面向武器装备论证过程的多属性评价方法研究
|
摘要
在武器装备论证过程中,我们经常需要解决各种评价问题,如型号论证中的装备方案评价问题、规划论证中的装备体系评价问题等。选择合适的评价方法较好地解决这些评价问题,是提高武器装备论证水平、增强武器装备建设决策科学性的关键。而多属性评价理论的发展,为我们研究解决这些评价问题提供了理论基础。本文利用多属性评价理论和方法,对武器装备论证过程中的装备方案评价问题、装备体系评价问题以及专家可信性问题等进行了初步研究。主要研究成果如下：
(1)在分析武器装备论证过程及装备方案评价需求的基础上,建立了选择装备方案评价属性的基本原则,讨论了根据战术技术指标和作战使用要求对装备论证方案进行多属性评价的方法；提出了对装备作战性能进行多属性评价的模型和方法,解决了同一装备型号不同技术实现方案之间的评价对比问题。为优化武器装备型号论证方案、提高武器装备方案评价的实用性奠定了基础。
(2)分析了武器装备体系的基本内涵与特征,并在充分探讨武器装备体系论证过程和装备体系评价需求的基础上,提出了确定武器装备体系评价属性的“四要素法”,为增强武器装备体系多属性评价的适应性和实用性奠定了基础；分别讨论了武器装备体系能力评价、作战效能评估和武器装备体系论证水平评价等问题,建立了相应的评价模型和方法,为解决武器装备规划论证过程中的体系评价问题提供了方法和理论支持。
(3)考虑到多属性评价活动中专家的重要性,比较详细地讨论了专家评价意见的可信性问题,建立了二值化评价、序数型评价和基数型评价时的专家可信度量化模型,并利用聚类分析方法按照可信度大小对评审专家进行排序和分类,为剔出可信度较低的专家评价意见提供了依据。提出了对经常参加各种武器装备评价活动的专家群体进行“闭环”管理的思路和方法,为武器装备评价活动优选专家群体、提高评价水平提供了理论支撑。
(4)探讨了竞争择优评价活动中存在的专家非正常偏好问题,提出了专家“偏好同盟”的概念,探讨了专家“偏好同盟”现象的基本特征,并在系统分析专家“偏好同盟”评价策略的基础上,提出了判断专家“偏好同盟”存在的主要判据,并初步分析了专家“偏好同盟”存在情况下判定最终评价结果有效性的方法,为今后提高竞标评价活动的公正性提供了评判依据。
最后,在总结全文研究工作的基础上,提出了今后需要进一步探讨问题。
In the argumentation process of weapons and equipment, we often need to solve various evaluation issues, such as evaluation of weaponry projects, and evaluation of weaponry systems when we propose the planning scheme of weapons and equipment. An appropriate evaluation method to better solute these issues, is necessary to improve the argumentation quality of weapons and equipments, and helpful to get more efficient decision-making of weapons and equipment. And the development of multi-attribute evaluation method enhances theoreital foundation for us to study and solve the evaluation problems.
With the help of multi-attribute evaluation theory and methods, this dissertation attempts to discuss weaponry projects evaluation, system evaluation of weaponry systems and experts'credibility evaluation in the argumentation process of weapons and equipment. The main contributions can be enumerated as follows.
First, based on the analysis of weaponry argumentation process and the demands of weaponry projects evaluation, the dissertation puts forward to basic principles of evaluation attributes in argumentations of weaponry projects. According to the tactical and technical indices and combat requirements, the dissertation discusses the basic methods of evaluation implementing multi-attribute evaluation in the argumentation process of weaponry projects, and it also presents the multi-attribute evaluation model and method to operational performances. It solves the problem of comparison analysis between different technical realization schemes about the same weapon system. It lays the foundation for optimizing the weaponry argumentation scheme and improving the practicability of the method for evaluating weapons and equipment.
Second, the dissertation analyses the basic connotation and characteristics of weaponry systems. Based on deep discussing about argumentation process of weaponry systems and the demand of weaponry evaluation, it puts forward to the "Four Main Factor Method" of determining attribute system so as to lay a foundation to strengthen utility effect and adaptability of weaponry systems multi-attribute evaluation. It also discusses the capacity evaluation and operational effectiveness assessment of weaponry systems and the level evaluation of weapons and equipment argumentation. It establishes the corresponding evaluation models and methods in order to provide methods and theoretical support for solving the evaluation problems in the argumentation process of weapons and equipment.
Third, because of the importance of experts activity in an evaluation, this paper discusses in details the reliability of expert credibility, establishes the numberical models of experts credibility at three different evaluation types. According to the expert credibility, it uses clustering analysis method to arrange and classify the experts. It provides the basis to carve out advice from less reliable experts. It provides ideas and methods to make "closed-loop" management for experts group who often participate in the activities of weapons and equipment evaluation, and gives theoretical support for selecting expert group and improving the evaluation level of weapons and equipment.
