On the relationship between the Crescent Method and SUOWA operators
Texto completo
(2) 2. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS. The Choquet integral with respect to a normalized capacity µ is the function Cµ : Rn −→ R given by Cµ (x) =. n X. µ(A[i] ) x[i] − x[i+1] ,. i=1. where A[i] = {[1], . . . , [i]}, and we adopt the convention that x[n+1] = 0. Alternatively, the Choquet integral can be also expressed as Cµ (x) =. n X. µ(A[i] ) − µ(A[i−1] ) x[i] ,. i=1. where we use the convention A[0] = ∅. The best-known specific cases of Choquet integral are the weighted means and the OWA operators, which are defined by using weighting vectors.1 The weighted mean Mp associated with a weighting vector p is the Choquet P integral with respect to the normalized capacity µp (A) = i∈A pi ; that is, Mp (x) =. n X. pi xi .. i=1. For its part, the OWA operator Ow associated with a weighting vector w is the Choquet integral with respect to the normalized P|A| capacity µ|w| (A) = i=1 wi ; that is, Ow (x) =. n X. wi x[i] .. i=1. Specific cases of OWA operators are the order statistics: the kth order statistic OSk (x) = x(k) is the OWA operator associated with the vector en−k+1 ; equivalently, Oek = OSn−k+1 . Nondecreasing (w1 ≤ · · · ≤ wn ) and nonincreasing (w1 ≥ · · · ≥ wn ) weighting vectors generate some well-known families of OWA operators [16]. The dual of a game υ is the game defined by υ(A) = 1 − υ(Ac ). (A ⊆ N ).. Notice that the dual of a normalized capacity is also a normalized capacity. In the case of OWA operators, the dual of µ|w| , µ|w| , is given by µ|w| , where w is the dual of w; that is, w = (wn , wn−1 , . . . , w1 ) (equivalently, wi = wn+1−i ). The concept of orness was proposed by Yager in the analysis of OWA operators [2] and it was generalized by Marichal to the case of Choquet integrals [17]. If µ is a normalized capacity on N , the orness degree of µ is orness(µ) =. n−1 1 X 1 X µ(T ). n − 1 t=1 nt T ⊆N |T |=t. In the case of capacities associated with OWA operators, we have n 1 X orness(µ|w| ) = (n − i)wi . n − 1 i=1 Semiuninorms [18] play a fundamental role in the definition of SUOWA operators. A semiuninorm is a nondecreasing binary operation U : [0, 1]2 −→ [0, 1] that has a neutral 1A. weighting vector is a vector q ∈ [0, 1]n such that. Pn. i=1 qi. = 1.. element. The semiuninorms used in the definition of SUOWA operators have 1/n as neutral element and they have to belong to the following subset (see [4]): n o Ue1/n = U ∈ U 1/n | U (1/k, 1/k) ≤ 1/k for all k ∈ N , where U 1/n denotes the set of semiuninorms with neutral element 1/n. SUOWA operators were introduced in [4] and, since then, several papers have been published concerning their properties. For instance, in [19] it is shown that when n = 2 any Choquet integral with respect to a normalized capacity can be written as a SUOWA operator (see [20] for a graphical interpretation of the Choquet integral when n = 2). In [21] several continuous semiuninorms were introduced by using ordinal sums of aggregation operators (on this topic, see [22]). In [23], closed-form expressions of the orness degree [17], the Shapley value [24], [25], and the veto and favor indices [17], [25] were given for some specific cases of SUOWA operators. In [16] some SUOWA operators are generated by using unimodal weighting vectors (on unimodal sequences of real numbers see, for instance, [26]). The analysis of the conjunctive/disjunctive character of some specific cases of SUOWA operators has been carried out in [27]. Finally, a generalization of the Winsorized means [28], [29] through SUOWA operators has been introduced in [30]. Definition 1: Let p and w be two weighting vectors and let U ∈ Ue1/n . 1) The game associated with p, w and U is the set function U υp,w : 2N −→ R defined by µp (A) µ|w| (A) U , υp,w (A) = |A| U |A| |A| ! P P|A| p i∈A i i=1 wi = |A| U , , |A| |A| U (∅) = 0. if A 6= ∅, and υp,w U U , will be 2) υ̂p,w , the monotonic cover of the game υp,w called the capacity associated with p, w and U . 3) The SUOWA operator associated with p, w and U is the U Choquet integral with respect to the capacity υ̂p,w .. By construction, SUOWA operators allow us to recover the weighted mean when w = η and the OWA operator when U U p = η; that is, υ̂p,η = µp and υ̂η,w = µ|w| for any U ∈ Ue1/n . A continuous semiuninorm of special interest for its relationship with the Crescent Method is the following [21]: ( max(x, y) if (x, y) ∈ (1/n, 1]2 , UPe (x, y) = nxy otherwise. Given a nonempty subset A of N , we get ! |A| X n X UPe υp,w (A) = pi wi , |A| i=1. (1). i∈A. P|A| whenever µ|w| (A) = i=1 wi ≤ |A|/n. Notice that expression (1) is also valid for any semiuninorm U ∈ Ue1/n such that.
