首页> 外文期刊>Computers & operations research >Scoring procedures for multiple criteria decision aiding with robust and stochastic ordinal regression
【24h】

Scoring procedures for multiple criteria decision aiding with robust and stochastic ordinal regression

机译:多准则决策的评分程序,可帮助进行稳健的随机序数回归

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

We propose several scoring procedures for transforming the results of robustness analysis to a univocal recommendation. We use a preference model in form of an additive value function, and assume the Decision Maker (DM) to provide pairwise comparisons of reference alternatives. We adapt single-and multi-stage ranking methods to select the best alternative or construct a complete ranking by exploiting four types of outcomes: (1) necessary preference relation, (2) pairwise outranking indices, (3) extreme ranks, and (4) rank acceptability indices. In each case, a choice or ranking recommendation is obtained without singling out a specific value function. We compare the proposed scoring procedures in terms of their ability to suggest the same recommendation as the one obtained with the Decision Maker's assumed "true" value function. To quantify the results of an extensive simulation study, we use the following comparative measures (including some newly proposed ones): (i) hit ratio, (ii) normalized hit ratio, (iii) Kendall's tau, (iv) rank difference measure, and (v) rank agreement measure. Their analysis indicates that to identify the best "true" alternative, we should refer to the acceptability indices for the top rank(s), whereas to reproduce the complete "true" ranking it is most beneficial to focus on the expected ranks that alternatives may attain or on the balance between how much each alternative outranks and is outranked by all other alternatives. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
机译:我们提出了几种评分程序,用于将鲁棒性分析的结果转换为明确的建议。我们使用附加值函数形式的偏好模型,并假定决策者(DM)提供参考替代方案的成对比较。我们采用四阶段结果,采用单阶段和多阶段排名方法来选择最佳替代方案或构建完整排名:(1)必要的偏好关系,(2)成对排名指数,(3)极端排名和(4) )排名可接受指数。在每种情况下,都无需选择特定的价值函数即可获得选择或排名推荐。我们比较建议的计分程序,根据其提出与决策者假定的“真实”价值函数获得的建议相同的建议的能力。为了量化广泛模拟研究的结果,我们使用以下比较措施(包括一些新提出的措施):( i)命中率,(ii)归一化命中率,(iii)肯德尔的tau,(iv)等级差异度量, (v)等级协议措施。他们的分析表明,要确定最佳的“真实”替代方案,我们应该参考最高排名的可接受性指数,而要重现完整的“真实”评级,则将重点放在替代方案可能会产生的预期排名上是最有益的在每个替代方案胜出的数量与所有其他替代方案胜过的数量之间达成平衡。 (C)2016 Elsevier Ltd.保留所有权利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号