Assessing the Usefulness of Information in the Context of Coalition Operations

  • Claire Saurel
  • Olivier Poitou
  • Laurence CholvyEmail author
Part of the Information Fusion and Data Science book series (IFDS)


This chapter presents the results of a study aiming at restricting the flow of information exchanged between various agents in a coalition. More precisely, when an agent expresses a need of information, we suggest sending only the information that is the most useful for this particular agent to act. This requires the characterization of “the most useful information.” The model described in this chapter defines a degree of usefulness of a piece of information as an aggregation of several usefulness degrees, each of them representing a particular point of view of what useful information might be. Specifically, the degree of usefulness of a piece of information is a multifaceted notion which takes into account the fact that it represents potential interest for the user with respect to his request, has the required security clearance level, can be accessed in time and understood by the user, and can be trusted by the user at a given level.


Useful information Usefulness degree Coalition 



This study was granted by DGA (Direction Générale de l’Armement) in the context of a Specific Agreement between France and Canada (AS 32).


  1. 1.
    G. Salton, Automatic Information Organization and Retrieval (McGraw-Hill, New York, USA, 1968)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J.M. Ponte, W.B. Croft, in A Language Modeling Approach to Information Retrieval, Research and Development in Information Retrieval. Proc. ACM-SIGIR (Melbourne, Australia, 1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. Salton, M. J. McGill, Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval (McGraw-Hill, New York, USA, 1986)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Salton, A. Wong, C. Yang, A vector space model for automatic indexing. Commun. ACM 18, 613–620 (November 1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Grabisch, P. Perny, Agrégation multi-critères, in Logique floue, Principes, Aide à la Décision, e, ed. by B. Bouchon-Meunier, C. Marsala (Eds), (Hermès, Paris, France, 2003), pp. 82–120Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Dubois, H. Prade, Weighted minimum and maximum operations in fuzzy set theory. Inf. Sci. 39, 205 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. Choquet, Theory of Capacities, in Annales de l'Institut Fourier tome 5, (Imprimerie Durand, Luisant, France, 1953), pp. 131–295Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R.R. Yager, Prioritized aggregation operators. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 48, 263–274 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. da Costa Pereira, M. Dragoni, G. Pasi, in A prioritized “and” Aggregation operator for multidimensional Relevance Assessment. R. Serra and R. Cucchiara (Eds): AI*IA 2009, LNAI 5883, pp 72–81, 2009, eds. by R. Serra, R. Cucchiara. AI*IA 2009: Emergent Perspectives in Artificial Intelligence. AI*IA 2009., 2009Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Top Aces Consulting (Quebec) and Cirrus Research Associates (Ontario) for DRDCV, Recognized air picture (RAP) and vignette development CSAR scenario, October (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    NATO, STANAG 2511 Intelligence Reports, NATO Unclassified (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    L. Cholvy, V. Nimier, in Information Evaluation in Fusion, Symposium RTO/IST «Military Data and Information Fusion», Prague (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    E. Blasch and al, URREF reliability versus credibility in information fusion (STANAG 2511), in Proc. of the 16th International Conference on Information Fusion, (FUSION 2013), Istanbul (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claire Saurel
    • 1
  • Olivier Poitou
    • 1
  • Laurence Cholvy
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.ONERAToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations