A family of OWA operators based on Faulhaber’s
formulas

arXiv:1801.10545v1 [] 31 Jan 2018

O.G. Duartea,∗, S.M. Télleza,∗∗
a Universidad

Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ingeniería, Bogotá, Colombia

Abstract
In this paper we develop a new family of Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA)
operators. Weight vector is obtained from a desired orness of the operator.
Using Faulhaber’s formulas we obtain direct and simple expressions for the
weight vector without any iteration loop. With the exception of one weight,
the remaining follow a straight line relation. As a result, a fast and robust
algorithm is developed. The resulting weight vector is suboptimal according with
the Maximum Entropy criterion, but it is very close to the optimal. Comparisons
are done with other procedures.
Keywords: Data fussion, Aggregation operators, Ordered Weighted Averaging

1.

Introduction

Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA) operators are well known aggregation
operators [1] that have received great attention in recent years. Although OWA
operators were proposed by Yager since 1988 [3], a great amount of research
arises since 2008. [9] provides a collection of recent developments around OWA
operators. A systematic review of literature about OWA is done in [2]; it reveals
some great research lines, one of them is to solve the weight vector determination
problem. Another wide area of research deals with generalizations to fuzzy set
theory.
The weight vector determines the way in which the OWA operator aggregates
information. For some applications we need to adjust the behaivor of the OWA
operator to resemble the Minimum or Maximum operators. Those operators are
numerical implementations of logical operators AN D and OR. To handle that,
the orness of the OWA operator was defined by Yager as a measure of how close
to the OR operator the OWA is.
A common problem is to determine the vector weight of an OWA operator
that meets a desired orness. A lot of methods have been proposed to solve this
problem [7]. In this paper we propose another one. Our method is fast, robust,
∗ Corresponding
∗∗ This

author
work was partially supported by Colciencias, call number 617

Preprint submitted to Elsevier

1 de febrero de 2018

has good performance and is easy to interpret by non-experts. Some of these
features appear in some methods, and other features in others, but our method
accomplishes all of them. As an example, consider the exponential method [3]:
it is fast and robust, but its performance (measured with the entropy index)
is not the best; our method is faster, as robust and performs better than the
exponential. As another example, consider the Maximum Entropy method [5],
whose performance is optimal, but it is slow and have numerical problems; our
method is faster and more robust than it, and its performance is very close to
the optimal.
The structure of the paper is the following: section 2 summarizes the background about OWA operators. In section 3 we propose a new method to obtain
the weight vector of an OWA operator that meets a desired orness. We explore
the behaivor and results of the proposed method in section 4. Some conclusions
are done in section 5.
2.

OWA operators
OWA operators are aggregation operators defined by [3, 1]:
OW A : Rn → R
y = f (x1 , x2 , · · · , xn )
y=

Pn

i=1

wi x̄i

Pn

i=1

wi = 1

(1)
0 ≤ wi ≤ 1 ∀i

Where x̄i is the i−th element of {x1 , x2 , · · · , xn } previously ordered from
highest to lowest. The selection of the weight vector w = {w1 , · · · , wn } stablishes
different kind of aggregations; remarkable OWA operators are:
Maximum: with w = {1, 0, 0, · · · , 0}
Minimum: with w = {0, 0, · · · , 0, 1}
Simple average: with w = {1/n, 1/n, · · · , 1/n}
2.1. Orness and entropy
Yager define orness(w) and disp(w) (dispersion or entropy) as:
n

orness(w) =

1 X
(n − i)wi
n − 1 i=1

disp(w) = −

n
X

wi ln wi

(2)

(3)

i=1

Orness refers to the degree to which the aggregation is like an or operation
where as dispersion measures the degree to which w takes into account all
information in the aggregation.
2

2.2.

