Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dominance, potential optimality and alternative ranking in imprecise multi-attribute decision making

  • Case-Oriented Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Operational Research Society

Abstract

In this paper, we introduce a methodology based on an additive multiattribute utility function that does not call for precise estimations of the inputs, such as utilities, attribute weights and performances of decision alternatives. The information about such inputs is assumed to be in the form of ranges, which constitute model constraints and give rise to nonlinear programming problems. This has significant drawbacks for outputting the sets of non-dominated and potentially optimal alternatives for such problems, and we, therefore, propose their transformation into equivalent linear programming problems. The set of non-dominated and potentially optimal alternatives is a non-ranked set and can be very large, which makes the choice of the most preferred alternative very difficult. The above problem is solved by proposing several methods for alternative ranking. An application to the disposal of surplus weapons-grade plutonium is considered, showing the advantages of this approach.

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

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Athanassopoulos AD and Podinovski VV (1997). Dominance and potential optimality in multiple criteria decision analysis with imprecise information. J Opl Res Soc 48: 142–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bárdossy A, Hagaman R, Duckstein L and Bogardi I (1992). Fuzzy least squares regression theory and application. In: Kacprzyk J and Fedrizi M (eds). Fuzzy Regression Analysis. Omnitech Press: Warsaw and Physica-Verlag: Heidelberg, pp 181–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertoluzza C, Corral N and Solas A (1995). On a new class of dis-tances between fuzzy numbers. Mathware Soft Comput 2: 71–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlow SA and Watson SR (1987). Structuring multi-attribute value hierarchies. J Opl Res Soc 38: 309–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrizosa E, Conde E, Fernández FR and Puerto J (1995). Multicriteria analysis with partial information about the weighting coefficients. Eur J Opl Res 81: 291–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook W and Kress M (1991). A multiple criteria decision model with ordinal preference data. Eur J Opl Res 54: 191–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond P (1988). Fuzzy least squares. Inform Sci 46: 141–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond P and Körner R (1997). Extended fuzzy linear models and least squares estimates. Comput Math Appl 33: 15–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond P and Tanaka H (1998). Fuzzy regression analysis. In: Slowinski R (ed.). Fuzzy Sets in Decision Analysis, Operations Research and Statistics. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, pp 349–387.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer JS, Edmunds T, Butler JC and Jia J (1996). A proposal of a methodology for the analysis and selection of alternatives for the deposition of surplus weaponsusable plutonium, Technical paper, 1996, Amarillo National Resource Center for Plutonium, USA.

  • Dyer JS, Edmunds T, Butler JC and Jia J (1997). Evaluation of alternatives for the disposition of surplus weapons-usable plutonium. Technical paper, 1997, Amarillo National Resource Center for Plutonium, USA.

  • Dyer JS, Edmunds T, Butler JC and Jia J (1998). A multi-attribute utility analysis of alternatives for the disposition of surplus weapons-grade plutonium. Opns Res 46: 759–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eum YS, Park KS and Kim SH (2001). Establishing dominance and potential optimality in multi-criteria analysis with imprecise weight and value. Comput Opl Res 28: 397–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn PC (1965). Analysis of decisions with incomplete knowledge of probabilities. Opns Res 13: 217–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannan EL (1981). Obtaining nondominated priority vectors for multiple objective decision-making problems with different combinations of cardinal and ordinal information. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernet 11: 538–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazen GB (1986). Partial information, dominance, and potential optimality in multiattribute utility theory. Opns Res 34: 296–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez A, Ríos-Insua S and Mateos A (2003). A decision support system for multiattribute utility evaluation based on imprecise assignments. Decis Support Syst 36: 65–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL and Raiffa H (1976). Decision with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value-Tradeoff. Wiley: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkwood CW and Sarin RK (1985). Ranking with partial information: a method and an application. Opns Res 33: 38–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kmietowicz ZW and Pearman AD (1984). Decision theory, linear partial information and statistical dominance. Omega-Int J Mngt Sci 12: 391–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee KS, Park KS and KIM SH (2002). Dominance, potential optimality, imprecise information and hierarchical structure in multi-criteria analysis. Comput Opl Res 29: 1267–1281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mateos A, Ríos-Insua S and Gallego E (2001). Postoptimal analysis in a multiattribute decision model for restoring contaminated aquatic ecosystems. J Opl Res Soc 52: 727–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miettinen K and Salminen P (1999). Decision-aid for discrete multiple criteria decision making problems with imprecise data. Eur J Opl Res 119: 50–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moskowitz H, Preckel PW and Yang ANG (1992). Multi-criteria robust interactive decision analysis (MCRID) for optimizing public policies. Eur J Opl Res 56: 219–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park KS, Kim SH and Yoon WC (1996a). Establishing strict dominance between alternatives with special type of incomplete information. Eur J Opl Res 96: 398–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park KS, Kim SH and Yoon WC (1996b). An extended model for establishing dominance in multiattribute decision making. J Opl Res Soc 47: 1415–1420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park KS and Kim SH (1997). Tools for interactive multiattribute decision making with incompletely identified information. Eur J Opl Res 98: 111–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearman AD (1993). Establishing dominance in multiattribute decision making using an ordered metric method. J Opl Res Soc 44: 461–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa H (1982). The Art and Science of Negotiation. Harvard University Press: Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ríos Insua D (1990). Sensitivity Analysis Multiobjective Decision Making. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, Vol. 347, Springer: Berlin.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ríos Insua D and French S (1991). A framework for sensitivity analysis in discrete multi-objective decision-making. Eur J Opl Res 54: 176–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ríos Insua D, Gallego E, Mateos A and Ríos-Insua S (2000). MOIRA: a decision support system for decision making on aquatic ecosystems contaminated by radioactive fallout. Ann Opns Res 95: 341–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ríos S, Ríos-Insua S, Ríos Insua D and Pachón J (1994). Experiments in robust decision making. In: Ríos S (ed). Decision Theory and Decision Analysis, Trends and Challenges. Kluwer: Boston, pp 233–242.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sage AP and White CC (1984). ARIADNE: a knowledge-based interactive system for planning and decision support. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernet 14: 35–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salo AA (1995). Interactive decision aiding for group decision support. Eur J Opl Res 84: 134–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salo AA and Hamalainen RP (1992). Preference assessment by imprecise ratio statements. Opns Res 40: 1053–1061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarin RK (1977). Interactive evaluation and bound procedure for selecting multiattributed alternatives. TIMS Studies Mngt Sci 6: 211–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarin RK (1978). Elicitation of subjective probabilities in the context of decisionmaking. Decision Sci 9: 37–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart TJ (1996). Robustness of additive value function method in MCDM. J Multi-Criteria Decision Anal 5: 301–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Nitzsch R and Weber M (1988). Utility function assessment on a microcomputer: an interactive procedure. Ann Opns Res 16: 149–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White CC, Sage AP and Dozono S (1984). A model of multiattribute decision making and trade-off weight determination under uncertainty. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernet 14: 223–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber M (1987). Decision making with incomplete information. Eur J Opl Res 28: 44–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science projects TSI2004-06801-C04-04 and MTM2004-21099-E.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technical University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    A Mateos, S Ríos-Insua & A Jiménez

Authors
  1. A Mateos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S Ríos-Insua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A Jiménez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A Jiménez.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mateos, A., Ríos-Insua, S. & Jiménez, A. Dominance, potential optimality and alternative ranking in imprecise multi-attribute decision making. J Oper Res Soc 58, 326–336 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602158

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602158

Keywords

Search

Navigation