IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v11y2023i3p627-d1047659.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Machine Learning-Driven Approach for Large Scale Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process

Author

Listed:
  • Marcos Antonio Alves

    (Graduate Program in Electrical Engineering, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Av. Antonio Carlos 6627, Belo Horizonte 31270-901, MG, Brazil
    Current address: Machine Intelligence and Data Science (MINDS) Laboratory, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Ivan Reinaldo Meneghini

    (Federal Institute of Education Science and Technology of Minas Gerais (IFMG), Campus Ibirité, Ibirité 32407-190, MG, Brazil
    Current address: Machine Intelligence and Data Science (MINDS) Laboratory, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • António Gaspar-Cunha

    (Institute of Polymers and Composites, University of Minho (Uminho), Campus Azurém, 4800-058 Guimarães, Portugal
    Current address: Machine Intelligence and Data Science (MINDS) Laboratory, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Frederico Gadelha Guimarães

    (Department of Electrical Engineering, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 31270-000, MG, Brazil
    Current address: Machine Intelligence and Data Science (MINDS) Laboratory, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

Abstract

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) multicriteria method can be cognitively demanding for large-scale decision problems due to the requirement for the decision maker to make pairwise evaluations of all alternatives. To address this issue, this paper presents an interactive method that uses online learning to provide scalability for AHP. The proposed method involves a machine learning algorithm that learns the decision maker’s preferences through evaluations of small subsets of solutions, and guides the search for the optimal solution. The methodology was tested on four optimization problems with different surfaces to validate the results. We conducted a one factor at a time experimentation of each hyperparameter implemented, such as the number of alternatives to query the decision maker, the learner method, and the strategies for solution selection and recommendation. The results demonstrate that the model is able to learn the utility function that characterizes the decision maker in approximately 15 iterations with only a few comparisons, resulting in significant time and cognitive effort savings. The initial subset of solutions can be chosen randomly or from a cluster. The subsequent ones are recommended during the iterative process, with the best selection strategy depending on the problem type. Recommendation based solely on the smallest Euclidean or Cosine distances reveals better results on linear problems. The proposed methodology can also easily incorporate new parameters and multicriteria methods based on pairwise comparisons.

