Effects of imprecise weighting in hierarchical preference programming

Preference programming is a general term for multi-criteria decision analytical approaches allowing incomplete preference information. In the PAIRS method, interval judgments are assigned to weight ratios between attributes to model imprecision in multi-attribute value trees. This paper studies the effects of a hierarchical model structure on the overall imprecision, as the form of the hierarchy also affects the form of imprecision that can be assigned to the model. The aim is to find out good procedural practices for reducing overall imprecision descending inherently from the model structure. The study provides simulation results about the ability of various weighting schemes to identify dominated alternatives, which are discussed with respect to other issues related to the weighting process. According to the results, a hierarchical model is structurally somewhat more unable to identify dominances than a corresponding nonhierarchical model, but its cognitive advantages often cancel out this. The results also suggest paying reasonable attention to the precision of the lower level judgments and to identifying possible correlations between the criteria.

[1]  D. Winterfeldt,et al.  Comparing Hierarchical and Nonhierarchical Weighting Methods for Eliciting Multiattribute Value Models , 1987 .

[2]  Salvatore Greco,et al.  Ordinal regression revisited: Multiple criteria ranking using a set of additive value functions , 2008, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[3]  Rakesh K. Sarin,et al.  Ranking with Partial Information: A Method and an Application , 1985, Oper. Res..

[4]  Mats Danielson,et al.  Handling Imperfect User Statements In Real-Life Decision Analysis , 2004, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak..

[5]  Theodor J. Stewart,et al.  Multiple criteria decision analysis - an integrated approach , 2001 .

[6]  Salvatore Greco,et al.  Robust Ordinal Regression , 2014, Trends in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis.

[7]  Salvatore Greco,et al.  Assessing non-additive utility for multicriteria decision aid , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[8]  Gordon B. Hazen,et al.  Partial Information, Dominance, and Potential Optimality in Multiattribute Utility Theory , 1986, Oper. Res..

[9]  W. Edwards,et al.  Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research , 1986 .

[10]  Antonio Jiménez-Martín,et al.  A decision support system for multiattribute utility evaluation based on imprecise assignments , 2003, Decis. Support Syst..

[11]  Raimo P. Hämäläinen,et al.  Preference Assessment by Imprecise Ratio Statements , 1992, Oper. Res..

[12]  Ian N. Durbach,et al.  Using expected values to simplify decision making under uncertainty , 2009 .

[13]  Simon French,et al.  A FRAMEWORK FOR SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS IN DISCRETE MULTI OBJECTIVE DECISION MAKING , 1991 .

[14]  Wojciech Kotlowski,et al.  Stochastic dominance-based rough set model for ordinal classification , 2008, Inf. Sci..

[15]  C. Kirkwood Estimating the Impact of Uncertainty on a Deterministic Multiattribute Evaluation , 1992 .

[16]  Andrew P. Sage,et al.  ARIADNE: A knowledge-based interactive system for planning and decision support , 1984, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[17]  Ami Arbel,et al.  Approximate articulation of preference and priority derivation , 1989 .

[18]  Raimo P. Hämäläinen,et al.  Using intervals for global sensitivity and worst-case analyses in multiattribute value trees , 2006, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[19]  Hans Vrolijk,et al.  Behavioral and procedural consequences of structural variation in value trees , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[20]  Raimo P. Hämäläinen,et al.  Preference Programming - Multicriteria Weighting Models under Incomplete Information , 2010 .

[21]  Robert T. Clemen,et al.  Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to Decision Analysis , 1997 .

[22]  Justin London,et al.  Modeling Derivatives Applications in Matlab, C++, and Excel , 2006 .

[23]  Otto Rentz,et al.  Sensitivity analyses in multi‐attribute decision support for off‐site nuclear emergency and recovery management , 2007 .

[24]  Luis C. Dias,et al.  Multiattribute Choice With Ordinal Information: A Comparison of Different Decision Rules , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[25]  Valerie Belton,et al.  Supporting the intelligent MCDA user: A case study in multi-person multi-criteria decision support , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[26]  John C. Butler,et al.  Simulation techniques for the sensitivity analysis of multi-criteria decision models , 1997 .

[27]  Martin Weber A Method of Multiattribute Decision Making with Incomplete Information , 1985 .

[28]  Keith W. Hipel,et al.  Robustness and information levels in case-based multiple criteria sorting , 2010, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[29]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[30]  Peijun Guo,et al.  Decision-making with interval probabilities , 2008, 2008 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics.

[31]  R. Hämäläinen,et al.  Preference programming through approximate ratio comparisons , 1995 .

[32]  Chang Hee Han,et al.  Multi-attribute decision aid under incomplete information and hierarchical structure , 2000, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[33]  Raimo P. Hämäläinen,et al.  Decision Support by Interval SMART/SWING - Incorporating Imprecision in the SMART and SWING Methods , 2005, Decis. Sci..

[34]  D. Winterfeldt,et al.  The effects of splitting attributes on weights in multiattribute utility measurement , 1988 .