(3) LLAMAZARES: ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CRESCENT METHOD AND SUOWA OPERATORS. U (x, y) = nxy for all y ≤ 1/n; that is, if n o 1/n UeP = U ∈ Ue1/n | U (x, y) = nxy for all y ≤ 1/n , 1/n and U ∈ UeP , then U υp,w (A) =. n |A|. X. ! |A| X pi wi . (2). i=1. i∈A. P|A| for any nonempty subset A of N suchPthat i=1 wi ≤ |A|/n. j Obviously, when w satisfies that i=1 wi ≤ j/n for all UPe j ∈ N the game υp,w is given by ! |A| X X n UPe υp,w pi wi , (A) = |A| i=1 i∈A. whenever A 6= ∅, but it does not have to be a capacity [23]. However, we can guarantee that it is a capacity when w is a nondecreasing weighting vector [23] or satisfies the condition given in Proposition 2, which has been given under a different formulation in [11, Proposition 21]. To see the equivalence between both formulations, we establish the following result. Lemma 1: Let w be a weighting vector. Then: 1) The sequence n formed with the means of w, Pj 1 , is nondecreasing if and only if i=1 wi j j=1 Pj 1 i=1 wi ≤ wj+1 for all j ∈ {1, . . . , n − 1}. j Pj 2) If 1j i=1 wi ≤ wj+1 for all j ∈ {1, . . . , n − 1}, then P j 1 1 i=1 wi ≤ n for all j ∈ {1, . . . , n − 1}. j Proof: Let w be a weighting vector. 1) For each j ∈ {1, . . . , n − 1} we have j j+1 j j+1 X X 1 X 1X wi ≤ wi ⇔ (j + 1) wi ≤ j wi j i=1 j + 1 i=1 i=1 i=1. ⇔. j X. wi ≤ jwj+1 .. i=1. 2) It is obvious taking that, by the first item, P into account n j the sequence 1j i=1 wi is nondecreasing and its j=1. last component is 1/n. Proposition 1: Let w be a nondecreasing weighting vector. UPe Then, for any weighting vector p, υp,w is a normalized capacity on N given by ! |A| X n X UPe υp,w (A) = pi wi , |A| i=1 i∈A. whenever A 6= ∅. Proposition 2: Let w P n be a weighting vector such that the j sequence 1j i=1 wi is nondecreasing. Then, for any U. j=1. e P weighting vector p, υp,w is a normalized capacity on N given by ! |A| X n X UPe υp,w (A) = pi wi , |A| i=1. i∈A. 3. whenever A 6= ∅. Note that any nondecreasing weighting vector also satisfies the condition given in Proposition 2. Therefore, Proposition 2 allows us to expand the set of weighting vectors for which we get capacities. For instance, the weighting vector UPe w = (0.1, 0.3, 0.2, 0.4) is not nondecreasing but υp,w is a normalized capacity on N for any weighting vector p. Notice again that the above results are also valid for any semiuninorm 1/n U ∈ UeP . III. T HE C RESCENT M ETHOD AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO SUOWA OPERATORS The Crescent Method [12] has recently been introduced in the literature with the aim of melting additive capacities with those of OWA operators. Given two weighting vectors p and w, the Crescent Method can be implemented through the following steps: n−1 Step 1: Generate the Crescent extent c0w = c0w (i) i=1 and n−1 the Dual Crescent extent d0w = d0w (i) i=1 given by ! i X i min wk , n k=1 , c0w (i) = i n ! i X i 1 − max wk , n k=1 d0w (i) = . i 1− n Step 2: For each j ∈ N , construct the game µw j defined by ( c0w (|A|) if j ∈ A, µw (A) = j 0 1 − dw (|A|) if j ∈ / A, w for any ∅ A N , µw j (∅) = 0, and µj (N ) = 1. Step 3: Construct the game µp,w given by. µp,w =. n X. pj µw j .. j=1. The Crescent Method has the following properties [12]. Proposition 3: Let w be a nondecreasing or a nonincreasing weighting vector, or w = ek for some k ∈ N . Then: 1) For each j ∈ N , µw j is a normalized capacity and, consequently, µp,w is also a normalized capacity. 2) If w = η, then µp,η = µp . 3) If p = η, then µη,w = µ|w| . 4) orness(µp,w ) = orness(µ|w| ) for any weighting vector p. 5) If w is a nondecreasing weighting vector, then µp,w ≤ µp for any weighting vector p.2 6) If w is a nonincreasing weighting vector, then µp,w ≥ µp for any weighting vector p.3 Pi 2 Note that the result is also valid when w satisfies that k=1 wk ≤ i/n for all i ∈ {1, . . . , n − 1}, but in this case we are not guaranteed that µp,w is a capacity (see the comments after expression (4)). 3 A remark similar to the previous one can also be made in this case..
