Case decision study of coal mine safety input based on DS evidence-regret theory

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.12.0429

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to achieve a more comprehensive and effective investment in coal mine safety, aiming at the influence of psychological and behavioral factors of decision makers on safety input decisions, a regret theory-CBDT safety input decision model was established. By analyzing the applicability of CBDT in coal mine safety input, safety input decision-making index system was established from two aspects of safety input and safety output, based on improved DS evidence theory and the evaluation of experts, and the weights of each indicator were calculated. In the CBDT perspective, based on regret theory, the comprehensive perceived utility of each scheme was calculated, and the optimal safety investment scheme was selected according to the comprehensive perceived utility. The result shows that in the process of safety input, policymakers pay more attention to safety facilities and safety technology input, and policymakers will try to avoid safety input schemes with unsatisfactory safety output. The model is based on historical safety investment cases and combines the subjective psychology of decision-makers, it helps select the optimal safety input scheme, makes safety investment decision-making more objective and scientific.

Key words: Dempster-Shafer(DS) evidence theory, regret theory, coal mine safety input, cased-based decision theory(CBDT), policymaker

CLC Number:

X915.4安全经济学

JIANG Fuchuan, ZHANG Siyu, ZHANG Guoqing, NIU Yue, LI Menglin, LIU Peishun. Case decision study of coal mine safety input based on DS evidence-regret theory[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(12): 16-23.

Figures/Tables 9

Fig.1

Fig.2

Table 1

Mine safety input alternatives

备选方案	安全管理投入比例	安全技术投入比例	安全教育投入比例	安全设施投入比例
1( $T 01$ )	0.156 0	0.452 6	0.098 3	0.293 1
2( $T 02$ )	0.131 1	0.558 7	0.091 0	0.219 2
3( $T 03$ )	0.120 8	0.526 4	0.109 9	0.242 9
4( $T 04$ )	0.145 8	0.479 6	0.106 2	0.268 4

Table 1

Table 2

Historical safety input ratios schemes and safety output indicator information

年份	安全管理投入比例	安全技术投入比例	安全教育投入比例	安全设施投入比例	事故经济损失/万元	煤炭产量/ 万t
2012(T₁)	0.109 9	0.480 2	0.092 1	0.317 8	285.3	140
2013(T₂)	0.129 7	0.509 3	0.096 1	0.264 9	266.4	157
2014(T₃)	0.123 8	0.567 2	0.091 8	0.217 2	316.5	143
2015(T₄)	0.151 1	0.413 3	0.112 7	0.322 9	352.3	145
2016(T₅)	0.142 1	0.458 2	0.115 5	0.284 2	275.2	130
2017(T₆)	0.154 0	0.447 8	0.097 3	0.301 0	223.4	142
2018(T₇)	0.135 2	0.480 6	0.095 9	0.288 3	324.0	120
2019(T₈)	0.132 2	0.487 2	0.103 6	0.277 7	213.0	100
2020(T₉)	0.113 3	0.541 2	0.099 3	0.246 2	384.4	110
2021( $T 1 0$ )	0.123 2	0.390 0	0.125 5	0.361 3	303	125
2022( $T 1 1$ )	0.131 5	0.450 2	0.098 3	0.320 1	251	130
2023( $T 1 2$ )	0.118 0	0.525 1	0.089 6	0.267 4	306.4	125

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Evaluation results of third-level indicators of safety input

属性	专家1	专家2	专家3	专家4	专家5
C₁₁	{H₃}0.8;{H₄}0.2	{H₃},1	{H₃}0.5;{H₄}0.5	{H₃},0.6;{H₄},0.4	{H₂},0.2;{H₃}0.8
C₁₂	{H₄}0.5;{H₅}0.5	{H₄},0.6;{H₅}0.4	{H₄}0.6;{H₅}0.4	{H₄}0.4;{H₅}0.6	{H₅}1.0
C₁₃	{H₃}0.2;{H₄}0.8	{H₃}0.5;{H₄}0.5	{H₄}1.0	{H₃}0.3;{H₄}0.7	{H₄}0.5;{H₅}0.5
C₁₄	{H₃}0.5;{H₄}0.5	{H₃}1.0	{H₃}0.3;{H₄}0.7	{H₃}0.4;{H₄}0.6	{H₃}0.6;{H₄}0.4
C₁₅	{H₄}0.8;{H₅}0.2	{H₄}0.4;{H₅}0.6	{H₄}0.7;{H₅}0.3	{H₄}1.0	{H₄}0.5;{H₅}0.5
C₂₁	{H₃}0.7;{H₄}0.3	{H₄}1.0	{H₃}0.5;{H₄}0.5	{H₃}0.8;{H₄}0.2	{H₃}0.6;{H₄}0.4
C₂₂	{H₂}0.6;{H₃}0.4	{H₂}0.3;{H₃}0.7	{H₃}1.0	{H₃}0.8;{H₄}0.2	{H₂}0.2;{H₃}0.8
C₂₃	{H₂},1.0	{H₂}0.8;{H₃}0.2	{H₂}0.5;{H₃}0.5	{H₂}0.6;{H₃}0.4	{H₂}0.6;{H₃}0.4
C₂₄	{H₃}0.3;{H₄}0.7	{H₃}0.5;{H₄}0.5	{H₃}0.6;{H₄}0.4	{H₃}0.2;{H₄}0.8	{H₄}1.0
C₂₅	{H₂}0.5;{H₃}0.5	{H₂}0.6;{H₃}0.4	{H₂}0.4;{H₃}0.6	{H₃}1.0	{H₂}0.3;{H₃}0.7
C₃₁	{H₃}0.2;{H₄}0.8	{H₃}0.4;{H₄}0.6	{H₃}0.6;{H₄}0.4	{H₃}0.5;{H₄}0.5	{H₄}1.0
C₃₂	{H₃}0.5;{H₄}0.5	{H₃}0.8;{H₄}0.2	{H₃}1.0	{H₂}0.1;{H₃}0.9	{H₃}0.6;{H₄}0.4
C₃₃	{H₄}0.7;{H₅}0.3	{H₄}1.0	{H₄}0.6;{H₅}0.4	{H₄}0.8;{H₅}0.2	{H₄}0.5;{H₅}0.5
C₃₄	{H₄}0.6;{H₅}0.4	{H₄}0.5;{H₅}0.5	{H₅}1.0	{H₄}0.2;{H₅}0.8	{H₄}0.3;{H₅}0.7
C₄₁	{H₂}0.5;{H₃}0.5	{H₂}0.4;{H₃}0.6	{H₃}1.0	{H₂}0.7;{H₃}0.3	{H₂}0.6;{H₃}0.4
C₄₂	{H₁}0.2;{H₂}0.8	{H₂}1.0	{H₁}0.5;{H₂}0.5	{H₁}0.4;{H₂}0.6	{H₁}0.3;{H₂}0.7
C₄₃	{H₂}0.6;{H₃}0.4	{H₂}1.0	{H₂}0.5;{H₃}0.5	{H₂}0.7;{H₃}0.3	{H₂}0.4;{H₃}0.6
C₄₄	{H₁}1.0	{H₁}0.7;{H₂}0.3	{H₁}0.8;{H₂}0.2	{H₁}0.5;{H₂}0.5	{H₁}0.4;{H₂}0.6
C₄₅	{H₂}0.3;{H₃}0.7	{H₂}0.5;{H₃}0.5	{H₃}1.0	{H₃}0.8;{H₄}0.2	{H₂}0.2;{H₃}0.8
属性	专家6	专家7	专家8	专家9	专家10
C₁₁	{H₂}0.3;{H₃}0.7	{H₃}0.7;{H₄}0.3	{H₃}0.5;{H₄}0.5	{H₃}0.7;{H₄}0.3	{H₃}0.8;{H₄}0.2
