System capacity contribution degree evaluation method and device under combination constraint, and storage medium

Abstract

The application discloses a kind of combination constraint under system capacity contribution degree evaluation method, equipment and storage medium, method includes: determining the member to be evaluated in system;Obtain multiple ability combinations associated with the member to be evaluated;The ability value of each ability in the ability combination when containing the member to be evaluated is obtained, and is recorded as the first ability value;And the ability value of each ability in the ability combination after eliminating the member to be evaluated, is recorded as the second ability value;According to multiple first ability values, determine the first evaluation value of the ability combination when containing the member to be evaluated, according to multiple second ability values, determine the second evaluation value of the ability combination after eliminating the member to be evaluated;According to first evaluation value and second evaluation value, determine the contribution degree of the member to be evaluated to system capacity.The application considers the mutual influence between ability, from the role actually played by ability, evaluates the contribution degree of the member to be evaluated to system, and its evaluation result is more accurate.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention belongs to the field of system contribution assessment, specifically relating to a method, device, and storage medium for assessing the system capability contribution under combined constraints. Background Technology

[0002] As modern warfare gradually shifts towards information warfare, various weapons, equipment, and combat systems collaborate through information exchange to form combat systems for confrontation, moving beyond confrontations between single combat forces or branches of the armed forces. In response to the needs of combat system development and construction, system contribution, as an important auxiliary decision-making basis for the development planning and construction of weapons, equipment, and combat systems, can provide data analysis support for national defense and military decision-making, playing a crucial role in promoting the scientific development of combat systems.

[0003] System contribution assessment refers to the measurement of the impact of operational system members on system capabilities. In existing technologies, the most direct approach to calculating the contribution of system members is mission-centric, that is, assessing contribution based on the role played by system members in operational missions. However, this method presents a significant challenge: which missions to select as the assessment context and how to define the scope of the assessment problem. A type of system member typically has a significant impact on a limited number of missions; the selection of these missions directly affects the final assessment result. If the selected mission set is not closely related to the system members being assessed, the assessment result is meaningless. Even if the selected mission set is closely related to the system members, the assessment result is still affected by factors such as the operational environment during mission execution, the adversary, command methods, command structure, information support, and collaborative forces. If the magnitude of the change in the final assessment result caused by these factors exceeds the magnitude of the impact of the system members being assessed, then the contribution of the system members being assessed is "drowned out" by the enormous "noise" caused by various uncertainties, and the assessment result loses its value. Summary of the Invention

[0004] This invention provides a method, device, and storage medium for evaluating the contribution of a system capability under combined constraints, in order to solve the problem of inaccurate evaluation results in the prior art when evaluating contribution based on a task-centric approach.

[0005] The first aspect of this invention discloses a method for evaluating the capability contribution of a system under combined constraints, comprising:

[0006] Identify the members in the system to be evaluated;

[0007] Obtain multiple capability combinations associated with the member to be evaluated, wherein the capability combination is a set of capabilities that have a strong impact dependency on achieving the same task;

[0008] Obtain the capability value of each capability in the capability combination when the member to be evaluated is included, and record it as the first capability value; and obtain the capability value of each capability in the capability combination after removing the member to be evaluated, and record it as the second capability value;

[0009] Based on a plurality of first ability values, a first evaluation value is determined for the combination of abilities when the member to be evaluated is included; based on a plurality of second ability values, a second evaluation value is determined for the combination of abilities after the member to be evaluated is removed.

[0010] Based on the first evaluation value and the second evaluation value, the contribution of the member to be evaluated to the system capability is determined.

[0011] Preferably, determining the contribution of the member to be evaluated to the system capability based on the first evaluation value and the second evaluation value specifically includes:

[0012] Based on the first evaluation value, determine the comprehensive value of the ability level of all abilities when including the member to be evaluated, and record it as the first comprehensive value of ability level.

[0013] Based on the second evaluation value, determine the comprehensive value of the ability level of all abilities when the member to be evaluated is removed, and record it as the second comprehensive value of ability level.

[0014] The contribution of the member to be evaluated to the system capability is determined based on the first comprehensive capability level value and the second comprehensive capability level value.

[0015] Preferably, when the member to be evaluated is included, the comprehensive value of the ability level of all abilities is determined and denoted as the first comprehensive ability level value, which specifically includes:

[0016] The comprehensive value of the first ability level is determined according to the first formula, which is:

[0017]

[0018] In the formula, cap is the comprehensive value of the first capability level. i For the i-th ability, N C For the total number of capabilities, The ability level value of the i-th ability when the member to be evaluated is included. Let be the weight of the i-th capability;

[0019] Based on the second assessment value, the comprehensive ability level of all abilities after removing the members to be assessed is determined and denoted as the second comprehensive ability level value, which specifically includes:

[0020] The comprehensive value of the second ability level is determined according to the second formula, which is:

[0021]

[0022] In the formula, cap is the comprehensive value of the second ability level. i For the i-th ability, N C For the total number of capabilities, To exclude the ability level value of the i-th ability when the member to be evaluated is removed, Let be the weight of the i-th capability.

[0023] Preferably, the According to the third formula, the formula is as follows:

[0024]

[0025] In the formula, It is S cb All capabilities included in the cap i A subset formed by the combination of capabilities The first evaluation value for the capability combination CB;

[0026] The According to the fourth formula, the formula is as follows:

[0027]

[0028] In the formula, It is S cb All capabilities included in the cap i A subset formed by the combination of capabilities This is the second evaluation value for the capability combination cb.

[0029] Preferably, determining a first evaluation value for the capability combination including the member to be evaluated based on a plurality of first capability values, and determining a second evaluation value for the capability combination after removing the member to be evaluated based on a plurality of second capability values, specifically includes:

[0030] When the weakest link strategy is adopted, the first evaluation value is determined according to the fifth formula, which is:

[0031]

[0032] In the formula, u s (cb) is the first evaluation value, cap is the ability, and cb is the combination of abilities. This is the first capability value;

[0033] When the weakest link strategy is adopted, the second evaluation value is determined according to the sixth formula, which is:

[0034]

[0035] In the formula, This is the second evaluation value, where cap represents ability and cb represents the combination of abilities. This is the second capability value.

[0036] Preferably, determining a first evaluation value for the capability combination including the member to be evaluated based on a plurality of first capability values, and determining a second evaluation value for the capability combination after removing the member to be evaluated based on a plurality of second capability values, specifically includes:

[0037] When the mean-based strategy is adopted, the first evaluation value is determined according to the seventh formula, which is:

[0038]

[0039] In the formula, u a (cb) is the first evaluation value, cap is the ability, and cb is the combination of abilities. N is the first capability value. cb This represents the total number of abilities in the ability combination corresponding to cb.

[0040] When the mean-based strategy is adopted, the second evaluation value is determined according to the eighth formula, which is:

[0041]

[0042] In the formula, This is the second evaluation value, where cap represents ability and cb represents the combination of abilities. N is the second capability value. cb This represents the total number of abilities in the ability combination corresponding to cb.

[0043] Preferably, determining a first evaluation value for the capability combination including the member to be evaluated based on a plurality of first capability values, and determining a second evaluation value for the capability combination after removing the member to be evaluated based on a plurality of second capability values, specifically includes:

[0044] When a compromise strategy is adopted, the first evaluation value is determined according to the ninth formula, which is:

[0045]

[0046] In the formula, u t (cb) is the first evaluation value, cap is the ability, and cb is the combination of abilities. The first capability value is ρ, and the compromise parameter is ρ.

[0047] When a compromise strategy is adopted, the second evaluation value is determined according to the ninth formula, which is:

[0048]

[0049] In the formula, This is the second evaluation value, where cap represents ability and cb represents the combination of abilities. ρ is the second capability value, and ρ is the compromise parameter.

[0050] A second aspect of this invention discloses a terminal device including a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the processor executes the computer program to implement the steps of the above-described method.

[0051] A third aspect of this invention discloses a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program that, when executed by a processor, implements the steps of the above-described method.

[0052] Compared with the prior art, the present invention has the following advantages:

[0053] The system capability contribution assessment method under combined constraints provided by this invention considers the mutual influence between capabilities and assesses the contribution of the member to be assessed to the system based on the actual role played by the capability. This assessment method avoids the situation where the contribution of the member to be assessed is "submerged" in the huge noise caused by various uncertainties, resulting in more accurate assessment results.

[0054] This invention also provides evaluation methods from different perspectives under different strategies, which can be selected according to the actual situation and are more adaptable. Attached Figure Description

[0055] Figure 1 This is a flowchart of a method for evaluating the capability contribution of a system under combined constraints according to an embodiment of the present invention;

[0056] Figure 2 This is a capability diagram of the missile defense combat system in an embodiment of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0057] The technical solution of the present invention will be further described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings and specific embodiments. It should be understood that the following embodiments are merely illustrative and explanatory of the present invention and should not be construed as limiting the scope of protection of the present invention. All technologies implemented based on the above content of the present invention are covered within the scope of protection intended by the present invention.

[0058] The interrelationships and dependencies between system capabilities indicate that the system does not rely on a single capability but rather uses multiple related capabilities in combination to accomplish a specific task or mission. When assessing the contribution of member systems to the overall system capability, it is necessary to comprehensively consider the impact of the levels of other related capabilities achieved by the member system. This is because it is possible that a member system being evaluated may have a high level of a particular capability, but the levels of other related capabilities (i.e., other capabilities that jointly accomplish a specific mission) may be low, resulting in a poor overall system capability performance. For example, if a system's reconnaissance and strike capabilities are interdependent / influencing each other, and the strike radius and reconnaissance radius of weaponry are mismatched, then the overall capability will only perform at the level of the "weakest link," meaning the capability can only reach the minimum value of the strike or reconnaissance radius. Conversely, it is also possible that a member system being evaluated may have a low level of a particular capability, but the levels of other related capabilities may be high, causing the capability's assessment value to exceed its own capability level.

[0059] Therefore, the actual performance level of various combinations of capabilities should be fully considered during the evaluation, and this should be used as the basis for assessing the system's contribution.

[0060] like Figure 1 As shown, the present invention provides a method for evaluating the capability contribution of a system under combined constraints, comprising:

[0061] Step 1: Identify the members to be evaluated in the system.

[0062] This invention describes its method in detail using a hypothetical missile air defense combat system as an example. Due to the large scale of the system, only a portion is excerpted here. The combat process is divided into ten stages: search, tracking, identification, interception suitability check, threat assessment and ranking, launch decision, fire allocation, launch control, interception control, and kill effect assessment.

[0063] The members to be evaluated in the system are then identified as follows:

[0064] The system member set is S cs ={ele m |m=1,2,…,7}, specifically satellite ele1, command and control center ele2, control station ele3, radar ele4, missile launcher ele5, air defense missile ele6, and communication equipment ele7.

[0065] In this embodiment, "Satellite ele1" is selected as the member to be evaluated in the system.

[0066] Step 2: Obtain multiple combinations of capabilities associated with the member to be evaluated.

[0067] In this embodiment of the invention, a capability combination is a set of capabilities that have a strong influence-dependence relationship in achieving the same task. Capability dependency is defined as the situation where the execution of one capability depends on the execution result of another capability; it describes the dependence and influence between capabilities.

[0068] Before determining the skill set, it is necessary to first identify the activities associated with the member to be evaluated, and then determine the skills associated with the member based on the activities.

[0069] The members and their corresponding activities in this embodiment are shown in Table 1.