(4) 4. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS. Next we are going to give explicitly the values that the game µp,w takes. Proposition 4: Let w and p be two weighting vectors. If ∅ A N , then |A| |A| X |A| n X X p w if wk ≤ , j k n |A| j∈A k=1 k=1 µp,w (A) = |A| n X X n X |A| 1− p , w if wk > j k n−|A| n j ∈A /. k=1. k=|A|+1. or, equivalently, n |A| µp (A)µ|w| (A) if µ|w| (A) ≤ , |A| n p,w µ (A) = |A| µp,w (A) if µ|w| (A) > . n Proof: If ∅ A N , then X X µp,w (A) = pj µw pj µw j (A) + j (A) j∈A. =. j ∈A /. c0w (|A|). X. X pj + 1 − d0w (|A|) pj .. j∈A. j ∈A /. µp,w ({4}) = 0.32 > 0.3 = µp,w ({1, 4}).. We distinguish two cases: P|A| 1) If k=1 wk ≤ |A|/n, then. From [12] we know some families of weighting vectors for which µp,w is a normalized capacity. Expression (3) is very relevant because it allows us to expand these sets of weighting vectors. For instance, expression (3) together with Proposition 2 allow us to establish the following result. Corollary Let w be a weighting vector such that the 1: n Pj sequence 1j i=1 wi is nondecreasing. Then, for any. |A|. c0w (|A|) =. n X wk , |A|. and. 1 − d0w (|A|) = 0.. k=1. Therefore, µp,w (A) =. |A| n X X pj wk . |A| j∈A. 2) If. P|A|. k=1. j=1. weighting vector p, µp,w is a normalized capacity on N given by ! |A| X X n U pi wi , µp,w (A) = υp,w (A) = |A| i=1. k=1. wk > |A|/n, then c0w (|A|) = 1,. i∈A. 1/n whenever A 6= ∅ and U ∈ UeP . An analogous resultPto Corollary n 1 can be obtained when n 1 the sequence n−j+1 w is nonincreasing.5 i=j i. and 1 − d0w (|A|) = 1 −. n n − |A|. n X. wk .. k=|A|+1. j=1. Proposition w bea weighting vector such that the 5: Let n Pn 1 sequence n−j+1 i=j wi is nonincreasing. Then, for. Therefore, p,w. µ. (A) =. X. pj +. j∈A. n 1− n − |A|. X n =1− pj n − |A| j ∈A /. n X. ! wk. k=|A|+1. n X. X. j=1. pj. j ∈A /. wk .. k=|A|+1. Lastly, notice that |A| X. wk >. k=1. |A| ⇔ n. According to Proposition 4 and the results shown in Section II, the value µp,w (A) can be expressed by means of 1/n U υp,w (A) (where U ∈ UeP ) when µ|w| (A) ≤ |A|/n and U through the dual of υp,w (A) when µ|w| (A) > |A|/n; that is, |A| U υp,w , (A) if µ|w| (A) ≤ n µp,w (A) = (3) υ U (A) if µ|w| (A) > |A| . p,w n p,w Notice that when µ (A) = |A|/n then µ (A) = |w| P U p,w p = υ (A). So, µ can also be expressed as p,w j∈A j |A| U , υp,w (A) if µ|w| (A) < n µp,w (A) = (4) υ U (A) if µ|w| (A) ≥ |A| . p,w n p,w It is important to point out that µ is a game but it is not, in general, a capacity. For instance, consider the weighting vectors p = (0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4) and w = (0.2, 0.1, 0.3, 0.4).4 Then,. n X k=|A|+1. wk <. n − |A| , n. any weighting vector p, µp,w is a normalized capacity given by µp,w (A) = υ U p,w (A) = 1 −. X n pj n − |A| j ∈A /. n X. wk ,. k=|A|+1. 1/n whenever ∅ A N and U ∈ UeP . Proof: Let w be a weighting vector such that the n Pn 1 sequence n−j+1 is nonincreasing. Since the i=j wi j=1. first element of the sequence is 1/n, we have 1/n ≥. and, in this case 1−. X n pj n − |A| j ∈A /. n X k=|A|+1. wk = 1 − µp,w (Ac ) = µp,w (A).. 4 Note the similarity of these weighting vectors with those used in Example 4 in [12]. 5 Notice that any nonincreasing weighting vector satisfies this condition..
(5) LLAMAZARES: ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CRESCENT METHOD AND SUOWA OPERATORS. P. n i=j+1. wi /(n − j) for any j ∈ {1, . . . , n − 1}. But. Given k ∈ N \ {n} and µ a normalized capacity on N , the k-conjunctiveness and k-disjunctiveness indices with respect to µ are defined by. n n X X 1 1 n−j ≥ wi ⇔ wi ≤ n n − j i=j+1 n i=j+1 n X. ⇔ 1−. wi ≥ 1 −. i=j+1. conjk (µ) = 1 −. n−j n. j ⇔ wi ≥ . n i=1. disjk (µ) =. X n pj n − |A| . A. n X. wk .. k=|A|+1. Pn. j=1. = µ|ek | (A). Therefore, for any weighting vector p, when w = ek for some k ∈ N , the Choquet integral with respect to the capacity µp,ek is the OWA operator associated with the vector ek ; that is, the order statistic OSn−k+1 . In addition to the previous results, Corollary 1 and Proposition 5 also allow us to obtain closed-form expression of some indices such as the Shapley value [24], the veto and favor indices [17], and the k-conjunctiveness and k-disjunctiveness indices [25]. First we are going to define these indices. Given j ∈ N and µ a normalized capacity on N , the Shapley value, the veto, and the favor indices of j with respect to µ are defined by. veto(µ, j) = 1 −. favor(µ, j) =. 1 t. µ(T ∪ {j}) − µ(T ) ,. T ⊆N \{j} |T |=t. n−1 1 X n − 1 t=1. 1 n−1. . X. n−1 1 n−1 t. n−2 X. 1. t=0. n−1 t. X . µ(T ),. T ⊆N \{j} |T |=t. X T ⊆N \{j} |T |=t. µ(T ∪ {j}).. It is well known that the Shapley value is self-dual; that is, φ(µ, j) = φ(µ, j) for all j ∈ N ; and that orness(µ) = 1 − orness(µ). Moreover, we also have (see [10], [17]) veto(µ, j) = favor(µ, j),. n. is a normalized capacity; and so is its dual, υ U p,w . In the case of weighting vectors associated with order statistics, we have the following result. Corollary 2: If w = ek for some k ∈ N , then µp,ek = µ|ek | for any weighting vector p. Proof: The proof is immediate taking into account that if ∅ A N , then ( 0 if |A| < k, p,ek µ (A) = 1 if |A| ≥ k,. n−1 1X n t=0. T ⊆N |T |=t. N. 1 Lastly, note that when the sequence n−j+1 i=j wi P n j=1 j is nonincreasing, the sequence 1j i=1 wn+1−i = j=1 P n j 1 U is nondecreasing and, by Corollary 1, υp,w i=1 w i j. φ(µ, j) =. n−1 1 X 1 X µ(T ). n n−k t t=k. Hence, w satisfies µ|w| (A) ≥ |A|/n for any ∅ and, by expression (4),. j ∈A /. n−k 1 X 1 X µ(T ), n − k t=1 nt T ⊆N |T |=t. j X. µp,w (A) = υ U p,w (A) = 1 −. 5. favor(µ, j) = veto(µ, j),. conjk (µ) = disjk (µ), disjk (µ) = conjk (µ).. Proposition 6: Let w P n be a weighting vector such that the j 1 sequence j i=1 wi is nondecreasing. Then, for any j=1. weighting vector p, any j ∈ N , and any k ∈ N \ {n}, we have ! n n X X 1 wi 1 − pj + (npj − 1) t i=1 t=i p,w , φ µ ,j = n−1 n (1 − pj ) orness(µ|w| ), veto µp,w , j = 1 − n−1 nφ µp,w , j − 1 p,w p,w , favor µ , j = 1 − veto µ , j + n−1 conjk µp,w = conjk (µ|w| ), disjk µp,w = disjk (µ|w| ). Proof: It is immediate taking into account Corollary 1 and the results given in [23], [27]. Proposition w bea weighting vector such that the 7: Let n Pn 1 sequence n−j+1 is nonincreasing. Then, for i=j wi j=1. any weighting vector p, any j ∈ N , and any k ∈ N \ {n}, we have ! n n X X 1 1 − pj + (npj − 1) wn+1−i t i=1 t=i p,w φ µ ,j = , n−1 n favor µp,w , j = 1 − (1 − pj ) 1 − orness(µ|w| ) , n−1 nφ µp,w , j − 1 p,w p,w veto µ , j = 1 − favor µ , j + , n−1 p,w conjk µ = conjk (µ|w| ), disjk µp,w = disjk (µ|w| ). Proof: The proofs are straightforward taking into account Propositions 5 and 6, and the relationships given before 1/n Proposition 6. For instance, given U ∈ UeP , U φ µp,w , j = φ υ U p,w , j = φ υp,w , j.
