Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robust optimization analysis for multiple attribute decision making problems with imprecise information

  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper considers ranking decision alternatives under multiple attributes with imprecise information on both attribute weights and alternative ratings. It is demonstrated that regret results from the decision maker’s inadequate knowledge about the true scenario to occur. Potential optimality analysis is a traditional method to evaluate alternatives with imprecise information. The essence of this approach is to identify any alternative that outperforms the others in its best-case scenario. Our analysis shows that potential optimality analysis is optimistic in nature and may lead to a significant loss if an unfavorable scenario occurs. We suggest a robust optimization analysis approach that ranks alternatives in terms of their worst-case absolute or relative regret. A robust optimal alternative performs reasonably well in all scenarios and is shown to be desirable for a risk-concerned decision maker. Linear programming models are developed to check robust optimality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Athanassopoulos, A. D., & Podinovski, V. V. (1997). Dominance and potential optimality in multiple criteria decision analysis with imprecise information. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48, 142–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Averbakh, I. (2001). On the complexity of a class of combinatorial optimization problems with uncertainty. Mathematical Programming, 90, 263–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Averbakh, I., & Lebedev, V. (2004). Interval data minmax regret network optimization problems. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 138, 289–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D. (1985). Disappointment in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research, 33, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Tal, A., & Nemirovski, A. (1998). Robust convex optimization. Mathematics in Operations Research, 23, 769–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J. O. (1985). Statistical decision theory and Bayesian analysis. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, N., & Mobolurin, A. (1996). An action learning evaluation procedure for multiple criteria decision making problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 1996, 379–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1962). Programming with linear fractional functionals. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 9, 181–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dias, L. C., & Climaco, J. N. (2000). Additive aggregation with variable interdependent parameters: the VIP analysis software. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51, 1070–1082.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eum, Y. S., Park, K. S., & Kim, S. H. (2001). Establishing dominance and potential optimality in multi-criteria analysis with imprecise weight and value. Computers & Operations Research, 28, 397–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1965). Analysis of decisions with incomplete knowledge of probabilities. Operations Research, 13, 217–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French, S. (1995). Uncertainty and imprecision: Modelling and analysis. Journal of Operational Research Society, 46, 70–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (1989). Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 18, 141–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazen, G. B. (1986). Partial information, dominance, and potential optimality in multiattribute utility theory. Operations Research, 34, 296–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. P. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkwood, C. W., & Sarin, R. K. (1985). Ranking with partial information: A method and an application. Operations Research, 33, 38–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knuth, D. E. (1997). The art of computer programming, Vol. 1: Fundamental algorithms. New York: Addison/Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • KoKsalan, M., & Tuncer, C. (2009). A DEA-based approach to ranking multi-criteria alternatives. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 8, 29–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kouvelis, P., & Yu, G. (1997). Robust discrete optimization and its applications. Boston: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebedev, V., & Averbakh, I. (2006). Complexity of minimizing the total flow time with interval data and minmax regret criterion. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 154, 2167–2177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K. S., Park, K. S., Eum, Y. S., & Park, K. (2001). Extended methods for identifying dominance and potential optimality in multi-criteria analysis with imprecise information. European Journal of Operational Research, 134, 557–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, D. F. (2009). Relative ratio method for multiple attribute decision making problems. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 8, 289–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, H. L., & Ma, L. C. (2008). Ranking decision alternatives by integrated DEA, AHP and Gower Plot techniques. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 7, 241–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manski, C. F. (2004). Statistical treatment rules for heterogeneous populations. Econometrica, 72, 1221–1246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milnor, J. (1954). Games against Nature. In Thrall, R., Coombs, C., & Davis, R. (Eds.) Decision processes (pp. 49–60). London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulvey, J. M., Vanderbei, R. J., & Zenious, S. A. (1995). Robust optimization of large scale systems. Operations Research, 43, 264–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ou Yang, Y. P., Shieh, H. M., Leu, J. D., & Tzeng, G. H. (2009). A Vikor-based multiple criteria decision method for improving information security risk. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 8, 267–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, K. S. (2004). Mathematical programming models for characterizing dominance and potential optimality when multicriteria alternative values and weights are simultaneously incomplete. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. Part A. Systems and Humans, 34, 601–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, G. V. (1987). Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 32, 107–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salo, A. A., & Hamalainen, R. P. (2001). Preference ratios in multiattribute evaluation (PRIME)—elication and decision procedures under incomplete information. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. Part A. Systems and Humans, 31, 533–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage, L. J. (1951). The theory of statistical decision. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 46, 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage, L. J. (1954). The foundations of statistics. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, T. J. (1992). A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision-making theory and practice. Omega, 20, 569–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tchangani, A. P. (2009). Evaluation model for multiattributes-multiagents decision making: Satisficing game approach. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 8, 73–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wald, A. (1950). Statistical decision functions. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1987). Decision making with incomplete information. European Journal of Operational Research, 28, 44–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, Z. (2005). On method for uncertain multiple attribute decision making problems with uncertain multiplicative preference information on alternatives. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 4, 131–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeelenberg, M. (1999). Anticipated regret, expected feedback and behavioral decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 93–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Q., Ma, J., Fan, Z. P., & Chiang, W. C. (2003). A statistical approach to multiple-attribute decision-making with interval numbers. International Journal of Systems Science, 34, 683–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Management, Long Island University – C. W. Post Campus, 720 Northern Boulevard, Brookville, NY, 11548, USA

    Jiamin Wang

Authors
  1. Jiamin Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jiamin Wang.

Additional information

The author was supported by a research grant from the Faculty Research Committee at the C. W. Post Campus of Long Island University.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wang, J. Robust optimization analysis for multiple attribute decision making problems with imprecise information. Ann Oper Res 197, 109–122 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-010-0734-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-010-0734-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation