Use of data analytics to build intuitive decision models – an approach to indirect derivation of criteria weights based on discordance related preferential information

IF 2.8 Q2 OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
Andrej Bregar
{"title":"Use of data analytics to build intuitive decision models – an approach to indirect derivation of criteria weights based on discordance related preferential information","authors":"Andrej Bregar","doi":"10.1080/12460125.2022.2073639","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Data on past and current decisions can be utilised to enhance the decision-making process by automating decisions or making problem solving more intuitive. Data is either extracted from distributed sources and repositories, or obtained with the regression analysis from holistically assessed alternatives and human judgements. One of possible advanced approaches to encourage intuitive decision-making aims at inferring criteria weights of the decision model with regard to correlations between preferential parameters, in such a way that objective inner information on alternatives is consolidated with personal knowledge and experience. This is relevant because the task of specifying criteria weights is cognitively demanding and represents a key aspect of each decision model. The paper first discusses the notation and infrastructure to exchange decision models and handle preferential information underlying the mechanisms of indirect weight derivation. As the main contribution of the research, a method for the inference of criteria weights from veto-related information is proposed, with which selective strengths of veto degrees are calculated to compare the magnitudes of veto, while strengths of veto assessments are used to determine the influence of veto on the deterioration of rankings or categories into which alternatives are sorted, respectively. Strengths of non-compensatory veto criteria are then projected into compensatory weights. The experimental study reveals the characteristics of indirectly derived criteria weights and the influence of veto. Several quality factors are considered, such as the validity of weights, accuracy of results, richness of information and ability to discriminate conflicting alternatives. Weights are also compared to standard ROC and RS surrogate weights. The approach is generalised to both common decision-making problematics of ranking and sorting.","PeriodicalId":45565,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Decision Systems","volume":"31 1","pages":"31 - 49"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Decision Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2022.2073639","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT Data on past and current decisions can be utilised to enhance the decision-making process by automating decisions or making problem solving more intuitive. Data is either extracted from distributed sources and repositories, or obtained with the regression analysis from holistically assessed alternatives and human judgements. One of possible advanced approaches to encourage intuitive decision-making aims at inferring criteria weights of the decision model with regard to correlations between preferential parameters, in such a way that objective inner information on alternatives is consolidated with personal knowledge and experience. This is relevant because the task of specifying criteria weights is cognitively demanding and represents a key aspect of each decision model. The paper first discusses the notation and infrastructure to exchange decision models and handle preferential information underlying the mechanisms of indirect weight derivation. As the main contribution of the research, a method for the inference of criteria weights from veto-related information is proposed, with which selective strengths of veto degrees are calculated to compare the magnitudes of veto, while strengths of veto assessments are used to determine the influence of veto on the deterioration of rankings or categories into which alternatives are sorted, respectively. Strengths of non-compensatory veto criteria are then projected into compensatory weights. The experimental study reveals the characteristics of indirectly derived criteria weights and the influence of veto. Several quality factors are considered, such as the validity of weights, accuracy of results, richness of information and ability to discriminate conflicting alternatives. Weights are also compared to standard ROC and RS surrogate weights. The approach is generalised to both common decision-making problematics of ranking and sorting.
使用数据分析建立直观的决策模型——一种基于不一致相关优先信息间接推导标准权重的方法
摘要通过自动化决策或使问题解决更加直观,可以利用过去和当前决策的数据来增强决策过程。数据要么从分布式来源和存储库中提取,要么通过回归分析从全面评估的备选方案和人类判断中获得。鼓励直觉决策的一种可能的高级方法旨在推断决策模型中关于优先参数之间相关性的标准权重,从而将关于替代方案的客观内部信息与个人知识和经验相结合。这是相关的,因为指定标准权重的任务在认知上要求很高,并且代表了每个决策模型的一个关键方面。本文首先讨论了间接权重推导机制下交换决策模型和处理优先信息的符号和基础设施。作为研究的主要贡献,提出了一种从否决权相关信息中推断标准权重的方法,通过计算否决度的选择性强度来比较否决权的大小,而使用否决权评估的强度来确定否决权对备选方案排序的排名或类别恶化的影响,分别地然后将非补偿性否决权标准的优势投影为补偿性权重。实验研究揭示了间接推导准则权重的特点以及否决权的影响。考虑了几个质量因素,如权重的有效性、结果的准确性、信息的丰富性以及区分冲突备选方案的能力。还将权重与标准ROC和RS代理权重进行比较。该方法适用于排序和排序这两种常见的决策问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Decision Systems
Journal of Decision Systems OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE-
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
23.50%
发文量
55
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信