[0070] Table 1 System Members (Combat Elements) and Their Activities

[0071]

[0072]

[0073] Based on Table 1, the activities related to the target member satellite ele1 can be determined, and then other system members related to the activities can be determined. In this embodiment, the other system members related to the activities include the command and control center ele2, the control station ele3, the radar ele4, the missile launcher ele5, the air defense missile ele6, and the communication equipment ele7.

[0074] The member to be evaluated and other members corresponding to its activities are combined into a member set, which includes: satellite ele1, command and control center ele2, control station ele3, radar ele4, missile launcher ele5, air defense missile ele6, and communication equipment ele7. Then the mapping relationship between members and activities can be obtained.

[0075] Then, obtain the system capabilities corresponding to each activity to obtain the mapping relationship between activities and capabilities.

[0076] Based on the system's capabilities and attributes, the various capability indicators of the system are classified to form a hierarchical capability system. The top layer represents the overall system capability, the middle layer represents the sub-capabilities, and the bottom layer represents the capability indicators mapped from operational activities. In this embodiment, the capabilities of the missile defense combat system are as follows: Figure 2 As shown.

[0077] The relationship between the system members and the system capabilities is shown in Table 2.

[0078] Table 2. Relationship between system members and capabilities

[0079]

[0080]

[0081] any system member elem (1≤m≤7), and the associated capability subset is shown in Table 3.

[0082] Table 3. Capability subsets associated with system members

[0083]

[0084] This allows for the identification of all system capability combinations S cb ={cb i |i=1,2,…,12}, as shown in Table 4.

[0085] Table 4 System Capability Combination Table

[0086]

[0087]

[0088] According to Tables 3 and 4, the mapping matrix between system members and capability combinations is as follows:

[0089]

[0090] If satellite ele1 is selected as the member system to be evaluated, then its associated capability combination is as follows:

[0091] S cb,1 ={cb1,cb2,cb4,cb7,cb9,cb 10}

[0092] There are six capability combinations associated with the member satellite ele1 to be evaluated: cb1, cb2, cb4, cb7, cb9, and cb. 10 .

[0093] Step 3: Obtain the ability value of each ability in the ability combination when the member to be evaluated is included, and record it as the first ability value; and the ability value of each ability in the ability combination after removing the member to be evaluated, and record it as the second ability value.

[0094] In the embodiments of the present invention, the first capability value and the second capability value are obtained through system testing or simulation experiments.

[0095] The specific methods for assessing system capabilities based on activities and outcomes are as follows:

[0096] This step will continue to be described in detail with reference to the specific embodiments described above:

[0097] The first and second capability values ​​obtained using the activity- and effect-based system capability assessment method are shown in Table 5.

[0098] Table 5 shows the first and second ability values ​​for both cases with and without the member to be evaluated.

[0099]

[0100]

[0101] w in Table 5 c Each ability is assigned a weight, which is set based on the importance of the ability. When the ith capability is included in the evaluation of satellite ele1, the capability value of the ith capability is denoted as the first capability value. When removing satellite ele1 from the evaluation list, the capability value of the i-th capability is denoted as the second capability value.

[0102] Step 4: Based on multiple first ability values, determine the first evaluation value of the ability combination when the member to be evaluated is included, and based on multiple second ability values, determine the second evaluation value of the ability combination after removing the member to be evaluated.

[0103] When adopting the weakest link strategy, the first evaluation value is determined according to formula (1):

[0104]

[0105] In the formula, u s (cb) is the first evaluation value of the ability combination cb, and cap is the ability. This is the highest ability value.

[0106] When the weakest link strategy is adopted, the second evaluation value is determined according to formula (2):

[0107]

[0108] In the formula, The second evaluation value of the ability combination CB is CAP, where CAP represents the ability. This is the second ability value.

[0109] When using the mean strategy, the first evaluation value is determined according to formula (3):

[0110]

[0111] In the formula, u a (cb) is the first evaluation value of the ability combination cb, and cap is the ability. N is the first ability value. cb The total number of abilities in ability combination cb;

[0112] When the mean strategy is used, the second evaluation value is determined according to formula (4):

[0113]

[0114] In the formula, The second evaluation value of the ability combination CB is CAP, where CAP represents the ability. N is the second ability value. cb This represents the total number of abilities in ability combination cb.

[0115] When a compromise strategy is adopted, the first evaluation value is determined according to formula (5):

[0116]

[0117] In the formula, u t (cb) is the first evaluation value of the ability combination cb, and cap is the ability. The first capability value is ρ, and the compromise parameter is ρ.

[0118] When a compromise strategy is adopted, the second evaluation value is determined according to formula (6):

[0119]

[0120] In the formula, The second evaluation value of the ability combination CB is CAP, where CAP represents the ability. ρ is the second capability value, and ρ is the compromise parameter.

[0121] Step 4 yields the first and second evaluation values ​​for multiple ability combinations, including those with members to be evaluated and those without.

[0122] This step will continue to be described in detail using the specific embodiments described above:

[0123] The first and second evaluation values ​​for each capability combination, obtained using the three strategies described above and after removing the member satellite ele1 from the evaluation list, are shown in Table 6. The parameter ρ = 0.5 under the compromise strategy.

[0124] Table 6 shows the first and second evaluation values ​​for each ability combination obtained from the three strategies.

[0125]

[0126]

[0127] Table 6 The weights are assigned to each ability combination. The weights are set based on the importance of the ability combination.

[0128] Step 5: Determine the contribution of the member to be evaluated to the system capability based on the first and second evaluation values.

[0129] Based on the system capability level assessment value and capability combination assessment value with and without the member system to be evaluated, the increment of the system capability level assessment value / capability combination assessment value without the member system to be evaluated is calculated according to the concept of contribution. The percentage of the increment of the system capability level assessment value / capability combination assessment value with the member system to be evaluated can be used to obtain the contribution of the member system to the system capability.

[0130] Step 5 specifically involves:

[0131] Step 51: Determine the comprehensive value of the first ability level and the comprehensive value of the second ability level based on the first assessment value and the second assessment value;

[0132] Step 52: Determine the contribution of the member to be evaluated to the system capability based on the comprehensive value of the first capability level and the comprehensive value of the second capability level.

[0133] (1) Contribution assessment based on ability level.

[0134] For any system member system cs m ∈S cs The system includes CS m The overall ability level at that time is:

[0135]

[0136] In the formula, The overall value of the first ability level, cap i For the i-th ability, N C The total number of all abilities, Let i be the ability level value of the i-th ability in the ability combination cb when the member to be evaluated is included. Let be the weight of the i-th capability. This characterizes the importance of capability cap in supporting the functioning of capability combination CB.

[0137] in, As in formula (8):

[0138]

[0139] Where S cb | cap It is S cb A subset consisting of all combinations of abilities that contain the cap ability. The first evaluation value is u. s (cb), u a (cb) or u t (cb), S cb It is the set of all combinations of abilities.

[0140] The system does not include CS.m The overall ability level at that time is:

[0141]

[0142] In the formula, The comprehensive value for the second ability level, cap i For the i-th ability, N C The total number of all abilities, To determine the ability level value of the i-th ability in the ability combination cb after removing the members to be evaluated, Let be the weight of the i-th ability. This characterizes the importance of capability cap in supporting the functioning of capability combination CB.

[0143] in, As in formula (10):

[0144]

[0145] Where S cb | cap It is S cb A subset consisting of all combinations of abilities that contain the cap ability. This is the second evaluation value, and it takes the value of... or S cb It is the set of all combinations of abilities.

