IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/kondp1/279.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A recursive algorithm for volume-based sensitivity analysis of linear decision models

Author

Listed:
  • Vetschera, Rudolf

Abstract

One problem impeding the use of linear decision models in practical applications is the difficulty in precisely specifying weights. In this paper, we analyze an approach to establish the stability of a decision, given approximate information on weights. This approach is based on comparing the volumes of regions in weight space, in which different alternatives are optimal. To compute those volumes, a recursive algorithm was developed. The efficiency of that algorithm is analyzed both analytically and via computational experiments.

Suggested Citation

  • Vetschera, Rudolf, 1996. "A recursive algorithm for volume-based sensitivity analysis of linear decision models," Discussion Papers, Series I 279, University of Konstanz, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:kondp1:279
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/68933/1/686695739.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Craig W. Kirkwood & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1985. "Ranking with Partial Information: A Method and an Application," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(1), pages 38-48, February.
    2. Weber, Martin, 1987. "Decision making with incomplete information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 44-57, January.
    3. Martin Weber & Franz Eisenführ & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 1988. "The Effects of Splitting Attributes on Weights in Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 431-445, April.
    4. T. H. Matheiss & David S. Rubin, 1980. "A Survey and Comparison of Methods for Finding All Vertices of Convex Polyhedral Sets," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 5(2), pages 167-185, May.
    5. Hansen, Pierre & Labbe, Martine & Wendell, Richard E., 1989. "Sensitivity analysis in multiple objective linear programming: The tolerance approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 63-69, January.
    6. Wolters, W. T. M. & Mareschal, B., 1995. "Novel types of sensitivity analysis for additive MCDM methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 281-290, March.
    7. Arbel, Ami & Vargas, Luis G., 1993. "Preference simulation and preference programming: robustness issues in priority derivation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 200-209, September.
    8. Eiselt, H. A. & Laporte, Gilbert, 1992. "The use of domains in multicriteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 292-298, September.
    9. Saaty, Thomas L. & Vargas, Luis G., 1987. "Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 107-117, October.
    10. Rüdiger von Nitzsch & Martin Weber, 1993. "The Effect of Attribute Ranges on Weights in Multiattribute Utility Measurements," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(8), pages 937-943, August.
    11. Philippe Delquié, 1993. "Inconsistent Trade-Offs Between Attributes: New Evidence in Preference Assessment Biases," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(11), pages 1382-1395, November.
    12. Hutton Barron & Charles P. Schmidt, 1988. "Sensitivity Analysis of Additive Multiattribute Value Models," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 36(1), pages 122-127, February.
    13. Gordon C. A. Dickson, 1981. "An Empirical Examination Of The Willingness Of Managers To Use Utility Theory," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(4), pages 423-434, October.
    14. Arbel, Ami, 1989. "Approximate articulation of preference and priority derivation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 317-326, December.
    15. Paul J. H. Schoemaker & C. Carter Waid, 1982. "An Experimental Comparison of Different Approaches to Determining Weights in Additive Utility Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 182-196, February.
    16. Insua, David Rios & French, Simon, 1991. "A framework for sensitivity analysis in discrete multi-objective decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 176-190, September.
    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. Vetschera, Rudolf, 1996. "Multi-criteria agency theory," Discussion Papers, Series I 280, University of Konstanz, Department of Economics.

    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. Vetschera, Rudolf, 1996. "Multi-criteria agency theory," Discussion Papers, Series I 280, University of Konstanz, Department of Economics.
    2. Mustajoki, Jyri & Hamalainen, Raimo P. & Lindstedt, Mats R.K., 2006. "Using intervals for global sensitivity and worst-case analyses in multiattribute value trees," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(1), pages 278-292, October.
    3. Kim, Soung Hie & Han, Chang Hee, 2000. "Establishing dominance between alternatives with incomplete information in a hierarchically structured attribute tree," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 79-90, April.
    4. Liesio, Juuso & Mild, Pekka & Salo, Ahti, 2007. "Preference programming for robust portfolio modeling and project selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(3), pages 1488-1505, September.
    5. Haines, Linda M., 1998. "A statistical approach to the analytic hierarchy process with interval judgements. (I). Distributions on feasible regions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 112-125, October.
    6. Sam Park, Kyung & Sang Lee, Kyung & Seong Eum, Yun & Park, Kwangtae, 2001. "Extended methods for identifying dominance and potential optimality in multi-criteria analysis with imprecise information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(3), pages 557-563, November.
    7. Tom Pape, 2020. "Value of agreement in decision analysis: Concept, measures and application," Papers 2012.13816, arXiv.org.
    8. Mustajoki, Jyri, 2012. "Effects of imprecise weighting in hierarchical preference programming," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 218(1), pages 193-201.
    9. Antti Punkka & Ahti Salo, 2014. "Scale Dependence and Ranking Intervals in Additive Value Models Under Incomplete Preference Information," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 11(2), pages 83-104, June.
    10. Ahn, Byeong Seok, 2017. "Approximate weighting method for multiattribute decision problems with imprecise parameters," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 87-95.
    11. Salo, Ahti A. & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 1995. "Preference programming through approximate ratio comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 458-475, May.
    12. Pape, Tom, 2017. "Value of agreement in decision analysis: concept, measures and application," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 68682, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Vetschera, Rudolf, 2009. "Learning about preferences in electronic negotiations - A volume-based measurement method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(2), pages 452-463, April.
    14. Mikhailov, L., 2004. "A fuzzy approach to deriving priorities from interval pairwise comparison judgements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(3), pages 687-704, December.
    15. Wang, Ying-Ming & Elhag, Taha M.S., 2007. "A goal programming method for obtaining interval weights from an interval comparison matrix," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(1), pages 458-471, February.
    16. Salo, Ahti A., 1995. "Interactive decision aiding for group decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 134-149, July.
    17. Liesiö, Juuso & Andelmin, Juho & Salo, Ahti, 2020. "Efficient allocation of resources to a portfolio of decision making units," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(2), pages 619-636.
    18. Finan, J. S. & Hurley, W. J., 1999. "Transitive calibration of the AHP verbal scale," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(2), pages 367-372, January.
    19. Jiménez, Antonio & Mateos, Alfonso & Ríos-Insua, Sixto, 2009. "Missing consequences in multiattribute utility theory," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 395-410, April.
    20. Lipovetsky, Stan & Tishler, Asher, 1999. "Interval estimation of priorities in the AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 114(1), pages 153-164, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:zbw:kondp1:279. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fwkonde.html .

    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.