Correlation coefficients of Pythagorean hesitant fuzzy sets and their application to radar LPI performance evaluation

Evaluating low probability of intercept LPI performance is the first step to design parameters and arrange radar resources. In the evaluation process it is hard to rely on the intercept receiver?s working scenarios and operating parameters. On the other hand, indicators that affect the LPI performance of radiating side are difficult to consider comprehensively. Thus, building an effective evaluation system is crucial. This research considers the natural parameters of radar extracted from a radiating scenario. Subsequently, a number of criteria are selected, including spatial, time, frequency domain, polarization status, energy status, and waveform features. A multidomain radar LPI performance evaluation method is established, which is based on Pythagorean hesitant fuzzy sets PHFSs . The paper is motivated by other scholars? research on fuzzy set theories and derives correlation coefficients as well as their properties for PHFSs. Concretely speaking, this study takes account of membership degree, nonmembership degree, and the hesitation of decision makers, so it integrates the benefits of correlation coefficients of hesitant fuzzy sets with Pythagorean fuzzy sets. Meanwhile, weighted correlation coefficients of PHFSs and their properties are proposed in detail. This provides a feasible approach for evaluation problems. For the sake of application, this article gives the specific LPI performance evaluation process. Finally, a novel method is presented to evaluate four fire control radars? LPI performances and is proved to be viable.

___

  • [1] She J, Wang F, Zhou J. A novel sensor selection and power allocation algorithm for multiple-target tracking in an LPI radar network. Sensors 2016; 16(12): 2193. doi: 10.3390/s16122193
  • [2] Stove AG, Hume AL, Baker CJ. Low probability of intercept radar strategies. IEE Proceedings-Radar, Sonar and Navigation 2004; 151 (5): 249-260. doi: 10.1049/ip-rsn:20041056
  • [3] Schleher DC. LPI radar: fact or fiction. IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine 2006; 21(5): 3-6. doi: 10.1109/MAES.2006.1635166
  • [4] Wu PH. On sensitivity analysis of low probability of intercept (LPI) capability. In: IEEE Military Communications Conference; Atlantic City, NJ, USA; 2005. pp. 2889-2895.
  • [5] Shi C, Zhou J, Wang F. Adaptive resource management algorithm for target tracking in radar network based on low probability of intercept. Multidimensional Systems and Signal Processing 2017; 29 (4): 1203-1226. doi: 10.1007/s11045-017-0494-8
  • [6] Li B, Lei J, Wang S, Lai X. Performance evaluation of LPI communication system: a novel index system. In: 7th International Conference on Communications and Networking; Kun Ming, China; 2012. pp. 368-373.
  • [7] Wang F, Sellathurai M, Liu W, Zhou J. Security information factor based airborne radar RF stealth. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics 2015; 26 (2): 258-266. doi: 10.1109/JSEE.2015.00031
  • [8] Torra V. Hesitant fuzzy sets. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 2010; 25 (6): 529-539. doi: doi.org/10.1002/in
  • [9] Xu Z, Xia M. On distance and correlation measures of hesitant fuzzy information. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 2011; 26 (5): 410-425. doi: 10.1002/int.20474
  • [10] Chen N, Xu Z, Xia M. Correlation coefficients of hesitant fuzzy sets and their applications to clustering analysis. Applied Mathematical Modelling 2013; 37 (4): 2197-2211. doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2012.04.031
  • [11] Liao H, Xu Z, Zeng XJ. Novel correlation coefficients between hesitant fuzzy sets and their application in decision making. Knowledge-Based Systems 2015; 82: 115-127. doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2015.02.020
  • [12] Yager RR. Pythagorean fuzzy subsets. In: IEEE 2013 Joint IFSA World Congress and NAFIPS Annual Meeting (IFSA/NAFIPS); Edmonton, Canada; 2013. pp. 57-61.
  • [13] Yager RR. Pythagorean membership grades in multicriteria decision making. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 2014; 22 (4): 958-965. doi: 10.1109/tfuzz.2013.2278989
  • [14] Garg H. A novel correlation coefficients between Pythagorean fuzzy sets and its applications to decision-making processes. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 2016; 31 (12): 1234-1252. doi: 10.1002/int.21827
  • [15] Liang D, Xu Z. The new extension of TOPSIS method for multiple criteria decision making with hesitant Pythagorean fuzzy sets. Applied Soft Computing 2017; 60: 167-179. doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2017.06.034
  • [16] Lu M, Wei G, Alsaadi FE, Hayat T, Alsaedi A. Hesitant Pythagorean fuzzy Hamacher aggregation operators and their application to multiple attribute decision making. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 2017; 33 (2): 1105-1117. doi: 10.3233/JIFS-16554
  • [17] Garg H. Hesitant Pythagorean fuzzy Maclaurin symmetric mean operators and its applications to multiattribute decision-making process. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 2019; 34 (4): 601-626. doi: 10.1002/int.22067
  • [18] Zhao Y, Shang C, Han Z, Wang P. A new evaluation model of comprehensive radio frequency stealth performance of radar. International Journal of Modeling, Simulation, and Scientific Computing 2016; 7 (3): 1650033. doi: 10.1142/S1793962316500331
  • [19] Rajgopal S, Sahu OP. Metrics to define probability of interception of conventional, frequency-hopping, spread spectrum radars. IETE Journal of Research 2009; 55 (6): 304-308. doi: 10.4103/0377-2063.59171
  • [20] Ye J. Correlation coefficient of dual hesitant fuzzy sets and its application to multiple attribute decision making. Applied Mathematical Modelling 2014; 38 (2): 659-666. doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2013.07.010
  • [21] Simpson J. PRF set selection for pulse-Doppler radars. In: IEEE Region 5 Conference 1988 ‘Spanning the Peaks of Electrotechnolog’; Colorado Springs, CO, USA; 1988. pp. 38-44.
  • [22] Long WH, Harriger KA. Medium PRF for the AN/APG-66 radar. Proceedings of the IEEE 1985; 73 (2): 301-311. doi: 10.1109/proc.1985.13141
  • [23] Başar A. Hesitant fuzzy pairwise comparison for software cost estimation: a case study in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences 2017; 25(4): 2897-2909. doi: 10.3906/elk-1604-45