Fourth, it explores expert's abnormal preference in some competitive selection, gives the concept of "expert preference alliance, EPA" and probes into basic characteristics of the phenomenon of EPA. On the basis of analysing EPA's evaluation methods, it researches the main evidences of EPA, preliminary analyses how to determine the effectiveness of ultimately evaluation result in condition of expert preference alliance and provides the standard for further improving bid evaluation activities
Finally, on the basis of concluding ideas, the paper points out some issues still needing a further study.
(1)在分析武器装备论证过程及装备方案评价需求的基础上,建立了选择装备方案评价属性的基本原则,讨论了根据战术技术指标和作战使用要求对装备论证方案进行多属性评价的方法；提出了对装备作战性能进行多属性评价的模型和方法,解决了同一装备型号不同技术实现方案之间的评价对比问题。为优化武器装备型号论证方案、提高武器装备方案评价的实用性奠定了基础。
(2)分析了武器装备体系的基本内涵与特征,并在充分探讨武器装备体系论证过程和装备体系评价需求的基础上,提出了确定武器装备体系评价属性的“四要素法”,为增强武器装备体系多属性评价的适应性和实用性奠定了基础；分别讨论了武器装备体系能力评价、作战效能评估和武器装备体系论证水平评价等问题,建立了相应的评价模型和方法,为解决武器装备规划论证过程中的体系评价问题提供了方法和理论支持。
(3)考虑到多属性评价活动中专家的重要性,比较详细地讨论了专家评价意见的可信性问题,建立了二值化评价、序数型评价和基数型评价时的专家可信度量化模型,并利用聚类分析方法按照可信度大小对评审专家进行排序和分类,为剔出可信度较低的专家评价意见提供了依据。提出了对经常参加各种武器装备评价活动的专家群体进行“闭环”管理的思路和方法,为武器装备评价活动优选专家群体、提高评价水平提供了理论支撑。
(4)探讨了竞争择优评价活动中存在的专家非正常偏好问题,提出了专家“偏好同盟”的概念,探讨了专家“偏好同盟”现象的基本特征,并在系统分析专家“偏好同盟”评价策略的基础上,提出了判断专家“偏好同盟”存在的主要判据,并初步分析了专家“偏好同盟”存在情况下判定最终评价结果有效性的方法,为今后提高竞标评价活动的公正性提供了评判依据。
最后,在总结全文研究工作的基础上,提出了今后需要进一步探讨问题。
In the argumentation process of weapons and equipment, we often need to solve various evaluation issues, such as evaluation of weaponry projects, and evaluation of weaponry systems when we propose the planning scheme of weapons and equipment. An appropriate evaluation method to better solute these issues, is necessary to improve the argumentation quality of weapons and equipments, and helpful to get more efficient decision-making of weapons and equipment. And the development of multi-attribute evaluation method enhances theoreital foundation for us to study and solve the evaluation problems.
With the help of multi-attribute evaluation theory and methods, this dissertation attempts to discuss weaponry projects evaluation, system evaluation of weaponry systems and experts'credibility evaluation in the argumentation process of weapons and equipment. The main contributions can be enumerated as follows.
First, based on the analysis of weaponry argumentation process and the demands of weaponry projects evaluation, the dissertation puts forward to basic principles of evaluation attributes in argumentations of weaponry projects. According to the tactical and technical indices and combat requirements, the dissertation discusses the basic methods of evaluation implementing multi-attribute evaluation in the argumentation process of weaponry projects, and it also presents the multi-attribute evaluation model and method to operational performances. It solves the problem of comparison analysis between different technical realization schemes about the same weapon system. It lays the foundation for optimizing the weaponry argumentation scheme and improving the practicability of the method for evaluating weapons and equipment.
Second, the dissertation analyses the basic connotation and characteristics of weaponry systems. Based on deep discussing about argumentation process of weaponry systems and the demand of weaponry evaluation, it puts forward to the "Four Main Factor Method" of determining attribute system so as to lay a foundation to strengthen utility effect and adaptability of weaponry systems multi-attribute evaluation. It also discusses the capacity evaluation and operational effectiveness assessment of weaponry systems and the level evaluation of weapons and equipment argumentation. It establishes the corresponding evaluation models and methods in order to provide methods and theoretical support for solving the evaluation problems in the argumentation process of weapons and equipment.
Third, because of the importance of experts activity in an evaluation, this paper discusses in details the reliability of expert credibility, establishes the numberical models of experts credibility at three different evaluation types. According to the expert credibility, it uses clustering analysis method to arrange and classify the experts. It provides the basis to carve out advice from less reliable experts. It provides ideas and methods to make "closed-loop" management for experts group who often participate in the activities of weapons and equipment evaluation, and gives theoretical support for selecting expert group and improving the evaluation level of weapons and equipment.
