在偏好激发过程中整合信心和信息保存:针对不一致判断的词典排序方法

IF 6.7 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT
Alexandre Ricardo , José Rui Figueira , Luís Valadares Tavares
{"title":"在偏好激发过程中整合信心和信息保存:针对不一致判断的词典排序方法","authors":"Alexandre Ricardo ,&nbsp;José Rui Figueira ,&nbsp;Luís Valadares Tavares","doi":"10.1016/j.omega.2024.103136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The Pairwise Comparison Table for the Deck of Cards Method enables the elicitation of preference parameters through an interactive process between an analyst and a Decision-Maker (DM). As in other preferences elicitation processes in Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding (MCDA) problems, this methodology can result in several inconsistent judgments. One way to address this concern is to use Linear Programming (LP) techniques to find solutions that minimize the number of initial inconsistent judgments that must be modified to restore consistency. However, since this approach does not allow further differentiating solutions, it can be inefficient in decision problems with multiple inconsistent information and several distinct solutions to overcome such inconsistencies. To enhance the decision-making process and to suggest solutions based on enriched information, we propose a new procedure for addressing inconsistent judgments based on two additional criteria to complement the minimum cardinality criterion. While the first additional criterion concerns the confidence level of the DM in their initial judgments, the second seeks to minimize the modifications made to the initial judgments to distort them as little as possible. Solving the three criteria in a specific LP-based lexicographic order defined by the DM makes it possible to determine a comprehensive ranking of eligible solutions to restore consistency. Proposing these solutions to the DM according to their position in the ranking enables revising the initial inconsistent judgments more efficiently. The new methodology also considers the possibility of missing confidence information, which can decrease the cognitive effort of the DM in real-world decision problems when eliciting preferences.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":19529,"journal":{"name":"Omega-international Journal of Management Science","volume":"129 ","pages":"Article 103136"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305048324001026/pdfft?md5=ebe52421928767e5b003b0709c167536&pid=1-s2.0-S0305048324001026-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Integrating confidence and preservation of information in the preference elicitation process: A lexicographic order approach for inconsistent judgments\",\"authors\":\"Alexandre Ricardo ,&nbsp;José Rui Figueira ,&nbsp;Luís Valadares Tavares\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.omega.2024.103136\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The Pairwise Comparison Table for the Deck of Cards Method enables the elicitation of preference parameters through an interactive process between an analyst and a Decision-Maker (DM). As in other preferences elicitation processes in Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding (MCDA) problems, this methodology can result in several inconsistent judgments. One way to address this concern is to use Linear Programming (LP) techniques to find solutions that minimize the number of initial inconsistent judgments that must be modified to restore consistency. However, since this approach does not allow further differentiating solutions, it can be inefficient in decision problems with multiple inconsistent information and several distinct solutions to overcome such inconsistencies. To enhance the decision-making process and to suggest solutions based on enriched information, we propose a new procedure for addressing inconsistent judgments based on two additional criteria to complement the minimum cardinality criterion. While the first additional criterion concerns the confidence level of the DM in their initial judgments, the second seeks to minimize the modifications made to the initial judgments to distort them as little as possible. Solving the three criteria in a specific LP-based lexicographic order defined by the DM makes it possible to determine a comprehensive ranking of eligible solutions to restore consistency. Proposing these solutions to the DM according to their position in the ranking enables revising the initial inconsistent judgments more efficiently. The new methodology also considers the possibility of missing confidence information, which can decrease the cognitive effort of the DM in real-world decision problems when eliciting preferences.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19529,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Omega-international Journal of Management Science\",\"volume\":\"129 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103136\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305048324001026/pdfft?md5=ebe52421928767e5b003b0709c167536&pid=1-s2.0-S0305048324001026-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Omega-international Journal of Management Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305048324001026\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Omega-international Journal of Management Science","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305048324001026","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

纸牌配对比较表法可通过分析师与决策者(DM)之间的互动过程来激发偏好参数。与多标准辅助决策(MCDA)问题中的其他偏好激发过程一样,这种方法可能会导致多个不一致的判断。解决这一问题的方法之一是使用线性规划(LP)技术来寻找解决方案,以尽量减少为恢复一致性而必须修改的初始不一致判断的数量。然而,由于这种方法不允许进一步区分解决方案,因此在具有多个不一致信息和多个不同解决方案来克服这些不一致的决策问题中,这种方法的效率可能会很低。为了改进决策过程,并根据丰富的信息提出解决方案,我们提出了一种新的程序来处理不一致的判断,该程序基于两个额外的标准,以补充最小卡方标准。第一条附加标准涉及管理学家对其初始判断的信心水平,第二条标准则力求最大限度地减少对初始判断的修改,从而尽可能减少对初始判断的扭曲。按照 DM 定义的基于 LP 的特定词法顺序解决这三个标准,就有可能确定符合条件的解决方案的综合排名,以恢复一致性。根据这些方案在排序中的位置向 DM 提出这些方案,可以更有效地修改最初的不一致判断。新方法还考虑了缺失置信度信息的可能性,这可以减少 DM 在实际决策问题中激发偏好时的认知努力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Integrating confidence and preservation of information in the preference elicitation process: A lexicographic order approach for inconsistent judgments

The Pairwise Comparison Table for the Deck of Cards Method enables the elicitation of preference parameters through an interactive process between an analyst and a Decision-Maker (DM). As in other preferences elicitation processes in Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding (MCDA) problems, this methodology can result in several inconsistent judgments. One way to address this concern is to use Linear Programming (LP) techniques to find solutions that minimize the number of initial inconsistent judgments that must be modified to restore consistency. However, since this approach does not allow further differentiating solutions, it can be inefficient in decision problems with multiple inconsistent information and several distinct solutions to overcome such inconsistencies. To enhance the decision-making process and to suggest solutions based on enriched information, we propose a new procedure for addressing inconsistent judgments based on two additional criteria to complement the minimum cardinality criterion. While the first additional criterion concerns the confidence level of the DM in their initial judgments, the second seeks to minimize the modifications made to the initial judgments to distort them as little as possible. Solving the three criteria in a specific LP-based lexicographic order defined by the DM makes it possible to determine a comprehensive ranking of eligible solutions to restore consistency. Proposing these solutions to the DM according to their position in the ranking enables revising the initial inconsistent judgments more efficiently. The new methodology also considers the possibility of missing confidence information, which can decrease the cognitive effort of the DM in real-world decision problems when eliciting preferences.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Omega-international Journal of Management Science
Omega-international Journal of Management Science 管理科学-运筹学与管理科学
CiteScore
13.80
自引率
11.60%
发文量
130
审稿时长
56 days
期刊介绍: Omega reports on developments in management, including the latest research results and applications. Original contributions and review articles describe the state of the art in specific fields or functions of management, while there are shorter critical assessments of particular management techniques. Other features of the journal are the "Memoranda" section for short communications and "Feedback", a correspondence column. Omega is both stimulating reading and an important source for practising managers, specialists in management services, operational research workers and management scientists, management consultants, academics, students and research personnel throughout the world. The material published is of high quality and relevance, written in a manner which makes it accessible to all of this wide-ranging readership. Preference will be given to papers with implications to the practice of management. Submissions of purely theoretical papers are discouraged. The review of material for publication in the journal reflects this aim.
×
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