Are you sure?
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Dr. Milos Manic,
University of Idaho Idaho Falls
(misko@uidaho.edu )
Decision Support Systems,
AHP & Fuzzy AHP
http://husky. if.uidaho.edu/
http://husky.if.uidaho.edu/pubTalks.html
Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005.
+1 +1 +1
hidden
layer #1
hidden
layer #2
output
layer
F
u
z
z
ifie
r
M
IN
o
p
e
r
a
to
r
s
M
A
X
o
p
e
r
a
to
r
s
D
e
fu
z
z
ifie
r
Fuzzy logic
F
u
z
z
ifie
r
out
X
Y
Fuzzy
Rul es
Page 2 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Today’s presentation
1. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), by Saaaty
• phases & algorithm
• relative & absolute measurement – examples
• scales of measurement
• problems
2. Computational Intelligence in Decision Making
• Fuzzy Logic (FL) (brief overview)
• Fuzzy Decision Support Systems (FDSS), examples
• Artificial Neural Networks (brief overview), examples
3. Discussion on possible applications
• DSS & spatial data?
• DSS for control?
Decision Support Systems – AHP & FAHP
2
Page 3 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Decision Support Systems (DSSs)  Intro
Traditional DSS Algorithms
• Promethee [Brans 85]
• Electre [Roy 68, 78 96]
• AHP [Saaty 80]
Computational Intelligence Enhancements
• Fuzzy Logic Enhancements
• of standard DSS techniques is used to accommodate vague, linguistic
expert’s descriptions of alternatives/criteria
• intangible properties possible to describe
• Artificial Neural Networks
• approach for classification of complex, highdimensional scenarios
Page 4 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
DSS  Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
AHP, Saaty ‘80
• early work on prioritization, hierarchies, eigenvalue analysis ’72,
’75…
• simple & robust (four axioms)
• reciprocal comparison ( reciprocal preferences,
comparisons)
• homogeneity ( bounded scale preference (7±2))
• independence of criteria with respect to alternatives
• and expectations of complete hierarchic structure
• three phases
• problem decomposition (hierarchic)
• evaluation phase (comparative judgment – pairwise
comparisons)
• synthesis of alternatives (ranking)
3
Page 5 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)  Phases
Three phases of AHP
• Hierarchic (de)composition
• incorporates intuitive understanding of the apportionment of the whole
into its parts.
• hierarchy levels can be inserted or eliminated as needed (sharp en or focus
certain parts of the system).
• typically goes from top (global character) to more specific at the bottom.
• Evaluation phase
• based on the concept of paired comparisons as to their importance to a
given criterion that occupies the level immediately above the elements
being compared (relative or absolute measurements)
• yields a relative scale of priorities which is the relative standing with
respect to a criterion independently of any other criterion.
• these relative weights sum to unity.
• Ranking
• Synthesis of pairwise comparison tables
Page 6 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
AHP – Algorithm, Steps
4
Page 7 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)  Steps
The theory of AHP
1. Hierarchic decomposition
• A hierarchy does not need to be complete (an element attribute for all the
elements in the level below)
• There can be multiple levels (a different cut at the problem)
• Levels can be inserted or eliminated as needed (sharpen the focus)
Satisfaction with house
House A House B House C
size
age neighborhood condition
financing
Page 8 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Satisfaction with house
House A House B House C
size
age neighborhood condition
financing
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)  Steps
The theory of AHP
2. Paired comparisons
• compare a single property from a level above with those from level below
• pairwise comparison – for a pair of attributes, the “smaller” of each pair is
used as the unit, and the larger one is measured in terms of multiplies of the
smaller one.
• A following matrix is obtained:
• Weight vector
is obtained by eigenvector method:
]
]
]
]
]
]
·
n n n n
n
n
w w w w w w
w w w w w w
w w w w w w
A
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
2 1
2 2 2 1 2
1 2 1 1 1
L
M L M M
L
L
[ ]
T
n
w w w w , , ,
2 1
L ·
Aw n w ·
5
Page 9 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Satisfaction with house
House A House B House C
size
age neighborhood condition
financing
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)  Steps
The theory of AHP
2. Paired comparisons
• Weight vector
is obtained by eigenvector method:
• or
•Weight vector is normalized weight vector (elements divided by t heir sum) thus
weight vector always sums up to 100%.