Fourth, it explores expert's abnormal preference in some competitive selection, gives the concept of "expert preference alliance, EPA" and probes into basic characteristics of the phenomenon of EPA. On the basis of analysing EPA's evaluation methods, it researches the main evidences of EPA, preliminary analyses how to determine the effectiveness of ultimately evaluation result in condition of expert preference alliance and provides the standard for further improving bid evaluation activities
Finally, on the basis of concluding ideas, the paper points out some issues still needing a further study.
引文
[1]王连成.工程系统论.北京：中国宇航出版社.2002.8.
[2]李明,刘澎.武器装备发展系统论证方法与应用.北京：国防工业出版社,2000.9.
[3]徐林生,白光清.陆军装备论证挑战与对策研究.炮兵防空兵装备技术研究.2010,2：1-6
[4]花兴来,刘庆华.装备管理工程.北京：国防工业出版社,2002.
[5]倪忠仁.武器装备体系对抗的建模与仿真.军事运筹与系统工程.2004,1.
[6]徐光,秦前付等.空军战役仿真智能决策模型.武汉理工大学学报(信息与管理工程版),2003,25(3)：51-54.
[7]吴鹏,邱涤珊,祝江汉,周敏龙.联合战役仿真演示系统.计算机仿真,2005,22(7)：22-25.
[8]张国锋,孙庚等.基于Agent的陆战模型.计算机仿真,2004,21(11)：30-32.
[9]王航宇,张晓明,马正亚.编队防空协同作战仿真系统的构建与开发.火力与指挥控制,2008,33(9)：11-14
[10]韩月敏,刘非平,刘丽巧等.陆战Agent协作机制模型研究.指挥控制与仿真,2009,31(6)：6-10.
[11]王正元,刘靖旭,谭跃进,沙红兵.基于仿真的主战坦克作战效能评估方法.计算机仿真,2005,22(1)：29-32.
[12]杨瑞平,黄志刚,郭齐胜.C3I系统在装甲作战仿真中的应用.火力与指挥控制,2004,29(6)：58-61.
[13]舒宇,谭跃进,廖良才.基于能力需求的武器装备体系作战能力评价.兵工自动化,2009,28(11)：17-19.
[14]徐安德.论武器系统作战效能的评定.系统工程与电子技术,1989年第8期：17-23.
[15]徐安德.关于现代军事武器系统效能评定的研究.导弹与航天运载技术,1999,4：1-4.
[16]罗鹏程,傅攀峰,周经伦.武器装备体系作战能力评估框架.系统工程与电子技术,2005,27(1)：72-75.
[17]傅攀峰,罗鹏程,周经伦.对武器装备体系效能评估的几点看法.系统工程学报,2006,21(5)：548-552.
[18]徐瑞恩.武器装备效能模型和方法概论.装备指挥技术学院学报,2002,13
[19]蔡延曦,孙琰,张卓.武器装备体系作战效能评估方法分析.兵工自动化,2008,27(10)：24-26.
[20]高尚,娄寿春.武器系统效能评定方法综述.系统工程理论与实践.1998年第7期：109-114.
[21]徐林生,李才良.武器装备多属性评价问题初探.炮兵防空兵装备技术研究,2005年第4期.：11-15.
[22]鲁延京,张小可,陈英武,程贲.权重信息不完全的区间型武器装备体系能力评估方法.系统工程,2010,28(4)：94-98.
[23]魏世孝,周献中.多属性决策理论方法及其在C3I系统中的应用.北京：国防工业出版社,1998.1.
[24]Fandel G, Gal T, Multiple Criteria Decision Making:Theory and Applications. New York:Springer-Verlag,1980.
[25]Zionts S (ed.). Multiple Criteria Problem Solving. New York:Springer-Verlag,1987.
[26]Chankong V, Haimes Y Y. Multiobjective Decision Making. Theory and Methodology, New York:North-Holland,1983.
[27]P. Czyzak and R. Slowinski, FLIP:Multiobjective fuzzy linear programming software with graphical facilities, in:M. Fedrizzi et al, eds, Interactive fuzzy optimization and mathematical programming,154-167,1991.
[28]Tong M, Bonissone PP. A linguistic approach to decision making with fuzzy sets.EEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics,1980,10:716-723.
[29]Zadeh L A. A computational approach to fuzzy quantifiers in natural languages. Computers and Mathematics with Applications,1983,9:149-184.
[30]Delgado M, Verdegay J L, Vila M A. On aggregation operations of linguistic labels. International Journal of Intelligengt Systems,1993,8:351-370.
[31]Yager R R. Non-numberic multi-criteria multi-person decision making. Group Decision Negotiation,1993,2:81-93.
[32]Torra V. Negation functions based semantics for ordered linguistic labels. Inter-national Journal of Intelligent Systems,1996,11:975-988.
[33]Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Verdegay J L. A model of consensus in group decision making under linguistic assessments. Fuzzy Sets and Systems,1996,78:73-87.
[34]Bordogna G, Fedrizzi M, Pasi G. A linguistic modeling of consensus in group decision making based on OWA operators. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-part A,1997,27:126-132.
[35]Godo L, Torra V. On aggregation operators for ordinal qualitative information. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems,2000,8:143-154.
[36]Herrera F, Martinez L. A fusion method for managing multi-granularity linguistic terms sets in decision making. Fuzzy Sets and Systems,2000,114:43-58.
[37]Herrera F, Martinez L. A model based on linguistic 2-tuples for dealing with multigranular hierarchical linguistic contexts in multi-expert decision-making. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-part B,2001,31:227-233.
[38]Yager R R. On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decision making. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics,1988,18: 183-190.
[39]李荣均.模糊多准则决策理论与应用.北京：科学出版社,2002.2.
[40]陈可.基于判断矩阵的群决策方法研究综述.系统工程,2009,27(1)：8-12.
[41]王坚强.一种新的有优序综合评价的群决策方法.系统工程与电子技术,2002,24(8)：21-23.
[42]熊健,陈英武,杨克巍,赵青松.一种基于多属性群决策的需求优先级排序方法.系统工程,2009,27(3)：79-83.
[43]张目,周宗放.一种基于联系度的改进TOPSIS法.系统工程,2008,26(8)：102-106.
[44]李武,岳超源,饶从军.最小化序数偏好距离的多属性群决策.系统工程与电子技术,2010,32(2)：303-306.
[45]张发明,郭亚军.一种基于两阶段协商的群体评价方法.系统工程与电子技术,2009,31(7)：1647-1650.
[46]张可,刘思峰,朱建军,基于二元语义的八类偏好信息的群决策方法.系统工程,2008,26(9)：116-121.
[47]陈侠,樊治平,陈岩.基于语言判断矩阵的一致性及其排序方法.系统工程,2007,25(2)：106-110.
[48]陈侠,樊治平.一种基于语言判断矩阵的群决策方案排序新方法.系统工程,2009,27(12)：90-94.
[49]余雁,梁梁,蒋跃进,杜少甫.一种新的基于模糊偏好的TOPSIS改进方法.系统工程,2004,22(8)：86-89.
[50]徐泽水.基于语言标度中术语指标的多属性决策法.系统工程学报,2005,20(1),84-88.
[51]宋光兴,邹平.多属性群决策中决策者权重的确定方法.系统工程.2001,19(4)：84-89.
[52]陈华友.多属性决策中基于离差最大化的组合赋权方法.系统工程与电子技术,2004,26(2)：194-197.
[53]马永红,周荣喜,李振光.基于离差最大化的决策者权重的确定方法.北京化工 大学学报.,2007,34(2)：177-180.
[54]刘烨政,徐德鹏,江元醇.多属性群决策中权重自适应调整的方法.系统工程与电子技术,2007,29(1)：45-48.
[55]姚爽,郭亚军,黄玮强.基于证据理论的部分属性偏好信息群体赋权方法.系统管理学报,2010,19(3)：241-247.
[56]孟海东,张玉英,宋飞燕.一种基于加权欧氏距离聚类方法的研究.计算机应用,2006,26：152-153.
[57]刘文军.一种新的决策表属性约减算法.系统工程学报,2009,24(1)：104-108.
[58]毕文杰,陈晓红.一种基于可变精度粗糙集的群体分类决策方法.系统工程,2007,25(8)：94-97.
[59]李为相,张广明,李帮义.基于偏好的多属性群知识系统.系统管理学报,2010,19(2)：228-232.
[60]倪忠仁.高炮射击理论.北京：解放军出版社,1986.
[61]程云门.评定射击效率原理.北京：解放军出版社,1987.
[62]徐瑞恩.海军武器装备效能评估理论与方法.北京：海军论证中心,1998.
[63]倪忠仁.地面防空作战模拟.北京：解放军出版社,2001.
[64]赵志强,黄柯棣.陆军武器装备体系作战能力评估框架研究.系统仿真技术及其应用,第11卷：
[65]尹树悦,王晓云,赵廷弟.装备体系效能研究状况分析.中国宇航学会2007年学术年会.
[66]柯加山,江敬灼,许仁杰,李梦汉,黄谦.联合作战体系对抗效能评估探索性分析框架.军事运筹与系统工程,2005,19(4)：58-61.
[67]孙严,戴浩.基于能力的军事需求方法简介.科学技术与工程,2007,7(9)：2171-2176.
[68]于同刚,于洪敏,陈爱国.美军武器装备需求生成机制研究.兵工自动化,2009,28(1)：12-16.
[69]孟宪峰,张玉柱.武器装备体系评价指标系统研究.火力与指挥控制,2007,32(1)：8-11.
[70]吴敬业,汤理.评价专家的可靠性预分析.系统工程,1992,10(5)：52-59.
[71]赵黎明,徐孝涵,张卫东.对同行评议专家的反评估分析.中国科学基金,1995,62-66.
