IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v10y2022i19p3486-d923829.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Prospect-Theory-Based Operation Loop Decision-Making Method for Kill Web

Author

Listed:
  • Luyao Wang

    (College of Systems Engineering, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha 410073, China)

  • Libin Chen

    (College of Intelligence Science and Technology, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha 410073, China)

  • Zhiwei Yang

    (College of Systems Engineering, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha 410073, China)

  • Minghao Li

    (College of Systems Engineering, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha 410073, China)

  • Kewei Yang

    (College of Systems Engineering, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha 410073, China)

  • Mengjun Li

    (College of Systems Engineering, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha 410073, China)

Abstract

In the military field, decision making has become the core of the new operational concept, known as the “kill web”. Although the theory of kill web has been widely recognized by many countries, the decision-making methods for the kill web are still in the early stage. Therefore, there is a need for a new decision-making method for the kill web. Firstly, different from the traditional scheme decision, the kill web is a complex system. The method of complex network provides a new perspective on complex systems, so the kill web was modeled based on complex network. Secondly, the kill web relies on artificial intelligence to provide decision-makers with operation loop solutions, and then decision-makers rely on the experience to make a final decision. However, the current decision-making methods only consider one of the intelligent and human decision-making methods, while the kill web needs to consider both. Hence, we combined intelligent decision making with human decision making through multi-objective optimization and the prospect theory. Finally, we designed a nondominated sorting ant colony genetic algorithm-II (NSACGA-II) to solve large-scale problems, since the kill web is a large-scale system. In addition, an illustrative case was used to verify the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed model. The results showed that, compared with other classical multi-objective optimization algorithms, the NSACGA-II is superior to other superior algorithms in terms of the hypervolume (HV) and spacing (SP), which verifies the effectiveness of the method and greatly improves the quality of commanders’ decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Luyao Wang & Libin Chen & Zhiwei Yang & Minghao Li & Kewei Yang & Mengjun Li, 2022. "A Prospect-Theory-Based Operation Loop Decision-Making Method for Kill Web," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(19), pages 1-28, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:10:y:2022:i:19:p:3486-:d:923829
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/19/3486/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/19/3486/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    2. Xinsheng Xu & Felix T.S. Chan & Chi Kin Chan, 2019. "Optimal option purchase decision of a loss-averse retailer under emergent replenishment," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(14), pages 4594-4620, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Oliver Linton & Esfandiar Maasoumi & Yoon-Jae Wang, 2002. "Consistent testing for stochastic dominance: a subsampling approach," CeMMAP working papers 03/02, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    2. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    3. Heiko Karle & Georg Kirchsteiger & Martin Peitz, 2015. "Loss Aversion and Consumption Choice: Theory and Experimental Evidence," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 101-120, May.
    4. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    5. Muhammad Kashif & Thomas Leirvik, 2022. "The MAX Effect in an Oil Exporting Country: The Case of Norway," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-16, March.
    6. Jonathan Meng & Feng Fu, 2020. "Understanding Gambling Behavior and Risk Attitudes Using Cryptocurrency-based Casino Blockchain Data," Papers 2008.05653, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    7. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    8. Robert Gazzale & Julian Jamison & Alexander Karlan & Dean Karlan, 2013. "Ambiguous Solicitation: Ambiguous Prescription," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 1002-1011, January.
    9. Boone, Jan & Sadrieh, Abdolkarim & van Ours, Jan C., 2009. "Experiments on unemployment benefit sanctions and job search behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 937-951, November.
    10. Castro, Luciano de & Galvao, Antonio F. & Kim, Jeong Yeol & Montes-Rojas, Gabriel & Olmo, Jose, 2022. "Experiments on portfolio selection: A comparison between quantile preferences and expected utility decision models," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    11. Jos'e Cl'audio do Nascimento, 2019. "Behavioral Biases and Nonadditive Dynamics in Risk Taking: An Experimental Investigation," Papers 1908.01709, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    12. Luigi Guiso, 2015. "A Test of Narrow Framing and its Origin," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 1(1), pages 61-100, March.
    13. Breaban, Adriana & van de Kuilen, Gijs & Noussair, Charles, 2016. "Prudence, Personality, Cognitive Ability and Emotional State," Other publications TiSEM 9a01a5ab-e03d-49eb-9cd7-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    14. Martín Egozcue & Sébastien Massoni & Wing-Keung Wong & RiÄ ardas Zitikis, 2012. "Integration-segregation decisions under general value functions: "Create your own bundle — choose 1, 2, or all 3!"," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 12057, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    15. Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2015. "Demand for fixed-price multi-year contracts: Experimental evidence from insurance decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 171-194, October.
    16. Choo, Weihao & de Jong, Piet, 2015. "The tradeoff insurance premium as a two-sided generalisation of the distortion premium," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 238-246.
    17. Francesco GUALA, 2017. "Preferences: Neither Behavioural nor Mental," Departmental Working Papers 2017-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    18. Fabian Herweg & Svenja Hippel & Daniel Müller & Fabio Römeis, 2024. "Axiom Preferences and Choice Mistakes under Risk," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 326, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    19. Shi, Yun & Cui, Xiangyu & Zhou, Xunyu, 2020. "Beta and Coskewness Pricing: Perspective from Probability Weighting," SocArXiv 5rqhv, Center for Open Science.
    20. Simplice Asongu & Nicholas M. Odhiambo, 2020. "Financial access, governance and insurance sector development in sub-Saharan Africa," Journal of Economic Studies, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 47(4), pages 849-875, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:10:y:2022:i:19:p:3486-:d:923829. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.