Advertisement

Towards a Protocol for Inferring Preferences Using Majority-rule Sorting Models

  • Alexandru-Liviu Olteanu
  • Patrick Meyer
  • Ann Barcomb
  • Nicolas Jullien
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10576)

Abstract

In Multi-Criteria Decision Aiding, one of the current challenges involves the proper integration and tuning of the preference models in real-life contexts. In this article, we consider the multi-criteria sorting problem where the decision maker’s preferences fall within the outranking paradigm. Following recent advances on extensions of classical majority-rule sorting models, we propose a methodology for adapting them to the perspective of the decision maker. We illustrate the application of the methodology on a real-world problem linked to the evaluation of contributors within Free/Libre Open Source Software communities. The experiments that we have carried out show that the various considered model extensions appear to be useful from the perspective of decision makers in a real-life preference elicitation process, and that the proposed methodology gives useful indications that can serve as guidelines for analysts involved in other elicitation processes.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported, in part, by Science Foundation Ireland grants 10/CE/I1855 and 13/RC/2094 to Lero - the Irish Software Research Centre (www.lero.ie).

References

  1. 1.
    Bigaret, S., Hodgett, R.E., Meyer, P., Mironova, T., Olteanu, A.-L.: Supporting the multi-criteria decision aiding process: R and the MCDA package. EURO J. Decis. Processes 1–26 (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bisdorff, R.: On polarizing outranking relations with large performance differences. J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 20(1–2), 3–12 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bouyssou, D., Marchant, T.: An axiomatic approach to noncompensatory sorting methods in MCDM, I: the case of two categories. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 178(1), 217–245 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bouyssou, D., Marchant, T.: An axiomatic approach to noncompensatory sorting methods in MCDM, II: more than two categories. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 178(1), 246–276 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dias, L.C., Mousseau, V., Figueira, J., Clímaco, J.N.: An aggregation/disaggregation approach to obtain robust conclusions with ELECTRE TRI. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 138(2), 332–348 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R.: A new rough set approach to multicriteria and multiattribute classification. In: Polkowski, L., Skowron, A. (eds.) RSCTC 1998. LNCS, vol. 1424, pp. 60–67. Springer, Heidelberg (1998). doi: 10.1007/3-540-69115-4_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H.: Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Wiley, New York (1976)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meyer, P., Olteanu, A.-L.: Integrating large positive and negative performance differences into multicriteria majority-rule sorting models. Comput. Oper. Res. 81, 216–230 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mousseau, V., Dias, L.C., Figueira, J.: Dealing with inconsistent judgments in multiple criteria sorting models. 4OR 4(3), 145–158 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mousseau, V., Słowiński, R.: Inferring an ELECTRE TRI model from assignment examples. J. Glob. Optim. 12(2), 157–174 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mousseau, V., Słowiński, R., Zielniewicz, P.: A user-oriented implementation of the ELECTRE TRI method integrating preference elicitation support. Comput. Oper. Res. 27(7–8), 757–777 (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roy, B.: The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods. Theor. Decis. 31, 49–73 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roy, B.: Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Aiding. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (1996)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roy, B., Słowiński, R.: Handling effects of reinforced preference and counter-veto in credibility of outranking. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 188(1), 185–190 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexandru-Liviu Olteanu
    • 1
  • Patrick Meyer
    • 1
  • Ann Barcomb
    • 2
  • Nicolas Jullien
    • 3
  1. 1.IMT Atlantique, Lab-STICCUniv. Bretagne LoireBrestFrance
  2. 2.LeroUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland
  3. 3.IMT Atlantique, LEGO-M@rsouinUniv. Bretagne LoireBrestFrance

Personalised recommendations