Evaluating weapon system using fuzzy
analytic hierarchy process based on
entropy weight
Don-Lin Mon
:\hrfr(irr: 'The performance evaluation of wcapiw ryctciiis :IT,:
multiple criteria decision inaking problenis. The descriptions
and judgements on weapon systems arc u s u a l l v linguistic and
fuzzy. The traditional method of Analytic Ilierarchy
Process (AIIP) are mainly used in crisp (non-furzy) decision
iipplications with a very uiih;ilanced scale n l judFements. Tu
,ivcrcoane these prohlems. wc will propow a ne\v and gcncrd
dccisian making method for evaluating weapon systems using
fuzzy A H P h a x d on entropy weight. We will use symmetric
triiingular fuzzy numher i to d to indicate the rel:ilive
ctrcngth [jf thc demcnts iii the hierarchy. and huild f u n ) .
judgcmcnt vectors (matrix) through comparison of the
performance scores. We will derive the priority among the
;alternatives by the entropy weight through the use of interval
arithmetic. a-cuts. and index of optimism (the degree o f
optimism of the decision maker) to estimate the degree of
satisfaction of the judgement. In this way it does not req:iire
J series of painvise comparison judgements as requireci h)
[he traditional A H P metbod. Ry multiplying the fuzzy
suhjective weight vector W with the corresponding fuzzy
judgement matrix ,? (the orderly list of fuzzy judgement
vectors i , for every criterion C,). a fuzzy problem can he
solved and a weapon system selection example will be used
to illustrate our method and compare it with other methods.
K e y w w d r : Military application; tactical missile system
(T.M.S).; fu7z.y numher; a-cuts; analytic hierarchy process
( A H P ) ; interval arithmetic; entropy weight.
1. Introduction
The performance evaluation and optimal
design of weapon systems are multiple criteria
Correspondence I O : D r . Don-Ljii Mon. Department of
Weapon System Engineering. Chung Chrnc. Institute of
Technology, Tahsi 33509. Taiwan.
0-7803-2461-7/95/$4.00 0 1995 IEEE
59 1
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universitas Indonesia. Downloaded on January 23,2021 at 13:50:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
decision making problems. The traditional
multiple critcria programming is not flexible
enough in building the system evaluation model
because i ) f limited experimental data and human
experience. Nor it can accommodate qualitative
requirements (such as securil!. , reliability.
maneuverability). human inspiration and tech-
nological advances in the process of design and
manufacture of the weapon system.
During the last decade the AHP has become
one of the most widely used methods for the
pr:ictical solution of numerous ranking problems
in different areas of human needs and interests.
Saaty's AIIP [9, IO] i s a systematic process to
represent the elenxiit :)f a problem hierarchi-
cally and i d u d e s procedures and principles
which are used to synthesize the various
judgements to derive priorities among criteria
and subsequently for an alternative solution.
However, Saaty's A H P creates and deals with
a very unbalanced scale of estimations, such
as 4,A,. . . , f , 4, 1, 2, 3., . . . , S. 9. For Saaty's
matrices with reciprocal elements. half of the
nondiagonal elements are in the range from 2 to
9 and another half in the range from d to
which are smaller compared with the former (2
to 9). In part of the reciprocals. the range is
about 4-8 = 0.4 compared with 9 - 2 = 7 in the
integers part. Though the use of the discrete
scale of 1 to 9 has the advantage of simplicity, it