[72]郑称德.同行评议专家工作业绩测评及其模型研究.科研管理,2002,23(2)：41-45.
[73]何杰,王成红,刘克.对同行评议专家评议共组进行评估的一些思考.中国科学 基金,2003,(1)：47-50.
[74]王成红,何杰,刘克,宋苏.关于同行评议专家定量评估指标研究的几个新结果.系统工程理论与实践,2004,(2)：83-89.
[75]李智.机器学习方法及其在基金项目评审中的应用研究.天津大学硕士学位论文,2004.
[76]谷瑞升,张飞萍,李永慈,于振良,杜生明.国家自然科学基金专家评议状况评估初探.中国科学基金,2005,(5)：298-301.
[77]李莹,李燕萍.我国评估评审专家评价体系的构建问题研究.评价与预测,2005,42-45.
[78]郑兴东,陆伟,贺宪民等.基金项目同行评议中专家非共识性的度量研究.中华医学科研管理杂志,2005,18(3)：141-144.
[79]周晓兰.同行评议制度局限性研究.北京机械工业学院学报,2007,22(4)：66-68.
[80]郑兴东,陆伟,傅政,李人卫,姜北.同行评议专家评议结果修正研究.解放军医院管理杂志,2007,14(4)：259-260.
[81]杨正,梁梁,杨锋.同行评议结果的可信度研究.科技管理研究,2009,(4)：56-60,67.
[82]廖燕玲,孙绍荣.基于专家可信度的同行评议法.科学学研究,2003,第21卷增刊：170-172.
[83]潘仁飞,邹乐乐,侯运炳.基于专家可信度的不确定型AHP方法及其应用.2008,26(10)：101-106.
[84]许国志.系统科学.上海：上海教育出版社,2000.
[85]P. P. Bonissone, A pattern recognition approach to the problems in a linguistic approximation in system analysis, IEEE 1976 International Conference on Cybernetics and Society(1979),793-798.
[86]Slberg. Systems of Systems[EB/OL]. http://www. isr. umd. Edu/selberg,2004-06-24/2004-8-26.
[87]Mattews D, Burke M, Collier P. Core concepts of joint systems[A]. In:Proc. of the SETE2000 Conference[C]. Brisbane, Queensland:2000.125-135.
[88]陈勇.军事运筹应用于创新.长沙：国防科技大学出版社,2002.
[89]Maier M W. Architecting principles for systems-of-systems[A]. In:proceedings of 6th Annual Symposium of INCOSE [C]. Boston, Massachusetts:1996,267-284.
[90]Cook C S. On the acquisition of systems of systems[A]. In. Proc. Of the INCOSE 2001 Annual Symposium[C]. Melbourne, Australia:2001,1-9.
[91]Staker R. Knowledge based soft systems engineering for military systems-of-systems[A]. In:Proc. of the SETE2000 Conference[C]. Brisbane, Qeensland:2000.213-221.
[92]Lee Y W, Ahn B H. Static Valuation of Combat Force Potential by the Analytic Hierarchy Process[J]. IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, 1991,38(3):237-243.
[93]Brooks A, Bankers S, Bennett B. Weapon Mix and Exploratory Analysis:A case study[R].AD-A329434,1997.
[94]李英华,申之明,李伟.武器装备体系研究的方法论.军事运筹与系统工程,2004年第1期：17-20.
[95]B. Craig Meyers, James D. Smith, Peter CaperⅡ. Requirments Management in a Systems of Systems Context:A Worksho[R].2006.3.
[96]Daniel A. DeLaurentis, William A. A taxonomy-based perspective for systems of Systems design methods.
[97]Curtis E, Farrell. Adapting the systems engineering paradigm to System of systems programs. AIAA-2005-1322, January,2005.
[98]Joint Chief of STAFF. CJCSI3170.01C Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System{S/OL}. Washington,24, June,2003. [2005-8-16]. http://www. Dtic.mil/cjcs_directive/index.htm.
[99]徐玖平.多指标(属性)评价双基点优序法.系统工程,1992,10(4)：39-45.
[100]金菊良,魏一鸣.复杂系统广义智能评价方法与应用.北京：科学出版社,2007.
[101]刘思峰,党耀国,方志耕.灰色系统理论及其应用.北京：科学出版社(第三版),2004.
[102]齐敏,李大键,郝重阳.模式识别导论.北京：清华大学出版社,2009.6.
[103]Arrow K J. Social Choice and Individual Value. Cowles Foundation of Yale University,1970.
[104]Arrow K J. Social Choice and Multicriteria Decision Making. MIT PRESS,1986.
[105]胡毓达,胡的的.群体决策.上海：上海科学技术出版社,2006.12.
[106]胡毓达,田川.求解群体多指标决策问题的偏爱度法.系统工程理论与实践,1996年第3期：52-56.
[107]侯福均,吴祈宗.模糊偏好关系与决策.北京：北京理工大学出版社,2009.
