Devising a method for identifying the model of multi-criteria expert estimation of alternatives

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2021.238020

Keywords:

decision making, utility theory, comparative identification, ranking of alternatives, utility function

Abstract

An approach to constructing mathematical models of individual multicriterial estimation was proposed based on information about the ordering relations established by the expert for a set of alternatives. Structural identification of the estimation model using the additive utility function of alternatives was performed within axiomatics of the multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT). A method of parametric identification of the model based on the ideas of the theory of comparative identification has been developed. To determine the model parameters, it was proposed to use the midpoint method that has resulted in the possibility of obtaining a uniform stable solution of the problem. It was shown that in this case, the problem of parametric identification of the estimation model can be reduced to a standard linear programming problem. The scalar multicriterial estimates of alternatives obtained on the basis of the synthesized mathematical model make it possible to compare them among themselves according to the degree of efficiency and, thus, choose "the best" or rank them.

A significant advantage of the proposed approach is the ability to use only non-numerical information about the decisions already made by experts to solve the problem of identifying the model parameters. This enables partial reduction of the degree of expert’s subjective influence on the outcome of decision-making and reduces the cost of the expert estimation process.

A method of verification of the estimation model based on the principles of cross-validation has been developed. The results of computer modeling were presented. They confirmed the effectiveness of using the proposed method of parametric model identification to solve problems related to automation of the process of intelligent decision making.

Author Biographies

Konstantin Petrov, Kharkiv National University of Radio Electronics

Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor, Head of Department

Department of Information Control System

Igor Kobzev, Educational and Scientific Institute "Institute of Public Administration" of Kharkiv National University named after V. N. Karazina

PhD, Associate Professor

Department of Digital Technologies and Electronic Government

Oleksandr Orlov, Educational and Scientific Institute "Institute of Public Administration" of Kharkiv National University named after V. N. Karazina

Doctor of Sciences in Public Administration, Professor, Head of Department

Department of Digital Technologies and

Victor Kosenko, Kharkiv Business School LLC

PhD, Associate Professor, Director

Alisa Kosenko, Kharkiv National University named after V. N. Karazina

PhD, Associate Professor

Department of Economic Policy and Management

Yana Vanina, Institute "Institute of Public Administration" of Kharkiv National University named after V. N. Karazina

PhD, Аssociate Professor

Department of Economic Policy and Management

References

  1. Petrovskiy, A. B. (2009). Teoriya prinyatiya resheniy. Moscow: Izdatel'skiy tsentr «Akademiya», 400.
  2. Larichev, O. I. (2000). Teoriya i metody prinyatiya resheniy, a takzhe hronika sobytiy v volshebnoy strane. Moscow: Logos, 294.
  3. Kryuchkovskiy, V. V., Petrov, E. G., Sokolova, N. A., Hodakov, V. E. (2011). Introspektivnyy analiz: metody i sredstva ekspertnogo otsenivaniya. Kherson: Izdatel'stvo Grin' D.S., 169.
  4. Tihonov, A. N., Arsenin V. Ya. (1986). Metody resheniya nekorrektnyh zadach. Moscow: Nauka, 288.
  5. Dyer, J. S. (2016). Multiattribute Utility Theory (MAUT). International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, 285–314. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3094-4_8
  6. Figueira, J. R., Mousseau, V., Roy, B. (2016). ELECTRE Methods. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, 155–185. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3094-4_5
  7. Brans, J.-P., De Smet, Y. (2016). PROMETHEE Methods. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, 187–219. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3094-4_6
  8. Papathanasiou, J., Ploskas, N. (2018). TOPSIS. Springer Optimization and Its Applications, 1–30. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91648-4_1
  9. Edwards, W., Barron, F. H. (1994). SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60 (3), 306–325. doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1087
  10. Yu, X., Zhang, S., Liao, X., Qi, X. (2018). ELECTRE methods in prioritized MCDM environment. Information Sciences, 424, 301–316. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.09.061
  11. Fei, L., Xia, J., Feng, Y., Liu, L. (2019). An ELECTRE-Based Multiple Criteria Decision Making Method for Supplier Selection Using Dempster-Shafer Theory. IEEE Access, 7, 84701–84716. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2019.2924945
  12. Urli, B., Frini, A., Amor, S. B. (2019). PROMETHEE-MP: a generalisation of PROMETHEE for multi-period evaluations under uncertainty. International Journal of Multicriteria Decision Making, 8 (1), 13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1504/ijmcdm.2019.098042
  13. Firgiawan, W., Zulkarnaim, N., Cokrowibowo, S. (2020). A Comparative Study using SAW, TOPSIS, SAW-AHP, and TOPSIS-AHP for Tuition Fee (UKT). IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 875, 012088. doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/875/1/012088
  14. Mahmood, A., Abbas, M. (2020). Influence model and doubly extended TOPSIS with TOPSIS based matrix of interpersonal influences. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 39 (5), 7537–7546. doi: https://doi.org/10.3233/jifs-200833
  15. Fahlepi, R. (2020). Decision Support Systems Employee Discipline Identification Using The Simple Multi Attribute Rating Technique (SMART) Method. Journal of Applied Engineering and Technological Science (JAETS), 1 (2), 103–112. doi: https://doi.org/10.37385/jaets.v1i2.67
  16. Borissova, D., Keremedchiev, D. (2019). Group Decision Making in Evaluation and Ranking of Students by Extended Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique. Cybernetics and Information Technologies, 19 (3), 45–56. doi: https://doi.org/10.2478/cait-2019-0025
  17. Sari, J. P., Gernowo, R., Suseno, J. E. (2018). Deciding Endemic Area of Dengue Fever using Simple Multi Attribute Rating Technique Exploiting Ranks. 2018 10th International Conference on Information Technology and Electrical Engineering (ICITEE). doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/iciteed.2018.8534882
  18. Saaty, T. L. (2016). The Analytic Hierarchy and Analytic Network Processes for the Measurement of Intangible Criteria and for Decision-Making. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, 363–419. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3094-4_10
  19. Hassen, M. B., Halim, M. T., Abualsauod, E., Othman, A. (2020). Quality yarn index using AHP and Fuzzy method. Industria Textila, 71 (05), 487–491. doi: https://doi.org/10.35530/it.071.05.1699
  20. Starčević, S., Bojović, N., Junevičius, R., Skrickij, V. (2019). Analytical hierarchy process method and data envelopment analysis application in terrain vehicle selection. Transport, 34 (5), 600–616. doi: https://doi.org/10.3846/transport.2019.11710
  21. Septifani, R., Deoranto, P., Armanda, T. W. (2020). Employee Performance Assessment Using Analytical Network Process and Rating Scale. Jurnal Teknik Industri, 21 (1), 70–79. doi: https://doi.org/10.22219/jtiumm.vol21.no1.70-79
  22. Gunduz, M., Khader, B. K. (2020). Construction Project Safety Performance Management Using Analytic Network Process (ANP) as a Multicriteria Decision-Making (MCDM) Tool. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2020, 1–11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2610306
  23. Bafahm, A., Sun, M. (2019). Some Conflicting Results in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 18 (02), 465–486. doi: https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219622018500517
  24. Podinovskiy, V. V., Gavrilov V. M. (2016). Optimizatsiya po posledovatel'no primenyaemym kriteriyam. Moscow: LENAND, 194.
  25. Ovezgel’dyev, A. O., Petrov, K. É. (1996). Comparision identification of models of intelligent activity. Cybernetics and Systems Analysis, 32 (5), 647–654. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02367768
  26. Petrov, K. E., Deineko, A. O., Chala, O. V., Panfоrova, I. Y. (2020). The method of alternative ranking for a collective expert estimation procedure. Radio Electronics, Computer Science, Control, 2, 84–94. doi: https://doi.org/10.15588/1607-3274-2020-2-9
  27. Keeney, R. L., Raiffa, H. (1993). Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. Cambridge University Press, 569. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139174084
  28. Ovezgel’dyev, A. O., Petrov, K. E. (2007). Modeling individual multifactor estimation using GMDH elements and genetic algorithms. Cybernetics and Systems Analysis, 43 (1), 126–133. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10559-007-0031-0
  29. Bruce, P., Bruce, A., Gedeck, P. (2020). Practical statistics for data scientists: 50+ Essential concepts using R and Python. O’Reilly Media, 368.
  30. Ovezgeldyev, A. O., Petrov, K. E. (2016). Fuzzy-Interval Choice of Alternatives in Collective Expert Evaluation. Cybernetics and Systems Analysis, 52 (2), 269–276. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10559-016-9823-4

Downloads

Published

2021-08-31

How to Cite

Petrov, K., Kobzev, I., Orlov, O., Kosenko, V., Kosenko, A., & Vanina, Y. (2021). Devising a method for identifying the model of multi-criteria expert estimation of alternatives . Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, 4(3(112), 56–65. https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2021.238020

Issue

Section

Control processes