•Matrix A has all positive elements and is reciprocal and consistent:
[ ]
T
n
w w w w , , ,
2 1
L ·
Aw n w ·
]
]
]
]
]
]
⋅ ·
]
]
]
]
]
]
⋅
]
]
]
]
]
]
n n n n n n
n
n
w
w
w
n
w
w
w
w w w w w w
w w w w w w
w w w w w w
M M
L
M L M M
L
L
2
1
2
1
2 1
2 2 2 1 2
1 2 1 1 1
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
ji ij
a a / 1 ·
jk ij ik
a a a · n k j i ,..., 1 , , ·
Page 10 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Satisfaction with house
House A House B House C
size
age neighborhood condition
fina
ncin
g
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)  Steps
The theory of AHP
3. Comparison table synthesis into overall ranking table
• yields a ration scale capturing the order inherent in the judgments
4. Consistency Analysis
• consistency is necessary but not sufficient for a good decision
• consistency can be captured by Consistency Index (CI) as:
where is the deviation of the judgments from the consistent
approximation. Consistency Index (CI) is the negative average of the other
roots of the characteristic polynomial of A.
• Consistency Ratio (CR) acceptable if below 10%
1
max
−
−
·
n
n
CI
λ
w w A
max
λ ·
n −
max
λ
average
CI
CI
CR ·
% 10 < CR
6
Page 11 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
SCALE OF MEASUREMENTS
Page 12 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Scales of Measurement – 1 to 9?
Scale  Miller’s 7±2 Myth!
• [Miller 56] Miller, George A. The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two,
The Psychological Review, vol. 63, pp. 8197, 1956.
• asymptotical limit – number of bits needed to describe ‘graspable’ information.
• Absolute Judgments  channel capacity of observer
• 4 different tones,
• 6 different auditory pitches – channel capacity of 2.5bits,
• 5 discriminable auditory loudness alternatives – channel cap. of 2.3bits
• taste intensities – channel capacity of 1.9bits
• pointer position in a linear interval – channel capacity of 3.25bits
• size, hue, brightness, curvature, etc.
• How do we function at all  Multidimensional Stimuli
• can raise the channel capacity for a few orders of magnitude!
Keep the number of items presented as an unstructured group under 7, use different
codings to encode the same information, structure complexity through recursive
grouping!
7
Page 13 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
AHP – Example
Relative Measurement – House Ranking Example
Page 14 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)  Example
AHP  Example
1. Hierarchic decomposition
• A hierarchy does not need to be complete (an element attribute for all the
elements in the level below)
• There can be multiple levels (a different cut at the problem)
• Levels can be inserted or eliminated as needed (sharpen the focus)
Satisfaction with house
House A House B House C
size
age neighborhood condition
financing
8
Page 15 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)  Example
AHP  Example
1. Fundamental scale (9 point scale)
Taken from [Saaty 90]
Page 16 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)  Example
AHP  Example
2. Pairwise comparison of criteria
Taken from [Saaty 90]
9
Page 17 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)  Example
AHP  Example
3. Alternatives against each criterion
Taken from [Saaty 90]
Page 18 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)  Example
AHP  Example
3. Synthesis in overall ranking table
• composite (global) priorities of the houses
• first row – relative weights of criteria, each column relative
weights for each criterion
• ranks should sum to unity (100%)
• largest weight indicates the preferred alternative
Taken from [Saaty 90]
10
Page 19 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
AHP – Example
Absolute Measurement – Employee Evaluation
Example
Page 20 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)  Example
AHP – Absolute Measurement Example
Establish a scale of priorities for the criteria (subcriteria if any)
• first row criteria ratings (grades), sum to unity, columns are i ntensities (=1)
11
Page 21 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)  Example
AHP – Absolute Measurement Example
Establish a scale of priorities for the criteria (subcriteria if any)
• first row criteria ratings (grades), sum to unity, columns are i ntensities (=1)
• Mr. X =
0.061*0.604+0.196*0.731+0.043*0.199+0.071*0.750+0.162*0.188+0.466*0.
750 = 0.623
Page 22 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)  Example
AHP – Absolute Measurement Example
Establish a scale of priorities for the criteria (subcriteria if any)
• first row criteria ratings (grades), sum to unity, columns are i ntensities (=1)
• Mr. X =
0.061*0.604+0.196*0.731+0.043*0.199+0.071*0.750+0.162*0.188+0.466*0.
