Pseudo-criteria versus linear utility function in stochastic multi-criteria acceptability analysis

被引:50
作者
Lahdelma, R
Salminen, P
机构
[1] Univ Turku, Dept Comp Sci, FIN-20520 Turku, Finland
[2] Univ Joensuu, Dept Econ, FIN-80101 Joensuu, Finland
基金
芬兰科学院;
关键词
multiple criteria analysis; decision support systems; decision theory; utility theory; pseudo-criteria;
D O I
10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00276-4
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
Stochastic multi-criteria acceptability analysis (SMAA) is a multi-criteria decision support method for multiple decision-makers (DMs) in discrete problems. SMAA does not require explicit or implicit preference information from the DMs. Instead, the method is based on exploring the weight space in order to describe the valuations that would make each alternative the preferred one. Partial preference information can be represented in the weight space analysis through weight distributions. In this paper we compare two variants of the SMAA method using randomly generated test problems with 2-12 criteria and 4-12 alternatives. In the original SMAA, a utility or value function models the DMs' preference structure. and the inaccuracy or uncertainty of the criteria is represented by probability distributions. In SMAA-3, ELECTRE III-type pseudo-criteria are used instead. Both methods compute for each alternative art acceptability index measuring the variety of different valuations that supports this alternative, and a central weight vector representing the typical valuations resulting in this decision. We seek answers to three questions: (1) how similar are the results provided by the decision models, (2) what kind of systematic differences exists between the models, and (3) how could one select indifference and preference thresholds of the pseudo-criteria model to match a utility model with given probability distributions? (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:454 / 469
页数:16
相关论文
共 29 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 142 SEMA METR INT
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1980, ANAL HIERARCHY PROCE
[4]  
BRANS JP, 1985, MANAGEMENT SCI, V31
[5]  
Charnetski J., 1973, THESIS U TEXAS AUSTI
[6]   MULTIPLE-ATTRIBUTE DECISION-MAKING WITH PARTIAL INFORMATION - COMPARATIVE HYPERVOLUME CRITERION [J].
CHARNETSKI, JR ;
SOLAND, RM .
NAVAL RESEARCH LOGISTICS, 1978, 25 (02) :279-288
[7]   Multicriteria decision support in a technology competition for cleaning polluted soil in Helsinki [J].
Hokkanen, J ;
Lahdelma, R ;
Salminen, P .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2000, 60 (04) :339-348
[8]  
HOKKANEN J, 1999, 49 M EUR WORK GROUP
[9]  
HOKKANEN J, 1998, J MULTICRITERIA DECI, V7, P273, DOI DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1360(199809)7:5(273::AID-MCDA198)3.0.CO
[10]  
2-1