A new decision support model in multi-criteria decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy sets based on risk preferences and criteria reduction

In this paper, we propose a new model for decision support to address the ‘large decision table’ (eg, many criteria) challenge in intuitionistic fuzzy sets (IFSs) multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problems. This new model involves risk preferences of decision makers (DMs) based on the prospect theory and criteria reduction. First, we build three relationship models based on different types of DMs’ risk preferences. By building different discernibility matrices according to relationship models, we find useful criteria for IFS MCDM problems. Second, we propose a technique to obtain weights through discernibility matrix. Third, we also propose a new method to rank and select the most desirable choice(s) according to weighted combinatorial advantage values of alternatives. Finally, we use a realistic voting example to demonstrate the practicality and effectiveness of the proposed method and construct a new decision support model for IFS MCDM problems.     

Modeling subjective evaluation for fuzzy group multicriteria decision making

This paper presents a new fuzzy multicriteria decision making (MCDM) approach for evaluating decision alternatives involving subjective judgements made by a group of decision makers. A pairwise comparison process is used to help individual decision makers make comparative judgements, and a linguistic rating method is used for making absolute judgements. A hierarchical weighting method is developed to assess the weights of a large number of evaluation criteria by pairwise comparisons. To reflect the inherent imprecision of subjective judgements, individual assessments are aggregated as a group assessment using triangular fuzzy numbers. To obtain a cardinal preference value for each decision alternative, a new fuzzy MCDM algorithm is developed by extending the concept of the degree of optimality to incorporate criteria weights in the distance measurement. An empirical study of aircraft selection is presented to illustrate the effectiveness of the approach.     

Self-consistency of decision rules for group decision making

The author treats, in this paper, a group of decision makers, where each of them already has preference on a given set of alternatives but the group as a whole does not have a decision rule to make their group decision, yet. Then, the author examines which decision rules are appropriate. As a criterion of “appropriateness” the author proposes the concepts of self-consistency and universal self-consistency of decision rules. Examining the existence of universally self-consistent decision rules in two cases: (1) decision situations with three decision makers and two alternatives, and (2) those with three decision makers and three alternatives, the author has found that all decision rules are universally self-consistent in the case (1), whereas all universally self-consistent decision rules have one and just one vetoer in the essential cases in (2). The result in the case (2) implies incompatibility of universal self-consistency with symmetry. An example of applications of the concept of self-consistency to a bankruptcy problem is also provided in this paper, where compatibility of self-consistency with symmetry in a particular decision situation is shown.     

Selecting preferred solutions in the minimax approach to dynamic programming problems under flexible constraints

Dynamic Programming is a powerful approach to the optimization of sequential or multistage decision processes, e.g., in planning or in system control. In this paper, we consider both theoretical and algorithmic issues in sequential decision processes under flexible constraints. Such processes must attain a given goal within some tolerance. Tolerances or preferences also apply to the values the decision variables may take or on the action chosen at each step. Such problems boil down to maximin optimization. Unfortunately, this approach suffers from the so-called “drowning effect” (lack of discrimination) and the optimality principle of dynamic programming is not always verified. In this context, we introduce a general framework for refined minimax optimization procedures in order to compare and select preferred alternatives. This framework encompasses already introduced methods such as LexiMin and DiscriMin, but it allows their extension to the comparison of vectors of unequal lengths. We show that these refined comparisons restore compatibility with the optimality principle, and that classical algorithms can be adapted to compute such preferred solutions, by exploiting existing results on idempotent semirings.     

Eliciting and mapping qualitative preferences to numeric rankings in group decision making

Group work is becoming the norm in organizations. From strategy planning committees to quality management teams, organizational members are collaborating on problem solving. One area of team support that is often desired is the scoring and ranking of decision alternatives on qualitative/subjective domains, and the aggregation of individual preferences into group preferences. In this paper we present a new conceptual approach to qualitative preference elicitation and aggregation. This approach is based on well established decision analysis techniques. It significantly advances the state of the art of group decision making by addressing four common limitations: (1) the inability to deal with vagueness of human decision makers in articulating preferences; (2) difficulties in mapping qualitative evaluation to numeric estimates; (3) problems in aggregating individual preferences into meaningful group preference; and (4) the lack of simple user friendly techniques for dealing with a large number of decision alternatives. Our approach is easy to implement in stand alone personal computers and groupware. We illustrate this with a real-world problem.     

Some issues in mathematical modelling of multiple criteria decision-making problems

Models for analyzing and solving multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) problems are difficult to evaluate and compare, because they are intended for diverse orderings of a set of feasible alternatives. These models are based on a variety of assumptions about the decision maker's preferences and use different types of preference information. In this paper, a conceptual framework is developed for evaluating and comparing discrete alternative MCDM models available for a given decision situation. The procedure employed in the framework guides the user through an analysis of the decision situation making it possible for a decision maker or analyst to select the most appropriate MCDM model from among several alternative feasible models.     

A fuzzy-stochastic OWA model for robust multi-criteria decision making

All realistic Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) problems face various kinds of uncertainty. Since the evaluations of alternatives with respect to the criteria are uncertain they will be assumed to have stochastic nature. To obtain the uncertain optimism degree of the decision maker fuzzy linguistic quantifiers will be used. Then a new approach for fuzzy-stochastic modeling of MCDM problems will be introduced by merging the stochastic and fuzzy approaches into the OWA operator. The results of the new approach, entitled FSOWA, give the expected value and the variance of the combined goodness measure for each alternative. Robust decision depends on the combined goodness measures of alternatives and also on the variations of these measures under uncertainty. In order to combine these two characteristics a composite goodness measure will be defined. The theoretical results will be illustrated in a watershed management problem. By using this measure will give more sensitive decisions to the stakeholders whose optimism degrees are different than that of the decision maker. FSOWA can be used for robust decision making on the competitive alternatives under uncertainty.     

An Experimental Evaluation of Interactive MCDM Methods and the Decision Making Process

Increasingly, it is becoming recognized that interactive solution methods should provide not only a solution to a multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) problem, but also the opportunity for decision makers to learn about their own preferences. In this paper, we describe an experiment that examines three MCDM solution methods and the process of converging on a final solution. Twenty-four management students participated in the experiment and were required to solve two completely different MCDM problems. Within this experimental framework, we examined the use of a two-stage approach to decision making. Both quantitative and qualitative results are presented. Preferences among the different solution methods vary significantly. Several conclusions are drawn concerning the desirable features of interactive MCDM solution methods.     

The aspiration level interactive method (AIM) reconsidered: Robustness of solutions

In this paper we explore theory and practice for the aspiration-level interactive model (AIM), a useful decision tool that takes advantage of the concepts of satisficing as well as other concepts of multiple criteria decision making (MCDM). We examine the relationship between aspiration levels and their mapped-to solutions in the MCDM context using AIM.We extend the concept of robustness in decision making, by defining a solution to be robust if many (suitably defined) aspiration levels map to it. We use simulation to help explore robustness, by generating three groups of random test problems. Each problem has twenty alternatives. For each group of problems, the top 5 (most-mapped-to) alternatives out of 20 are mapped to by at least 50% of the aspiration levels. We also relate the concept of robustness in decision making to the ideas of simply ranking alternatives using equal weights. There is a strong correlation between the robustness ranking and the equal-weights ranking. Based on our analyses, we then randomly generate additional problems to explore certain other factors. We also discuss practical aspects of robustness.     

Multiple criteria decision making combined with finance: A categorized bibliographic study

This paper provides a categorized bibliography on the application of the techniques of multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) to problems and issues in finance. A total of 265 references have been compiled and classified according to the methodological approaches of goal programming, multiple objective programming, the analytic hierarchy process, etc., and to the application areas of capital budgeting, working capital management, portfolio analysis, etc. The bibliography provides an overview of the literature on “MCDM combined with finance,” shows how contributions to the area have come from all over the world, facilitates access to the entirety of this heretofore fragmented literature, and underscores the often multiple criterion nature of many problems in finance.     

A multiple criteria ranking method based on game cross-evaluation approach

The application of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) as an alternative multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) tool has been gaining more attentions in the literatures. Doyle (Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 62(1):87?C100, 1995) presents a method of multi-attribute choice based on an application of DEA. In the first part of his method, the straightforward DEA is considered as an idealized process of self-evaluation in which each alternative weighs the attributes in order to maximize its own score (or desirability) relative to the other alternatives. Then, in the second step, each alternative applies its own DEA-derived best weights to each of the other alternatives (i.e., cross-evaluation), then the average of the cross-evaluations that get placed on an alternative is taken as an index of its overall score. In some cases of multiple criteria decision making, direct or indirect competitions exist among the alternatives, while the factor of competition is usually ignored in most of MCDM settings. This paper proposes an approach to evaluate and rank alternatives in MCDM via an extension of DEA method, namely DEA game cross-efficiency model in Liang, Wu, Cook and Zhu (Oper. Res. 56(5):1278?C1288, 2008b), in which each alternative is viewed as a player who seeks to maximize its own score (or desirability), under the condition that the cross-evaluation scores of each of other alternatives does not deteriorate. The game cross-evaluation score is obtained when the alternative??s own maximized scores are averaged. The obtained game cross-evaluation scores are unique and constitute a Nash equilibrium point. Therefore, the results and rankings based upon game cross-evaluation score analysis are more reliable and will benefit the decision makers.     

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.     

Incremental analysis for MCDM with an application to group TOPSIS

The study aims to exploit incremental analysis or marginal analysis to overcome the drawbacks of ratio scales utilized in various multi-criteria or multi-attribute decision making (MCDM/MADM) techniques. In the proposed 11-step procedure, multiple criteria of alternatives are first reorganized as two categories – benefits and costs – and decision information will be manipulated separately. The performances of alternatives are then evaluated on their incremental benefit–cost ratio, and the rank can be obtained by applying the group TOPSIS (technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution) model (Shih et al., 2007). Two representations of cost, i.e., a cost index and utility index, are proposed in the model to better-fit real-world situations. In addition, some considerations on costs and input–output relations are also discussed in order to understand the essentials of incremental analysis. In the final part, a case of robot selection demonstrates the suggested model to be both robust and efficient in a group decision-making environment.     

k-Best Solutions under Distance Constraints in Valuated -Matroids

In discrete maximization problems one usually wants to find an optimal solution. However, in several topics like “alignments,” “automatic speech recognition,” and “computer chess” people are interested to find thekbest solutions for somek ≥ 2. We demand that theksolutions obey certain distance constraints to avoid that thekalternatives are too similar. Several results for valuated -matroids are presented, some of them concerning time complexity of algorithms.     