750 = 0.623
• Mr. Y=0.369; Mr. Z=0.478;
• Absolute measurement needs standard (student admission, employee promotion,
etc.)
• Agreement on standard needed to be used later on for rating of alternatives
• Overall ranks do not necessarily sum to unity!!! Can renormalize though!
12
Page 23 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
AHP – Relative vs. Absolute Measurement (1)
Relative Measurement
• Steps:
1. structuring of the problem as a hierarchy;
2. elicitation of pairwise comparison criteria (both criteria among themselves
as well as alternatives against each criteria in a level above);
3. establish composite (global) priorities of the alternatives
Absolute Measurement
• Steps:
1. establish two scales (global priority vector of criteria, and table of grades for
each criterion, both sum up to 1);
2. each alternative is assigned a grade for each criterion.
3. establishee the final priorities through combination of global priorities with
grades to produce a final ratio scale for each of the alternatives.
Page 24 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
AHP – Relative vs. Absolute Measurement (2)
Relative Measurement
• should be used in most new situations (we do not have sufficient
understanding to compare intensities).
• may be used with confidence in well understood situations.
Absolute Measurement
• useful in areas where there is fairly good agreement on standards
• alternatives can be added or taken out during the process.
• each alternative will achieve certain “total score” (do not need to sum up to
one)
• rank can not be reversed (involvement or deleting of alternatives does not
influence the total score sum)
• no notion of final relative merit in case of absolute measurement.
• there can be equal or nearly equal alternatives.
13
Page 25 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
AHP Deficiencies?!
Page 26 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)  Problems
Rank preservation and reversal
• Relative measurement
• addition or deletion of a new alternative can change existing ranking!
• presence of a copy or near copy?
• previous knowledge on uniqueness of the alternatives needed!
• Absolute measurement
• rank is always preserved
• Sensitivity analysis
• how sensitive is the overall decision to changes of individ.
weights?
• solution – experiment! slightly vary the values of the weights and
observe
• identify those weights that the decision is most sensitive to
14
Page 27 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
A few words on fuzzy logic…
Page 28 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Fuzzy systems
• Developed by Lofti Zadeh
• http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~zadeh/
• Over 15 honorary doctorates
• His work was cited in over 30,000 publications
• Boolean Logic
• Multivalued Logic
•
Briefly on Fuzzy Logic (FL)
15
Page 29 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Fuzzy systems
• Inputs can be any value from 0 to 1.
• The basic fuzzy principle is similar to Boolean logic.
• Max and min operators are used instead of AND and OR. The NOT
operator also becomes 1  #.
A minus one A  1 A
C or B A, of lue largest va C} B, max{A, C B A
C or B A, of alue smallest v C} B, min{A, C B A
− ⇒
− ⇒ ∪ ∪
− ⇒ ∩ ∩
B A∩
1 1
0 1
1 0
0 0
1
0
0
0
Boolean Fuzzy
B A∪
1 1
0 1
1 0
0 0
1
1
1
0
B A∩
0.8 0.7
0.3 0.7
0.8 0.2
0.3 0.2
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.2
B A∪
0.8 0.7
0.3 0.7
0.8 0.2
0.3 0.2