[108]蒋辉,王志忠,谢明哨.基于属性测度的客观权TOPSIS法及应用.经济数学,2010,27(2)：1-7.
[109]付强,赵小勇.投影寻踪模型原理及其应用.北京：科学出版社,2006.
[2]李明,刘澎.武器装备发展系统论证方法与应用.北京：国防工业出版社,2000.9.
[3]徐林生,白光清.陆军装备论证挑战与对策研究.炮兵防空兵装备技术研究.2010,2：1-6
[4]花兴来,刘庆华.装备管理工程.北京：国防工业出版社,2002.
[5]倪忠仁.武器装备体系对抗的建模与仿真.军事运筹与系统工程.2004,1.
[6]徐光,秦前付等.空军战役仿真智能决策模型.武汉理工大学学报(信息与管理工程版),2003,25(3)：51-54.
[7]吴鹏,邱涤珊,祝江汉,周敏龙.联合战役仿真演示系统.计算机仿真,2005,22(7)：22-25.
[8]张国锋,孙庚等.基于Agent的陆战模型.计算机仿真,2004,21(11)：30-32.
[9]王航宇,张晓明,马正亚.编队防空协同作战仿真系统的构建与开发.火力与指挥控制,2008,33(9)：11-14
[10]韩月敏,刘非平,刘丽巧等.陆战Agent协作机制模型研究.指挥控制与仿真,2009,31(6)：6-10.
[11]王正元,刘靖旭,谭跃进,沙红兵.基于仿真的主战坦克作战效能评估方法.计算机仿真,2005,22(1)：29-32.
[12]杨瑞平,黄志刚,郭齐胜.C3I系统在装甲作战仿真中的应用.火力与指挥控制,2004,29(6)：58-61.
[13]舒宇,谭跃进,廖良才.基于能力需求的武器装备体系作战能力评价.兵工自动化,2009,28(11)：17-19.
[14]徐安德.论武器系统作战效能的评定.系统工程与电子技术,1989年第8期：17-23.
[15]徐安德.关于现代军事武器系统效能评定的研究.导弹与航天运载技术,1999,4：1-4.
[16]罗鹏程,傅攀峰,周经伦.武器装备体系作战能力评估框架.系统工程与电子技术,2005,27(1)：72-75.
[17]傅攀峰,罗鹏程,周经伦.对武器装备体系效能评估的几点看法.系统工程学报,2006,21(5)：548-552.
[18]徐瑞恩.武器装备效能模型和方法概论.装备指挥技术学院学报,2002,13
[19]蔡延曦,孙琰,张卓.武器装备体系作战效能评估方法分析.兵工自动化,2008,27(10)：24-26.
[20]高尚,娄寿春.武器系统效能评定方法综述.系统工程理论与实践.1998年第7期：109-114.
[21]徐林生,李才良.武器装备多属性评价问题初探.炮兵防空兵装备技术研究,2005年第4期.：11-15.
[22]鲁延京,张小可,陈英武,程贲.权重信息不完全的区间型武器装备体系能力评估方法.系统工程,2010,28(4)：94-98.
[23]魏世孝,周献中.多属性决策理论方法及其在C3I系统中的应用.北京：国防工业出版社,1998.1.
[24]Fandel G, Gal T, Multiple Criteria Decision Making:Theory and Applications. New York:Springer-Verlag,1980.
[25]Zionts S (ed.). Multiple Criteria Problem Solving. New York:Springer-Verlag,1987.
[26]Chankong V, Haimes Y Y. Multiobjective Decision Making. Theory and Methodology, New York:North-Holland,1983.
[27]P. Czyzak and R. Slowinski, FLIP:Multiobjective fuzzy linear programming software with graphical facilities, in:M. Fedrizzi et al, eds, Interactive fuzzy optimization and mathematical programming,154-167,1991.
[28]Tong M, Bonissone PP. A linguistic approach to decision making with fuzzy sets.EEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics,1980,10:716-723.
[29]Zadeh L A. A computational approach to fuzzy quantifiers in natural languages. Computers and Mathematics with Applications,1983,9:149-184.
[30]Delgado M, Verdegay J L, Vila M A. On aggregation operations of linguistic labels. International Journal of Intelligengt Systems,1993,8:351-370.
[31]Yager R R. Non-numberic multi-criteria multi-person decision making. Group Decision Negotiation,1993,2:81-93.
[32]Torra V. Negation functions based semantics for ordered linguistic labels. Inter-national Journal of Intelligent Systems,1996,11:975-988.
[33]Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Verdegay J L. A model of consensus in group decision making under linguistic assessments. Fuzzy Sets and Systems,1996,78:73-87.
[34]Bordogna G, Fedrizzi M, Pasi G. A linguistic modeling of consensus in group decision making based on OWA operators. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-part A,1997,27:126-132.
[35]Godo L, Torra V. On aggregation operators for ordinal qualitative information. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems,2000,8:143-154.
