities across pathogens for a particular food, across foods for a particular pathogen and/or across specific food-pathogen combinations. This report provides a comprehensive conceptual paper that forms the basis for a wider process of consultation and for case studies applying the framework.risk analysis, risk prioritization, food-borne pathogens, benefits and costs

A situational approach for the definition and tailoring of a data-driven software evolution method

Successful software evolution heavily depends on the selection of the right features to be included in the next release. Such selection is difficult, and companies often report bad experiences about user acceptance. To overcome this challenge, there is an increasing number of approaches that propose intensive use of data to drive evolution. This trend has motivated the SUPERSEDE method, which proposes the collection and analysis of user feedback and monitoring data as the baseline to elicit and prioritize requirements, which are then used to plan the next release. However, every company may be interested in tailoring this method depending on factors like project size, scope, etc. In order to provide a systematic approach, we propose the use of Situational Method Engineering to describe SUPERSEDE and guide its tailoring to a particular context.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

Government transparency measurement through prioritized distance operators

© 2018 - IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved. The prioritized induced probabilistic ordered weighted average distance (PIPOWAD) has been developed. This new operator is an extension of the ordered weighted average (OWA) operator that can be used in cases where we have two sets of data that want to be compared. Some of the main characteristics of this new operator are: 1) Not all the decision makers are equally important, so the information needs to be prioritized, 2) The information has a probability to occur and 3) The decision makers can change the importance of the information based in an induced variable. Additionally, characteristics and families of the PIPOWAD operator are presented. Finally, an application of the PIPOWAD operator in order to measure government transparency in Mexico is presented