IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/cesptp/halshs-00340381.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How to score alternatives when criteria are scored on an ordinal scale

Author

Listed:
  • Michel Grabisch

    (CES - Centre d'économie de la Sorbonne - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

We address in this paper the problem of scoring alternatives when they are evaluated with respect to several criteria on a finite ordinal scale $E$. We show that in general, the ordinal scale $E$ has to be refined or shrunk in order to be able to represent the preference of the decision maker by an aggregation operator belonging to the family of mean operators. The paper recalls previous theoretical results of the author giving necessary and sufficient conditions for a representation of preferences, and then focusses on describing practical algorithms and examples.

Suggested Citation

  • Michel Grabisch, 2008. "How to score alternatives when criteria are scored on an ordinal scale," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00340381, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:cesptp:halshs-00340381
    DOI: 10.1002/mcda.422
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00340381
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00340381/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/mcda.422?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michel Grabisch & Christophe Labreuche, 2010. "A decade of application of the Choquet and Sugeno integrals in multi-criteria decision aid," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 247-286, March.
    2. Greco, Salvatore & Matarazzo, Benedetto & Slowinski, Roman, 2001. "Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(1), pages 1-47, February.
    3. Greco, Salvatore & Matarazzo, Benedetto & Slowinski, Roman, 2004. "Axiomatic characterization of a general utility function and its particular cases in terms of conjoint measurement and rough-set decision rules," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(2), pages 271-292, October.
    4. Massam, Bryan H & Askew, Ian D, 1982. "Methods for comparing policies using multiple criteria: an urban example," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 195-204.
    5. Agnès Rico & Michel Grabisch & Christophe Labreuche & Alain Chateauneuf, 2005. "Preference modelling on totally ordered sets by the Sugeno integral," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-00268984, HAL.
    6. Patrick Meyer & Marc Roubens, 2005. "Choice, Ranking and Sorting in Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision Aid," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, chapter 0, pages 471-503, Springer.
    7. Ovchinnikov, Sergei, 1996. "Means on ordered sets," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 39-56, August.
    8. J. H. P. Paelinck, 1976. "Qualitative Multiple Criteria Analysis, Environmental Protection And Multiregional Development," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(1), pages 59-76, January.
    9. Vansnick, Jean-Claude, 1986. "On the problem of weights in multiple criteria decision making (the noncompensatory approach)," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 288-294, February.
    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. Michel Grabisch & Christophe Labreuche, 2010. "A decade of application of the Choquet and Sugeno integrals in multi-criteria decision aid," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 247-286, March.
    2. Cinelli, Marco & Kadziński, Miłosz & Miebs, Grzegorz & Gonzalez, Michael & Słowiński, Roman, 2022. "Recommending multiple criteria decision analysis methods with a new taxonomy-based decision support system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(2), pages 633-651.
    3. Bottero, M. & Ferretti, V. & Figueira, J.R. & Greco, S. & Roy, B., 2018. "On the Choquet multiple criteria preference aggregation model: Theoretical and practical insights from a real-world application," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 271(1), pages 120-140.
    4. Fernandez, Eduardo & Navarro, Jorge & Bernal, Sergio, 2009. "Multicriteria sorting using a valued indifference relation under a preference disaggregation paradigm," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 198(2), pages 602-609, October.
    5. Jun-Jie Dong & Jian-Zhang Wu & Endre Pap & Aniko Szakal, 2017. "A Choquet Capacity and Integral Based Method to Identify the Overall Importance of Engineering Characteristics in Quality Function Deployment," ECONOMIC COMPUTATION AND ECONOMIC CYBERNETICS STUDIES AND RESEARCH, Faculty of Economic Cybernetics, Statistics and Informatics, vol. 51(4), pages 297-314.
    6. Arcidiacono, Sally Giuseppe & Corrente, Salvatore & Greco, Salvatore, 2021. "Robust stochastic sorting with interacting criteria hierarchically structured," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 292(2), pages 735-754.
    7. Dembczynski, Krzysztof & Greco, Salvatore & Slowinski, Roman, 2009. "Rough set approach to multiple criteria classification with imprecise evaluations and assignments," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 198(2), pages 626-636, October.
    8. Hatami-Marbini, Adel & Tavana, Madjid, 2011. "An extension of the Electre I method for group decision-making under a fuzzy environment," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 373-386, August.
    9. Wątróbski, Jarosław & Jankowski, Jarosław & Ziemba, Paweł & Karczmarczyk, Artur & Zioło, Magdalena, 2019. "Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 107-124.
    10. Mikhail Timonin, 2016. "Choquet integral in decision analysis - lessons from the axiomatization," Papers 1611.09926, arXiv.org.
    11. Mikhail Timonin, 2016. "Conjoint axiomatization of the Choquet integral for heterogeneous product sets," Papers 1603.08142, arXiv.org.
    12. Salvatore Corrente & Michael Doumpos & Salvatore Greco & Roman Słowiński & Constantin Zopounidis, 2017. "Multiple criteria hierarchy process for sorting problems based on ordinal regression with additive value functions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 251(1), pages 117-139, April.
    13. Mayag, Brice & Bouyssou, Denis, 2020. "Necessary and possible interaction between criteria in a 2-additive Choquet integral model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 283(1), pages 308-320.
    14. Bouyssou, Denis & Marchant, Thierry, 2007. "An axiomatic approach to noncompensatory sorting methods in MCDM, I: The case of two categories," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(1), pages 217-245, April.
    15. Cinelli, Marco & Kadziński, Miłosz & Gonzalez, Michael & Słowiński, Roman, 2020. "How to support the application of multiple criteria decision analysis? Let us start with a comprehensive taxonomy," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    16. Chakhar, Salem & Ishizaka, Alessio & Thorpe, Andy & Cox, Joe & Nguyen, Thang & Ford, Liz, 2020. "Calculating the relative importance of condition attributes based on the characteristics of decision rules and attribute reducts: Application to crowdfunding," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(2), pages 689-712.
    17. Jian-Zhang Wu & Yi-Ping Zhou & Li Huang & Jun-Jie Dong, 2019. "Multicriteria Correlation Preference Information (MCCPI)-Based Ordinary Capacity Identification Method," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-13, March.
    18. Salvatore Corrente & José Figueira & Salvatore Greco, 2014. "Dealing with interaction between bipolar multiple criteria preferences in PROMETHEE methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 217(1), pages 137-164, June.
    19. Werner, Christoph & Bedford, Tim & Cooke, Roger M. & Hanea, Anca M. & Morales-Nápoles, Oswaldo, 2017. "Expert judgement for dependence in probabilistic modelling: A systematic literature review and future research directions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(3), pages 801-819.
    20. De Bock, Koen W. & Coussement, Kristof & Caigny, Arno De & Słowiński, Roman & Baesens, Bart & Boute, Robert N. & Choi, Tsan-Ming & Delen, Dursun & Kraus, Mathias & Lessmann, Stefan & Maldonado, Sebast, 2024. "Explainable AI for Operational Research: A defining framework, methods, applications, and a research agenda," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 317(2), pages 249-272.

    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:hal:cesptp:halshs-00340381. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.