[36]Herrera F, Martinez L. A fusion method for managing multi-granularity linguistic terms sets in decision making. Fuzzy Sets and Systems,2000,114:43-58.
[37]Herrera F, Martinez L. A model based on linguistic 2-tuples for dealing with multigranular hierarchical linguistic contexts in multi-expert decision-making. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-part B,2001,31:227-233.
[38]Yager R R. On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decision making. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics,1988,18: 183-190.
[39]李荣均.模糊多准则决策理论与应用.北京：科学出版社,2002.2.
[40]陈可.基于判断矩阵的群决策方法研究综述.系统工程,2009,27(1)：8-12.
[41]王坚强.一种新的有优序综合评价的群决策方法.系统工程与电子技术,2002,24(8)：21-23.
[42]熊健,陈英武,杨克巍,赵青松.一种基于多属性群决策的需求优先级排序方法.系统工程,2009,27(3)：79-83.
[43]张目,周宗放.一种基于联系度的改进TOPSIS法.系统工程,2008,26(8)：102-106.
[44]李武,岳超源,饶从军.最小化序数偏好距离的多属性群决策.系统工程与电子技术,2010,32(2)：303-306.
[45]张发明,郭亚军.一种基于两阶段协商的群体评价方法.系统工程与电子技术,2009,31(7)：1647-1650.
[46]张可,刘思峰,朱建军,基于二元语义的八类偏好信息的群决策方法.系统工程,2008,26(9)：116-121.
[47]陈侠,樊治平,陈岩.基于语言判断矩阵的一致性及其排序方法.系统工程,2007,25(2)：106-110.
[48]陈侠,樊治平.一种基于语言判断矩阵的群决策方案排序新方法.系统工程,2009,27(12)：90-94.
[49]余雁,梁梁,蒋跃进,杜少甫.一种新的基于模糊偏好的TOPSIS改进方法.系统工程,2004,22(8)：86-89.
[50]徐泽水.基于语言标度中术语指标的多属性决策法.系统工程学报,2005,20(1),84-88.
[51]宋光兴,邹平.多属性群决策中决策者权重的确定方法.系统工程.2001,19(4)：84-89.
[52]陈华友.多属性决策中基于离差最大化的组合赋权方法.系统工程与电子技术,2004,26(2)：194-197.
[53]马永红,周荣喜,李振光.基于离差最大化的决策者权重的确定方法.北京化工 大学学报.,2007,34(2)：177-180.
[54]刘烨政,徐德鹏,江元醇.多属性群决策中权重自适应调整的方法.系统工程与电子技术,2007,29(1)：45-48.
[55]姚爽,郭亚军,黄玮强.基于证据理论的部分属性偏好信息群体赋权方法.系统管理学报,2010,19(3)：241-247.
[56]孟海东,张玉英,宋飞燕.一种基于加权欧氏距离聚类方法的研究.计算机应用,2006,26：152-153.
[57]刘文军.一种新的决策表属性约减算法.系统工程学报,2009,24(1)：104-108.
[58]毕文杰,陈晓红.一种基于可变精度粗糙集的群体分类决策方法.系统工程,2007,25(8)：94-97.
[59]李为相,张广明,李帮义.基于偏好的多属性群知识系统.系统管理学报,2010,19(2)：228-232.
[60]倪忠仁.高炮射击理论.北京：解放军出版社,1986.
[61]程云门.评定射击效率原理.北京：解放军出版社,1987.
[62]徐瑞恩.海军武器装备效能评估理论与方法.北京：海军论证中心,1998.
[63]倪忠仁.地面防空作战模拟.北京：解放军出版社,2001.
[64]赵志强,黄柯棣.陆军武器装备体系作战能力评估框架研究.系统仿真技术及其应用,第11卷：
[65]尹树悦,王晓云,赵廷弟.装备体系效能研究状况分析.中国宇航学会2007年学术年会.
[66]柯加山,江敬灼,许仁杰,李梦汉,黄谦.联合作战体系对抗效能评估探索性分析框架.军事运筹与系统工程,2005,19(4)：58-61.
[67]孙严,戴浩.基于能力的军事需求方法简介.科学技术与工程,2007,7(9)：2171-2176.
[68]于同刚,于洪敏,陈爱国.美军武器装备需求生成机制研究.兵工自动化,2009,28(1)：12-16.
[69]孟宪峰,张玉柱.武器装备体系评价指标系统研究.火力与指挥控制,2007,32(1)：8-11.
[70]吴敬业,汤理.评价专家的可靠性预分析.系统工程,1992,10(5)：52-59.
[71]赵黎明,徐孝涵,张卫东.对同行评议专家的反评估分析.中国科学基金,1995,62-66.
[72]郑称德.同行评议专家工作业绩测评及其模型研究.科研管理,2002,23(2)：41-45.
[73]何杰,王成红,刘克.对同行评议专家评议共组进行评估的一些思考.中国科学 基金,2003,(1)：47-50.
