IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v71y2017icp27-45.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Heuristics for prioritizing pair-wise elicitation questions with additive multi-attribute value models

Author

Listed:
  • Ciomek, Krzysztof
  • Kadziński, Miłosz
  • Tervonen, Tommi

Abstract

Additive value models are widely used in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. Direct elicitation of the value model preference parameters can impose excessive cognitive burden on the decision maker. Indirect techniques that employ pair-wise questions have been proposed for lowering the elicitation effort. In all practically relevant problems, more than a single question needs to be answered for arriving at a sufficiently precise outcome. The selection and ordering of questions affects the number of answers required for ranking the decision alternatives. However, evaluating all possible questions and answers is intractable due to the search space being, in the worst case, of factorial size. This paper develops heuristics for prioritizing pair-wise elicitation questions based on (1) necessary preference relations, (2) extreme ranks attained by the alternatives, (3) pair-wise preference indices, and (4) rank acceptability indices. We also introduce three metrics for assessing quality of a question prioritization heuristic. Numerical results allow us to identify a subset of heuristics that score well on our metrics in a variety of problem settings. This conclusion was validated in a real-world experiment where 101 subjects answered pair-wise questions to rank 10 mobile phone packages evaluated in terms of four criteria.

Suggested Citation

  • Ciomek, Krzysztof & Kadziński, Miłosz & Tervonen, Tommi, 2017. "Heuristics for prioritizing pair-wise elicitation questions with additive multi-attribute value models," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 27-45.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:71:y:2017:i:c:p:27-45
    DOI: 10.1016/j.omega.2016.08.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305048316300238
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.omega.2016.08.012?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. JosÉ Figueira & Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrogott, 2005. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, number 978-0-387-23081-8, September.
    2. Robert L. Smith, 1984. "Efficient Monte Carlo Procedures for Generating Points Uniformly Distributed over Bounded Regions," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(6), pages 1296-1308, December.
    3. Tervonen, Tommi & van Valkenhoef, Gert & Baştürk, Nalan & Postmus, Douwe, 2013. "Hit-And-Run enables efficient weight generation for simulation-based multiple criteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 224(3), pages 552-559.
    4. Durbach, Ian, 2009. "On the estimation of a satisficing model of choice using stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 497-509, June.
    5. Bernard Roy, 2005. "Paradigms and Challenges," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, chapter 0, pages 3-24, Springer.
    6. Holloway, Hillary A. & White III, Chelsea C., 2003. "Question selection for multi-attribute decision-aiding," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 148(3), pages 525-533, August.
    7. Raymond Bisdorff & Luis C. Dias & Patrick Meyer & Vincent Mousseau & Marc Pirlot (ed.), 2015. "Evaluation and Decision Models with Multiple Criteria," International Handbooks on Information Systems, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-662-46816-6, November.
    8. van Valkenhoef, Gert & Tervonen, Tommi, 2016. "Entropy-optimal weight constraint elicitation with additive multi-attribute utility models," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 1-12.
    9. Jacquet-Lagreze, E. & Siskos, J., 1982. "Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision-making, the UTA method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 151-164, June.
    10. Lahdelma, Risto & Salminen, Pekka, 2009. "Prospect theory and stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA)," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 961-971, October.
    11. Durbach, Ian N. & Calder, Jon M., 2016. "Modelling uncertainty in stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 13-23.
    12. Gordon B. Hazen, 1986. "Partial Information, Dominance, and Potential Optimality in Multiattribute Utility Theory," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 296-310, April.
    13. Lahdelma, Risto & Hokkanen, Joonas & Salminen, Pekka, 1998. "SMAA - Stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 137-143, April.
    14. Kadziński, Miłosz & Tervonen, Tommi, 2013. "Robust multi-criteria ranking with additive value models and holistic pair-wise preference statements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(1), pages 169-180.
    15. Kadziński, MiŁosz & Greco, Salvatore & SŁowiński, Roman, 2012. "Extreme ranking analysis in robust ordinal regression," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 488-501.
    16. van Valkenhoef, Gert & Tervonen, Tommi & Postmus, Douwe, 2014. "Notes on ‘Hit-And-Run enables efficient weight generation for simulation-based multiple criteria decision analysis’," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 865-867.
    17. Lahdelma, Risto & Miettinen, Kaisa & Salminen, Pekka, 2003. "Ordinal criteria in stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA)," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 117-127, May.
    18. Durbach, Ian N., 2009. "The use of the SMAA acceptability index in descriptive decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 196(3), pages 1229-1237, August.
    19. Mastorakis, Kostis & Siskos, Eleftherios, 2016. "Value focused pharmaceutical strategy determination with multicriteria decision analysis techniques," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 59(PA), pages 84-96.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ciomek, Krzysztof & Kadziński, Miłosz & Tervonen, Tommi, 2017. "Heuristics for selecting pair-wise elicitation questions in multiple criteria choice problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 262(2), pages 693-707.
    2. Kadziński, Miłosz & Wójcik, Michał & Ciomek, Krzysztof, 2022. "Review and experimental comparison of ranking and choice procedures for constructing a univocal recommendation in a preference disaggregation setting," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    3. Luis C. Dias & Gabriela D. Oliveira & Paula Sarabando, 2021. "Choice-based preference disaggregation concerning vehicle technologies," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 29(1), pages 177-200, March.
    4. Kadziński, Miłosz & Ghaderi, Mohammad & Dąbrowski, Maciej, 2020. "Contingent preference disaggregation model for multiple criteria sorting problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 281(2), pages 369-387.
