Combining expert judgment: On the performance of trimmed mean vote aggregation procedures in the presence of strategic voting |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of Isfahan, Hezarjarib Avenue, P.O. Box 81746-73441, Isfahan, Iran;2. Department of Nuclear Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran;1. Department of Nonlinear Modeling, Institute of Computer Science, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Pod Vodarenskou vezi 2, 182 07 Prague 8, Czech Republic;2. Physics Department, West University of Timisoara, V. Parvan 4, 300223 Timisoara, Romania;3. Candida Oancea Institute, Polytechnic University of Bucharest, Spl. Independentei 313, 060042 Bucharest, Romania;4. Romanian Academy, Calea Victoriei 125, Bucharest, Romania;1. Department of Cardiology, Ehime Prefectural Imabari Hospital, Imabari, Japan;2. Department of Cardiology, Pulmonology, Hypertension and Nephrology, Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Toon, Japan |
| |
| Abstract: | Analytic group decision techniques for selecting a subset of alternatives range between multicriteria decision analysis techniques such as multiattribute utility theory and the analytic hierarchy process to voting techniques where each member of the decision group submits a ranking of the alternatives, and these individual rankings are then aggregated into an overall ranking. The obvious advantage of voting is that it bypasses the rather intensive data generation requirements of multicriteria techniques. In this paper we compare the performance of trimmed mean rank-order aggregation procedures in the case where a subset of the individuals in the group charged with the decision vote strategically. We employ a Monte Carlo simulation experiment on a specific decision instance and find that trimmed mean aggregation compares favorably with other procedures. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
