Selection of a representative value function in robust multiple criteria ranking and choice

We introduce the concept of a representative value function in robust ordinal regression applied to multiple criteria ranking and choice problems. The proposed method can be seen as a new interactive UTA-like procedure, which extends the UTA^GMS and GRIP methods. The preference information supplied by the decision maker (DM) is composed of a partial preorder and intensities of preference on a subset of reference alternatives. Robust ordinal regression builds a set of general additive value functions which are compatible with the preference information, and returns two binary preference relations: necessary and possible. They identify recommendations which are compatible with all or at least one compatible value function, respectively. In this paper, we propose a general framework for selection of a representative value function from among the set of compatibles ones. There are a few targets which build on results of robust ordinal regression, and could be attained by a representative value function. In general, according to the interactively elicited preferences of the DM, the representative value function may emphasize the advantage of some alternatives over the others when all compatible value functions acknowledge this advantage, or reduce the ambiguity in the advantage of some alternatives over the others when some compatible value functions acknowledge an advantage and other ones acknowledge a disadvantage. The basic procedure is refined by few extensions. They enable emphasizing the advantage of alternatives that could be considered as potential best options, accounting for intensities of preference, or obtaining a desired type of the marginal value functions.     

Robust ordinal regression for value functions handling interacting criteria

We present a new method called UTA^GMS–INT for ranking a finite set of alternatives evaluated on multiple criteria. It belongs to the family of Robust Ordinal Regression (ROR) methods which build a set of preference models compatible with preference information elicited by the Decision Maker (DM). The preference model used by UTA^GMS–INT is a general additive value function augmented by two types of components corresponding to “bonus” or “penalty” values for positively or negatively interacting pairs of criteria, respectively. When calculating value of a particular alternative, a bonus is added to the additive component of the value function if a given pair of criteria is in a positive synergy for performances of this alternative on the two criteria. Similarly, a penalty is subtracted from the additive component of the value function if a given pair of criteria is in a negative synergy for performances of the considered alternative on the two criteria. The preference information elicited by the DM is composed of pairwise comparisons of some reference alternatives, as well as of comparisons of some pairs of reference alternatives with respect to intensity of preference, either comprehensively or on a particular criterion. In UTA^GMS–INT, ROR starts with identification of pairs of interacting criteria for given preference information by solving a mixed-integer linear program. Once the interacting pairs are validated by the DM, ROR continues calculations with the whole set of compatible value functions handling the interacting criteria, to get necessary and possible preference relations in the considered set of alternatives. A single representative value function can be calculated to attribute specific scores to alternatives. It also gives values to bonuses and penalties. UTA^GMS–INT handles quite general interactions among criteria and provides an interesting alternative to the Choquet integral.     

Building a set of additive value functions representing a reference preorder and intensities of preference: GRIP method

We present a method called Generalized Regression with Intensities of Preference (GRIP) for ranking a finite set of actions evaluated on multiple criteria. GRIP builds a set of additive value functions compatible with preference information composed of a partial preorder and required intensities of preference on a subset of actions, called reference actions. It constructs not only the preference relation in the considered set of actions, but it also gives information about intensities of preference for pairs of actions from this set for a given decision maker (DM). Distinguishing necessary and possible consequences of preference information on the considered set of actions, GRIP answers questions of robustness analysis. The proposed methodology can be seen as an extension of the UTA method based on ordinal regression. GRIP can also be compared to the AHP method, which requires pairwise comparison of all actions and criteria, and yields a priority ranking of actions. As for the preference information being used, GRIP can be compared, moreover, to the MACBETH method which also takes into account a preference order of actions and intensity of preference for pairs of actions. The preference information used in GRIP does not need, however, to be complete: the DM is asked to provide comparisons of only those pairs of reference actions on particular criteria for which his/her judgment is sufficiently certain. This is an important advantage comparing to methods which, instead, require comparison of all possible pairs of actions on all the considered criteria. Moreover, GRIP works with a set of general additive value functions compatible with the preference information, while other methods use a single and less general value function, such as the weighted-sum.     