Families of OWA operators

There are a lot of strategies to compute the weight vector of an OWA operator. An extensive review is found in [7] where they are classified in 5 groups:
1. Optimization methods. The problem is stated as the optimization of a performance index subject to restrictions. Shanon entropy, dispersion, Rényi
entropy are some of the indexes used. One of the most remarkable method is
the Maximum Entropy method proposed by O’Hagan [8] that was reformulated in [5] in an analytical way.
2. Empirical data methods. This group of methods are usually intended to model the risk attitude of a decision maker: from a set of recorderd decisions we
must find the OWA that better reflects them.
3. Regular Increasing Monotone (RIM) quantifier methods. RIMs are lingüistic
quantifiers that can be used to guide the selection of the weight vector.
4. The argument dependent methods. These are methods that use the input data vector x as useful information in the weight vetor determination problem.
Unlike the classical OWA operators, inputs do not have to be ordered.
5. Preference relation methods. These methods are an extension of the empirical
data methods. Empirical data is replaced by a preference matrix provided by
the experts.
A sixth group of methods can be added. It can be called Shaped based
methods, because they use a predefined shape of the weight distribution to
solve the problem. Notable methods are the exponential proposed by Yager in
[3] and the linear proposed by Lamata in [6].
3.

A family of OWA operators

We now address the issue to find the weights of an OWA operator with
a desired orness. The operator must aggregate the information of n individual
values. We define α ∈ [0, 1] as a variable that equals the desired orness. However,
in a more general perspective, α = g(orness) ∈ [0, 1] with g(·) a monotonically
increasing function with g(0) = 0 and g(1) = 1.
We impose the following restrictions, intended to construct a family whose
behaivor is easy to understand:
OWA.1 if α = 0.0 the operator must be equivalent to the Mimimum operator.
OWA.2 if α = 0.5 the operator must be equivalent to the Simple Average
operator.
OWA.3 if α = 1.0 the operator must be equivalent to the Maximum operator.

3

OWA.4 operator’s behaivor must be symetrical respect to α = 0.5. In other
words, the way in which the operator evolves from Minimum to Simple
average when α varies from 0.0 to 0.5 must be the same way in which
it evolves from Maximum to Simple Average when α varies from 1.0
to 0.5.
Last restriction is easy to acomplish if we define a family for 0 ≤ α ≤ 0.5
and then we use simetry to define the behaivor for 0.5 < α ≤ 1.0.
3.1.

And-like operators (0 ≤ α ≤ 0.5)

Be α the desired orness, and consider first the case 0 ≤ α ≤ 0.5. The rationale
of our proposal is the following: as α varies from 0 to 0.5 the weights must
vary from those shown in figure 1(a) to those in figure 1(b). We first vary
wn monotonically from 1.0 to 1/n. The amount in which we diminishes wn
is distributed into the other weights to keep unchanged the sum of weights.
We distribute this amount using an straight line whose parameters are easy to
compute, as we show in the following paragraphs.
We define f (x) : [0, 0.5] → [0, 1] a monotonically increasing function with
f (0) = 0 y f (0.5) = 1. Other conditions for f (x) are developed later. The value
of wn must vary from 1 to 1/n when α varies from 0 to 0.5. We use f (·):
wn = 1 − ∆

∆ = f (α)(1 − 1/n) = f (α)(n − 1)/n

(4)

Under this conditions, the sum of the other weights must be
n−1
X
i=1

wi =

m
X

wi = ∆

m=n−1

(5)

i=1

According with equation 2 the orness is
n

orness(w) =

m

1 X
1 X
(n − i)wi =
(n − i)wi = α
n − 1 i=1
m i=1

(6)

We propose a distribution of ∆ following the linear relation:
wi = Ki + b

i = 1, 2, · · · , m

(7)

Notice that this proposal is different from the linear proposal of Lamata [6],
because we use the linear relation for n − 1 weights and Lamata uses it for all
the n weights.
Equations 5 and 6 turns into

Pm

i=1 (Ki + b) = ∆
(8)
 1 Pm
(n
−
i)(Ki
+
b)
=
α
i=1
m

4

That can be arranged as




K
m

n

Pm

i=1

i−

K
Pm

i=1

b
m


i2 +

(

Pm

i=1

Pm

i=1

i+

n−

Pm

i=1

Pm

i=1

b

=∆
(9)

i) = α

We compute the sums using Faulhaber’s formulas
m
X

i=

i=1







K
m



m(m+1)2
2

m
X

m(m + 1)
2

−

i2 =

i=1

m(m+1)(2m+1)
6



b
m

+



m(m + 1)(2m + 1)
6

+ mb
K m(m+1)
2

=∆



=α

m(m + 1) −

m(m+1)
2

(10)

And rearrange the terms in order to show explicitly a system of 2 linear
equations and 2 unknows

+
bm = ∆
K m(m+1)

2
(11)

m+1
+
b
=
α
K (m+1)(m+2)
6
2
From 11 we get direct expressions for K and b

∆n/m−2α

 K = 6 m2 −1

 b=

∆
m

(12)

− K (m+1)
2

Using equation 4 we can compute K and b from α and m or n

f (α)−2α
(α)−2α

= 6 fn(n−2)
 K = 6 m2 −1

 b=

f (α)
m+1

−

K (m+1)
2

5

=

f (α)
n

−

K n2

(13)

3.2.

Selection of f (·)

As all weights must be non-negative, lets consider the first weight w1 =
K ×1+b
K +b ≥0
K+

∆
m

− K m+1
2

K 1−m
2 +

∆
m

≥0
≥0

K 1−m
2

∆
≥ −m

3(1 − m) ∆n/m−2α
m2 −1

∆
≥ −m

n
− 2α)
− n3 (∆ m

∆
≥ −m

2mα − n∆

(14)

≥ −n∆/3

2mα ≥ 2n∆/3
3α ≥ ∆n/m
3α ≥ f (α)
To ensure that the other weights are also non-negative, we impose the condition K ≥ 0. Directly from equation 13 we get f (α) ≥ 2α.
We have found the following restrictions for f (α):
2α ≤ f (α) ≤ 3α

(15)

If we choose f (α) = 1 − (1 − 2α)β with some 0 ≤ β ≤ 1 (figure 2), those
restrictions are satisfied if the slope at 0 is in [2, 3]
2≤

df (α)
dα |α=0

≤3

2 ≤ 2β(1 − 2α)β−1 |α=0

≤3

2≤

2β

≤3

1.0 ≤

β

≤ 1.5

(16)

Notice that the limit case with β = 1.0 makes f (α) = 2α. It makes K = 0 and
b = 1/n meaning that ∆ is homogeneously distributed between w1 , · · · , wn−1 .

6

3.3. Or-like operators (0.5 ≤ α ≤ 1)
To ensure a symetrical behaivor of the family, we need to adapt the previous
result when 0.5 ≤ α ≤ 1.0 in the following way:
Compute the weights for ᾱ = 1 − α
Reverse the order of the weights.
Algorithm 1 implements the above results in pseudocode.
4.

Examples and analysis

In order to analyze the algorithm performance, we compare their results for
3 values of β (1.0, 1.25 and 1.5) against two well known algorithms: exponential
method [3] and maximum entropy method [5]. Exponential method is similar
to our proposal in the sense that it also propose a shape for the distribution
of ∆ (an exponential distribution); however, to fit the desired orness, α must
be preset according to pre-computed figures. Maximum entropy method has an
optimization approach, and it involves the numerical solution of an equation.
Figure 3 shows the weights obtained for n = 5 when the desired orness is 0.6.
Notice the linear distribution from w2 to w5 in figure 3(a) and the Homogeneous
distribution when β = 1.0. Notice also that the linear method approaches better
than the exponential the weight distribution of the optimal entropy method.
In fact, the exponential method provides an increasing distribution where as
entropy and linear methods provide decreasing distributions.
Figure 4 shows how fast varies w1 when we change the desired orness for
n = 5. We have added the case of the exponential method without preset, in
order to stress the presetting effect. Curves in figure 4(b) has a change when
orness is 0.5, caused by the strategy adopted to ensure simetry. These figures also
show that linear method behaves closer to entropy method than the exponential
one.
Figure 5 shows the change in all the weights when we change the desired
orness for n = 5. It is important to remark the simetry of the entropy and linear
methods. Similarity between figures 5(a) and 5(b) reinforces the idea that linear
method with β = 1.5 is very similar to maximum entropy method.
Figure 6 shows how varies dispersion (entropy) when we change the desired
orness for n = 5. Variations of entropy with the linear method for different β
are minimal. Notice also that the entropy obtained by the linear method with
β = 1.5 is very close to the optimal obtained by the entropy method.
Table 1 shows a comparison of computing times. Algorithms have been implemented in OpenModelica [4]. We have run every algorithm 20 times for n = 10
and n = 100. The average simulation times are in table 1, as relative times to
the minimal average time. Exponential method, as described in [3], involves a
graphical procedure for the preset of α; we have implemented it using an exhaustive search procedure, which explains the high times for this method. It
is an unfair comparison, and we prefer to compare exponentials method times
using an implementation without preseting α.
7

Table 1 shows that the linear method is the fastest one. It is faster than the
entropy method, because it doesn’t need any iteration loop and it is faster than
the exponential method because arithmetic operations are simpler.
Moreover, entropy method has important lacks (see remark 1 in [7]): objective function definition implies wi > 0 and as Maximum and Minimum operators
are OWA’s with most of the weights equal to zero, those cases can not be included. Even for α close to 0 or 1 numerical problems may arise: Figure 7 shows the
dispersion (entropy) and orness for the Maximum entropy method for desired
orness ∈ [0.9, 1.0] obtained with our OpenModelica implementation. Notice the
numerical problems thah appear near α = 0.98. Those numerical problems are
not present in the linear method, because there are not iteration loops.
5.

Conclusions

The linear method is a fast and reliable method for computing weights of
OWA operators with a desired orness. It is as fast or faster than the exponential
method. It is also more suitable for software implementations than the exponential method because does not use precomputed curves for presettings. It is
more robust than optimization methods because there are no iterations loops.
And it provides a suboptimal result, very close to the optimal.
References
Referencias
[1] Detyniecki, M., 2001. Fundamentals on Aggregation Operators. Computer
Science division, University of California, Berkeley.
[2] Emrouznejad, A., Marra, M., 2014. Ordered weighted averaging operators
1988–2014: A citation-based literature survey. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 29 (11), 994–1014.
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/int.21673
[3] Filev, D., Yager, R. R., 1998. On the issue of obtaining owa operator weights.
Fuzzy Sets and System 94, 157–169.
[4] Fritzson, P., 2014. Principles of Object Oriented Modeling and Simulation
with Modelica 3.3. Wiley-IEEE Press.
[5] Fullér, R., Majlender, P., 2000. An analytic approach for obtaining maximal entropy owa operator weights. Tech. rep., Turku Centre for Computer
Science.
[6] Lamata, M. T., Perez, E. C., 2009. Owa weights determination by means of
linear functions. Mathware and soft computing 16 (2).

8

[7] Liu, X., 2011. Recent Developments in the Ordered Weighted Averaging
Operators: Theory and Practice. Vol. 265 of Studies in Fuzziness and Soft
Computing. Springer, Ch. A Review of the OWA Determination Methods:
Classification and Some Extensions, pp. 60–90.
[8] O’Hagan, M., 1988. Aggregating template or rule antecedents in real-time
expert systems with fuzzy set logic. In: Twenty-Second Asilomar Conference
on Signals, Systems and Computers. Vol. 2. pp. 681–689.
[9] Yager, R. R., Kacprzyk, J., Beliakov, G. (Eds.), 2011. Recent Developments
in the Ordered Weighted Averaging Operators: Theory and Practice. Vol.
265 of Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing. Springer.

9

input : n the size of the OWA operator
input : orness the desired orness of the OWA operator
output: w a vector of size n with the weights of the OWA operator
Define f (x) = 1 − (1 − 2x)β with β ∈ [1, 1.5]. By default β = 1.5
2 if orness ≤ 0.5 then
3
α ← orness
4 else
5
α ← 1 − orness
6 end
7 m←n−1
8 ∆ ← f (α)m/n
2
9 K ← 6(f (α) − 2α)/(m − 1)
10 b ← f (α)/n − Kn/2
11 if orness ≤ 0.5 then
12
wn ← 1 − ∆
13
for i ← 1 to m do
14
wi ← Ki + b
15
end
16 else
17
w1 ← 1 − ∆
18
for i ← 1 to m do
19
wi+1 ← K(n − i) + b
20
end
21 end
Algorithm 1: Algorithm to get the weights of an OWA operator using
the linear method
1

10

Weight

Weight

Weight

1.0

1.0

1.0

1
n

1
n

1
n

w1

w2

w3

w4

w5

w1

(a) Mínimum

w2

w3

w4

w5

(b) Simple average

f (α)

3α

1

2α

α
0

0.5

Figura 2: Function f (α) = 1 − (2α − 1)β and its restrictions

11

w2

w3

(c) Maximum

Figura 1: Weigths for 3 OWAs with n = 5

0

w1

w4

w5

Weight
1.0
Maximum entropy
Exponential with preset

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

w1

w2

w3

w4

w5

(a) Exponential and Entropy methods

Weight
1.0
Linear with β = 1.00
Linear with β = 1.25
Linear with β = 1.50

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

w1

w2

w3

w4

w5
(b) Linear method

Figura 3: Weights for n = 5 and desired orness 0.6.

12

w1
Maximum entropy
Exponential with preset
Exponential without preset

1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0

Orness
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

(a) Exponential and Entropy methods
w1
Linear with β = 1.00
Linear with β = 1.25
Linear with β = 1.50

1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0

Orness
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

(b) Linear method
Figura 4: Variation of w1 for n = 5 as a function of the desired orness

13

W eight
1.00

w1
w2
w3
w4
w5

0.75
0.50
0.25

W eight
1.00

w1
w2
w3
w4
w5

0.75
0.50
0.25

0

Orness
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0

1.0

Orness
0

(a) Maximum entropy

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

(b) Linear with β = 1.50

W eight
1.00

w1
w2
w3
w4
w5

0.75
0.50
0.25

W eight
1.00

w1
w2
w3
w4
w5

0.75
0.50
0.25

0

Orness
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0

1.0

Orness
0

(c) Exponential with preset

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

(d) Linear with β = 1.25

W eight
1.00

w1
w2
w3
w4
w5

0.75
0.50
0.25

W eight
1.00

w1
w2
w3
w4
w5

0.75
0.50
0.25

0

Orness
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0

Orness
0

(e) Exponential without preset

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

(f) Linear with β = 1.00

Figura 5: Comparison of Weights for n = 5 as a function of desired Orness

14

1.0

Dispersion
2.00
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0
0

0.2

Maximum entropy
Exponential with preset
Exponential without preset

Orness
0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

(a) Exponential and Entropy methods
Dispersion
2.00
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0
0

0.2

Linear with β = 1.00
Linear with β = 1.25
Linear with β = 1.50

Orness
0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

(b) Linear method
Dispersion
2.00
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0
0

0.2

Maximum entropy
Exponential with preset
Linear with β = 1.50

Orness
0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

(c) Exponential, Entropy and Linear method
Figura 6: Comparison of Orness and Dispersion (Entropy) for n = 5 as a function of desired
Orness

15

Dispersion
4.0

Real Orness
1.0

3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0

0.5

1.5
1.0
0.5
0

Orness
0.90

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

0

Orness

1.0
0.90

(a) Dispersion

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1.0

(b) Real orness

Figura 7: Dispersion (Entropy) and Real Orness for the Maximum entropy method with
desired orness close to Maximum, for n = 100

16

Cuadro 1: Relative computing times. Averages from 20 samples

Method
Maximum entropy
Exponential with preset
Exponential without preset
Linear with β = 1.00
Linear with β = 1.25
Linear with β = 1.50

17

n = 10
2.91
108.81
1.05
1.05
1.03
1.00

n = 100
2.26
366.22
2.04
1.01
1.02
1.00

