Search

We consider the recently introduced application of the Deck of Cards Method (DCM) to ordinal regression proposing two extensions related to two main research trends in Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding, namely scaling and ordinal regression generalizations. On the one hand, procedures, different from DCM (e.g. AHP, BWM, MACBETH) to collect and elaborate Decision Maker's (DM's) preference information are considered to define an overall evaluation of reference alternatives. On the other hand, Robust Ordinal Regression and Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis are used to offer the DM more detailed and realistic decision-support outcomes. More precisely, we take into account preference imprecision and indetermination through a set of admissible comprehensive evaluations of alternatives provided by the whole set of value functions compatible with DM's preference information rather than the univocal assessment obtained from a single value function. In addition, we also consider alternatives evaluated on a set of criteria hierarchically structured. The methodology we propose allows the DM to provide precise or imprecise information at different levels of the hierarchy of criteria. Like scaling procedures, the compatible value function we consider can be of a different nature, such as weighted sum, linear or general monotone value function, or Choquet integral. Consequently, the approach we propose is versatile and well-equipped to be adapted to DM's characteristics and requirements. The applicability of the proposed methodology is shown by a didactic example based on a large ongoing research project in which Italian regions are evaluated on criteria representing Circular Economy, Innovation-Driven Development and Smart Specialization Strategies.

In multiple criteria decision aiding, very often the alternatives are compared by means of a value function compatible with the preferences expressed by the Decision Maker. The problem is that, in general, there is a plurality of compatible value functions, and providing a final recommendation on the problem at hand considering only one of them could be considered arbitrary to some extent. For such a reason, Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis gives information in statistical terms by taking into account a sample of models compatible with the provided preferences. These statistics are given assuming the existence of a probability distribution in the space of value functions being defined a priori. In this paper, we propose some methods aiming to build a probability distribution on the space of value functions considering the preference information given by the Decision Maker. To prove the goodness of our proposal we performed an extensive set of simulations. Moreover, a sensitivity analysis on the variables of our procedure has been done as well.

We consider multiobjective combinatorial optimization problems handled by means of preference driven efficient heuristics. They look for the most preferred part of the Pareto front on the basis of some preferences expressed by the Decision Maker during the process. In general, what is searched for in this case is the Pareto set of efficient solutions. This is a problem much more difficult than optimizing a single objective function. Moreover, obtaining the Pareto set does not mean that the decision problem is solved since one or some of the solutions have to be chosen. Indeed, to make a decision, it is necessary to determine the most preferred solution in the Pareto set, so that it is also necessary to elicit the preferences of the user. In this perspective, what we are proposing can be seen as the first structured methodology in facility location problems to search optimal solutions taking into account preferences of the user. With this aim, we approach facility location problems using a recently proposed interactive evolutionary multiobjective optimization procedure called NEMO-II-Ch. NEMO-II-Ch is applied to a real world multiobjective location problem with many users and many facilities to be located. Several simulations considering different fictitious users have been performed. The results obtained by NEMO-II-Ch are compared with those got by three algorithms which know the user's true value function that is, instead, unknown to NEMO-II-Ch. They show that in many cases NEMO-II-Ch finds the best subset of locations more quickly than the methods knowing, exactly, the whole user's true preferences.

In this paper we propose a new methodology to represent the results of the robust ordinal regression approach by means of a family of representative value functions for which, taken two alternatives $a$ and $b$, the following two conditions are satisfied: 1) if for all compatible value functions $a$ is evaluated not worse than $b$ and for at least one value function $a$ has a better evaluation, then the evaluation of $a$ is greater than the evaluation of $b$ for all representative value functions; 2) if there exists one compatible value function giving $a$ an evaluation greater than $b$ and another compatible value function giving $a$ an evaluation smaller than $b$, then there are also at least one representative function giving a better evaluation to $a$ and another representative value function giving $a$ an evaluation smaller than $b$. This family of representative value functions intends to provide the Decision Maker (DM) a more clear idea of the preferences obtained by the compatible value functions, with the aim to support the discussion in constructive approach of Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding.