[0146] Then the member system cs m The system contribution based on capability level is:

[0147]

[0148] (2) Contribution assessment based on capability combination

[0149] For any system member system cs m ∈S cs The system includes CS m The combined ability value at that time is:

[0150]

[0151] In the formula, This is the overall value of the first ability level. Let u be the first evaluation value of the p-th ability combination. s (cb), u a (cb) or u t (cb), N B The total number of ability combinations Let be the normalized weight of the p-th capability combination.

[0152] The system does not include CS. m The combined ability value at that time is:

[0153]

[0154] In the formula, This is the comprehensive value of the second ability level. The second evaluation value for the p-th ability combination is [value]. or N B The total number of ability combinations Let be the normalized weight of the p-th capability combination.

[0155] Then the member system cs m The system contribution based on capability combination is:

[0156]

[0157] Continuing with the specific embodiments described above, this step will be explained as follows:

[0158] Based on the capability combination assessment results under the short-board strategy, mean strategy, and compromise strategy, the capability level of the system was assessed in two cases: including the system to be evaluated and not including the system to be evaluated. The results are shown in Table 7.

[0159] Table 7 shows the system capability level results for both cases including and excluding the system under evaluation.

[0160]

[0161] but:

[0162] (1) Contribution assessment based on ability level.

[0163] Table 8 shows the contribution of the member to be evaluated to the system under different strategies when the system includes and does not include member system satellite ele1, based on the capability level values ​​of Table 7.

[0164] Table 8. Evaluation results of system contribution based on capability level under different strategies.

[0165]

[0166] It is evident from the capability level assessment results based on the weakest link strategy that satellite ele1 contributes the most to the system capability.

[0167] (2) Contribution assessment based on capability combination.

[0168] Based on Table 6, the comprehensive evaluation results of the system capability combination with and without satellite ele1 under different strategies were calculated, and the contribution was calculated according to the contribution evaluation model. The results are shown in Table 9.

[0169] Table 9. Evaluation results of system contribution based on capability combination under different strategies

[0170]

[0171] Comparing the evaluation results using the two contribution assessment models, it can be seen that the different capability combination strategies have little impact on the final contribution assessment results; the results of the two contribution assessment models are basically the same. In practice, the appropriate contribution assessment method can be selected according to needs.

[0172] The system capability contribution assessment method under combined constraints provided by this invention considers the mutual influence between capabilities and assesses the contribution of the member to be assessed to the system based on the actual role played by the capability, resulting in a more accurate assessment result.

[0173] This invention also provides evaluation methods from different perspectives under different strategies, which can be selected according to the actual situation and are more adaptable.

[0174] A second aspect of this invention discloses a terminal device, including a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the processor executes the computer program to implement the steps of the above-described method.

[0175] A third aspect of this invention discloses a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program that, when executed by a processor, implements the steps of the above-described method.

[0176] The above description is merely a preferred embodiment of the present invention and is not intended to limit the invention in any way. Although the present invention has been disclosed above with reference to preferred embodiments, it is not intended to limit the invention. Any person skilled in the art can make many possible variations and modifications to the technical solutions of the present invention, or modify them into equivalent embodiments, without departing from the scope of the present invention. Therefore, any simple modifications, equivalent changes, and modifications made to the above embodiments based on the technical essence of the present invention, without departing from the content of the present invention, should fall within the protection scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the contribution degree of system capacity under combination constraints, characterized in that, The method comprises: determining a member to be evaluated in a system; the system is a combat system; the member to be evaluated is combat equipment; obtaining a plurality of capability combinations associated with the member to be evaluated, wherein the capability combination is a set formed by a group of capabilities having influence dependency for achieving the same task; the dependency is that the execution of one capability depends on the execution result of another capability; obtaining the capability value of each capability in the capability combination when the member to be evaluated is included, denoted as a first capability value; and the capability value of each capability in the capability combination after the member to be evaluated is excluded, denoted as a second capability value; determining a first evaluation value of the capability combination when the member to be evaluated is included according to a plurality of the first capability values, and determining a second evaluation value of the capability combination after the member to be evaluated is excluded according to a plurality of the second capability values; determining the contribution degree of the member to be evaluated to the system capability according to the first evaluation value and the second evaluation value, specifically comprising: determining the capability level comprehensive value of all capabilities when the member to be evaluated is included according to the first evaluation value, denoted as a first capability level comprehensive value; determining the capability level comprehensive value of all capabilities after the member to be evaluated is excluded according to the second evaluation value, denoted as a second capability level comprehensive value; determining the contribution degree of the member to be evaluated to the system capability according to the first capability level comprehensive value and the second capability level comprehensive value; determining the capability level comprehensive value of all capabilities when the member to be evaluated is included according to the first evaluation value, denoted as a first capability level comprehensive value, specifically comprising: determining the first capability level comprehensive value according to a first formula, wherein the first formula is: wherein is the first capability level composite value, is the first i capability, is the total number of capabilities, is the capability level value of the i capability when the member to be evaluated is included, is the weight of the i capability; determining the capability level comprehensive value of all capabilities after the member to be evaluated is excluded according to the second evaluation value, denoted as a second capability level comprehensive value, specifically comprising: determining the second capability level comprehensive value according to a second formula, wherein the second formula is: wherein is the second capability level composite value, is the first i capability, is the total number of capabilities, is the capability level value of the first i capability when the member to be evaluated is excluded, is the weight of the first i capability. The According to a third formula, which is: wherein is all combinations of capabilities contained in form a subset, is a first evaluation value for the capability combination cb; The According to a fourth formula, which is: wherein is all subsets formed by the combination of the capabilities contained in the set of capabilities, is the second evaluation value for the capability combination cb.

2. The method of claim 1 wherein, determining the first evaluation value of the capability combination when the member to be evaluated is included according to a plurality of the first capability values, and determining the second evaluation value of the capability combination after the member to be evaluated is excluded according to a plurality of the second capability values, specifically comprising: when the short board strategy is adopted, the first evaluation value is determined according to a fifth formula, wherein the fifth formula is: wherein is a first evaluation value, is a capability, is a combination of capabilities, is the first capability value; when the short board strategy is adopted, the second evaluation value is determined according to a sixth formula, wherein the sixth formula is: wherein is a second evaluation value, is a capability, is a combination of capabilities, is the second capability value.

3. The method of claim 1 wherein, determining the first evaluation value of the capability combination when the member to be evaluated is included according to a plurality of the first capability values, and determining the second evaluation value of the capability combination after the member to be evaluated is excluded according to a plurality of the second capability values, specifically comprising: when the average strategy is adopted, the first evaluation value is determined according to a seventh formula, wherein the seventh formula is: wherein is a first evaluation value, is a capability, is a combination of capabilities, is the first capability value, is total number of capabilities in the corresponding combination of capabilities; when the average strategy is adopted, the second evaluation value is determined according to an eighth formula, wherein the eighth formula is: wherein is a second evaluation value, is a capability, is a combination of capabilities, is the second capability value, is is the total number of capabilities in the corresponding combination of capabilities.

4. The method of claim 1 wherein, determining the first evaluation value of the capability combination when the member to be evaluated is included according to a plurality of the first capability values, and determining the second evaluation value of the capability combination after the member to be evaluated is excluded according to a When a compromise strategy is employed, the first evaluation value is determined according to a ninth formula, which is: wherein is a first evaluation value, is a capability, is a combination of capabilities, is the first capability value, is a compromise parameter; When a compromise strategy is employed, the second evaluation value is determined according to a tenth formula, which is: wherein is a second evaluation value, is a capability, is a combination of capabilities, is the second capability value, is a compromise parameter.

5. A terminal device comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, characterized in that, The computer program is executed by the processor to implement the steps of the method according to any one of claims 1 to 4.

6. A computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, characterized in that, The computer program is executed by the processor to implement the steps of the method according to any one of claims 1 to 4.

Images