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.3
disjunction conjunction
complement
Briefly on Fuzzy Logic (FL)
Page 30 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Fuzzy systems
Block diagram of Zadeh fuzzy controller
f
u
z
z
y
f
i
e
r
m
i
n
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
fuzzy fuzzy
analog
inputs
analog
output
d
e
f
u
z
z
y
f
i
e
r
m
a
x
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
fuzzy
Briefly on Fuzzy Logic (FL)
16
Page 31 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Data representation using fuzzy sets
Briefly on Fuzzy Logic (FL)
domain
1
µ(x)
0
x
domain
1
µ(x)
0
x
domain
1
µ(x)
0
x
domain
1
µ(x)
0
x
domain
1
µ(x)
0
x
domain
1
µ(x)
0
x
‘Bell’ shaped, triangular, trapezoidal, shouldered fuzzy sets
Page 32 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Fuzzy sets connected by a ZadehAND operator
Briefly on Fuzzy Logic (FL)
Temperature (domain)
1
µ(x)
25 x
Pressure (domain)
1
µ(x)
x
Alarm (domain)
1
µ(x)
0
x
Low
Low
Low
45
100 1200
15 25
0.75
0.5
0.5
17
Page 33 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Zadeh minmax rule
Briefly on Fuzzy Logic (FL)
Temperature (domain)
1
µ(x)
25 x
Pressure (domain)
1
µ(x)
x
Alarm (domain)
1
µ(x)
0
x
Low
Low
Low
45
100 1200
15 25
0.75
0.5
0.5
OK
0.1
0.1
Medium
Page 34 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Fuzzy systems
Block diagram of Zadeh fuzzy controller
F
u
z
z
i
f
i
e
r
M
I
N
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
M
A
X
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
D
e
f
u
z
z
i
f
i
e
r
Fuzzy logic
F
u
z
z
i
f
i
e
r
out
X
Y
Fuzzy
Rules
Briefly on Fuzzy Logic (FL)
18
Page 35 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Fuzzy systems  Rule Evaluation  Zadeh fuzzy tables
Input 2
Input 1 g
i cold cool normal warm hot
cold A A A B A
cool A A B C B
normal A B C C C
warm A B C D D
hot B C D E E
Controller takes temperature
reading from two inputs
F
u
z
z
i
f
i
e
r
M
I
N
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
M
A
X
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
D
e
f
u
z
z
i
f
i
e
r
Fuzzy logic
F
u
z
z
i
f
i
e
r
out
X
Y
Fuzzy
Rules
Briefly on Fuzzy Logic (FL)
5
10
1 5
20
2 5
30
5
10
1 5
20
2 5
30
0
2
4
6
8
10
F
u
z
z
if
ie
r
X
Y
out
D
e
f
u
z
z
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
F
u
z
z
if
ie
r
Rule selection cells
minmax operations
Page 36 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Fuzzy Operators
• Different classifications of operators:
• Cox has defined two initial classes:
• general algebraic operators (Zadeh, Mean, Mean2, Mean1/2, Product and Bounded
Sum), and
• functional compensatory operators (Yager, Zimmerman, Dubois/Prade, as also as
negation operators  Yager’s, Sugeno’s, Threshold, Cosine, etc.).
Briefly on Fuzzy Logic (FL)
Operators on fuzzy sets should be adapted to a problem
• certain operator can, depending on compensatory parameter value, have t o a
certain extant properties of both intersection and union. So, the strength of one
operator can be modified from max to min (in some degree
19
Page 37 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Table2.Functionalcompensatoryoperators’classes
µ µ a x y ( ) ( ) I b
(fuzzy
and)
µ µ a b (x) (y) U (fuzzyor)
Dubois&
Prade
( )
( )
µ µ
µ µ
a b
a b
x) (
max (x), (y), k
( ) / ∗ y
( )
( ( ) ( ) µ µ µ µ µ µ
µ µ
a b a b a b
a b
x)+ ( x) ( min( (x), (y),1k))
/max1 (x), 1 (y), k
y y − ∗
Zimmerm
an&
Zysno
( ) µ µ
γ γ
i
i=1
n
i
i=1
n
(x) (x)
∏ ∏

.
`
,
− −

.