does not take into account the uncertainty
associated with the mapping of one's perception
(or judgement) to a number. In addition, we can
list the shortcoming of the AHP as follows:
(1) The AHP are mainly used in nearly crisp
decision applications.
(2) Ranking of the AIW is rather not precise.
(3) The subjective judgement, selection and
preference of decision makers have large
influence on the AHP result, i.e.. if the
 judgement has error. the decision is prohahly
incorrect.
To overcome-these problem. we will usc Fuzzy
number i to 9 [ 3 , 5 ] t o indicatc the relative
strength of the elements in the hierarchy. and
build fuzzy judgenient vectors (matrix) through
comparison of the performance scores. We will
derive the priority among the alternatives by the
entropy weight [fi. 81 through the use of interval
arithmetic, &-cuts [1.2,4], and index of
optimism , I(the degree of optimism of the
decision maker) to estiniate the degree of
satisfaction of the judgement. In this way we d o
n o t need a series of pairwise comparison
judgements as required by traditional AllP
method. By multiplying fuzzy subjective weight
vector \i'with every element of fuzzy judgement
matrix X (the orderly list of fuzzy judgement
vcctors 2.; for each criterion C;). we can obtain
tlic total fuzzy judgement matrix A . By this
way, a fuzzy decision problem can be solved and
;I weapon system selection esaniple will he used
to illustrate our method and compare with other
methods.
2. Establish a hierarchy structure model of the
tactical missile systems (T.M.S.)
Iri less than two dccades since its introduction.
thc AI-IP has found its way into various decision
Fig. 1. Structure modcl of evaluating 3 'I . h l . S
592
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universitas Indonesia. Downloaded on January 23,2021 at 13:50:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
areas due to its practical nature. suitable for
solving complicated and elusive decision proh-
lems. In this paper we will consider the
problem, using the same hierarchy structure, of
choosing the best weapon system among a finite
number of alternatives. The proposed weapons
are tactical missile systems. The evaluation of a
good missile system depends upon a number of
attributes, namely tactics, technology, main-
tenance. economy and advancement as described
in Figure 1. Thus we propose a multi-criteria
decision making problem which we will treat by
using fuzzy set theory and entropy weight
method.
3. Computational aspects of the fuzzy number
using interval arithmetic and a-cuts
A triangular fuzzy number can be defined by
a triplet (o,,a,, a?). The membership function is
defined as
x > 03.
Alternatively. by defining the interval of
confidence at level a., we can characterize the
triangular fuzzy number as [ 1.2,4]
VflE [O. I].
A" = [ [ I ; . ole] (2)
= [(n. - n , ) n + a , , - ( a 3 - n2)a.+ n 7 ] .
Some main operations for positive fuzzy
numbers A and B described by the interval of
confidence are
Va,. OR, h/.. P/< E R .
A , = [ a : , o i l , B , = [ h i .b i ] . O'E [O. 11,
A @ l? = [ U : , + bi, a i + b;].
A OR = [ U ; - b i , U : + /I;+], (3)
A @ h = [atb;,,u;b;jq
A 0 B = [ a T / h i ,u;/b;].
I n this paper, the computational technique is
based on the following fuzzy numbers defined in
 Table 1 . Parameter that define the characteristic function of Let S,,k = 1,2,. . . , n , be the sum of the kth
the fuizy number used row, and fki be the relative frequency fkj = a k j / s k .
Then we have
Fuzzy number Characteristic (or membership) function