(6) 6. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS. 1 − pj + (npj − 1). n n X X 1. t. ! wn+1−i. i=1 t=i . n−1 The expressions for the remaining indices can be obtained in a similar way.. =. IV. C ONCLUSION The Crescent Method has recently been introduced in the literature with the intent of melting additive capacities with those of OWA operators. In this paper we have established a relationship between the Crescent Method and the SUOWA operators. Specifically, we have shown that the capacity obtained with the Crescent Method can be expressed with one, or the dual of one, obtained in the context of SUOWA operators. This fact has allowed us to give closed-form expressions of some well-known indices, which is essential to have a better knowledge of these capacities. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to thank four anonymous referees for comments and suggestions that helped improve this paper.. [18] H.-W. Liu, “Semi-uninorms and implications on a complete lattice,” Fuzzy Sets Syst., vol. 191, pp. 72–82, 2012. [19] B. Llamazares, “A study of SUOWA operators in two dimensions,” Math. Probl. Eng., vol. 2015, pp. Article ID 271 491, 12 pages, 2015. [20] M. Grabisch, “A graphical interpretation of the Choquet integral,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 627–631, 2000. [21] B. Llamazares, “SUOWA operators: Constructing semi-uninorms and analyzing specific cases,” Fuzzy Sets Syst., vol. 287, pp. 119–136, 2016. [22] B. De Baets and R. Mesiar, “Ordinal sums of aggregation operators,” in Technologies for Constructing Intelligent Systems 2: Tools, ser. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, B. Bouchon-Meunier, J. GutiérrezRı́os, L. Magdalena, and R. R. Yager, Eds. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2002, vol. 90, pp. 137–147. [23] B. Llamazares, “Closed-form expressions for some indices of SUOWA operators,” Inform. Fusion, vol. 41, pp. 80–90, 2018. [24] L. S. Shapley, “A value for n-person games,” in Contributions to the Theory of Games, H. Kuhn and A. W. Tucker, Eds. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953, vol. 2, pp. 307–317. [25] J.-L. Marichal, “k-intolerant capacities and Choquet integrals,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 177, no. 3, pp. 1453–1468, 2007. [26] F. Brenti, “Log-concave and unimodal sequences in algebra, combinatorics, and geometry: An update,” in Jerusalem Combinatorics ’93, ser. Contemporary Mathematics, H. Barcelo and G. Kalai, Eds. Providence RI: American Mathematical Society, 1994, vol. 178, pp. 71–89. [27] B. Llamazares, “SUOWA operators: An analysis of their conjunctive/disjunctive character,” Fuzzy Sets Syst., vol. 357, pp. 117–134, 2019. [28] W. J. Dixon, “Simplified estimation from censored normal samples,” Ann. Math. Stat., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 385–391, 1960. [29] H. Wainer, “Robust statistics: A survey and some prescriptions,” J. Educ. Stat., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 285–312, 1976. [30] B. Llamazares, “An analysis of Winsorized weighted means,” Group Decis. Negot., to be published, doi: 10.1007/s10726-019-09623-8.. R EFERENCES [1] G. Choquet, “Theory of capacities,” Ann. Inst. Fourier, vol. 5, pp. 131– 295, 1953. [2] R. R. Yager, “On ordered weighted averaging operators in multicriteria decision making,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 183–190, 1988. [3] V. Torra, “The weighted OWA operator,” Int. J. Intell. Syst., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 153–166, 1997. [4] B. Llamazares, “Constructing Choquet integral-based operators that generalize weighted means and OWA operators,” Inform. Fusion, vol. 23, pp. 131–138, 2015. [5] G. Beliakov, “A method of introducing weights into OWA operators and other symmetric functions,” in Uncertainty Modeling: Dedicated to Professor Boris Kovalerchuk on his Anniversary, V. Kreinovich, Ed. Cham: Springer, 2017, pp. 37–52. [6] G. Beliakov, T. Calvo, and P. Fuster-Parra, “Implicit averaging functions,” Inform. Sci., vol. 417, pp. 96–112, 2017. [7] B. Llamazares, “An analysis of some functions that generalizes weighted means and OWA operators,” Int. J. Intell. Syst., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 380– 393, 2013. [8] G. Beliakov, “Comparing apples and oranges: The weighted OWA