Search

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.06.007 Byline: Denis Bouyssou, Marc Pirlot Keywords: Multiple criteria analysis; Concordance; Outranking methods; Conjoint measurement; Nontransitive preferences Abstract: The purpose of this note is to sharpen the results in an earlier paper [Bouyssou, D., Pirlot, M., 2005. A characterization of concordance relations. European Journal of Operational Research 167 (2), 427-443] giving an axiomatic characterization of concordance relations. We show how the conditions used in this earlier paper can be weakened so as to become independent from the conditions needed to characterize a general conjoint measurement model tolerating intransitive and/or incomplete relations. This leads to a clearer characterization of concordance relations within this general model. Author Affiliation: CNRS, LAMSADE, Universite Paris Dauphine, Place du Marechal de Lattre de Tassigny, F-75775 Paris Cedex 16, France Faculte Polytechnique de Mons, 9, rue de Houdain, B-7000 Mons, Belgium Article History: Received 26 November 2005; Accepted 1 June 2006 Article Note: (footnote) [star] We wish to thank Thierry Marchant for very helpful discussions on the subject of this paper. The usual caveat applies.

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.01.033 Byline: Denis Bouyssou (a), Thierry Marchant (b) Keywords: Decision with multiple attributes; Sorting models; Noncompensation; Conjoint measurement; ELECTRE TRI Abstract: A number of recent papers have investigated the foundations of methods allowing to sort multi-attributed alternatives between several ordered categories. This paper has a similar objective. Our analysis uses a general conjoint measurement framework, encompassing most sorting models used in MDCM, that was proposed in the literature. Within this framework, we provide an axiomatic analysis of what we call noncompensatory sorting models, with or without veto effects. These noncompensatory sorting models contain the pessimistic version of ELECTRE TRI as a particular case. Our analysis can be seen as an attempt to give a firm axiomatic basis to ELECTRE TRI, while emphasizing its specific feature, i.e., the rather poor information that this model uses on each attribute. Author Affiliation: (a) CNRS - LAMSADE, Universite Paris Dauphine, Place du Marechal de Lattre de Tassigny, F-75775 Paris Cedex 16, France (b) Ghent University, Department of Data Analysis, H. Dunantlaan 1, B-9000 Gent, Belgium Article History: Received 3 March 2005; Accepted 13 January 2006

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.01.027 Byline: Denis Bouyssou (a), Thierry Marchant (b) Keywords: Decision with multiple attributes; Sorting; Conjoint measurement; Noncompensatory sorting methods; ELECTRE TRI Abstract: In the literature on MCDM, many methods have been proposed in order to sort alternatives evaluated on several attributes into ordered categories. Most of them were proposed on an ad hoc basis. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to a recent trend of research aiming at giving these methods sound theoretical foundations. Using tools from conjoint measurement, we provide an axiomatic analysis of the partitions of alternatives into two categories that can be obtained using what we call 'noncompensatory sorting models'. These models have strong links with the pessimistic version of ELECTRE TRI. Our analysis allows to pinpoint what appears to be the main distinctive features of ELECTRE TRI when compared to other sorting methods. It also gives hints on the various methods that have been proposed to assess the parameters of ELECTRE TRI on the basis of assignment examples. Author Affiliation: (a) CNRS-LAMSADE, Universite Paris Dauphine, Place du Marechal de Lattre de Tassigny, F-75775 Paris Cedex 16, France (b) Ghent University, Department of Data Analysis, H. Dunantlaan 1, B-9000 Gent, Belgium Article History: Received 3 March 2005; Accepted 13 January 2006

Axiomatic analysis, which is used to examine multiple criteria decision making problems, is presented.

A method of conjoint measurement for analyses of the non-transitive and / or incomplete binary relations on product sets is presented. The model does not involve an addition operation. Conjoint measurement is used in decision making under uncertainty, and in multiple criteria.

This paper deals with the problem of ranking several alternatives on the basis of a valued preference relation. A system of three independent axioms is shown to characterize a ranking method based on |net flows' which contains as particular cases the rules of Copeland and Borda and is used one of the PROMETHEE methods, The problem of comparing and ranking a number of alternatives based on a valued preference relation is tackled. Three independent axioms are used to characterize the ranking method based on net flows. The rules of Copeland and Borda are incorporated in the model. The net flow method is also used in the multiple criteria decision making process.

Arrow's impossibility result is shown as an extreme aspect in aggregation procedure. A study by Phillipe Vincke is analyzed based on the structure of aggregation procedures proposed. Results indicate that under 'Arrowian' conditions, when efficiency is at the maximum, democracy is at the minimum. Vincke maintains the situation becomes less absolute when not all individual prferences are completely aggregated.

This paper analyzes from an axiomatic point of view a recent proposal for counting citations: the value of a citation given by a paper is inversely proportional to the total number of papers it cites. This way of fractionally counting citations was suggested as a possible way to normalize citation counts between fields of research having different citation cultures. It belongs to the “citing-side” approach to normalization. We focus on the properties characterizing this way of counting citations when it comes to ranking authors. Our analysis is conducted within a formal framework that is more complex but also more realistic than the one usually adopted in most axiomatic analyses of this kind. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyzes several well-known bibliometric indices using an axiomatic approach. We concentrate on indices aiming at capturing the global impact of a scientific output and do not investigate indices aiming at capturing an average impact. Hence, the indices that we study are designed to evaluate authors or groups of authors but not journals. The bibliometric indices that are studied include classic ones such as the number of highly cited papers as well as more recent ones such as the h-index and the g-index. We give conditions that characterize these indices, up to the multiplication by a positive constant. We also study the bibliometric rankings that are induced by these indices. Hence, we provide a general framework for the comparison of bibliometric rankings and indices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This paper proposes an axiomatic analysis of Impact Factors when used as tools for ranking journals. This analysis draws on the similarities between the problem of comparing distribution of citations among papers and that of comparing probability distributions on consequences as commonly done in decision theory. Our analysis singles out a number of characteristic properties of the ranking based on Impact Factors. We also suggest alternative ways of using distributions of citations to rank order journals. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]