`
,
− ( ) 1
1 1
Einstein
ε
•
andε
+
( )( )
µ µ
µ µ
a b
a b
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
x y
x y
•
− − − 1 1 1
µ µ
µ µ
a b
a b
(x) (y)
(x) (y)
+
+ • 1
Hamache
r
v
•
andv
+
( )( )
µ µ
µ µ
a b
a b
( ) ( )
( )+ ( )
x y
r r x y
•
+ − 1
$
( )
( )( )
µ µ µ µ
µ µ
a b a b
a b
(x) (y) 1r (x) (y)
(x) (y)
$+ •
+ − − • r r 1 1
Yager
y
•
and y
+
( ) ( ) ( ) 1 1 1
1
− −
¹
'
¹
¹
'
¹
min , ( ( ) µ µ a
p
b
p
) +1 x y
p
( ) min , ( ( ) 1
1
µ µ a
p
b
p
x) + y
p ¹
'
¹
¹
'
¹
Generali
zed
p
•
and p
+
( ) max , ( ( ) 0 1
1
2 1
µ µ
a
2p1
b
2p1
) + x y
p
−
¹
'
¹
¹
'
¹
−
( ) ( ) ( ) 1 0 1
1
2 1
− −
¹
'
¹
¹
¹
¹
'
¹
¹
¹
−
max , ( ( ) µ µ a
2p1
b
2p1
x) + 1 y
p
Table 1. General algebraic operators of intersection and union
( ) ( ) µ µ
a
x y I
b
(fuzzy and) µ µ a b (x) (y) U (fuzzy or)
Zadeh min ( (x), (y)) a b µ µ max ( (x), (y)) a b µ µ
Mean ( (x) + (y))/ 2 a b µ µ ( min ( (x), (y)) +
2 ( max ( (x), (y)))) / 3
a b
a b
µ µ
µ µ ∗
Mean
2
mean(int)
2
(intensified mean) mean (un)
2
(intensified mean)
Mean mean(int)
1/2
(diluted mean) mean(un)
1/2
(diluted mean)
Product $• & $ +
(probability)
( ) µ µ a b x y • ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) µ µ µ µ a b a b x y x y + − •
Bounded
⊗ & ⊕
{ ¦ max ( )+ ( )1, 0 a b µ µ x y ( ) ( ) { ¦ min x + y a b µ µ ,1
Fuzzy Operators
Briefly on Fuzzy Logic (FL)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.0
0.5
1.0
Z A x i s
Y Axis
X Axis
0.0
0.2 0.4 0.6
0.8 0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.0
0.5
1.0
Z A x i s
Y Axis
X Axis
0.0
0.2 0.4 0. 6
0.8 0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.0
0.5
1.0
Z A x i s
Y A x i s
X Axis
0. 0
0.2 0.4 0.6
0.8 0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.0
0.5
1.0
Z A x i s
Y Axis
X Axis
0.0 0.2 0.4
0.6 0.8 0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.0
0.5
1.0
Z A x i s
Y Axis
X Axis
0.0 0.2 0.4
0.6
0.8 0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.0
0.5
Z A x i s
Y Axis
X A x i s
0.0 0.2 0.4
0.6 0.8 0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
Z A x i s
Y Axis
X Axis
0.0 0.2 0.4
0.6 0.8 0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0. 8
1.0
 0. 5
0.0
0.5
1.0
Z A x i s
Y Axis
X Axi s
Figure 2. Yager’s union operator when p =1, 10, 1000, 5000, 104, 105, 11.10 4,
25.104
Page 38 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Briefly on Fuzzy Logic (FL)
IMPORTANT!
Fuzzy reasoning is strongly influenced by the:
• fuzzyficationphase
• adequate choice of fuzzy operators
• adequate choice of defuzzyficationalgorithms
20
Page 39 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
1
5
9
13
17
S
1 S
3 S
5
S
7 S
9
S
1
1
S
1
3
S
1
5
S
1
7
S
1
9
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
0.800.90
0.700.80
0.600.70
0.500.60
0.400.50
0.300.40
0.200.30
0.100.20
0.000.10
1
3
5
7
9
S1
S6
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
ANNs & FL as Approximators  Comparison
Required surface
1 4
7
1
0
1
3
1
6
1
9
S1
S8
S15
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.80.9
0.70.8
0.60.7
0.50.6
0.40.5
0.30.4
0.20.3
0.10.2
00.1
i
n
p
u
t
s
o
u
t
p
u
t
#2
+1
+1
#1
+1
#3
Surface approximated by 111 ANN
i
n
p
u
t
s
o
u
t
p
u
t
#1
#3
#2
2 2
) 6 ( 015 . 0 ) 20 ( 003 . 0
9 . 0
− ⋅ − − ⋅ −
⋅ ·
y x
e z
Surface approximated by 21 ANN
Page 40 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
ANNs & FL as Approximators  Comparison
Required surface
1
5
9
13
17
S
1 S
3 S
5
S
7 S
9
S
1
1
S
1
3
S
1
5
S
1
7
S
1
9
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
0.800.90
0.700.80
0.600.70
0.500.60
0.400.50
0.300.40
0.200.30
0.100.20
0.000.10
Surface approximated by Fuzzy System
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
910
89
78
67
56
45
34
23
1  2
01
1 3
5 7
9
11
13
1
5
1
7
S
1 S3 S
5 S
7 S
9 S
1
1
S
1
3
S
1
5
S
1
7 S
1
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
910
89
78
67
56
45
34
23
12
01
2 2
) 6 ( 015 . 0 ) 20 ( 003 . 0
9 . 0
− ⋅ − − ⋅ −
⋅ ·
y x
e z
1 0 1 2 3 5
1 1 1 3 4 6
3 2 3 4 5 6
4 3 4 5 6 7
5 4 5 6 7 8
5 5 6 7 8 9
5 10 15 20 25 30
5
10
15
20
25
30
X
Y
A B
B B B
B
C
C C
D D
D D
D
E
E E E
E
E
21
Page 41 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Fuzzy Decision Making
Fuzzy Decision Support Systems (FDSS)
Page 42 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
(Fuzzy) Decision Support Systems
• Thomas Saaty AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process)
• George Miller’s magical nubmer seven, plus or minus two ’56
• Hierarchic structure from overall goal to criteria (subcriteria ), and alternatives
• Criteria: criteria compared pairwise (multiple hierarchy levels possible)
• Alternatives: pairwise comparison of alternatives for all alternatives, for
each criterion
• Result: ranking of alternatives
Selection of
optimum solution
for water supply
Reservoir on
Lopatnica River
Reservoir on
Gvozda~kaRiver
MPHS
"Studenica"
Cost
Elevation
Benefit
Water
Quality
Water
Quantity
System
Organization
Manic M., Muskatirovic J., Selection of optimum solution for wat er supply in fuzzy decision environment, proceedings, Hydroinformatics '98, Copenhagen, 2426
August, (1998).
22
Page 43 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
(Fuzzy) Decision Support Systems
• Thomas Saaty’72 – AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process)
• Fuzzy (linguistic) description of criteria?
• Intengible properties described in
its own mathematical environment
Selection of
optimum solution
for water supply
Reservoir on
Lopatnica River
Reservoir on
Gvozda~kaRiver
MPHS
"Studenica"
Cost
Elevation
Benefit
Water
Quality
Water
Quantity
System
Organization
Manic M., Muskatirovic J., Selection of optimum solution for wat er supply in fuzzy decision environment, proceedings, Hydroinformatics '98, Copenhagen, 2426
August, (1998).
0
0.5
1
0 5 10 15 20
Cost (1/10
6
$)
small
medium
large
Linguistic description of cost criterion
Linguistic description of water quantities criterion
0
0.5
1
0 5 10 15 20
Water Quantities ( ×10
2
l/s)
small medium large
Page 44 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Decision Support Systems Based On
Fuzzy Preference of Fuzzy Alternatives
23
Page 45 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Fuzzy Preference Approach for Computer
Network Attack Detection
Figure 1. a) Two attack signatures, and their correspondent fuzzy value
b) Example of comparison of two attack signatures
Manic, M. Wilamowski, D., Towards The Attack Signatures’ Comparison In Survivable Computer Networks, IECON'01  27
µ( ) x
x m a x %
1
0 %
A
1
0
A
1
Function F, generating a profile
f
y
c
n
e
u
q
e
r
F
f
y
c
n
e
u
q
e
r
F
f
y
c
n
e
u
q
e
r
F
0 %
Function F, generating a profile
Function F, generating a profile
a)
b)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 max 0
Overlapping factor (%)
Preference
Zadeh intersect.
Zadeh union
Product 
Product union
Figure 2. Lee's preference relation depending on an
overlapping extent and shape of attack signatures, for
the above test example
( )
( )
( )
( )
( ) R A A
S A A
S A A
when S A A
S A A
otherwise
s i j
i j
j i
i j
j i ,
,
,
·
> −
− >
> ≥
≥ >
¹
'
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
γ
γ
γ
γ
0
Orlovsky's fuzzy preference relation
Satisfaction function:
( )
{ ¦
S A A
x y
x y
i j
A
y J
x J
x I
I
A
A y J
J
x I
I
A
i j
i j
γ
γ
µ µ
µ µ
< ·
·
−
·
· ·
∑ ∑
∑ ∑
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
min
max
min
max
mi n
max
min
max
min ,
Θ
Θ
Page 46 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
A few words on Artificial Neural Networks
24
Page 47 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Briefly on Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs)
f(net)
1
w
w
2
1
x
2
x
n
x
n
w
Neuron
∑
1
 1
n e t
f(net)
f (net )
Artificial neuron
Biological Neuron
Jacek Zurada
Page 48 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Activation functions
( )
( )
1 
knet  + 1
2
= knet = f(knet) = o
2 exp
tanh
·
( ) knet  + 1
1
= f(net) = o
exp
k
d)
k
c)
net
out
net
out
(a) (b)
net
out
net
out
Briefly on Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs)
25
Page 49 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
W W
T
a a
b
BAM  Bidirectional Associative Memories
⇔
Associations:
• Military targets
• Language translations
• Etc.
