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

Vol. 4 No. 3(112) (2021): Control processes

Section

Control processes

License

Copyright (c) 2021 Konstantin Petrov, Igor Kobzev, Oleksandr Orlov, Victor Kosenko, Alisa Kosenko, Yana Vanina

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The consolidation and conditions for the transfer of copyright (identification of authorship) is carried out in the License Agreement. In particular, the authors reserve the right to the authorship of their manuscript and transfer the first publication of this work to the journal under the terms of the Creative Commons CC BY license. At the same time, they have the right to conclude on their own additional agreements concerning the non-exclusive distribution of the work in the form in which it was published by this journal, but provided that the link to the first publication of the article in this journal is preserved.

A license agreement is a document in which the author warrants that he/she owns all copyright for the work (manuscript, article, etc.).
The authors, signing the License Agreement with TECHNOLOGY CENTER PC, have all rights to the further use of their work, provided that they link to our edition in which the work was published.
According to the terms of the License Agreement, the Publisher TECHNOLOGY CENTER PC does not take away your copyrights and receives permission from the authors to use and dissemination of the publication through the world's scientific resources (own electronic resources, scientometric databases, repositories, libraries, etc.).
In the absence of a signed License Agreement or in the absence of this agreement of identifiers allowing to identify the identity of the author, the editors have no right to work with the manuscript.
It is important to remember that there is another type of agreement between authors and publishers – when copyright is transferred from the authors to the publisher. In this case, the authors lose ownership of their work and may not use it in any way.