The pairwise winning indices, computed in the Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis, give the probability with which an alternative is preferred to another taking into account all the instances of the assumed preference model compatible with the information provided by the Decision Maker in terms of pairwise preference comparisons of reference alternatives. In this paper we present a new scoring method assigning a value to each alternative summarizing the results of the pairwise winning indices. Several procedures assigning a score to each alternative on the basis of the pairwise winning indices have been provided in literature. However, while all of them compute this score just to rank the alternatives under consideration, our method, expressing the score in terms of an additive value function, permits to disaggregate the overall evaluation of each alternative in the sum of contributions of considered criteria. This will permit not only to rank the alternatives but also to explain the reasons for which an alternative obtains its evaluation and, consequently, fills a certain ranking position. To prove the efficiency of the method in representing the preferences of the Decision Maker, we performed an extensive set of simulations varying the number of alternatives and criteria. The results of the simulations, analyzed from a statistical point of view, show the goodness of our procedure. The applicability of the method to decision making problems is explained by means of a case study related to the evaluation of financial funds.

In this paper we propose a new multiple criteria decision aiding method to deal with sorting problems in which alternatives are evaluated on criteria structured in a hierarchical way and presenting interactions. The underlying preference model of the proposed method is the Choquet integral, while the hierarchical structure of the criteria is taken into account by applying the Multiple Criteria Hierarchy Process. Considering the Choquet integral based on a 2-additive capacity, the paper presents a procedure to find all the minimal sets of pairs of interacting criteria representing the preference information provided by the Decision Maker (DM). Robustness concerns are also taken into account by applying the Robust Ordinal Regression and the Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis. Even if in different ways, both of them provide recommendations on the hierarchical sorting problem at hand by exploring the whole set of capacities compatible with the preferences provided by the DM avoiding to take into account only one of them. The applicability of the considered method to real world problems is demonstrated by means of an example regarding rating of European Countries by considering economic and financial data provided by Standard \& Poor's Global Inc.

The paper shows how Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding (MCDA) tools can support the analyses of six hypotheses of adaptive reuse of an iconic historical building in Turin, Italy (called Stock Exchange) to identify the preferred alternative. In the last two years, the debate around the requalification of the building has been huge for several reasons: it is perceived as a "monument" by citizens; it shows architectural and typological values nationally recognized; it involves public and private interests. In this context, interacting with experts involved in the ongoing discussion, we consider a recently proposed conjunction of four MCDA methods, namely: Multiple Criteria Hierarchy Process (MCHP), permitting to consider structural relationships between criteria; ELECTRE III, considering three types of interaction effects between criteria (strengthening, weakening and antagonistic effects); the imprecise SRF method, supplying an easily understandable approach to collect information from the DM; and Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis (SMAA), providing robust recommendation, in terms of rankings and relations of preference, indifference and incomparability between project alternatives, at each level of the hierarchy. We propose a modification of the SRF methodology, called SFR-II, to increase the reliability of the decision aid procedure, which could constitute a significant advance for the same SRF method.

The level dependent Choquet integral has been proposed to handle decision making problems in which the importance and the interaction of criteria may depend on the level of the alternatives' evaluations. This integral is based on a level dependent capacity, which is a family of single capacities associated to each level of evaluation for the considered criteria. We present two possible formulations of the level dependent capacity where importance and interaction of criteria are constant inside each one of the subintervals in which the interval of evaluations for considered criteria is split or vary with continuity inside the whole interval of evaluations. Since, in general, there is not only one but many level dependent capacities compatible with the preference information provided by the Decision Maker, we propose to take into account all of them by using the Robust Ordinal Regression (ROR) and the Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis (SMAA). On one hand, ROR defines a necessary preference relation (if an alternative a is at least as good as an alternative b for all compatible level dependent capacities), and a possible preference relation (if a is at least as good as b for at least one compatible level dependent capacity). On the other hand, considering a random sampling of compatible level dependent capacities, SMAA gives the probability that each alternative reaches a certain ranking position as well as the probability that an alternative is preferred to another. A real-world decision problem on rankings of universities is provided to illustrate the proposed methodology.

For long time the measurement of innovation has been in the forefront of policy makers' and researchers' agenda worldwide. Therefore, there is an ongoing debate about which indicators should be used to measure innovation. Recent approaches have favoured the use of composite innovation indicators. However, there is no consensus about the appropriate methodology to aggregate the varying dimensions of innovation into a single summary indicator. One of the best known examples of composite innovation indicators is the European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS). It is a relevant tool for benchmarking innovation in Europe. Still, the EIS lacks a proper scheme for weighting the included indicators according to their relative importance. In this context, we propose an appraisal methodology permitting to take into consideration the interaction of criteria and robustness concerns related to the elicitation of the weights assigned to the elementary indicators. With this aim, we apply the hierarchical-SMAA-Choquet integral approach. This integrated multicriteria decision making (MCDM) method helps the users to rank and benchmark countries' innovation performance taking into account the importance and interaction of criteria assigned by themselves, rather than equal weights or weights exogenously fixed by external experts.