function,” Int. J. Intell. Syst., vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 1089–1108, 2018. [9] B. Llamazares, “A behavioral analysis of WOWA and SUOWA operators,” Int. J. Intell. Syst., vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 827–851, 2016. [10] M. Grabisch, J. Marichal, R. Mesiar, and E. Pap, Aggregation Functions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. [11] B. Llamazares, “SUOWA operators: A review of the state of the art,” Int. J. Intell. Syst., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 790–818, 2019. [12] L. Jin, R. Mesiar, and R. R. Yager, “Melting probability measure with OWA operator to generate fuzzy measure: the Crescent Method,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1309–1316, 2019. [13] D. Denneberg, Non-Additive Measures and Integral. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher, 1994. [14] M. Maschler and B. Peleg, “The structure of the kernel of a cooperative game,” SIAM J. Appl. Math., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 569–604, 1967. [15] M. Maschler, B. Peleg, and L. S. Shapley, “The kernel and bargaining set for convex games,” Int. J. Game Theory, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 73–93, 1971. [16] B. Llamazares, “Construction of Choquet integrals through unimodal weighting vectors,” Int. J. Intell. Syst., vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 771–790, 2018. [17] J.-L. Marichal, “Tolerant or intolerant character of interacting criteria in aggregation by the Choquet integral,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 155, no. 3, pp. 771–791, 2004.. Bonifacio Llamazares received the M.Sc. degree in mathematics and the Ph.D. degree in economics from the University of Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain, in 1991 and 2000, respectively. He is currently an Associate Professor with the Department of Applied Economics, University of Valladolid. He has authored/coauthored papers in several international journals including Computers & Industrial Engineering, European Journal of Operational Research, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Group Decision and Negotiation, Information Fusion, Information Sciences, and International Journal of Intelligence Systems. His domain of research ranges from operations research to fuzzy logic, with special emphasis in the following topics: decision support systems, multicriteria decision making, games, aggregation operators, and fuzzy sets. Dr. Llamazares is an Academic Editor for Mathematical Problems in Engineering and a reviewer for numerous journals. He has participated in the scientific committee of several conferences..
(7)
Documento similar
MD simulations in this and previous work has allowed us to propose a relation between the nature of the interactions at the interface and the observed properties of nanofluids:
Here we can verify what we believe constitutes a paradox: the necessity of con- siderations of an ethical kind is imposed, but from that tradition of Economic Theory whose
Illustration 69 – Daily burger social media advertising Source: Own elaboration based
The success of computational drug design depends on accurate predictions of the binding free energies of small molecules to the target protein. ligand-based drug discovery
In the previous sections we have shown how astronomical alignments and solar hierophanies – with a common interest in the solstices − were substantiated in the
While Russian nostalgia for the late-socialism of the Brezhnev era began only after the clear-cut rupture of 1991, nostalgia for the 1970s seems to have emerged in Algeria
The concept of breakdown probability profile is useful to describe the break- down properties of any estimate obtained through resampling, not just the bagged median or the
1. Definition and measurement of parameters: The fundamental parameters, by which the risks associated with a project are assessed, are risk probability and risk