Search

In this paper, we are interested in decision aiding problems, aiming at rating a set of objects with respect to several dimensions, called criteria. A rating problem statement consists on partitioning a set of objects into predefined ordered equivalence classes, called categories, identified by ratings. Rating problems are widely studied in the literature, either based on the utility theory, rough sets or the majority principle. The existing methods based on the majority principle present some disadvantages potentially leading to an unconvincing rating because challenged by contradictory pairwise comparisons. In this work, we present a new method providing a "convincing" (challenge-free) rating over a set of studied objects, based on the aggregation of positive and negative reasons, respectively supporting and opposing a rating. The method exploits comparisons among the objects and the profiles characterizing the categories as well as comparisons among the objects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The multicriteria decision aiding field offers many methods to support decision makers in comparing a list of alternatives. Among these, outranking methods such as ELECTRE are appreciated for avoiding full compensation among criteria, but outranking relations are difficult to exploit due to incompleteness and lack of transitivity. This work focuses on choice problems, proposing a stochastic exploitation method to select the most preferred alternative. It builds on the concept of Markov solution, which has become popular to select a winner in tournaments and voting problems. The proposed method can be used to exploit crisp outranking relations, valued outranking relations, or stochastic outranking relations. This can be a valuable addition to the toolbox for exploiting outranking relations as this work shows that solutions can be computed without much effort and guarantee some essential properties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Facing multiple and often considered as conflicting stakes, either economical, migratory, or environmental, policy-making may struggle to identify and implement relevant policy action allowing for balanced and joint completion of such challenges. Addressing this important public issue, we develop a multi-criteria two-stage Goal Programming (GP) model to identify optimal policy paths towards the Europe 2020 strategy on economic growth, employment levels and environmental sustainability. The model is calibrated on current contributions of economic sectors in all European countries to each policy objective: contribution to economic output (GDP), emissions of Green House Gas, electric consumption and number of jobs. First, we study the optimal allocation of workers within economic sectors of each European country to maximize the joint achievement of Europe 2020 multi criteria sustainability targets. We then extend the model to allow cooperation between states, namely allowing internal migrations of workers between countries. We highlight how supranational allocation schemes of surplus workers improve the satisfaction of national sustainability objectives. Finally, we consider extra-European migrants regional integration and study the consequences of such opening over EU2020 targets satisfaction and per capita GDP. Simulation results highlight countries performance comparison, and sheds light on significant benefits from such cooperation for the majority of countries. Improved integration of internal and external workforce generally improves the achievement of EU2020 objectives, while keeping per capita GDP at least constant. Moreover, we expose the relevance of cooperative work-flows allocation strategies across Europe and emphasize the importance of workers mobility in order to ensure more sustainable common development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods have been proposed over the last decades. Some of the most known methods share some similarities in the way they are used and configured. However, we live in a time of change and nowadays the decision-making process (especially when done in group) is even more demanding and dynamic. In this work, we propose a MCDA method that includes cognitive aspects (cognitive analytic process, CAP). By taking advantage of aspects such as expertise level, credibility and behaviour style of the decision-makers, we propose a method that relates these aspects with problem configurations (alternatives and criteria preferences) done by each decision-maker. In this work, we evaluated the CAP in terms of configuration costs and the capability to enhance the quality of the decision. We have used the satisfaction level as a metric to compare our method with other known MCDA methods in literature (utility function, AHP and TOPSIS). Our method proved to be capable to achieve higher satisfaction levels compared to other MCDA methods, especially when the decision suggested by CAP is different from the one proposed by those methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Outranking relations such as produced by the Electre I or II or the Tactic methods are based on a concordance and non-discordance principle that leads to declaring that an alternative is 'superior' to another, if the coalition of attributes supporting this proposition is 'sufficiently important' (concordance condition) and if there is no attribute that 'strongly rejects' it (non-discordance condition). Such a way of comparing alternatives is rather natural and does not require a detailed analysis of tradeoffs between the various attributes. However, it is well known that it may produce binary relations that do not possess any remarkable property of transitivity or completeness. The axiomatic foundations of outranking relations have recently received attention. Within a conjoint measurement framework, characterizations of reflexive concordance-discordance relations have been obtained. These relations encompass those generated by the Electre I and II methods, which are non-strict (reflexive) relations. A different characterization has been provided for strict (asymmetric) preference relations such as produced by Tactic. In this paper we briefly review the various kinds of axiomatizations of outranking relations proposed so far in the literature. Then we analyze the relationships between reflexive and asymmetric outranking relations in a conjoint measurement framework, consolidating our previous work. Co-duality plays an essential rôle in our analysis. It allows us to understand the correspondence between the previous characterizations. Making a step further, we provide a common axiomatic characterization for both types of relations. Applying the co-duality operator to concordance-discordance relations also yields a new and interesting type of preference relation that we call concordance relation with bonus. The axiomatic characterization of such relations results directly from co-duality arguments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Union's efforts for poverty reduction are based on the principle of Sustainable Human Development. Meeting the terms of this principle entails the consideration of aspects of general interest, known as 'cross-cutting issues', at all levels of intervention. Cross-cutting issues comprise issues like human rights, gender equity, environmental concern, democracy as a social value, or the participation and empowerment of the beneficiaries of development. These issues concern social phenomena that are difficult to isolate in time or capture empirically, causing operational difficulties when projects are subjected to evaluation. Traditional methods of project evaluation, such as Cost Benefit Analysis or the Logic Framework, struggle to incorporate impacts that are difficult to measure or estimate in terms of indicators or monetary value. Therefore, in the field work at a rural development programme located in Bolivia, a need arose spontaneously to find and implement an approach that, complementary to traditional methods of project evaluation, could allow project managers to keep an eye on project performances in terms of cross-cutting issues. This article describes how the MACBETH multicriteria approach was implemented in practice, in order to help an important rural development programme build a project evaluation tool, taking into account cross-cutting issues through a series of interviews and decision conferences attended by specialists and the programme staff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Evidential Reasoning (ER) approach is a general approach for analyzing multiple criteria decision problems under various types of uncertainty using a unified framework-belief structure. In this paper, the ER approach is surveyed from two aspects: theoretical development and applications. After a brief outline of its development and extension over a twenty year period, the ER approach is outlined with a focus on the links among its various developments. Future research directions in the area are also explored in the survey. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]