Screening discrete alternatives with imprecisely assessed additive multi-attribute functions

The classical problem of ranking alternatives when there exists partial information on the scaling constants for additive multi-attribute utility functions (MAUFs) is reexamined. Most approaches assume that the unknown scaling constants can be precisely known. In this paper, we argue that this assumption may not be realistic, and we develop a new approach based on an assumption that is less restrictive and does not require that the Decision Maker be “consistent” over the given partial information regarding the unknown scaling constants. Definitions and computationally efficient procedures are developed to identify nondominated alternatives with respect to partial information on the scaling constants, which is called “utility nondominancy.” The concepts and procedures developed demonstrate, through two tests (solving two linear programming problems), whether or not the set of alternatives can be further screened. Finding the best alternative via an interactive method in which the proportion of alternatives screened may be changed is discussed. The approach is generalized and related to other MAUF structures such as multilinear, quasi-concave, and quasi-convex. It is demonstrated that linear programming is sufficient to solve all ensuing problems. Some examples are provided.

[1]  Mark Gershon,et al.  The role of weights and scales in the application of multiobjective decision making , 1984 .

[2]  Benjamin F. Hobbs,et al.  What Can We Learn from Experiments in Multiobjective Decision Analysis? , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[3]  Allan D. Shocker,et al.  Estimating the weights for multiple attributes in a composite criterion using pairwise judgments , 1973 .

[4]  Jyrki Wallenius,et al.  Nonlinear and unconstrained multiple-objective optimization: Algorithm, computation, and application , 1991 .

[5]  Allan D. Shocker,et al.  Linear programming techniques for multidimensional analysis of preferences , 1973 .

[6]  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.

[7]  Behnam Malakooti A generalized decomposable multiattribute utility function , 1991 .

[8]  Moshe Dror,et al.  Multiobjective linear programming : Another DSS , 1991, Decis. Support Syst..

[9]  A. Ravindran,et al.  An interactive method for multiple-objective mathematical programming problems , 1991 .

[10]  Behnam Malakooti,et al.  Identifying nondominated alternatives with partial information for multiple-objective discrete and linear programming problems , 1989, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[11]  R. S. Laundy,et al.  Multiple Criteria Optimisation: Theory, Computation and Application , 1989 .

[12]  Herbert Moskowitz,et al.  ASSESSMENT OF MULTIATTRIBUTED MEASURABLE VALUE AND UTILITY FUNCTIONS VIA MATHEMATICAL PROGRAMMING , 1985 .

[13]  A. Mehrez,et al.  Resource Allocation to Interrelated Risky Projects Using a Multiattribute Utility Function , 1983 .

[14]  Mao-Jiun J. Wang,et al.  A decision support system for robot selection , 1991, Decis. Support Syst..

[15]  Herbert Moskowitz Robustness of linear models for decision making: Some comments , 1976 .

[16]  Behnam Malakooti Ranking multiple criteria alternatives with half-space, convex, and non-convex dominating cones: quasi-concave and quasi-convex multiple attribute utility functions , 1989, Comput. Oper. Res..

[17]  H. Raiffa,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives , 1993 .

[18]  R. Soland MULTICRITERIA OPTIMIZATION: A GENERAL CHARACTERIZATION OF EFFICIENT SOLUTIONS* , 1979 .

[19]  Jun Wang,et al.  A feedforward neural network for multiple criteria decision making , 1992, Comput. Oper. Res..

[20]  Lucien Duckstein,et al.  Assessment errors in multiattribute utility functions , 1980 .

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