[74]王成红,何杰,刘克,宋苏.关于同行评议专家定量评估指标研究的几个新结果.系统工程理论与实践,2004,(2)：83-89.
[75]李智.机器学习方法及其在基金项目评审中的应用研究.天津大学硕士学位论文,2004.
[76]谷瑞升,张飞萍,李永慈,于振良,杜生明.国家自然科学基金专家评议状况评估初探.中国科学基金,2005,(5)：298-301.
[77]李莹,李燕萍.我国评估评审专家评价体系的构建问题研究.评价与预测,2005,42-45.
[78]郑兴东,陆伟,贺宪民等.基金项目同行评议中专家非共识性的度量研究.中华医学科研管理杂志,2005,18(3)：141-144.
[79]周晓兰.同行评议制度局限性研究.北京机械工业学院学报,2007,22(4)：66-68.
[80]郑兴东,陆伟,傅政,李人卫,姜北.同行评议专家评议结果修正研究.解放军医院管理杂志,2007,14(4)：259-260.
[81]杨正,梁梁,杨锋.同行评议结果的可信度研究.科技管理研究,2009,(4)：56-60,67.
[82]廖燕玲,孙绍荣.基于专家可信度的同行评议法.科学学研究,2003,第21卷增刊：170-172.
[83]潘仁飞,邹乐乐,侯运炳.基于专家可信度的不确定型AHP方法及其应用.2008,26(10)：101-106.
[84]许国志.系统科学.上海：上海教育出版社,2000.
[85]P. P. Bonissone, A pattern recognition approach to the problems in a linguistic approximation in system analysis, IEEE 1976 International Conference on Cybernetics and Society(1979),793-798.
[86]Slberg. Systems of Systems[EB/OL]. http://www. isr. umd. Edu/selberg,2004-06-24/2004-8-26.
[87]Mattews D, Burke M, Collier P. Core concepts of joint systems[A]. In:Proc. of the SETE2000 Conference[C]. Brisbane, Queensland:2000.125-135.
[88]陈勇.军事运筹应用于创新.长沙：国防科技大学出版社,2002.
[89]Maier M W. Architecting principles for systems-of-systems[A]. In:proceedings of 6th Annual Symposium of INCOSE [C]. Boston, Massachusetts:1996,267-284.
[90]Cook C S. On the acquisition of systems of systems[A]. In. Proc. Of the INCOSE 2001 Annual Symposium[C]. Melbourne, Australia:2001,1-9.
[91]Staker R. Knowledge based soft systems engineering for military systems-of-systems[A]. In:Proc. of the SETE2000 Conference[C]. Brisbane, Qeensland:2000.213-221.
[92]Lee Y W, Ahn B H. Static Valuation of Combat Force Potential by the Analytic Hierarchy Process[J]. IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, 1991,38(3):237-243.
[93]Brooks A, Bankers S, Bennett B. Weapon Mix and Exploratory Analysis:A case study[R].AD-A329434,1997.
[94]李英华,申之明,李伟.武器装备体系研究的方法论.军事运筹与系统工程,2004年第1期：17-20.
[95]B. Craig Meyers, James D. Smith, Peter CaperⅡ. Requirments Management in a Systems of Systems Context:A Worksho[R].2006.3.
[96]Daniel A. DeLaurentis, William A. A taxonomy-based perspective for systems of Systems design methods.
[97]Curtis E, Farrell. Adapting the systems engineering paradigm to System of systems programs. AIAA-2005-1322, January,2005.
[98]Joint Chief of STAFF. CJCSI3170.01C Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System{S/OL}. Washington,24, June,2003. [2005-8-16]. http://www. Dtic.mil/cjcs_directive/index.htm.
[99]徐玖平.多指标(属性)评价双基点优序法.系统工程,1992,10(4)：39-45.
[100]金菊良,魏一鸣.复杂系统广义智能评价方法与应用.北京：科学出版社,2007.
[101]刘思峰,党耀国,方志耕.灰色系统理论及其应用.北京：科学出版社(第三版),2004.
[102]齐敏,李大键,郝重阳.模式识别导论.北京：清华大学出版社,2009.6.
[103]Arrow K J. Social Choice and Individual Value. Cowles Foundation of Yale University,1970.
[104]Arrow K J. Social Choice and Multicriteria Decision Making. MIT PRESS,1986.
[105]胡毓达,胡的的.群体决策.上海：上海科学技术出版社,2006.12.
[106]胡毓达,田川.求解群体多指标决策问题的偏爱度法.系统工程理论与实践,1996年第3期：52-56.
[107]侯福均,吴祈宗.模糊偏好关系与决策.北京：北京理工大学出版社,2009.
[108]蒋辉,王志忠,谢明哨.基于属性测度的客观权TOPSIS法及应用.经济数学,2010,27(2)：1-7.
[109]付强,赵小勇.投影寻踪模型原理及其应用.北京：科学出版社,2006.