Pairwise comparison matrices and the error-free property of the decision maker

Pairwise comparison is a popular assessment method either for deriving criteria-weights or for evaluating alternatives according to a given criterion. In real-world applications consistency of the comparisons rarely happens: intransitivity can occur. The aim of the paper is to discuss the relationship between the consistency of the decision maker—described with the error-free property—and the consistency of the pairwise comparison matrix (PCM). The concept of error-free matrix is used to demonstrate that consistency of the PCM is not a sufficient condition of the error-free property of the decision maker. Informed and uninformed decision makers are defined. In the first stage of an assessment method a consistent or near-consistent matrix should be achieved: detecting, measuring and improving consistency are part of any procedure with both types of decision makers. In the second stage additional information are needed to reveal the decision maker’s real preferences. Interactive questioning procedures are recommended to reach that goal.     

Kernel-based learning methods for preference aggregation

The mathematical representation of human preferences has been a subject of study for researchers in different fields. In multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) and fuzzy modeling, preference models are typically constructed by interacting with the human decision maker (DM). However, it is known that a DM often has difficulties to specify precise values for certain parameters of the model. He/she instead feels more comfortable to give holistic judgements for some of the alternatives. Inference and elicitation procedures then assist the DM to find a satisfactory model and to assess unjudged alternatives. In a related but more statistical way, machine learning algorithms can also infer preference models with similar setups and purposes, but here less interaction with the DM is required/allowed. In this article we discuss the main differences between both types of inference and, in particular, we present a hybrid approach that combines the best of both worlds. This approach consists of a very general kernel-based framework for constructing and inferring preference models. Additive models, for which interpretability is preserved, and utility models can be considered as special cases. Besides generality, important benefits of this approach are its robustness to noise and good scalability. We show in detail how this framework can be utilized to aggregate single-criterion outranking relations, resulting in a flexible class of preference models for which domain knowledge can be specified by a DM.      

Adapting and refining in multi-criteria decision-making

This paper describes the implementation of a Structured Methodology for Direct-Interactive Structured-Criteria (DISC) Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM), an eight-stage nomological adjusting cycle of activities that shape the information used to make a decision, requiring it be accessible, differentiable, abstractable, understandable, verifiable, measurable, refinable and usable. It shows, in a major IT strategic investment case, that Structured DISC MCDM provides a robust model that can be used for deep and serious consideration of multi-criteria decisions by a group of decision-makers over a long period. The paper describes the case as it moves through stages of the adjusting cycle and shows that, after completing the cycle, it reverses and becomes an adapting process, starting with refining the information. Refining is shown to be more extensive than previously understood, and to cover ‘alternatives & scores’, ‘criteria & weights’ and ‘set of alternatives’. Next the form of measurement is adapted. As the number of alternatives are reduced it can become more appropriate to directly compare the two or three most preferred alternatives relative to one another rather than objectively. Finally the criteria tree can be adapted using a ‘magnifying glass’ approach. This confines the evaluation to that part of the criteria tree in which the difference between a few preferred alternatives is mainly emphasised.     

Interactive procedure for a multiobjective stochastic discrete dynamic problem

Multiple objectives and dynamics characterize many sequential decision problems. In the paper we consider returns in partially ordered criteria space as a way of generalization of single criterion dynamic programming models to multiobjective case. In our problem evaluations of alternatives with respect to criteria are represented by distribution functions. Thus, the overall comparison of two alternatives is equivalent to the comparison of two vectors of probability distributions. We assume that the decision maker tries to find a solution preferred to all other solutions (the most preferred solution). In the paper a new interactive procedure for stochastic, dynamic multiple criteria decision making problem is proposed. The procedure consists of two steps. First, the Bellman principle is used to identify the set of efficient solutions. Next interactive approach is employed to find the most preferred solution. A numerical example and a real-world application are presented to illustrate the applicability of the proposed technique.     

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.     

Extensions of the multicriteria analysis with pairwise comparison under a fuzzy environment

Multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) problems often involve a complex decision process in which multiple requirements and fuzzy conditions have to be taken into consideration simultaneously. The existing approaches for solving this problem in a fuzzy environment are complex. Combining the concepts of grey relation and pairwise comparison, a new fuzzy MCDM method is proposed. First, the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is used to construct fuzzy weights of all criteria. Then, linguistic terms characterized by L–R triangular fuzzy numbers are used to denote the evaluation values of all alternatives versus subjective and objective criteria. Finally, the aggregation fuzzy assessments of different alternatives are ranked to determine the best selection. Furthermore, this paper uses a numerical example of location selection to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed method. The study results show that this method is an effective means for tackling MCDM problems in a fuzzy environment.