    5. Zheng, Jun & Lienert, Judit, 2018. "Stakeholder interviews with two MAVT preference elicitation philosophies in a Swiss water infrastructure decision: Aggregation using SWING-weighting and disaggregation using UTAGMS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 267(1), pages 273-287.
    6. Gehrlein, Jonas & Miebs, Grzegorz & Brunelli, Matteo & Kadziński, Miłosz, 2023. "An active preference learning approach to aid the selection of validators in blockchain environments," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    7. Ciomek, Krzysztof & Ferretti, Valentina & Kadzinski, Milosz, 2018. "Predictive analytics and disused railways requalification: insights from a Post Factum Analysis perspective," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 85922, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Kadziński, Miłosz & Ciomek, Krzysztof, 2021. "Active learning strategies for interactive elicitation of assignment examples for threshold-based multiple criteria sorting," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 293(2), pages 658-680.
    9. Haag, Fridolin & Lienert, Judit & Schuwirth, Nele & Reichert, Peter, 2019. "Identifying non-additive multi-attribute value functions based on uncertain indifference statements," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 49-67.
    10. Ghaderi, Mohammad & Kadziński, Miłosz, 2021. "Incorporating uncovered structural patterns in value functions construction," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    11. Mohammad Ghaderi & Milosz Kadzinsky, 2019. "Accounting for structural patterns in construction of value functions: a convex optimization approach," Economics Working Papers 1634, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    12. de Almeida Filho, Adiel T. & Clemente, Thárcylla R.N. & Morais, Danielle Costa & de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira, 2018. "Preference modeling experiments with surrogate weighting procedures for the PROMETHEE method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 453-461.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ciomek, Krzysztof & Kadziński, Miłosz & Tervonen, Tommi, 2017. "Heuristics for selecting pair-wise elicitation questions in multiple criteria choice problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 262(2), pages 693-707.
    2. Corrente, Salvatore & Figueira, José Rui & Greco, Salvatore, 2014. "The SMAA-PROMETHEE method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(2), pages 514-522.
    3. R. Pelissari & M. C. Oliveira & S. Ben Amor & A. Kandakoglu & A. L. Helleno, 2020. "SMAA methods and their applications: a literature review and future research directions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 293(2), pages 433-493, October.
    4. Vetschera, Rudolf, 2017. "Deriving rankings from incomplete preference information: A comparison of different approaches," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(1), pages 244-253.
    5. Angilella, Silvia & Corrente, Salvatore & Greco, Salvatore, 2015. "Stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis for the Choquet integral preference model and the scale construction problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(1), pages 172-182.
    6. Corrente, S. & Figueira, J.R. & Greco, S., 2021. "Pairwise comparison tables within the deck of cards method in multiple criteria decision aiding," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(2), pages 738-756.
    7. Liu, Jiapeng & Liao, Xiuwu & Huang, Wei & Liao, Xianzhao, 2019. "Market segmentation: A multiple criteria approach combining preference analysis and segmentation decision," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 1-13.
    8. Ciomek, Krzysztof & Ferretti, Valentina & Kadzinski, Milosz, 2018. "Predictive analytics and disused railways requalification: insights from a Post Factum Analysis perspective," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 85922, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Kadziński, Miłosz & Wójcik, Michał & Ciomek, Krzysztof, 2022. "Review and experimental comparison of ranking and choice procedures for constructing a univocal recommendation in a preference disaggregation setting," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    10. van Valkenhoef, Gert & Tervonen, Tommi, 2016. "Entropy-optimal weight constraint elicitation with additive multi-attribute utility models," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 1-12.
    11. Kadziński, Miłosz & Tervonen, Tommi, 2013. "Robust multi-criteria ranking with additive value models and holistic pair-wise preference statements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(1), pages 169-180.
    12. Silvia Angilella & Maria Rosaria Pappalardo, 2022. "Performance assessment of energy companies employing Hierarchy Stochastic Multi-Attribute Acceptability Analysis," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 299-370, March.
    13. Angilella, Silvia & Corrente, Salvatore & Greco, Salvatore & Słowiński, Roman, 2016. "Robust Ordinal Regression and Stochastic Multiobjective Acceptability Analysis in multiple criteria hierarchy process for the Choquet integral preference model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 154-169.
    14. Costa, Ana Sara & Corrente, Salvatore & Greco, Salvatore & Figueira, José Rui & Borbinha, José, 2020. "A robust hierarchical nominal multicriteria classification method based on similarity and dissimilarity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(3), pages 986-1001.
    15. Fan, Zhi-Ping & Liu, Yang & Feng, Bo, 2010. "A method for stochastic multiple criteria decision making based on pairwise comparisons of alternatives with random evaluations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(2), pages 906-915, December.
    16. Menou, Abdellah & Benallou, Abdelhanine & Lahdelma, Risto & Salminen, Pekka, 2010. "Decision support for centralizing cargo at a Moroccan airport hub using stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 204(3), pages 621-629, August.
    17. Corrente, Salvatore & Figueira, José Rui & Greco, Salvatore & Słowiński, Roman, 2017. "A robust ranking method extending ELECTRE III to hierarchy of interacting criteria, imprecise weights and stochastic analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 1-17.
    18. Kadziński, MiŁosz & Greco, Salvatore & SŁowiński, Roman, 2012. "Extreme ranking analysis in robust ordinal regression," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 488-501.
    19. Hurson, Christian & Siskos, Yannis, 2014. "A synergy of multicriteria techniques to assess additive value models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 238(2), pages 540-551.
    20. Dias, Luis C. & Antunes, Carlos Henggeler & Dantas, Guilherme & de Castro, Nivalde & Zamboni, Lucca, 2018. "A multi-criteria approach to sort and rank policies based on Delphi qualitative assessments and ELECTRE TRI: The case of smart grids in Brazil," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 100-111.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:71:y:2017:i:c:p:27-45. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.