Network oscillates between two patterns,
recovering the other pattern…
(this is the other pattern
associated with the
butterfly…)
Briefly on Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs)
Page 50 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Associative Memories
•No I/O relation, just
contractor behavior on
input.
•Attractor (1 state
attracts the other).
•8x7 pixels => 56 inputs
for ANN
Character recognition (various noise level )
26
Page 51 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Input pattern transformation
on a hypersphere
xc3
xc1
xc2
xe1
xe2
xe3
10
5
0
5
10
10
5
0
5
10
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
R
2 2
− x
x
1
x
2
x
n
z
1
z
2
z
n+1
z
n
.
.
.
Wilamowska, K., Manic, M. Unsupervised pattern clustering for data mining, IECON'01 – 27. Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Societ y, Denver, Colorado,
Nov 29 to Dec 2, pp.18621867, 2001.
Kohonen Networks
problems
Page 52 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Benefits, Applications, Further Reading
27
Page 53 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Benefits?
• FL – Working with imprecise/inaccurate data (DM)
• FL/ANNs  Universal, robust, adaptive approximations
• ANNs  Clustering of complex, multidimensional data
• ANNs  Supervised/unsupervised learning (outcome unknown)
Computational Technologies – DSS and FL/ANNs
Page 54 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
AHP
• Useful with both new scenarios (relative), and standardized
situations (absolute measurement.
• Problems – rank preservation and sensitivity
Possible compoutational intelligence extensions
• Fuzzy Logic
• using imprecise/inacurate, linguistic descriptions  alternatives & criteria
• established logic (operators) for dealing with such descriptions
• Separate decision systems based on fuzzy sets & fuzzy preference
relations
• Artificial Neural Networks
• Universal, robust, adaptive, even unsupervised clustering
Possible applications?
• DSS & Spatial Data?
DSS  Summary
28
Page 55 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
Further Reading on DSSs, AHP, & FAHP
• A few of Satty’s Books…
• Saaty, T.L, The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning Setting Priorities, Resource
Allocation, McgrawHill, 1980, ISBN: 0070543712
• Saaty, T.L, Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process (Analytic
Hierarchy Process), RWS Publications; 2nd edition, 1990, ISBN: 0962031720
• Saaty, T.L, Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytic Hierarchy Process for
Decisions in a Complex World, RWS Publications; 3rd Rev edition, 1999, ISBN:
096203178X
• Saaty, T.L, Decision Making in Economic, Political, Social and Technological
Environments With the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Rws Publications, 1994, ISBN:
0962031771
• Saaty, T.L, Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory With the Analytic
Hierarchy Process, RWS Publications, 2000, ISBN: 0962031763
• Saaty, T.L, Prediction, Projection, and Forecasting: Applications of the Analytic
Hierarchy Process in Economics, Finance, Politics, Games and Sports, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 1990, ISBN: 0792391047
Page 56 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
• A few papers to start with…
• Saaty, T.L., An eigenvalue allocation model for prioritization and planning, Energy management and policy
center, Univ. of Pennsylvania, 1972.
• Saaty, T.L., Hierarchies & priorities, eigenvalue analysis, Univ. of Pennsylvania, 1975.
• Saaty, T.L., A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures, J.Math.Psychology, vol.15, no.3, pp.234
281, 1977.
•Saaty, T.L., Exploring the interface between hierarchies, Multiple objectives and fuzzy sets, Fuzzy sets & systems,
1978.
•[Saaty 90] Saaty, T.L., “How to make a decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process”, European Journal of
Operational Research 48, pp.926, 1990
• [Saaty 87] Saaty, T.L., “Rank generation, preservation and reversal in the analytic hierarchy decision process”,
Decision Science, Vol. 18, pp.157177, 1987.
• [Saaty 93] Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G., “Experiments on rank preservation and reversal in relative measurement”,
Mathl . Comput. Modelling Vol. 17, No. 4/5, pp.1318, PergamonPress LTD., 1993.
