article

A stratified framework for handling conditional preferences: An extension of the analytic hierarchy process

Authors:

Ivana Ognjanović,

Dragan GašEvić,

Ebrahim BagheriAuthors Info & Claims

Expert Systems with Applications: An International Journal, Volume 40, Issue 4

Pages 1094 - 1115

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.08.026

Published: 01 March 2013 Publication History

Abstract

Representing and reasoning over different forms of preferences is of crucial importance to many different fields, especially where numerical comparisons need to be made between critical options. Focusing on the well-known Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) method, we propose a two-layered framework for addressing different kinds of conditional preferences which include partial information over preferences and preferences of a lexicographic kind. The proposed formal two-layered framework, called CS-AHP, provides the means for representing and reasoning over conditional preferences. The framework can also effectively order decision outcomes based on conditional preferences in a way that is consistent with well-formed preferences. Finally, the framework provides an estimation of the potential number of violations and inconsistencies within the preferences. We provide and report extensive performance analysis for the proposed framework from three different perspectives, namely time-complexity, simulated decision making scenarios, and handling cyclic and partially defined preferences.

References

[1]

The geometric consistency index: Approximated thresholds. European Journal of Operational Research. v147 i1. 137-145.

[2]

Project selection for oil-fields development by using the AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems with Applications. v37 i9. 6218-6224.

Digital Library

[3]

Bagheri, E., Asadi, M., Gašević, D., & Soltani, S. (2010). Stratified analytic hierarchy process: Prioritization and selection of software features. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on software product lines (pp. 300-315).

Digital Library

[4]

Assessing the maintainability of software product line feature models using structural metrics. Software Quality Control. v19. 579-612.

Digital Library

[5]

Rational number ratio and proportion. In: Grouws, D.A. (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning, Macmillan, New York. pp. 296-333.

[6]

Bipolar possibility theory in preference modeling: Representation, fusion and optimal solutions. Information Fusion. v7 i1. 135-150.

Digital Library

[7]

Requirements prioritization. Engineering and managing software requirements. 69-94.

[8]

Hierarchical cumulative voting (HCV) - prioritization of requirements in hierarchies. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering. v16. 819-849.

[9]

Analyzing quantitative data. Sage, London.

[10]

CP-nets: A tool for representing and reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research. v21 i1. 135-191.

Digital Library

[11]

Boutilier, C., Bacchus, F., & Brafman, R. (2001). UCP-networks: A directed graphical representation of conditional utilities. In Proceedings of 17th conference in uncertainty in AI (pp. 56-64). San Francisco, USA.

Digital Library

[12]

Brafman, R.I., & Domshlak, C. (2002). Introducing variable importance tradeoffs into CP-nets. In The proceedings of the eighteenth conference on uncertainty in AI (pp. 69-76). Canada.

Digital Library

[13]

Brafman, R.I., Domshlak, C., & Kogan, T. (2004). Compact value-function representations for qualitative preferences. In Proceedings of the 20th annual conference on uncertainty in AI (pp. 51-58). Canada.

Digital Library

[14]

Brennan, A. (2003). Necessary and Sufficient Conditions. In E.N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition ed.).

[15]

Strategic analysis of healthcare service quality using fuzzy AHP methodology. Expert Systems with Applications. v38 i8. 9407-9424.

Digital Library

[16]

Chen, S., Buffett, S., & Fleming, M. W. (2007). Reasoning with conditional preferences across attributes. In Proceedings of the 20th conference of the canadian society for computational studies of intelligence on advances in AI (pp. 369-380). Montreal, Canada.

Digital Library

[17]

The critical factors of success for information service industry in developing international market: Using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Expert Systems with Applications. v37 i1. 694-704.

Digital Library

[18]

Cardinality-based feature modeling and constraints: A progress report. In: International Workshop on Software Factories, ACM, San Diego, California, USA.

[19]

Domshlak, C. (2008). A snapshot on reasoning with qualitative preference statements in AI. In G. Riccia, D. Dubois, H.J. Lenz, & R. Kruse (Eds.), Preferences and similarities (Vol. 504, pp. 265-282).

[20]

Domshlak, C., & Brafman, R.I. (2002). CP-nets- Reasoning and Consistency testing. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (pp. 121-132). France.

[21]

Preferences in AI: An overview. Artificial Intelligence. v175 i7-8. 1037-1052.

Digital Library

[22]

A note on AHP group consistency for the row geometric mean prioritization procedure. European Journal of Operational Research. v153. 318-322.

[23]

Electre methods, multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science. v78 i3. 133-153.

[24]

The analytical hierarchy process-an exposition. Operations Research. v49 i4. 469-487.

Digital Library

[25]

History of binary and other non-decimal numeration. Tomash Publishers.

[26]

The computational complexity of dominance and consistency in CP-nets. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research. 403-432.

Digital Library

[27]

GAI networks for utility elicitation. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning, Whistler, Canada. pp. 224-234.

[28]

Regression with Dummy Variables (Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences). 1 ed. Sage Publications Inc.

[29]

Solving multi-criteria decision making with incomplete linguistic preference relations. Expert Systems with Applications. v38 i9. 10882-10888.

Digital Library

[30]

Multiple attribute decision making methods and applications: A state-of-the-art survey. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

[31]

Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications. v38 i11. 14336-14345.

[32]

Improving practical support for large-scale requirements prioritising. Requirement Engineering. v2 i1. 51-60.

[33]

The Log-Transformation is Special. Statistics in Medicine. v14 i8. 811-819.

[34]

Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. University Press, Cambridge.

[35]

Logical preference representation and combinatorial vote. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence. v42 i1. 37-71.

Digital Library

[36]

Elements of machine learning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco.

