Veto Values in Group Decision Making within MAUT - Aggregating Complete Rankings Derived from Dominance Intensity Measures

Antonio Jiménez-Martín, Pilar Sabio, Alfonso Mateos

2015

Abstract

We consider a group decision-making problem within multi-attribute utility theory, in which the relative importance of decision makers (DMs) is known and their preferences are represented by means of an additive function. We allow DMs to provide veto values for the attribute under consideration and build veto and adjust functions that are incorporated into the additive model. Veto functions check whether alternative performances are within the respective veto intervals, making the overall utility of the alternative equal to 0, whereas adjust functions reduce the utilty of the alternative performance to match the preferences of other DMs. Dominance measuring methods are used to account for imprecise information in the decision-making scenario and to derive a ranking of alternatives for each DM. Specifically, ordinal information about the relative importance of criteria is provided by each DM. Finally, an extension of Kemeny’s method is used to aggregate the alternative rankings from the DMs accounting for their relative importance.

References

  1. Aguayo, E. (2014). Dominance Intensity Methods for Ranking of Alternatives in MCDM with Imprecise Information. PhD thesis, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.
  2. Aguayo, E., Mateos, A., and Jiménez-Martín, A. (2014). A new dominance intensity method to deal with ordinal information about a DM's preferences within MAVT. Knowledge-Based Systems, 69:159-169.
  3. Ahn, B. and Park, K. (2008). Comparing methods for multiattribute decision making with ordinal weights. Computers and Operations Research, 35:1660-1670.
  4. Arrow, K. J. and Raynaud, H. (1986). Social Choice and Multicriterion Decision Making. MIT Press, Cambridge.
  5. Bana e Costa, C., Correˆa, E., DeCorte, J. M., and Vansnick, J. C. (2002). Faciliting bid evalutation in public call for tenders: a social-technical approach. OMEGA. The International Journal of Management Science, 30:227-242.
  6. Borda, J. (1981). Memoire sur les elections au scrutin. Histoire de l'Academie des Sciences.
  7. Daher, S. and Almeida, A. (2012). The use of ranking veto concept to mitigate the compensatory effects of additive aggregation in group decisions on a water utility automation investment. Group Decision and Negotiation, 21:185-204.
  8. DeConde, R., Hawley, S., Falcon, S., Clegg, N., Knudsen, B., and Etzioni, R. (2006). Combining results of microarray experiments: a rank aggregation approach. Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, 5:5-15.
  9. Dwork, C., Kumar, R., Naor, M., and Sivakumar, D. (2001). Rank aggregation methods for the web. In Proceedings of the 10th International World Wide Web Conference.
  10. Fagin, R., Kumar, R., and Sivakumar, D. (2003). Comparing top k lists. SIAM Journal of Discrete Mathematics, 17:134-160.
  11. Green, P. (1978). Research for Marketing Decisions. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
  12. Jiménez, A., Mateos, A., and Sabio, P. (2013). Dominance intensity measure within fuzzy weight oriented MAUT: An application. OMEGA. The International Journal of Management Science, 41(2):397-405.
  13. Kemeny, J. (1959). Mathematics without numbers. Daedalus, 88:577-591.
  14. Liginlala, D. and Ow, T. T. (2006). Modeling attitude to risk in human decision processes: An application of fuzzy measures. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 157:3040-3054.
  15. Lin, S. (2010). Rank aggregation methods. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 2:555- 570.
  16. Lin, S. and Ding, J. (2009). Integration of ranked lists via cross entropy Monte Carlo with applications to mRNA and microRNA studies. Biometrics, 65:9-18.
  17. Marichal, J. L. (2004). Tolerant or intolerant character of interacting criteria in aggregation by the Choquet integral. European Journal of Operations Research, 155:771-791.
  18. Mateos, A., Jiménez, A., and Blanco, J. (2012). Measuring method performance under incomplete information about weights. Journal of Multicriteria Decision Analysis, 19(3-4):129-142.
  19. Mateos, A., Jiménez-Martín, A., Aguayo, E., and Sabio, P. (2014). Dominance intensity measuring methods in MCDM with ordinal relations regarding weights. Knowledge-Based Systems, 70:26-32.
  20. Moulin, H. (1981). The proportional veto principle. Review of Economic Studies, 48:407-416.
  21. Niu, S., Lan, Y., Guo, J., and Cheng, X. (2013). Stochastic rank aggregation. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence.
  22. Novak, M. (2004). Preference and veto threshold in multicriteria analysis based on stochastic dominance. European Journal of Operations Research, 158:339-350.
  23. Puerto, J., Mármol, A., Monroy, L., and Fernández, F. (2000). Decision criteria with partial information. IEEE Transaction in Operational Research, 7:51-65.
  24. Punkka, A. and Salo, A. (2013). Preference programming with incomplete ordinal information. European Journal of Operational Research, 231(1):141-150.
  25. Punkka, A. and Salo, A. (2014). Scale dependence and ranking intervals in additive value models under incomplete preference information. Decision Analysis, 11:83-104.
  26. Raiffa, H. (1982). The Art and Science of Negotiation. Haarvard University Press, Cambridge.
  27. Roy, B. and Slowinski, R. (2008). Handling effects of reinforced preference and counter-veto in credibility of outranking. European Journal of Operations Research, 188:185-190.
  28. Salo, A. and Hamalainen, R. P. (2001). Preference ratio in multiattribute evaluation (PRIME)-elicitation and decision procedures under incomplete information. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Management and Cybernetics: Part A, 31:533-545.
  29. Sarabando, P. and Dias, L. (2010). Simple procedures of choice in multicriteria problems without precise information about the alternatives values. Computers and Operations Research, 37:2239-2247.
  30. Stewart, T. (1996). Robustness of additive value function method in MCDM. Journal of Multicriteria Decision Analysis, 5:301-309.
  31. Stillwell, W., Seaver, D., and Edwards, W. (1981). Comparison of weight approximation techniques in multiattribute utility decision making. Organizatorial Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 28:62-77.
  32. Thurstone, L. (1931). Rank order as a psychophysical method. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14:187-201.
  33. Yoon, K. (1980). System Selection by Multiple Attribute Decision Making. PhD thesis, Kansas State University.
  34. Yue, Z. (2011). A method for group decision-making based on determining weights of decision makers using TOPSIS. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 35:1926- 1936.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Jiménez-Martín A., Sabio P. and Mateos A. (2015). Veto Values in Group Decision Making within MAUT - Aggregating Complete Rankings Derived from Dominance Intensity Measures . In Proceedings of the International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems - Volume 1: ICORES, ISBN 978-989-758-075-8, pages 99-106. DOI: 10.5220/0005180100990106


in Bibtex Style

@conference{icores15,
author={Antonio Jiménez-Martín and Pilar Sabio and Alfonso Mateos},
title={Veto Values in Group Decision Making within MAUT - Aggregating Complete Rankings Derived from Dominance Intensity Measures},
booktitle={Proceedings of the International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems - Volume 1: ICORES,},
year={2015},
pages={99-106},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0005180100990106},
isbn={978-989-758-075-8},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems - Volume 1: ICORES,
TI - Veto Values in Group Decision Making within MAUT - Aggregating Complete Rankings Derived from Dominance Intensity Measures
SN - 978-989-758-075-8
AU - Jiménez-Martín A.
AU - Sabio P.
AU - Mateos A.
PY - 2015
SP - 99
EP - 106
DO - 10.5220/0005180100990106