• [Vargas 90] Vargas, G.L., “An overview of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and its applications”, European
Journal of Operational Research 48, pp.28, 1990.
•[Trintaphyllou 97] Trintaphyllou, E., Sanchez, A., “A sensitivity analysis approach for some deterministric multi 
criteria decision making methods”, Decision Sciences, Vol.28, pp.151194, 1997.
• [Lindstedt 2001] Lindstedt, M.R.K., et. al., “Using intervals for global sensitivity analysis in multiattribute value
trees”, Proc. Of the 15th Int.Conf . on Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Ankara, Turkey, July 1014, 2000.
•[Drake 98] Drage, P.R., “Using the analytic hierarchy process in engineering education”, Int.J.Engng Ed. Vol.
14, No.3, pp.191196, 1998.
• [Miller 56] Miller, George A. The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two, The Psychological Review, vol.
63, pp. 8197, 1956.
Further Reading on DSSs, AHP, & FAHP
29
Page 57 Guest Talk on FAHP, Dr. Allesi’s course, 10.13.2005 © Dr. M. Manic, University of Idaho
• A few papers on fuzzy logic to start with…
• Saaty, L.T., Exploring the interface between hierarchies, Multiple Objectives and Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, January 1978.
• [Cox 94] Cox, E., The Fuzzy systems Handbook, A practioner’s guide, Academic Press Inc. 1994.
• [Hiirsalmi 00] Hiirsalmi, M., Kotsakiks, E., Pesonne, A., Wolski, A., “Discovery of fuzzy models from observation data, FUME Project,
VTT Information Technology 2000.
• [Hong 00] Hong, T.P., Wang, S.L, “Determining appropriate membership functions to simplify fuzzy induction”, Intelligent Data Analysis
4, pp.5166, IOS Press, 2000.
• [Li 95] Li, H.X., Yen, V.C., Fuzzy sets and fuzzy decision making, CRC Press, 1995.
•[Lee 94] K.M.Lee, C.H.Cho, H.L.Kwang. "Ranking fuzzy values with satisfaction function". Fuzzy Sets and Systems 64, pp.295309, 1994.
•[Sun 94] Sun,C.T., "RuleBase Structure Identification in an AdaptiveNetworkBased Fuzzy Inference System", IEEE Trans. on Fuzzy Syst.,
vol.2, no.1, pp.6473, Febr. 1994.
•[Zahariev 91] S.Zahariev. "On Orlovsky's definition of nondomination". Fuzzy Sets and Systems 42, pp.229235, 1991.
•[Buckley 85] J.J.Buckley. "Ranking alternatives using fuzzy numbers". Fuzzy Sets and Systems 15, pp.2131, 1985.
•Manic, M. Frincke, D., Towards the Fault Tolerant Software: Fuzzy Extension of Crisp Equivalence Voters, IECON'01  27
•Manic, M. Frincke, D. Milutinovic, B., Towards the fuzzy logic in intrusion detection systems, Proceedings from South Eastern Europe
Workshop on Computational Intelligence and Information Technologies, pp.3340, June 2001.
•Manic, M. Wilamowski, D., Fuzzy Preference Approach for Computer Network Attack Detection, International Joint INNSIEEE
Conference on Neural Networks, Washington DC, July 1419, pp.13451349, 2001
•Manic, M., FuzzyOperators Weight Refinements, Proceedings, Annual Reliability & Maintainability Symposium, RAMS’99, from IEEE
Reliability Society, Washington, DC USA, January 1821 1999, pp.245251, (1999).
•Manic M., Milutinovic S., Refinements of fuzzy operators weights, proceedings, The Seventh Turkish Symposium on Artificial Intelligence
and Neural Networks, TAINN’98, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey, June 2446 1998, pp.205213, (1998).
•Manic M., Muskatirovic J., "Selection of optimum solution for water supply in fuzzy decision environment", proceedings, Hydroinformatics
'98, Copenhagen, 2426 August, (1998).
•Manic M., Milutinovic S., Fuzzy preference relation depending on different operators and fuzzy numbers, proceedings, International Fuzzy
Systems Association, IFSA '97, Prague, June 2529, 1997, pp.6469, (1997).
Further Reading on DSSs, AHP, & FAHP
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.