Ordinal regression revisited: Multiple criteria ranking using a set of additive value functions

We present a new method, called UTA^GMS, for multiple criteria ranking of alternatives from set A using a set of additive value functions which result from an ordinal regression. The preference information provided by the decision maker is a set of pairwise comparisons on a subset of alternatives A^R ⊆ A, called reference alternatives. The preference model built via ordinal regression is the set of all additive value functions compatible with the preference information. Using this model, one can define two relations in the set A: the necessary weak preference relation which holds for any two alternatives a, b from set A if and only if for all compatible value functions a is preferred to b, and the possible weak preference relation which holds for this pair if and only if for at least one compatible value function a is preferred to b. These relations establish a necessary and a possible ranking of alternatives from A, being, respectively, a partial preorder and a strongly complete relation. The UTA^GMS method is intended to be used interactively, with an increasing subset A^R and a progressive statement of pairwise comparisons. When no preference information is provided, the necessary weak preference relation is a weak dominance relation, and the possible weak preference relation is a complete relation. Every new pairwise comparison of reference alternatives, for which the dominance relation does not hold, is enriching the necessary relation and it is impoverishing the possible relation, so that they converge with the growth of the preference information. Distinguishing necessary and possible consequences of preference information on the complete set of actions, UTA^GMS answers questions of robustness analysis. Moreover, the method can support the decision maker when his/her preference statements cannot be represented in terms of an additive value function. The method is illustrated by an example solved using the UTA^GMS software. Some extensions of the method are also presented.     

Multiple criteria sorting with a set of additive value functions

We present a new multiple criteria sorting method that aims at assigning actions evaluated on multiple criteria to p pre-defined and ordered classes. The preference information supplied by the decision maker (DM) is a set of assignment examples on a subset of actions relatively well known to the DM. These actions are called reference actions. Each assignment example specifies a desired assignment of a corresponding reference action to one or several contiguous classes. The set of assignment examples is used to build a preference model of the DM represented by a set of general additive value functions compatible with the assignment examples. For each action a, the method computes two kinds of assignments to classes, concordant with the DM’s preference model: the necessary assignment and the possible assignment. The necessary assignment specifies the range of classes to which the action can be assigned considering all compatible value functions simultaneously. The possible assignment specifies, in turn, the range of classes to which the action can be assigned considering any compatible value function individually. The compatible value functions and the necessary and possible assignments are computed through the resolution of linear programs.     

Comparing influence theories in voting games under locally generated measures of dissatisfaction

The Isbell desirability relation (I), the Shapley?CShubik index (SS) and the Banzhaf?CColeman index (BC) are power theories that grasp the notion of individual influence in a yes?Cno voting rule. Also, a yes?Cno voting rule is often used as a tool for aggregating individual preferences over any given finite set of alternatives into a collective preference. In this second context, Diffo Lambo and Moulen (DM) have introduced a power relation which ranks the voters with respect to how ably they influence the collective preference. However, DM relies on the metric d that measures closeness between preference relations. Our concern in this work is: do I, SS, BC and DM agree when the same yes?Cno voting rule is the basis for collective decision making? We provide a concrete and intuitive class of metrics called locally generated (LG). We give a characterization of the LG metrics d for which I, SS, BC and DM agree on ranking the voters.     

DIS-CARD: a new method of multiple criteria sorting to classes with desired cardinality

In this paper, we present a new preference disaggregation method for multiple criteria sorting problems, called DIS-CARD. Real-life experience indicates the need of considering decision making situations in which a decision maker (DM) specifies a desired number of alternatives to be assigned to single classes or to unions of some classes. These situations require special methods for multiple criteria sorting subject to desired cardinalities of classes. DIS-CARD deals with such a problem, using the ordinal regression approach to construct a model of DM’s preferences from preference information provided in terms of exemplary assignments of some reference alternatives, together with the above desired cardinalities. We develop a mathematical model for incorporating such preference information via mixed integer linear programming (MILP). Then, we adapt the MILP model to two types of preference models: an additive value function and an outranking relation. Illustrative example is solved to illustrate the methodology.     

区间犹豫模糊ELECTRE多属性决策方法及应用

近年来,多属性决策问题一直是广大学者研究的重点,然而基于ELECTRE方法的区间犹豫模糊多属性决策问题的研究并不多见。因此,结合区间犹豫模糊集的信息表达优势和ELECTRE方法的思想,提出了一种区间犹豫模糊ELECTRE(IVHF ELECTRE)多属性决策新方法。首先构造了区间犹豫模糊决策矩阵,引入得分函数和可能度的概念,构造属性优势集和属性劣势集。然后通过设定阈值得到综合优先判定矩阵,从而得到各方案间的优先顺序。为了进一步得到各方案的整体排序,引入TOPSIS方法,通过计算各方案与正负理想点的相对距离来构造综合优先矩阵,从而得到各方案的总体排序。最后通过具体实例验证了该方法的可行性和合理性。     

ELECTRE: Robust ordinal regression for outranking methods

We present a new method, called ELECTRE^GKMS, which employs robust ordinal regression to construct a set of outranking models compatible with preference information. The preference information supplied by the decision maker (DM) is composed of pairwise comparisons stating the truth or falsity of the outranking relation for some real or fictitious reference alternatives. Moreover, the DM specifies some ranges of variation of comparison thresholds on considered pseudo-criteria. Using robust ordinal regression, the method builds a set of values of concordance indices, concordance thresholds, indifference, preference, and veto thresholds, for which all specified pairwise comparisons can be restored. Such sets are called compatible outranking models. Using these models, two outranking relations are defined, necessary and possible. Whether for an ordered pair of alternatives there is necessary or possible outranking depends on the truth of outranking relation for all or at least one compatible model, respectively. Distinguishing the most certain recommendation worked out by the necessary outranking, and a possible recommendation worked out by the possible outranking, ELECTRE^GKMS answers questions of robustness concern. The method is intended to be used interactively with incremental specification of pairwise comparisons, possibly with decreasing confidence levels. In this way, the necessary and possible outranking relations can be, respectively, enriched or impoverished with the growth of the number of pairwise comparisons. Furthermore, the method is able to identify troublesome pieces of preference information which are responsible for incompatibility. The necessary and possible outranking relations are to be exploited as usual outranking relations to work out recommendation in choice or ranking problems. The introduced approach is illustrated by a didactic example showing how ELECTRE^GKMS can support real-world decision problems.     

Performance evaluation: An integrated method using data envelopment analysis and fuzzy preference relations

In a multi-attribute decision-making (MADM) context, the decision maker needs to provide his preferences over a set of decision alternatives and constructs a preference relation and then use the derived priority vector of the preference to rank various alternatives. This paper proposes an integrated approach to rate decision alternatives using data envelopment analysis and preference relations. This proposed approach includes three stages. First, pairwise efficiency scores are computed using two DEA models: the CCR model and the proposed cross-evaluation DEA model. Second, the pairwise efficiency scores are then utilized to construct the fuzzy preference relation and the consistent fuzzy preference relation. Third, by use of the row wise summation technique, we yield a priority vector, which is used for ranking decision-making units (DMUs). For the case of a single output and a single input, the preference relation can be directly obtained from the original sample data. The proposed approach is validated by two numerical examples.     

Interactive outranking approaches for multicriteria decision-making problems with imprecise information

PROMETHEE is a powerful method, which can solve many multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) problems. It involves sophisticated preference modelling techniques but requires too much a priori precise information about parameter values (such as criterion weights and thresholds). In this paper, we consider a MCDM problem where alternatives are evaluated on several conflicting criteria, and the criterion weights and/or thresholds are imprecise or unknown to the decision maker (DM). We build robust outranking relations among the alternatives in order to help the DM to rank the alternatives and select the best alternative. We propose interactive approaches based on PROMETHEE method. We develop a decision aid tool called INTOUR, which implements the developed approaches.     

Distributed preference relations for multiple attribute decision analysis

In this paper, we propose a new pairwise comparison approach called distributed preference relation (DPR) to simultaneously signify preferred, non-preferred, indifferent, and uncertain degrees of one alternative over another on a set of grades, which is more versatile for elicitation of preference information from a decision maker than multiplicative preference relation, fuzzy preference relation (FPR) and intuitionistic FPR. In a DPR matrix on a set of alternatives, each element is a distribution recording the preferred, non-preferred, indifferent, and uncertain degrees of one alternative over another using a set of grades. To facilitate the comparison of alternatives, we define a score matrix based on a DPR matrix using the given score values of the grades. Its additive consistency is constructed, analysed, and compared with the additive consistency of FPRs between alternatives. A method for comparing two interval numbers is then employed to create a possibility matrix from the score matrix, which can generate a ranking order of alternatives with possibility degrees. A problem of evaluating strategic emerging industries is investigated using the approach to demonstrate the application of a DPR matrix to modelling and analysing a multiple attribute decision analysis problem.     

Decision-aid for discrete multiple criteria decision making problems with imprecise data

We describe ways of aiding decision making with a discrete set of alternatives. In many decision situations, it is not possible to obtain explicit preference information from the decision makers. Instead, useful decision-aid can be provided to the decision makers by describing what kind of weighting of the criteria result in certain choices of the alternatives. The suggested treatment is based on the basic ideas of the ELECTRE III method. The modelling of the preferences by pseudo-criteria is especially helpful in case the data, that is, the criterion values are imprecise. Unlike ELECTRE III, no ranking of the alternatives is produced. Based on a minimum-procedure in the exploitation of the outranking relations, we provide information about the weights of the criteria that make a certain alternative the best. We also present an interactive searching procedure in the weighting space. The auxiliary optimization problems to be solved are nondifferentiable. Cases with both single and multiple decision makers are considered.     

An Interactive Multiple Criteria Approach to Ranking Alternatives

In this paper we are concerned with ranking various orderings of a set of alternatives to a composite order as a multiple criteria problem. The orderings (called preference orderings) can be real preference orderings or any natural orderings. The objective is to find the most preferred order of the decision maker using the preference orderings as criteria.In principle, the problem can be formulated as a multiple objective linear programming problem using the model of Bowman and Colantoni and then solved with the interactive method proposed by Zionts and Wallenius. However, the fact that we are dealing with integer variables prohibits us from applying this approach as such. We discuss the problem formulation and propose a modified approach to that of Zionts and Wallenius for solving the problem.     

An integrated model-based interactive approach to FMAGDM with incomplete preference information

Incomplete fuzzy preference relations, incomplete multiplicative preference relations, and incomplete linguistic preference relations are very useful to express decision makers’ incomplete preferences over attributes or alternatives in the process of decision making under fuzzy environments. The aim of this paper is to investigate fuzzy multiple attribute group decision making problems where the attribute values are represented in intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and the information on attribute weights is provided by decision makers by means of one or some of the different preference structures, including weak ranking, strict ranking, difference ranking, multiple ranking, interval numbers, incomplete fuzzy preference relations, incomplete multiplicative preference relations, and incomplete linguistic preference relations. We transform all individual intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrices into the interval decision matrices and construct their expected decision matrices, and then aggregate all these expected decision matrices into a collective one. We establish an integrated model by unifying the collective decision matrix and all the given different structures of incomplete weight preference information, and develop an integrated model-based approach to interacting with the decision makers so as to adjust all the inconsistent incomplete fuzzy preference relations, inconsistent incomplete linguistic preference relations and inconsistent incomplete multiplicative preference relations into the ones with acceptable consistency. The developed approach can derive the attribute weights and the ranking of the alternatives directly from the integrated model, and thus it has the following prominent characteristics: (1) it does not need to construct the complete fuzzy preference relations, complete linguistic preference relations and complete multiplicative preference relations from the incomplete fuzzy preference relations, incomplete linguistic preference relations and incomplete multiplicative preference relations, respectively; (2) it does not need to unify the different structures of incomplete preferences, and thus can simplify the calculation and avoid distorting the given preference information; and (3) it can sufficiently reflect and adjust the subjective desirability of decision makers in the process of interaction. A practical example is also provided to illustrate the developed approach.     

A Decision Model for the Multiple Criteria Group Secretary Problem: Theoretical Considerations

A decision model is developed for solving the discrete multiple criteria group secretary problem. The model extends the single decision-maker progressive algorithm by Korhonen, Moskowitz and Wallenius to group contexts. As the original progressive algorithm, it relaxes the usual assumption of a fixed set of available decision alternatives and complete knowledge of a decision-maker's preference structure (value function). The decision-makers are requested to settle on a compromise, if possible. The model then proceeds with determining the likelihood of finding possibly/surely better settlements (compromises). Linear value functions, linear prospect theory-type value functions, and quasiconcave value functions are considered.     

On Method for Uncertain Multiple Attribute Decision Making Problems with Uncertain Multiplicative Preference Information on Alternatives

The uncertain multiple attribute decision making (UMADM) problems are investigated, in which the information about attribute weights is known partly and the attribute values take the form of interval numbers, and the decision maker (DM) has uncertain multiplicative preference information on alternatives. We make the decision information uniform by using a transformation formula, and then establish an objective-programming model. The attribute weights can be determined by solving the developed model. The concept of interval positive ideal point of alternatives (IPIPA) is introduced, and an approach based on IPIPA and projection to ranking alternatives is proposed. The method can avoid comparing and ranking interval numbers, and can reflect both the objective information and the DMs subjective preferences.     

A Graded Quadrivalent Logic for Ordinal Preference Modelling: Loyola–Like Approach

We extend a quadrivalent logic of Belnap to graded truth values in order to handle graded relevance of positive and negative arguments provided in preferential information concerning ranking of a finite set of alternatives. This logic is used to design the preference modelling and exploitation phases of decision aiding with respect to the ranking problem. The graded arguments are presented on an ordinal scale and their aggregation leads to preference model in form of four graded outranking relations (true, false, unknown and contradictory). The exploitation procedure combines the min-scoring procedure with the leximin rule. Aggregation of positive and negative arguments as well as exploitation of the resulting outranking relations is concordant with an advice given by St. Ignatius of Loyola (1548) how to make a good choice.     

An improved method for ranking alternatives in multiple criteria decision analysis

Scoring rules are an important disputable subject in data envelopment analysis (DEA). Various organizations use voting systems whose main object is to rank alternatives. In these methods, the ranks of alternatives are obtained by their associated weights. The method for determining the ranks of alternatives by their weights is an important issue. This problem has been the subject at hand of some authors. We suggest a three-stage method for the ranking of alternatives. In the first stage, the rank position of each alternative is computed based on the best and worst weights in the optimistic and pessimistic cases, respectively. The vector of weights obtained in the first stage is not a singleton. Hence, to deal with this problem, a secondary goal is used in the second stage. In the third stage of our method, the ranks of the alternatives approach the optimistic or pessimistic case. It is mentionable that the model proposed in the third stage is a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) model and there are several methods for solving it; we use the weighted sum method in this paper. The model is solved by mixed integer programming. Also, we obtain an interval for the rank of each alternative. We present two models on the basis of the average of ranks in the optimistic and pessimistic cases. The aim of these models is to compute the rank by common weights.     

Ranking multicriteria alternatives: The method ZAPROS III

The new version of the method for the construction of partial order on the set of multicriteria alternatives is presented. This method belongs to the family of verbal decision analysis (VDA) methods and gives a more efficient means of problem solution. The method is based on psychologically valid operations for information elicitation from a decision maker: comparisons of two distances between the evaluations on the ordinal scales of two criteria. The information received from a decision maker is used for the construction of a binary relation between a pair of alternatives which yields preference, indifference and incomparability relations. The method allows construction of a partial order on the set of given alternatives as well as on the set of all possible alternatives. The illustrative example is given.