Digital Library

[37]

MacCrimmon, K. R. (1968). Decision-making among multiple-attribute alternatives: A survey and consolidated approach. Memorandum RM-4823-ARPA, The Rand Corporation. Santa Monica, California.

[38]

Utility functions for ceteris paribus preferences. Computational Intelligence. v20 i2. 158-217.

[39]

The local geometry of multiattribute tradeoff preferences. Artificial Intelligence. v175 i7-8. 1122-1152.

Digital Library

[40]

Managing stakeholders in software development projects. Butterworth-Heinemann, Elsevier.

[41]

Mouhoub, M., & Sukpan, A. (2006). Conditional and composite temporal constraints with preferences. In Proceedings of the 13th international symposium on temporal representation and reasoning, (pp. 95-102). Budapest, Hungary.

Digital Library

[42]

Mukhtar, H., Belaı¿d, D., & Bernard, G. (2009). A quantitative model for user preferences based on qualitative specifications. In Proceedings of international conference on pervasive services, (pp. 179-188). New York.

Digital Library

[43]

Ognjanovic, I., Gašević, D., Bagheri, E., & Asadi, M. (2011). Conditional preferences in software stakeholders' judgments. In Proceedings of the 26th annual ACM symposium on applied computing, (pp. 683-690). Taichang, Taiwan.

Digital Library

[44]

Papazoglou, M. (2003). Service-oriented computing: Concepts, characteristics and directions. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on web information systems engineering. Washington, USA.

Digital Library

[45]

Dealing with non-normal data: Parametric analysis of transformed data vs nonparametric analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement. v51 i4. 809-820.

[46]

The analytic hierarchy process and its application to an information technology. The Journal of Operational Research. v41 i1. 49-59.

[47]

The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York.

[48]

Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary. European Journal of Operational Research. v145 i1. 85-91.

[49]

Viewpoints: Principles, problems and a practical approach to preferences engineering. Annals of Software Engineering. v3. 101-130.

Digital Library

[50]

Linear programming techniques for multidimensional analysis of privileged. Psychometrica. v38. 337-369.

[51]

Stirling, W. C., Frost, R., Nokleby, M., & Luo, Y. (2007). Multicriterion decision making with dependent preferences. In IEEE symposium on computational intelligence in multicriteria decision making (pp. 227-234). Honolulu, HI.

[52]

A simple systolic algorithm for generating combinations in lexicographic order. Computers and Mathematics with Applications. v24 i4. 61-64.

[53]

Multi-attribute contractors ranking method by applying ordering of feasible alternatives of solutions in terms of preferability technique. Technological and Economic development of Economy. v14 i2. 224-239.

[54]

Computational techniques for a simple theory of conditional preferences. Artificial Intelligence. v175 i7-8. 1053-1091.

Digital Library

[55]

Yu, H., & Reiff-Marganiec, S. (2008). Non-functional property based service selection: A survey and classification of approaches. In Proceedings of the international workshop on non functional properties and service level agreements in service oriented computing at the 6th IEEE european conference on web services. Ireland.

[56]

Yu, Z., Yu, Z., Zhou, X., & Nakamu, Y. (2010). Toward an understanding of user-defined conditional preferences. In Proceedings of the 8th IEEE international conference on dependable, autonomic and secure computing (pp. 203-208). Washington, USA.

Digital Library

[57]

Zavadskas, E. K., Kaklauskas, A. (1996). Determination of an efficient contractor by using the new method of multicriteria assessment. In International symposium for "the organisation and management of construction (Vol. 2, pp. 94-104).

[58]

Multi-attribute assessment of road design solutions by using the COPRAS Method. The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering. v2 i4. 195-203.

[59]

Sensitivity analysis of a simple additive weight method. International Journal of Management and Decision Making (IJMDM). v8 i5-6. 555-574.

Cited By

Daz JLuna DCamacho-Vallejo JCasas-Ramrez M(2017)GRASP and hybrid GRASP-Tabu heuristics to solve a maximal covering location problem with customer preference orderingExpert Systems with Applications: An International Journal10.1016/j.eswa.2017.04.00282:C(67-76)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.04.002

A stratified framework for handling conditional preferences: An extension of the analytic hierarchy process
1. Information systems
  1. Information systems applications

Recommendations

Computational techniques for a simple theory of conditional preferences

A simple logic of conditional preferences is defined, with a language that allows the compact representation of certain kinds of conditional preference statements, a semantics and a proof theory. CP-nets and TCP-nets can be mapped into this logic, and ...
Relaxing Ceteris Paribus Preferences with Partially Ordered Priorities
ECSQARU '07: Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty

Conditional preference networks (CP-nets) are a simple approach to the compact representation of preferences. In spite of their merit the application of the ceteris paribus principle underlying them is too global and systematic and sometimes leads to ...
Relational networks of conditional preferences

Much like relational probabilistic models, the need for relational preference models naturally arises in real-world applications involving multiple, heterogeneous, and richly interconnected objects. On the one hand, relational preferences should be ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Expert Systems with Applications: An International Journal

Expert Systems with Applications: An International Journal Volume 40, Issue 4

March, 2013

439 pages

ISSN:0957-4174

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © Elsevier Ltd © 2012.

Publisher

Pergamon Press, Inc.

United States

Publication History

Published: 01 March 2013

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

1
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 22 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Daz JLuna DCamacho-Vallejo JCasas-Ramrez M(2017)GRASP and hybrid GRASP-Tabu heuristics to solve a maximal covering location problem with customer preference orderingExpert Systems with Applications: An International Journal10.1016/j.eswa.2017.04.00282:C(67-76)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.04.002

View Options

View options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents