Dual cone approach to convex-cone dominance in multiple criteria decision making

The need for unconventional value aggregation techniques: experiences from eliciting stakeholder preferences in environmental management

“…If the property (3b) is fulfilled, already during the elicitation process, alternatives with outcomes in a convex cone defined by previously expressed preferences are dominated and can be excluded from the elicitation process (see e.g. Korhonen et al, 1984;Ramesh et al, 1988;Prasad et al, 1997;Korhonen et al, 2016;Argyris et al 2014;Korhonen et al, 2017).…”

“…Based on past experience (e.g. Langhans et al, 2014;Haag et al, 2019a; see also Korhonen et al, 1984;Ramesh et al, 1988;Prasad et al, 1997;Korhonen et al, 2016;Argyris et al 2014; al., 2017 for considerations regarding quasi-concave value functions), we also tested concave value functions, such as the minimum min ( ) ( ) = min ,…”

“…Nevertheless, there exists a large literature about non-additive aggregation schemes or value functions e.g. multiplicative or multilinear value functions (Dyer and Sarin, 1979), aggregation functions based on the Choquet integral (Grabisch et al 2008, Grabisch andLabreuche, 2010), or for concave value functions (Korhonen et al, 1984;Ramesh et al, 1988;Prasad et al, 1997;Korhonen et al, 2016;Argyris et al, 2014;Korhonen et al, 2017). An overview of aggregation functions can be found in Beliakov et al (2007) or Grabisch et al (2009).…”

Using convex preference cones in multiple criteria decision making and related fields

“…It is worthwhile to note that some other helpful results can also be obtained from the above problem. The reader is referred to Korhonen et al (2016) for a comprehensive discussion.…”

“…q > p , it is helpful to use a dual cone approach instead of solving model ( 4). This issue was investigated in Korhonen et al (2016).…”