1 (t*1.3)
r (.r - 2, x . x + 2) for x = 3. 5 , 7
c! (7. 9.9)

Table 1. A fuzzy number 1 expresses the

meaning of 'about x ' . Here each characteristic where sf = Cy=, ski. We can use (4) to calculate
function is defined by three parameters of the the entropy:
symmetric triangular fuzzy number, the left
point, middle point and right point of the range
over which the function is defined.

4. Entropy weight

The Shannon entropy [6]. which is n measure

of uncertainty in inforrllntinn formiilated in
terms of probability thtory, \#.:ISinitinll!; rlrrived
from thermodynamics and used to descrihe the
Hence the entropy weight can be ohtaincd
irreversible phenomcnnn of a motion n r :1
through normalizing (6).
process. I t can be expressed by the functiilii
16. S]

H(p1, 1 7 2 , . . . P,,) = -
1 c p,
i= I
Ine, p , (4 ) 5. Methodology and algorithm

where p i is a relative frequency. Saaty's AHP method is known as the

The entropy H ( p , , p 2 , . . . , p " ) has the
unique form if it satisfies the followins three
reasonable and compatible conditions, i.e., when
M ( p , , p z , . . . , p,,) ff(l/tz, 1/11,
H(Pi, p 2 , . . . * p.) = H(p1, p z , . . . .pit, 0 ) -
H ( A B )= H ( A )+ N ( D / A ) ,
then
H ( p l pz. . . . p n ) =
I -2 P , log2 pi.
i=l
Now, we propose the entropy weight com-
putational method. Let A be a crisp judgement
matrix,
eigenvector method. Here we use another
concept of entropy weight to solve the decision
making problem. After invoking comparison of
. . . , 1/11), the performance scores, we will w e symmetric
triangular fuzzy numbers to implement the
scaling scheme in the judgement vector (matrix),
and interval arithmetric to find the total fuzzy
judgement matrix and the entropy weight. The
computational procedure of this decision making
methodology is summarized as follows:
Step 1 . To compare the performance score.
we
- - can - -use - symmetric triangular fuzzy numbers
1 , 3 , 5 , 7 , 9 to indicate the relative strength of the
elements in the hierarchy (judgement vector o r
matrix).
Step 2. To establish the total fuzzy judgement
matrix A , we can multiply the fuzzy subjective
weight vector W with the corresponding column
of fuzzy jusgement matrix (the orderly list of
fuzzy judgement vectors - f , for every criterion

593

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universitas Indonesia. Downloaded on January 23,2021 at 13:50:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 C , ) . Thus 6. Numerical example
KJ,x f , , I?, x f t 2 . . ' \?,, x i ] , ,
Three tactical missile system (T.M.S.) alterna-
Ell Xf,, It, X f Z 2 ' ' ' \?,, x i 2 , , tives A , B , and C will be evaluated b y fuzzy
AHP based on entropy weight in this section.
fi, x x , , k2x i , , . '. ' I?" x x.,,,, The tactical specification data of the three
missile systems and the experts' opinions have
Step 3. Perform fuzzy number multiplication been listed in Tables 2 and 3 (data source [7])
and addition using interval arithmetric and for the decision making process.
a-cuts. From (2) and (3). (7) can be simplified We have established the evaluation model of
to. for 0 < a ,C 1 and for all i. j . the missile systems in Figure I . T h e evaluation
is based on the five criteria: tactics, technology.
maintenance, economy and advancement men-
tioned before and will be described in details as
in the following.
where a;, = ir$ . x&,. U;,, = iv;, . x:,,. (1) Tactics. Tactical considerations include
Step 4 . Estimate the degree of satisfaction of effective range, flight height, flight velocity,
the judgement A with fixed n using the index of reliability, firing accuracy, destruction rate and
optimism A. The index of optimism 1 indicates kill radius. If the effective range is further than
the degree of optimism of a decision maker. A
large A indicates a higher degree of optimism.
Thus we have Tahle 3. Characteristic and experts' opinions
... -
Item A B c
...
(9) I operation condition higher general general
rcquircnient
... 2 safety good yeneral general
3 defilade general god gcnrral
where A is a crisp judgement matrix. and 4 simplicity general general gencral
6 ; = ha&,t (1 - A),;,,, VA E [O, 11 is a linear con- 5 assemhilit). general general poor
vex combination. h combat capability good general gcnrral
Step 5. The entropy can be computed firstly 7 material limitation higher general higher
8 mohility poor good general
by using the relative frequency of ( 5 ) and 9 modulization general good gcneral
entropy formula of (6). The resultant entropy IO standardization general general good
weight can be determined by normalizing (6).

Tahle 2 . Tactical specification data of the three missile systems

Item A R C
- ~

I effective range ( k m ) 43 36 38
flight hcight ( m ) 25 20 23
flight velocity (M No) (1.72 0.8 0.75
4 fire rate (round/min) 0.6 n.6 0.7
5 reaction time (min) i .2 1.5 1.3
6 missile scale (cm)(l X d-span) 5 2 1 x 3s - 13s 381 x 34 - in5 445 x 35 - 120
7 firing accuracy (76) 67 70 63
8 destruction rate (Ir) 84 88 86
9 kill radius (m) 1s 12 18
10 anti-jam (%) 68 7s 70
11 reliability (%) RO 83 76
I? system cost (ten thousand) XIK) 755 785
13 system life (year) 7 5 5

594

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universitas Indonesia. Downloaded on January 23,2021 at 13:50:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Table 4. Tactical criteria a n d scores for the 3 Table 6. Maintenance criteria and scores for the
T.M.S. 3 T.M.S.

Tactics A R C Maintenance A B C

effective range 1 0.5 0.5 operation condition I 0.5 U.5

flight height 0.5 I 0.5 requirement
flight velocity 0.5 I 0.5 safety I 0.5 fl.5
reliability 1 I 0.5 defilade 11.5 1 0.5
firing accuracy I I 0.5 simplicity 0.5 0.5 0.5
destruction rate 11.5 I I assembility 11.5 0.5 0
kill radius 1 0.5 1 total score 3.5 3 2
total score 5.5 6 45

tion condition requirement, safety, defilade.

simplicity and assembility, etc. If they are good
40 km. the flight height smaller than 20 m, the
o r higher. their scores are 1, otherwise, the
flight velocity greater than 0.8 Mach number.
scores are 0.5. The score results are in Table 6 .
reliability greater than 8076, firing accuracy
the fuzzy judgement vector is ;ISfollows:
greater than 65% destruction rate greater than
85% kill radius greater than 15m. then the
corresponding score of the subitem is 1.
Otherwise the score is 0.5. Table 4 shows the
total scores of the tactical consideration. (4) Economy. The evaluated subitems contain
Using these scores, the decision makers can be system cost, system life and material limitation.
guided through an approximate comparison to etc. The score results are in Table 7, the fuzzy
make jtdgements and rank the alternatives for judgement vector is
each criterion. In this way, we can get a fuzzy
judgement vector such as the following for the
first criterion:
( 5 ) Advancement. This property is judged on
modulization, mobility and system st::tidard-
ization. The score results are in Table 8, with
(2) 'Tcchnology. The sutrit~ms relate4 to the fuzzy judgement vector
technology contain missile scale. fire rate,
c - = A- B C
- - ,
reaction time, anti-jam and combat capahility.
Scores are listed in Table 5 , and the fuzzy
[I 7 51
judgement vector can be written as Table 7. Economy criteria and scores for the 3
T.M.S.

Economy A B C

(3) Maintenance. The subitems contain opera- system cost 0.5 i 0.5
system life I 0.5 0.5
material limitation 0.5 I 0.5
totai score 2 2.5 1.5
Table 5. Technology criteria and scores for
the 3 T.M.S.
Table 8. Advancement criteria and scores for the 3
Technology .4 R c T.M.S.
-
missile scale 0.5 I 0.5 Advancement A B c
reaction time 0.5 0.5 0.5
fire rate 0.5 1 1 modulization 0.5 1 1).5
anti-jam 0.5 I 1 mobility n I 0.5
combat capability I 0.5 0.5 system standardization 0.5 (1.5 I
total score 3 4 3.5 total score 1 2.5 2

595

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universitas Indonesia. Downloaded on January 23,2021 at 13:50:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 I
Table 9. F u u y judgement matrix for
systems A , B . and C based on criteria
c,,cz. c,. c,, c, 0 37
038
P

(6) If the priority of the criteria is in the order

5
3,034 -

- 033
-
U
-
-
.
.
.
-
---a
--.___
-

-1
1. -*
G , A

__I
I Q SvscmR
+ Svrlem C

of tactics, advancement, economy. technology

and maintenance according to the experts'
opinion, then we can use a fuzzy vector such as
(15) to represent a weighting vector among these
criteria. 000 010 020 040 060 080 100
n

(15) Fig. 2. Total arrangement order of all levels for moderate

decision maker.

Combining (10)-(14), we can obtain Tablc 9.

Multiplying the ith element of (15) to the C, From Table 10, system B is the best choice when
column of Table 9. we can obtain the total fuzzy a = 0.05, A = 0.5.
judgement matrix A as Similarity, letting a = 0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2,
. . . , I and A = 0.5, 1. 0, we obtain Figure 2. 3,
c, c, c, c
4 cs and 4 respectively.

1
gxj j x i i x i 5x3 ?xi From Figures 2-4, this method reflects the
Bx? 5x5 ix.5 5 x 5 i x ? uncertainty associated with one's subjective
judgement in human thinking. However, system
Bxi j x j ixi 5xi ix5 (I6) B is the best selection for all the degree of
From (2), we have optimism h.
For the sake of comparison, we will use a
i, = [ I . 3 - 2 4 , 3, = [ I +?@. synthetic evaluation method and Saaty's AHP
5* = [3 + 2 a , 7 - ?a], 7 , = 1s + ?a.,Y - 2 4 . method to treat the same problem
B,, = [7 + 2 a , 91. (i7)
Substituting (17) into (16). and using Step
3-Step 5 from Section 5 , we can derive entnipy
weight for the corresponding a level.
0 36
Let cr = 0.05, 1 = 0.5 (for a moderate tlccisiori
maker), (16) ends to Table 10 (column 2-6). R v
package Lotus 123, we can obtain the entropy
weight of the alternativcs as shown in column 7
of that table.

Table 10. Total judgement matrix and entropy weight for

(Y = 0.05. I = 0.5
..
Entropy 031 -
Cl c, c, C, C, weight I
03 -
A 40.25 5.85 13.65 15 13.65 0.3368 000 0 10 020 040 060 080 100
n
B 56.35 IS 9.75 25 49 0.3392
C 15.6975 9 3.8015 9.75 35 0.3241 Fig 3 Total arrangement order of all levels for optimistic
decision maker

596

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universitas Indonesia. Downloaded on January 23,2021 at 13:50:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 038 I
1 3 7 113 3
037 - C? = 113 1 5
P
117 l / 5 1 1/3 1/5 1
0 36 ;
/‘ I
I (18)
1 117 115
Cs = 7 1 3
5 113 1
0331 1
1 7 9
117 1 3
o= 119 113 1
1/5 3 5
113 5 7 3 1

The procedure of the A H P is wcll established

7. Synthetic evaluation method
Here we use a simple nonfuzzy additive
weighting approach t o treat the evaluation
problem. From Tables 4-8, the relation matrix
,f (whose elements are the performance scores)
and the weighting vector cc.’ (normalizing
[9.3. 1,5,7]) are
[ 5 ] , we will only give the resulting outcomes as
in Table 11. where system B is the best choice.
We can see from the above analysis that the
ranking of the AI-IP is the most rough This is
because A H P creates and deals with a very
unbalanced scale of estimations. The matrices
with recripocal elements such as in (18) have one
half of the nondiagonal elements in the range
from 2. to 9 and another half in the range frofn 4
to 4 which are smaller compared with the former
(3-9). In the part of the reciprocals, the range is
about 4-4 0.4 compared with 9 - 2 = 7 in the

L 1
5.5 3 3.5 2 1 integer part. We can say that AHP does not
x = 6 4 3 2.52.5, reflect the uncertainty associated with the
4.5 3.5 2 1.5 2 mapping of one’s perception to a real number.
The synthetic evaluation method, o n the other
= [O.36 0.12 0.04 0.2 0.281. hand. is neither flexible nor can show the degree
Therefore the weighting matrix = , f o W‘= of optimism of the decision makers.
[3.16 3.96 2.98)‘ where 0 denotes multiplication
and t denotes transposition. From these
calculated weight values, system B is the best
choice. 9. Conclusion

We have mentioned in the introduction

8. Saaty’s method (Section 1) that the traditional AHP have some

Saaty’s AHP method is known as the

Table 1 I . Total arrangement order weights of hierarchy
eigenvector method. From Tables 4-8 and (15),

c, =
[ 1 1:3
3
‘1,
we can obtain pairwise comparison judgement
matrices C , , C2, C, C,. C5, and 0.

1/5 117 1
cz=[ l5
3 113
1 1!3]
1/5
Criteria

0
.4
B
c
I 2 3

0.5128 0.0634 0.0334

0.2790 0.1047 0.6191
0.6191 0.6370 0.2790
0.0719 0.2583 0.0719
J 5

0. 1289 0.2615
Weight

0.2513 0.0719 0.2235

0.6370 0.6491 0.6344
0.1047 0.2790 0.1421

597

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universitas Indonesia. Downloaded on January 23,2021 at 13:50:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 shortcomings. namely:
(1) The AHP are mainly used in nearly crisp
decision applications.
(2) Saaty's AHP creates and drill< with a very
unbalanced scale of estimations.
(3) Saaty's AHP does not take into account
the unccrtainty associated with the mapping of
one's perception (or judgement) t o a numher .
(4) Ranking of the AHP is rather not precise.
( 5 ) The subjectivc /litleetiicnt. selcction and
preference of decision makers havr large
influence on the AIIP.
To improve the AFIP method and to smooth
the evaluation process. we have propused a
decision making method, using the Sam?
hierarchical structure, ba4ed on the entropy
weight. We have formulated the algorithms and
applied it to a weapon system selection problem.
This problem has also h c m treated by the
traditional methods for comparison. We have
seen the thoughtfulness. flexibility and efficiency
of the proposed method, especially in terms of
subjectivity and preference of the decision
makers.
598
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universitas Indonesia. Downloaded on January 23,2021 at 13:50:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
References
[ I ] A . Kaufmann and M.M. Gupta. Irirrodrrction to Frizzy
Arithmetic Tlieon and Applicariori (Van Nostrand
Reinhold. New York. 1991).
[2) A . Kaufmann and M.M.Gupta. Fuzz?. Mathematical
Models in Engineering and .Management Science
(North-Holland. Amsterdam. 1988)
131 C.H. Juang and D.H. Lee, A fuzzy scale for measuring
weight criteria in hierarchical structures. lnternarionnl
F I I Z ZEngineering
~ Symposium (1991) 415-421
[4] C . H . Cheng and D.L. Mon. Fuzzy system reliability
analysis by interval of confidence, FUZZ;. S E f s and
Sysrem 58 (1993) 29-35,
[SI C.H.Cheng and D.L. Mon. Evaluating weapon system
using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process. to appear in
Defence Science Jourria/.
[h] G.L. Klir and T A . Folger. Fuzzy Sets. U n r e r r n i n t ~arid
.
Informarion (Prentice Hall, Singapore. 1988)
[7]J . H . Wen, Guided Missile System Andysir arid Derign
(Beijing Natural Science & Engineering Clniversity.
Beijing, 1989) (in Chinese).
[RI Tang Ke, Target decision hy entropv weight a n d fuzzy.
Swrcrn Enpinwring Theory and Practice 5 (1992) (in
Chinese) .
191 T . L . Saaty, A scaling method for priorities in
hierarchical structure, Journal of Mathematical Psycho/-
og;. 3 (1979) 243-281.
[ 101 T.L. Saaty. The Analytiral Hierarchy Proccss (McGraw
Hill. New York. 1980).