Individual and social strategies to deal with ignorance situations in multi-person decision making. (English) Zbl 1178.90175
Summary: Multi-person decision making problems involve the preferences of some experts about a set of alternatives in order to find the best one. However, sometimes experts might not possess a precise or sufficient level of knowledge of part of the problem and as a consequence that expert might not give all the information that is required. Indeed, this may be the case when the number of alternatives is high and experts are using fuzzy preference relations to represent their preferences. In the literature, incomplete information situations have been studied, and as a result, procedures that are able to compute the missing information of a preference relation have been designed. However, these approaches usually need at least a piece of information about every alternative in the problem in order to be successful in estimating all the missing preference values.
In this paper, we address situations in which an expert does not provide any information about a particular alternative, which we call situations of total ignorance. We analyze several strategies to deal with these situations. We classify these strategies into: (i) individual strategies that can be applied to each individual preference relation without taking into account any information from the rest of experts and (ii) social strategies, that is, strategies that make use of the information available from the group of experts. Both individual and social strategies use extra assumptions or knowledge, which could not be directly instantiated in the experts preference relations. We also provide an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each one of the strategies presented, and the situations where some of them may be more adequate to be applied than the others.
In this paper, we address situations in which an expert does not provide any information about a particular alternative, which we call situations of total ignorance. We analyze several strategies to deal with these situations. We classify these strategies into: (i) individual strategies that can be applied to each individual preference relation without taking into account any information from the rest of experts and (ii) social strategies, that is, strategies that make use of the information available from the group of experts. Both individual and social strategies use extra assumptions or knowledge, which could not be directly instantiated in the experts preference relations. We also provide an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each one of the strategies presented, and the situations where some of them may be more adequate to be applied than the others.
MSC:
| 90B50 | Management decision making, including multiple objectives |
| 68T20 | Problem solving in the context of artificial intelligence (heuristics, search strategies, etc.) |
References:
| [1] | Evangelos T., Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study (2000) · Zbl 0980.90032 |
| [2] | Marakas G. H., Decision Support Systems in the 21th Century (2003) |
| [3] | DOI: 10.1016/S0165-0114(96)00339-9 · Zbl 0932.91012 · doi:10.1016/S0165-0114(96)00339-9 |
| [4] | DOI: 10.1016/S0165-0114(01)00256-1 · Zbl 1027.91014 · doi:10.1016/S0165-0114(01)00256-1 |
| [5] | DOI: 10.1016/S0165-0114(00)00004-X · Zbl 1098.90523 · doi:10.1016/S0165-0114(00)00004-X |
| [6] | DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-1648-2 · doi:10.1007/978-94-017-1648-2 |
| [7] | DOI: 10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00725-7 · Zbl 1099.91508 · doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00725-7 |
| [8] | DOI: 10.1016/0165-0114(86)90014-X · Zbl 0604.90012 · doi:10.1016/0165-0114(86)90014-X |
| [9] | DOI: 10.1016/0165-0114(84)90032-0 · Zbl 0567.90002 · doi:10.1016/0165-0114(84)90032-0 |
| [10] | DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-51711-2_4 · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-51711-2_4 |
| [11] | DOI: 10.1016/S0165-0114(02)00433-5 · Zbl 1056.91016 · doi:10.1016/S0165-0114(02)00433-5 |
