Skip to main content
Log in

Multiattribute decision analysis using strict preference relations

  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To identify multiattribute utility functions under the assumption of the mutual utility independence, a decision maker must specify indifference points and subjective probabilities precisely. By relaxing this rigorous evaluation, multiattribute value models with incomplete information have been developed. In this paper, we present a new method finding the best alternative through strict preference relations derived from the decision maker by asking questions that are relatively easy to answer compared to the indifference questions. In our method, alternatives consistent with the derived strict preference relations are obtained by solving mathematical programming problems with constraints representing the preference relations, and eventually we can find the most preferred alternative by deriving additional preference relations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barron, F. H., & Barrett, B. E. (1996). Decision quality using ranked attribute weights. Management Science, 42, 1515–1523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y., Hipel, K. W., & Kilgour, D. M. (2007). Multiple criteria sorting using case-based distance models with an application in water resources management. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A, 37, 680–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doumpos, M., & Zopounidis, C. (2011). Preference disaggregation and statistical learning for multicriteria decision support: A review. European Journal of Operational Research, 209, 203–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., & Słowiński, R. (2001). Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 129, 1–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greco, S., Mousseau, V., & Słowiński, R. (2008). Ordinal regression revisited: Multiple criteria ranking using a set of additive value functions. European Journal of Operational Research, 191, 415–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayashida, T., Nishizaki, I., & Ueda, Y. (2010). Multiattribute utility analysis for policy selection and financing for the preservation of the forest. European Journal of Operational Research, 200, 629–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayashida, T., Nishizaki, I., Ueda, Y., & Honda, H. (2012). Multi-criteria evaluation for collaborative circulating farming with collective operations between arable and cattle farmers. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 19, 227–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holloway, H. A., & White, C. C, I. I. I. (2003). Question selection for multiattribute decision-aiding. European Journal of Operational Research, 148, 525–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacquet-Lagreze, E., & Siskos, Y. (1982). Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision-making, the UTA method. European Journal of Operational Research, 10, 151–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. New York: Wiley

  • Kirkwood, C. W., & Sarin, R. K. (1985). Ranking with partial information: A method and an application. Operations Research, 33, 38–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mousseau, V., & Słowiński, R. (1998). Inferring an ELECTRE-TRI model from assignment examples. Journal of Global Optimization, 12, 157–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, K. S., & Kim, S. H. (1997). Tools for interactive multiattribute decisionmaking with incompletely identified information. European Journal of Operational Research, 98, 111–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rios-Insua, S., & Mateos, A. (1998). The utility efficient set and its interactive reduction. European Journal of Operational Research, 105, 581–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarabando, P., & Dias, L. C. (2009). Multiattribute choice with ordinal information: A comparison of different decision rules. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A, 39, 545–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarabando, P., & Dias, L. C. (2010). Simple procedures of choice in multicriteria problems without precise information about the alternativesf values. Computers & Operations Research, 37, 2239–2247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vetschera, R., Chen, Y., Hipel, K., & Kilgour, D. (2010). Robustness and information levels in case-based multiple criteria sorting. European Journal of Operational Research, 202, 841–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallenius, J., Dyer, J. S., Fishburn, P. C., Steuer, R. E., Zionts, S., & Deb, K. (2008). Multiple criteria decision making, multiattribute utility theory: Recent accomplishments and what lies ahead. Management Science, 54, 1336–1349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., & Malakooti, B. (1992). A feed forward neural network for multiple criteria decision making. Computers and Operations Research, 19, 151–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1985). A method of multiattribute decision making with incomplete information. Management Science, 31, 1365–1371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, C. C, I. I. I., & Holloway, H. A. (2008). Resolvability for imprecise multiattribute alternative selection. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A, 38, 162–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ichiro Nishizaki.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nishizaki, I., Hayashida, T. & Ohmi, M. Multiattribute decision analysis using strict preference relations. Ann Oper Res 245, 379–400 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-014-1680-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-014-1680-9

Keywords

Navigation