Suggested Citation

  • Marcos Antonio Alves & Ivan Reinaldo Meneghini & António Gaspar-Cunha & Frederico Gadelha Guimarães, 2023. "Machine Learning-Driven Approach for Large Scale Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:11:y:2023:i:3:p:627-:d:1047659
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/3/627/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/3/627/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jih-Jeng Huang, 2021. "Analytic Hierarchy Process with the Correlation Effect via WordNet," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-13, April.
    2. Gerda Ana Melnik-Leroy & Gintautas Dzemyda, 2021. "How to Influence the Results of MCDM?—Evidence of the Impact of Cognitive Biases," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-25, January.
    3. Ho, William, 2008. "Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications - A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 211-228, April.
    4. Mimica R. Milošević & Dušan M. Milošević & Ana D. Stanojević & Dragan M. Stević & Dušan J. Simjanović, 2021. "Fuzzy and Interval AHP Approaches in Sustainable Management for the Architectural Heritage in Smart Cities," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-29, February.
    5. Nolberto Munier & Eloy Hontoria, 2021. "Uses and Limitations of the AHP Method," Management for Professionals, Springer, number 978-3-030-60392-2, December.
    6. Giancarllo Ribeiro Vasconcelos & Caroline Maria de Miranda Mota, 2019. "Exploring Multicriteria Elicitation Model Based on Pairwise Comparisons: Building an Interactive Preference Adjustment Algorithm," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-14, June.
    7. Sangeeta Pant & Anuj Kumar & Mangey Ram & Yury Klochkov & Hitesh Kumar Sharma, 2022. "Consistency Indices in Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Review," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-15, April.
    8. Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani & Ramin Bazrafshan & Fatih Ecer & Çağlar Karamaşa, 2022. "The Suitability-Feasibility-Acceptability Strategy Integrated with Bayesian BWM-MARCOS Methods to Determine the Optimal Lithium Battery Plant Located in South America," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(14), pages 1-18, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Zorica Dodevska & Sandro Radovanović & Andrija Petrović & Boris Delibašić, 2023. "When Fairness Meets Consistency in AHP Pairwise Comparisons," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, January.
    2. Li, Yan-Lai & Tang, Jia-Fu & Chin, Kwai-Sang & Jiang, Yu-Shi & Han, Yi & Pu, Yun, 2011. "Estimating the final priority ratings of engineering characteristics in mature-period product improvement by MDBA and AHP," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(2), pages 575-586, June.
    3. Nermin Kişi, 2019. "A Strategic Approach to Sustainable Tourism Development Using the A’WOT Hybrid Method: A Case Study of Zonguldak, Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-19, February.
    4. Thomas L. Saaty, 2013. "The Modern Science of Multicriteria Decision Making and Its Practical Applications: The AHP/ANP Approach," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(5), pages 1101-1118, October.
    5. Juan Cabello Eras & Dayli Covas Varela & Gilberto Hernández Pérez & Alexis Sagastume Gutiérrez & Dunia García Lorenzo & Carlo Vandecasteele & Luc Hens, 2014. "Comparative study of the urban quality of life in Cuban first-level cities from an objective dimension," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 195-215, February.
    6. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    7. Muhallil Abtahee & Afra Anika Islam & Md. Nazmul Haque & Hasan Zonaed & Samiha Mahzabin Ritu & Sk Md Imdadul Islam & Atiq Zaman, 2023. "Mapping Ecotourism Potential in Bangladesh: The Integration of an Analytical Hierarchy Algorithm and Geospatial Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-28, July.
    8. Villacreses, Geovanna & Gaona, Gabriel & Martínez-Gómez, Javier & Jijón, Diego Juan, 2017. "Wind farms suitability location using geographical information system (GIS), based on multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods: The case of continental Ecuador," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 275-286.
    9. Feng, Zhiying & Tang, Wenhu & Niu, Zhewen & Wu, Qinghua, 2018. "Bi-level allocation of carbon emission permits based on clustering analysis and weighted voting: A case study in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 1122-1135.
    10. Wang, Xiaojun & Chan, Hing Kai & Li, Dong, 2015. "A case study of an integrated fuzzy methodology for green product development," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(1), pages 212-223.
    11. Kadir Diler Alemdar & Ahmet Tortum & Ömer Kaya & Ahmet Atalay, 2021. "Interdisciplinary Evaluation of Intersection Performances—A Microsimulation-Based MCDA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, February.
    12. M Tavana & M A Sodenkamp, 2010. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis model for advanced technology assessment at Kennedy Space Center," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(10), pages 1459-1470, October.
    13. Loske, Dominic & Klumpp, Matthias, 2021. "Human-AI collaboration in route planning: An empirical efficiency-based analysis in retail logistics," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    14. Pedro Jose Gudiel Pineda & Chao-Che Hsu & James J. H. Liou & Huai-Wei Lo, 2018. "A Hybrid Model for Aircraft Type Determination Following Flight Cancellation," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1147-1172, July.
    15. Mohammed Abdul Rahman AlShehri & Shailendra Mishra, 2019. "Feature Based Comparison and Selection of SDN Controller," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(05), pages 1-23, August.
    16. Sepehr Ghazinoory & Mansoureh Abdi & Mandana Azadegan-Mehr, 2010. "Swot Methodology: A State-of-the-Art Review for the Past, A Framework for the Future," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 24-48, November.
    17. K. Madan Shankar & P. Udhaya Kumar & Devika Kannan, 2016. "Analyzing the Drivers of Advanced Sustainable Manufacturing System Using AHP Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-10, August.
    18. Paweł Karczmarek & Witold Pedrycz & Adam Kiersztyn, 2021. "Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process in a Graphical Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 463-481, April.
    19. J Aznar & J Ferrís-Oñate & F Guijarro, 2010. "An ANP framework for property pricing combining quantitative and qualitative attributes," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(5), pages 740-755, May.
    20. Garyfallos Arabatzis & Georgios Kolkos & Anastasia Stergiadou & Apostolos Kantartzis & Stergios Tampekis, 2024. "Optimal Allocation of Water Reservoirs for Sustainable Wildfire Prevention Planning via AHP-TOPSIS and Forest Road Network Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-27, January.

    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:gam:jmathe:v:11:y:2023:i:3:p:627-:d:1047659. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.