A preference ordering among various Pareto optimal alternatives

Das, Indraneel

doi:10.1007/s001580050065

Cited by 41 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most individuals find it difficult or impossible to intuitively choose a "best solution" from a set of several alternatives with more than three criteria because of one's limited ability to visualize or think in a greater than three-dimensional space [Das, 1999]. MAUA transforms the MCDA problem from the multi-dimensional space into a one-dimensional scalar function.…”

Section: A Suitable Level Of Detail For Trade Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A reference-dependent regret model for deterministic tradeoff studies

Kujawski

2005

Syst. Engin.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Today's typical multi-criteria decision analysis is based on classical expected utility theory that assumes a mythical "Rational Individual" immune to psychological influences such as anticipated regret. It is therefore in conflict with rational individuals who trade-off some benefits and forgo the alternative with the highest total classical utility for a more balanced alternative in order to reduce their levels of anticipated regret. This paper focuses on decision making under certainty. It presents a reference-dependent regret model (RDRM) in which the level of regret that an individual experiences depends on the absolute values rather than the differences of the utilities of the chosen and forgone alternatives. The RDRM best choice may differ from the conventional linear additive utility model, the analytic hierarchy process, and the regret theory of Bell and Loomes and Sugden. Examples are presented that indicate that RDRM is the better predictive descriptor for decision making under certainty. RDRM satisfies transitivity of the alternatives under pairwise comparisons and models rank reversal consistent with observed reasonable choices under dynamic or distinct situations. Like regret theory, the RDRM utilities of all the alternatives under consideration are interrelated. For complex trade-off studies regret is incorporated as an element of a cost-utility-regret analysis that characterizes each alternative in terms of its monetary cost, an aggregate performance utility, and a regret value. This provides decision makers adequate information to compare the alternatives and depending on their values they may trade-off some performance and/or cost to avoid high levels of regret. The result is a well-balanced alternative often preferred by reasonable decision makers to the optimal choice of classical multi-attribute utility analysis. The model can readily be extended to incorporate rejoicing to suit decision makers who seek it. The approach is illustrated using a hypothetical but realistic aircraft selection problem.

show abstract

Section: A Suitable Level Of Detail For Trade Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A reference-dependent regret model for deterministic tradeoff studies

Kujawski

2005

Syst. Engin.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That is, if the benefits to choosing S (for the gainers) are large enough to create a surplus value that allows the compensation of those who prefer Q (who would, in effect, ''lose'' by moving from Q to S), unanimity can still be achieved. The gainers compensate the losers, and the result is a Pareto improvement, because (after the 7 For technical conditions on the ranking of Pareto optima, see Das (1999) and Keeney and Kirkwood (1975). 8 The presumption in favor of autonomy is part of the standard ''liberal'' precepts.…”

Section: Why the Pareto Criterion Is Appropriate As A Benchmarkmentioning

confidence: 99%

The anatomy of government failure

Keech

Munger

2015

Public Choice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Government failure is a much bigger problem than its contemporary treatment implies. Setting aside natural disasters, most of the great catastrophes of human history have been government failures of one sort or another. We argue that many so-called market failures are government failures because government defines the institutions in which markets succeed or fail. The concept of government failure has been trapped in the cocoon of the theory of perfect markets. Narrowly defined deviations from market perfection have been designated market failures, for which government corrections may or may not really be a solution. Government failure in the contemporary context means failing to resolve a classic market failure. We propose an alternative approach for evaluating whether government fails: the Pareto standard. If an available Pareto improvement is not chosen, or is not implemented, that is a government failure. We organize government failure into two types: substantive and procedural. Substantive failures include the inability or unwillingness to maintain order, to maintain sound fiscal and monetary policies, and to reduce risks of transaction costs, which we classify as corruption, agency and rent-seeking. Procedural failures are inadequacies of available social choice mechanisms, causing collective decisions to be arbitrary, capricious, or manipuated. We conclude with some reflections on human rationality and the implications of behavioral economics.

show abstract

“…Besides, due to some subjective factors of decision makers, the aggregation approach cannot always guarantee that all final choices are strictly reasonable. However, in contrast, a Pareto domination approach, called successive elimination of alternatives based on order and degree of efficiency (SEABODE), does not need to specify weigh coefficients to any evaluation criterion and can overcome the drawbacks of aggregation approaches [34]. The SEABODE is based on two theorems: efficiency of order k and efficiency of order k with degree p. For a feasible set of a large number of design alternatives, the SEABODE to select the preferred alternatives involves two steps: (1) find all alternatives belonging to the same lowest order of efficiency, recorded as k min ; (2) among the result set, only retain the alternatives that are efficient of order (k min´1 ) with highest degree p max .…”

Section: The Seabode Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extraction and Preference Ordering of Multireservoir Water Supply Rules in Dry Years

Kang

Zhang

Ding

et al. 2016

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a new methodology of combined use of the nondominated sorting genetic algorithm II (NSGA-II) and the approach of successive elimination of alternatives based on order and degree of efficiency (SEABODE) in identifying the most preferred multireservoir water supply rules in dry years. First, the suggested operation rules consists of a two-point type time-varying hedging policy for a single reservoir and a simple proportional allocation policy of common water demand between two parallel reservoirs. Then, the NSGA-II is employed to derive enough noninferior operation rules (design alternatives) in terms of two conflicting objectives (1) minimizing the total deficit ratio (TDR) of all demands of the entire system in operation horizon, and (2) minimizing the maximum deficit ratio (MDR) of water supply in a single period. Next, the SEABODE, a multicriteria decision making (MCDM) procedure, is applied to further eliminate alternatives based on the concept of efficiency of order k with degree p. In SEABODE, the reservoir performance indices and water shortage indices are selected as evaluation criteria for preference ordering among the design alternatives obtained by NSGA-II. The proposed methodology was tested on a regional water supply system with three reservoirs located in the Jialing River, China, where the results demonstrate its applicability and merits.

show abstract

A preference ordering among various Pareto optimal alternatives

Cited by 41 publications

References 0 publications

A reference-dependent regret model for deterministic tradeoff studies

A reference-dependent regret model for deterministic tradeoff studies

The anatomy of government failure

Extraction and Preference Ordering of Multireservoir Water Supply Rules in Dry Years

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About