Preference Assessment by Imprecise Ratio Statements

The PAIRS method developed in this paper introduces imprecise preference statements into value trees. The assessment of attribute weights in PAIRS extends the well known SMART technique so that in addition to exact statements the decision maker can enter interval judgments which indicate ranges for the relative importance of the attributes. The interval judgments and the possibly range-valued information about the outcomes of the alternatives are processed with linear programming into value intervals and dominance relations. As the decision maker refines the description of his preferences, either by entering new statements or by tightening his earlier judgments, these results become more detailed and convey more information about which alternatives are preferred. Throughout the interactive refinement process PAIRS supports the decision maker by deriving and displaying the consequences of his earlier judgments.

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

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

[3]  Brian D. O. Anderson,et al.  Partial Prior Information and Decisionmaking , 1980, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

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

[5]  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.

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

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

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

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

[10]  Luis G. Vargas,et al.  Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process , 1987 .

[11]  Chelsea C. White,et al.  A New Interpretation of Alternative Pairwise. Comparisons for a Generalization of SMART , 1987, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

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

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

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

[15]  R. T. Wong,et al.  Robust interactive decision-analysis (RID): Behavioral results and implications , 1989 .

[16]  Raimo P. Hämäläinen,et al.  Processing interval judgments in the analytic hierarchy process , 1992 .

[17]  F. H. Barron,et al.  Selecting a best multiattribute alternative with partial information about attribute weights , 1992 .

[18]  R.P. Hamalainen,et al.  Observations about consensus seeking in a multiple criteria environment , 1992, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[19]  H. Moskowitz,et al.  Multiple-criteria robust interactive decision analysis (MCRID) for optimizing public policies , 1992 .

[20]  Mokhtar S. Bazaraa,et al.  Nonlinear Programming: Theory and Algorithms , 1993 .