Building a set of additive value functions representing a reference preorder and intensities of preference: GRIP method

We present a method called Generalized Regression with Intensities of Preference (GRIP) for ranking a finite set of actions evaluated on multiple criteria. GRIP builds a set of additive value functions compatible with preference information composed of a partial preorder and required intensities of preference on a subset of actions, called reference actions. It constructs not only the preference relation in the considered set of actions, but it also gives information about intensities of preference for pairs of actions from this set for a given decision maker (DM). Distinguishing necessary and possible consequences of preference information on the considered set of actions, GRIP answers questions of robustness analysis. The proposed methodology can be seen as an extension of the UTA method based on ordinal regression. GRIP can also be compared to the AHP method, which requires pairwise comparison of all actions and criteria, and yields a priority ranking of actions. As for the preference information being used, GRIP can be compared, moreover, to the MACBETH method which also takes into account a preference order of actions and intensity of preference for pairs of actions. The preference information used in GRIP does not need, however, to be complete: the DM is asked to provide comparisons of only those pairs of reference actions on particular criteria for which his/her judgment is sufficiently certain. This is an important advantage comparing to methods which, instead, require comparison of all possible pairs of actions on all the considered criteria. Moreover, GRIP works with a set of general additive value functions compatible with the preference information, while other methods use a single and less general value function, such as the weighted-sum.

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

[2]  M. Bohanec,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 2004 .

[3]  Vincent Mousseau,et al.  Inferring an ELECTRE TRI Model from Assignment Examples , 1998, J. Glob. Optim..

[4]  Jean-Marc Martel,et al.  ELECCALC - an interactive software for modelling the decision maker's preferences , 1994, Decis. Support Syst..

[5]  S French,et al.  Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Aiding , 1996 .

[6]  Jean-Luc Marichal,et al.  Determination of weights of interacting criteria from a reference set , 2000, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[7]  J. March Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice , 1978 .

[8]  P. Wakker Additive Representations of Preferences: A New Foundation of Decision Analysis , 1988 .

[9]  Salvatore Greco,et al.  Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[10]  Carlos A. Bana e Costa,et al.  On the Mathematical Foundation of MACBETH , 2005 .

[11]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Multiobjective optimization , 1997 .

[12]  Bernard Roy,et al.  Aide multicritère à la décision : méthodes et cas , 1993 .

[13]  J. Siskos A way to deal with fuzzy preferences in multi-criteria decision problems , 1982 .

[14]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1980 .

[15]  Roman Słowiński,et al.  The Use of Rough Sets and Fuzzy Sets in MCDM , 1999 .

[16]  C. B. E. Costa,et al.  MACBETH — An Interactive Path Towards the Construction of Cardinal Value Functions , 1994 .

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

[18]  F. B. Vernadat,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs , 1994 .

[19]  José Rui Figueira,et al.  Interactive Multiobjective Optimization Using a Set of Additive Value Functions , 2008, Multiobjective Optimization.

[20]  Salvatore Greco,et al.  Rough Set Based Decision Support , 2005 .

[21]  Bernard Roy,et al.  A missing link in OR-DA : robustness analysis , 1998 .

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

[23]  B. Jones BOUNDED RATIONALITY , 1999 .

[24]  S. Greco,et al.  Decision Rule Approach , 2005 .

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

[26]  Matthias Ehrgott,et al.  Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys , 2005 .

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