Multiattribute decision aid with extended ISMAUT

Multiattribute decision-making problems with imprecise data refer to a situation in which at least one of the parameters such as attribute weights and value scores is not specified in precise numerical values. Often the imprecision of preference information, on one hand, may give a decision maker chances that are enhanced freedom of choice and comforts of specification and, on the other hand, may cause decision analysts difficulties in establishing dominance relations among alternatives. The model, imprecisely specified multiattribute utility theory (ISMAUT), developed by Sage and White in 1984, is a generalization of the standard multiattribute decision-analysis paradigm in that they extend the types of preference specifications and provide a novel approach to resolve the complication of a problem caused by imprecision on both attribute weights and value scores. This paper is intended to extend the ISMAUT in several aspects. For the first part, we present the properties of decision rules and their relationships in the presence of imprecise weight and value information in a systematical way though many research efforts, differing by respective problem domains considered, have been devoted to deal with them. Further, methods for resolving a nonlinearity inherent in the formulation while cutting into the number of linear programs to be solved are also presented. For the second part, a method for determining multiattribute weights is presented when paired comparison judgments on alternatives are articulated. The attribute weights are to be estimated in the direction of minimizing the amount of violations and thus to be as consistent as possible with a decision maker's a priori ordered pairs of alternatives. The derived multiattribute weights can be utilized for prioritizing the other alternatives that are not included in a set of a priori ordered pairs of alternatives. For the third part, the paper deals with a prescriptive group decision-making method by aggregating group members' imprecise preference judgments. The imprecise additive group value function can be decomposed into the individual decision maker's imprecise decision-making problems, which are finally aggregated to identify a group's preferred alternative. The group decision rules, analogous to the rules dealt in a single decision-making context, are presented as well

[1]  Dov Pekelman,et al.  Mathematical Programming Models for the Determination of Attribute Weights , 1974 .

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

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

[4]  Alan Pearman,et al.  Decision Theory and Weak Statistical Dominance , 1979 .

[5]  Chelsea C. White,et al.  A penalty function approach to alternative pairwise comparisons in ISMAUT , 1993, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[6]  Graham Loomes,et al.  Decision difficulty and imprecise preferences , 1988 .

[7]  L. Seiford,et al.  Priority Ranking and Consensus Formation , 1978 .

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

[9]  Luis C. Dias,et al.  Resolving inconsistencies among constraints on the parameters of an MCDA model , 2003, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[10]  John B. Kidd,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives—Preferences and Value Tradeoffs , 1977 .

[11]  Kyung S. Park,et al.  Tools for interactive multiattribute decisionmaking with incompletely identified information , 1997 .

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

[13]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[14]  Byeong Seok Ahn,et al.  Extending Malakooti's model for ranking multicriteria alternatives with preference strength and partial information , 2003, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[15]  P. Fishburn.  Analysis of Decisions with Incomplete Knowledge of Probabilities , 1965 .

[16]  H. Kunreuther,et al.  Decision Making: SOURCES OF BIAS IN ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES FOR UTILITY FUNCTIONS , 1982 .

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

[18]  Rakesh K. Sarin,et al.  Group Preference Aggregation Rules Based on Strength of Preference , 1979 .

[19]  Soung Hie Kim,et al.  Interactive group decision making procedure under incomplete information , 1999, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[20]  Craig W. Kirkwood,et al.  Strategic decision making : multiobjective decision analysis with spreadsheets : instructor's manual , 1996 .

[21]  Ward Edwards,et al.  How to Use Multiattribute Utility Measurement for Social Decisionmaking , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[22]  Z. Kmietowicz,et al.  Decision theory, linear partial information and statistical dominance , 1984 .

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

[24]  David J. Weiss,et al.  SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement , 2008 .

[25]  A. Sen,et al.  Collective Choice and Social Welfare , 2017 .

[26]  Alan Pearman,et al.  Decision Making with Linear Partial Information (L.P.I.) , 1984 .

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

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

[29]  Peter Wright,et al.  State-of-mind effects on the accuracy with which utility functions predict marketplace choice. , 1980 .

[30]  J. Puertoa,et al.  Decision criteria with partial information , 2000 .

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

[32]  Andrew P. Sage,et al.  A model of multiattribute decisionmaking and trade-off weight determination under uncertainty , 1984, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

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

[34]  David J. Weiss,et al.  How to Use Multiattribute Utility Measurement for Social Decisionmaking , 2008 .

[35]  Martin Weber.  Decision Making with Incomplete Information , 1987 .

[36]  Soung Hie Kim,et al.  Establishing dominance and potential optimality in multi-criteria analysis with imprecise weight and value , 2001, Comput. Oper. Res..

[37]  Lucien Duckstein,et al.  Screening discrete alternatives with imprecisely assessed additive multi-attribute functions , 1994 .

[38]  Rakesh K. Sarin,et al.  Measurable Multiattribute Value Functions , 1979, Oper. Res..

[39]  Behnam Malakooti.  Theories and an exact interactive paired-comparison approach for discrete multiple-criteria problems , 1989, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[40]  C. Kirkwood,et al.  The Effectiveness of Partial Information about Attribute Weights for Ranking Alternatives in Multiattribute Decision Making , 1993 .

[41]  Rakesh K. Sarin,et al.  Preference Conditions for Multiattribute Value Functions , 1980, Oper. Res..

[42]  W. Cook,et al.  A multiple criteria decision model with ordinal preference data , 1991 .

[43]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[44]  Ahti Salo,et al.  Interactive decision aiding for group decision support , 1995 .

[45]  J. Siskos.  Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision-making , 1982 .

[46]  Behnam Malakooti,et al.  Ranking and screening multiple criteria alternatives with partial information and use of ordinal and cardinal strength of preferences , 2000, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.