This paper deals with an improved version of the deck of the cards method to render the construction of the ratio and interval scales more `accurate'. The improvement comes from the fact that we can account for a richer and finer preference information provided by the decision-makers, which permits a more accurate modelling of the strength of preference between two consecutive levels of a scale. Instead of considering only the number of blank cards between consecutive positions in the ranking of objects such as criteria and scale levels, we consider also the number of blank cards between non consecutive positions in the ranking. This information is collected in a pairwise comparison table that it is not necessarily built with precise values. We can consider also missing information and imprecise information provided in the form of ranges. Since the information provided by the decision-makers is not necessarily consistent, we propose also some procedures to help the decision-maker to make consistent his evaluations in a co-constructive way interacting with an analyst and reflecting and revising her/his judgments. The method is illustrated through and example in which, generalizing the SWING method, interacting criteria are aggregated through the Choquet integral.

Cat-SD is a multiple criteria decision aiding method for dealing with nominal classification problems. Actions are assessed according to multiple criteria and assigned to one or more categories. A set of reference actions is used for defining each category. The assignment of an action to a given category depends on the comparison of the action to each reference set according to likeness thresholds. Distinct sets of criteria weights, interaction coefficients, and likeness thresholds can be defined per category. We propose to apply Multiple Criteria Hierarchy Process (MCHP) to Cat-SD. An adapted MCHP is proposed to take into account possible interaction effects between criteria structured in a hierarchical way. On the basis of the known deck of cards method, we also consider an imprecise elicitation of parameters permitting to take into account interactions and antagonistic effects between criteria. The elicitation procedure we are proposing can be applied to any Electre method. With the purpose of exploring the assignments obtained by Cat-SD considering possible sets of parameters, we propose to apply the Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis (SMAA). The SMAA methodology allows to draw statistical conclusions on the classification of the actions. The proposed method, SMAA-hCat-SD, helps the decision maker to check the effects of the variation of parameters on the classification at different levels of the hierarchy. We propose also a procedure, based on the concept of loss function, to obtain a final classification fulfilling some requirements given by the decision maker and taking into account the hierarchy of criteria and the probabilistic assignments obtained applying SMAA. Also this procedure can be applied to any classification Electre method.

We consider the problem of defining a strategy consisting of a set of facilities taking into account also the location where they have to be assigned and the time in which they have to be activated. The facilities are evaluated with respect to a set of criteria. The plan has to be devised respecting some constraints related to different aspects of the problem such as precedence restrictions due to the nature of the facilities. Among the constraints, there are some related to the available budget. We consider also the uncertainty related to the performances of the facilities with respect to considered criteria, and plurality of stakeholders participating to the decision. The considered problem can be seen as the combination of some prototypical operations research problems: knapsack problem, location problem and project scheduling. Indeed, the basic brick of our model is a variable $x_{ilt}$ which takes value 1 if facility $i$ is activated in location $l$ at time $t$, and $0$ otherwise. Due to the conjoint consideration of a location and a time in the decision variables, what we propose can be seen as a general space-time model for operations research problems. We discuss how such a model permits to handle complex problems using several methodologies including multiple attribute value theory and multiobjective optimization. With respect to the latter point, without any loss of the generality, we consider the compromise programming and an interactive methodology based on the Dominance-based Rough Set Approach. We illustrate the application of our model with a simple didactic example.