| [12] | DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-111X(199601)11:1<49::AID-INT3>3.0.CO;2-Z · doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-111X(199601)11:1<49::AID-INT3>3.0.CO;2-Z |
| [13] | DOI: 10.1109/3477.752789 · doi:10.1109/3477.752789 |
| [14] | DOI: 10.1016/S0165-0114(02)00432-3 · Zbl 1056.68146 · doi:10.1016/S0165-0114(02)00432-3 |
| [15] | DOI: 10.1016/j.ins.2003.10.006 · Zbl 1101.68849 · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2003.10.006 |
| [16] | DOI: 10.1007/978-3-7908-1797-3_10 · doi:10.1007/978-3-7908-1797-3_10 |
| [17] | DOI: 10.1109/TSMCB.2006.875872 · doi:10.1109/TSMCB.2006.875872 |
| [18] | DOI: 10.1016/j.fss.2005.05.046 · Zbl 1117.91330 · doi:10.1016/j.fss.2005.05.046 |
| [19] | DOI: 10.1016/j.ijar.2006.07.007 · Zbl 1115.68144 · doi:10.1016/j.ijar.2006.07.007 |
| [20] | Yucheng D., Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 4223 pp 501– (2006) · doi:10.1007/11881599_58 |
| [21] | DOI: 10.1142/S0218488595000050 · Zbl 1232.91145 · doi:10.1142/S0218488595000050 |
| [22] | DOI: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2009.2013457 · doi:10.1109/TFUZZ.2009.2013457 |
| [23] | DOI: 10.1109/3468.553232 · doi:10.1109/3468.553232 |
| [24] | DOI: 10.1016/0305-0548(96)00002-H · Zbl 0838.90014 · doi:10.1016/0305-0548(96)00002-H |
| [25] | DOI: 10.1016/0377-2217(92)90278-H · doi:10.1016/0377-2217(92)90278-H |
| [26] | DOI: 10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.001 · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.001 |
| [27] | DOI: 10.1016/0165-0114(92)90107-F · Zbl 0768.90003 · doi:10.1016/0165-0114(92)90107-F |
| [28] | DOI: 10.1016/S0165-0114(96)00047-4 · doi:10.1016/S0165-0114(96)00047-4 |
| [29] | DOI: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2006.889952 · doi:10.1109/TFUZZ.2006.889952 |
| [30] | DOI: 10.1109/TSMCA.2002.802821 · doi:10.1109/TSMCA.2002.802821 |
| [31] | DOI: 10.1002/int.10119 · Zbl 1048.68098 · doi:10.1002/int.10119 |
| [32] | DOI: 10.1142/S0219622007002605 · doi:10.1142/S0219622007002605 |
| [33] | DOI: 10.1142/S0219622007002575 · doi:10.1142/S0219622007002575 |
| [34] | Ok. Efe A., J. Econom. Theory 104 pp 429– · Zbl 1068.47065 |
| [35] | Kim S. H., Comput. Oper. Res. 24 pp 1101– |
| [36] | DOI: 10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00040-X · Zbl 1009.90519 · doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00040-X |
| [37] | DOI: 10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00309-9 · Zbl 0946.91006 · doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00309-9 |
| [38] | DOI: 10.1016/j.ijar.2003.10.011 · Zbl 1088.91015 · doi:10.1016/j.ijar.2003.10.011 |
| [39] | DOI: 10.1142/S0219622005001349 · doi:10.1142/S0219622005001349 |
| [40] | DOI: 10.1142/S0219622005001465 · doi:10.1142/S0219622005001465 |
| [41] | DOI: 10.1016/j.inffus.2005.01.003 · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2005.01.003 |
| [42] | DOI: 10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00383-X · Zbl 0984.68156 · doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00383-X |
| [43] | DOI: 10.1016/S0020-0255(03)00183-X · Zbl 1049.90038 · doi:10.1016/S0020-0255(03)00183-X |
| [44] | DOI: 10.1016/0165-0114(78)90001-5 · Zbl 0396.90004 · doi:10.1016/0165-0114(78)90001-5 |
| [45] | Saaty Th. L., Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the AHP (1994) |
| [46] | DOI: 10.1142/S0219622008002867 · Zbl 1152.90588 · doi:10.1142/S0219622008002867 |
| [47] | DOI: 10.1142/S0219622008002922 · Zbl 1165.91349 · doi:10.1142/S0219622008002922 |
| [48] | DOI: 10.1142/S0219622007002356 · Zbl 1200.68221 · doi:10.1142/S0219622007002356 |
| [49] | DOI: 10.1142/S0219622007002423 · doi:10.1142/S0219622007002423 |
| [50] | DOI: 10.1016/0165-4896(84)90061-1 · Zbl 0553.90016 · doi:10.1016/0165-4896(84)90061-1 |
| [51] | DOI: 10.1002/int.20262 · Zbl 1148.68470 · doi:10.1002/int.20262 |
| [52] | DOI: 10.1142/S0218488508005467 · Zbl 1185.91070 · doi:10.1142/S0218488508005467 |
| [53] | Chiclana F., IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. |
| [54] | DOI: 10.1142/S021962200600185X · doi:10.1142/S021962200600185X |
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.