C₁₂	{H₄}0.3;{H₅}0.7	{H₄}0.2;{H₅}0.8	{H₄}0.4;{H₅}0.6	{H₄}0.5;{H₅}0.5	{H₄}0.7;{H₅}0.3
C₁₃	{H₄}0.7;{H₅}0.3	{H₃}0.4;{H₄}0.6	{H₃}0.6;{H₄}0.4	{H₄}0.8;{H₅}0.2	{H₄}0.8;{H₅}0.2
C₁₄	{H₃}0.7;{H₄}0.3	{H₃}0.4;{H₄}0.6	{H₃}0.6;{H₄}0.4	{H₃}0.4;{H₄}0.6	{H₃}0.8;{H₄}0.2
C₁₅	{H₄}0.6;{H₅}0.4	{H₄}0.8;{H₅}0.2	{H₄}0.8;{H₅}0.2	{H₄}0.7;{H₅}0.3	{H₄}0.5;{H₅}0.5
C₂₁	{H₃}0.7;{H₄}0.3	{H₃}0.6;{H₄}0.4	{H₃}0.4;{H₄}0.6	{H₃}0.3;{H₄}0.7	{H₃}0.5;{H₄}0.5
C₂₂	{H₂}0.3;{H₃}0.7	{H₂}0.2;{H₃}0.8	{H₂}0.4;{H₃}0.6	{H₃}0.8;{H₄}0.2	{H₂}0.3;{H₃}0.7
C₂₃	{H₂}0.7;{H₃}0.3	{H₂}0.8;{H₃}0.2	{H₂}0.7;{H₃}0.3	{H₂}0.5;{H₃}0.5	{H₂}0.8;{H₃}0.2
C₂₄	{H₃}0.2;{H₄}0.8	{H₃}0.5;{H₄}0.5	{H₃}0.4;{H₄}0.6	{H₃}0.2;{H₄}0.8	{H₃}0.3;{H₄}0.7
C₂₅	{H₂}0.7;{H₃}0.3	{H₂}0.4;{H₃}0.6	{H₂}0.4;{H₃}0.6	{H₂}0.1;{H₃}0.9	{H₂}0.2;{H₃}0.8
C₃₁	{H₃}0.3;{H₄}0.7	{H₃}0.2;{H₄}0.8	{H₃}0.5;{H₄}0.5	{H₃}0.3;{H₄}0.7	{H₃}0.4;{H₄}0.6
C₃₂	{H₂}0.2;{H₃}0.8	{H₃}0.7;{H₄}0.3	{H₂}0.5;{H₃}0.5	{H₂}0.6;{H₃}0.4	{H₂}0.3;{H₃}0.7
C₃₃	{H₄}0.6;{H₅}0.4	{H₄}0.7;{H₅}0.3	{H₄}0.8;{H₅}0.2	{H₄}0.7;{H₅}0.3	{H₄}0.6;{H₅}0.4
C₃₄	{H₄}0.2;{H₅}0.8	{H₄}0.1;{H₅}0.9	{H₄}0.4;{H₅}0.6	{H₄}0.5;{H₅}0.5	{H₄}0.4;{H₅}0.6
C₄₁	{H₂}0.3;{H₃}0.7	{H₂}0.4;{H₃}0.6	{H₂}0.6;{H₃}0.4	{H₂}0.3;{H₃}0.7	{H₂}0.6;{H₃}0.4
C₄₂	{H₁}0.4;{H₂}0.6	{H₁}0.2;{H₂}0.8	{H₁}0.5;{H₂}0.5	{H₁}0.1{H₂}0.9	{H₁}0.3;{H₂}0.7
C₄₃	{H₂}0.8;{H₃}0.2	{H₂}0.5;{H₃}0.5	{H₂}0.8;{H₃}0.2	{H₂}0.6;{H₃}0.4	{H₂}0.6;{H₃}0.4
C₄₄	{H₁}0.6;{H₂}0.4	{H₁}0.6;{H₂}0.4	{H₁}0.7;{H₂}0.3	{H₁}0.8;{H₂}0.2	{H₁}0.6;{H₂}0.4
C₄₅	{H₂}0.2;{H₃}0.8	{H₂}0.5;{H₃}0.5	{H₂}0.3;{H₃}0.7	{H₃}0.8;{H₄}0.2	{H₂}0.2;{H₃}0.8

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Similarity of historical safety input ratio scheme to the alternative

指标	T₁	T₂	T₃	T₄	T₅	T₆	T₇	T₈	T₉	T₁₀	T₁₁	T₁₂
$A 01$	0.488 7	0.504 4	0.168 3	0.549 8	0.694 1	0.904 2	0.733 6	0.603 4	0.316 9	0.147 7	0.688 1	0.384 7
$A 02$	0.363 5	0.687 2	0.873 7	0.150 0	0.340 1	0.304 4	0.544 8	0.571 5	0.621 4	0.115 4	0.468 0	0.611 3
$A 03$	0.361 0	0.635 2	0.585 6	0.264 1	0.449 5	0.261 9	0.445 5	0.585 4	0.756 3	0.217 3	0.344 0	0.679 7
$A 04$	0.405 3	0.625 2	0.208 6	0.416 3	0.682 1	0.540 3	0.682 2	0.774 7	0.394 8	0.055 6	0.443 6	0.483 0

Table 6

Table 7

Security output results perceived utility

指标	T₁	T₂	T₃	T₄	T₅	T₆	T₇	T₈	T₉	T₁₁	T₁₂
$U r 1$	0.222 1	0.416 6	—	0.065 3	0.246 2	0.763 6	-0.096 6	0.149 6	—	0.345 2	—
$U r 2$	—	0.573 3	0.281 5	—	—	—	-0.065 1	0.1477	-0.461 8	—	0.051 7
$U r 3$	—	0.530 0	0.188 7	—	—	—	—	0.151 3	-0.562 0	—	0.057 5
$U r 4$	—	0.516 4	—	—	0.242 0	0.456 3	-0.089 8	0.192 1	—	—	0.035 4

Table 7

References 19

[1]	国家统计居. 中华人民共和国2023年国民经济和社会发展统计公报[EB/OL].(2024-02-29). https://www.stats.gov.cn/sj/zxfb/202402/t20240228_1947915.html.
[2]	许梦国, 闫曳綪, 王平, 等. 基于AHP-C的矿山企业安全投入评价研究[J]. 武汉科技大学学报, 2021, 44(4):312-320.
	XU Mengguo, YAN Yeqian, WANG Ping, et al. Safety investment evaluation of mining enterprises based on AHP-C[J]. Journal of Wuhan University of Science and Technology, 2021, 44(4):312-320.
[3]	赵宝福, 张超, 贾宝山, 等. pngNs-AHP在煤炭企业安全投入中的应用[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2016, 26(3):145-150.
	ZHAO Baofu, ZHANG Chao, JIA Baoshan, et al. Research on application of TIFNs-AHP to safety investment in coal enterprises[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2016, 26(3):145-150.
[4]	姜福川, 周师, 吴增彤, 等. 基于熵权-TOPSIS法的煤矿安全投入决策分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(7):24-29. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.07.004
	JIANG Fuchuan, ZHOU Shi, WU Zengtong, et al. Analysi of coal mine safety investment decision based on entropy weight-TOPSIS method[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(7):24-29. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.07.004
[5]	史恭龙, 张溢, 李红霞, 等. 基于突变级数法的煤炭企业安全投入评价[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2022, 22(4):2050-2056.
	SHI Gonglong, ZHANG Yi, LI Hongxia, et al. Study on safety investment evaluation of coal enterprises based on catastrophe progression method[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2022, 22(4):2050-2056.
[6]	BELL D E. Regret in decision making under uncertainty[J]. Operations Research, 1982, 30(5):961-981.
[7]	LOOMES G, SUGDEN R. Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty[J]. Economic Journal, 1982, 92(368):805-824.
[8]	GILBOA I. Case-based decision theory[D]. Evanston: Northwestern University,1992.
[9]	彭新育, 霍孜睿, 胡世业. 基于CBDT的风险投资决策方法研究[J]. 会计之友, 2020(10):37-42.
[10]	韩菁, 叶顺心, 柴建, 等. 基于后悔理论的混合型多属性案例决策方法[J]. 中国管理科学, 2016, 24(12):108-116.
	HAN Jing, YE Shunxin, CHAI Jian, et al. Case-based decision analysis method based on regret theory for hybrid multiple attributes decision making[J]. Chinese Management Science, 2016, 24(12):108-116.
[11]	王书明. 基于层次分析法和熵权法的煤矿安全投入综合评价模型及其应用[J]. 金陵科技学院学报, 2011, 27(4):8-16.
	WANG Shuming. The establishment and application of the comprehensive evaluation model for safet input of coal mines based on AHP and entropy weight[J]. Journal of Jinling University of Science and Technology, 2011, 27(4):8-16.
[12]	田涛. 我国煤矿安全投入机制研究及效率评价分析[D]. 北京: 中国矿业大学(北京), 2013.
	TIAN Tao. Study on safety input mechanism and analysis on efficiency evaluation of coal mine in China[D]. Beijing: China University of Mining and Technology(Beijing), 2013.
[13]	王海涛. 煤矿安全投入影响因素系统分析及其效率评价研究[D]. 北京: 中国矿业大学(北京), 2020.
	WANG Haitao. Influencing factors'systematic analysis and efficiency evaluation study on safety input of coal mine[D]. Beijing: China University of Mining and Technology(Beijing), 2020.
[14]	DEMPSTER A P. Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multi:valued mapping[J]. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1967,38:325-339.
[15]	SHAFER G A. Mathematical theory of evidence[M]. Princeton: Princeton University Press,1976:19-63.
[16]	李金蓉, 杨玉中. DS理论-贝叶斯网络下的煤矿通风系统风险评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(8):146-153. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.08.1633
	LI Jinrong, YANG Yuzhong. Risk assessment of ventilation system in coalil mine based on DS theory and Bayesian network[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(8):146-153. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.08.1633
[17]	张军, 涂国平. 加权平均法解决证据理论中的失效问题[J]. 微计算机信息, 2007, 23(33):202-203,225.
	ZHANG Jun, TU Guoping. Weighted average approach to conflict eviden in D-S evidence theory[J]. Microcomputer Information, 2007, 23(33):202-203,225.
[18]	范成伟, 明杏芬, 付小红, 等. 基于博弈论-后悔理论的装配式建筑施工安全风险评估模型研究[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2022, 22(3):1132-1139.
	FAN Chengwei, MING Xingfen, FU Xiaohong, et al. Research on safety risk assessment prefabricated building based on game theory-regret theory[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2022, 22(3):1132-1139.
[19]	周师. 基于安全效益分析的煤矿安全投入决策研究[D]. 葫芦岛: 辽宁工程技术大学, 2022.
	ZHOU Shi. Research on coal mine safety input decision based on safety benefit analysis[D]. Huludao: Liaoning Technical University, 2022.

指标	融合评价	评估结果	权重
B₁	{H₃}0.640 3;{H₄}0.359 6;{H₅}0.000 1	0.428 0	0.213 1
B₂	{H₂}0.052 0;{H₃}0.943 5;{H₄}0.004 5	0.509 5	0.253 7
B₃	{H₃}0.374 2;{H₄}0.625 1;{H₅}0.000 7	0.374 7	0.186 5
B₄	{H₁}0.051 6;{H₂}0.878 6;{H₃}0.069 8	0.696 4	0.346 7