The evaluation of sustainable development - and, in particular, rural development - through composite indices requires taking into account a plurality of indicators, which are related to economic, social and environmental aspects. The points of view evaluated by these indices are naturally interacting: thus, a bonus has to be recognized to units performing well on synergic criteria, whereas a penalization has to be assigned on redundant criteria. An additional difficulty of the modelization is the elicitation of the parameters for the composite indices, since they are typically affected by some imprecision. In most approaches, all these critical points are usually neglected, which in turn yields an unpleasant degree of approximation in the computation of indices. In this paper we propose a methodology that allows one to simultaneously handle these delicate issues. Specifically, to take into account synergy and redundancy between criteria, we suitably aggregate indicators by means of the Choquet integral. Further, to obtain recommendations that take into account the space of fluctuation related to imprecision in nonadditive weights (capacity of the Choquet integral), we adopt the Robust Ordinal Regression (ROR) and the Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis (SMAA). Finally, to study sustainability not only at a comprehensive level (taking into account all criteria) but also at a local level (separately taking into account economic, social and environmental aspects), we apply the Multiple Criteria Hierarchy Process (MCHP). We illustrate the advantages of our approach in a concrete example, in which we measure the rural sustainability of 51 municipalities in the province of Catania, the largest city of the East Coast of Sicily (Italy).

We propose a development of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) permitting to use the methodology also in cases of decision problems with a very large number of alternatives evaluated with respect to several criteria. While the application of the original AHP method involves many pairwise comparisons between alternatives and criteria, our proposal is composed of three steps: (i) direct evaluation of the alternatives at hand on the considered criteria, (ii) selection of some reference evaluations; (iii) application of the original AHP method to reference evaluations; (iv) revision of the direct evaluation on the basis of the prioritization supplied by AHP on reference evaluations. The new proposal has been tested and validated in an experiment conducted on a sample of university students. The new methodology has been therefore applied to a real world problem involving the evaluation of 21 Social Housing initiatives sited in the Piedmont region (Italy). To take into account interaction between criteria, the Choquet integral preference model has been considered within a Non Additive Robust Ordinal Regression approach.

The Choquet integral is a preference model used in Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding (MCDA) to deal with interactions between criteria. The Stochastic Multiobjective Acceptability Analysis (SMAA) is an MCDA methodology used to take into account imprecision or lack of data in the problem at hand. For example, SMAA permits to compute the frequency that an alternative takes the k-th rank in the whole space of the admissible preference parameters, e.g. in case evaluations on the considered criteria are aggregated through the weighted sum model, in the space of weights compatible with the preference information supplied by the Decision Maker (DM). In this paper, we propose to integrate the SMAA methodology with the Choquet integral preference model in order to get robust recommendations taking into account the whole space of preference parameters compatible with the DM's preference information. In case the alternatives are evaluated by all the criteria on a common scale, the preference parameters are given by the capacity expressing the non-additive weights, representing the importance of criteria and their interaction. If the criteria are instead evaluated on different scales, besides the capacity, preference parameters include the common scale on which the evaluations of criteria have to be recoded to be compared. Our approach permits to explore the whole space of preference parameters being capacities and common scales compatible with the DM's preference information.

PROMETHEE methods are widely used in Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding (MCDA) to deal with real decision making problems. A crucial aspect of the classical PROMETHEE methods is the choice of criteria weights. In this paper, we propose to apply the Stochastic Multiobjective Acceptability Analysis (SMAA) to the classical PROMETHEE methods and to the bipolar PROMETHEE methods in order to explore the whole set of weights compatible with some preference information provided by the Decision Maker (DM). A didactic example describes the application of the presented methodology to a student evaluation problem., Comment: arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1211.0507

In this paper, we consider the bipolar approach to Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). In particular we aggregate positive and negative preferences by means of the bipolar PROMETHEE method. To elicit preferences we consider Robust Ordinal Regression (ROR) that has been recently proposed to derive robust conclusions through the use of the concepts of possible and necessary preferences. It permits to take into account the whole set of preference parameters compatible with the preference information provided by the Decision Maker (DM).

Robust Ordinal Regression (ROR) is a way of dealing with Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding (MCDA), by considering all sets of parameters of an assumed preference model, that are compatible with preference information given by the Decision Maker (DM). As a result of ROR, one gets necessary and possible preference relations in the set of alternatives, which hold for all compatible sets of parameters or for at least one compatible set of parameters, respectively. In this paper, we extend the MCDA methods based on ROR, by considering one important aspect of decision problems: imprecise evaluations. To deal with imprecise evaluations of some alternatives on particular criteria, we extend the set of considered variables to define necessary and possible preference relations taking into account this imprecision. In consequence, the concepts of necessary and possible preference represent not only all compatible sets of parameters, but also all possible values of the imprecise evaluations of alternatives., Comment: 41 pages, 9 figures