Evaluation and Decision Models - A Critical Perspective.pdf
《Evaluation and Decision Models - A Critical Perspective.pdf》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《Evaluation and Decision Models - A Critical Perspective.pdf(277页珍藏版)》请在三一文库上搜索。
1、 EVALUATION AND DECISION MODELS: a critical perspective EVALUATION AND DECISION MODELS: a critical perspective Denis Bouyssou ESSEC Thierry Marchant Ghent University Marc Pirlot SMRO, Facult e Polytechnique de Mons Patrice Perny LIP6, Universit e Paris VI Alexis Tsouki as LAMSADE - CNRS, Universit e
2、 Paris Dauphine Philippe Vincke SMG - ISRO, Universit e Libre de Bruxelles KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS Boston/London/Dordrecht Contents 1Introduction1 1.1Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 1.2Audience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3、 .2 1.3Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 1.4Outline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 1.5Who are the authors? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 1.6Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4、. . . . .5 1.7Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 2Choosing on the basis of several opinions7 2.1Analysis of some voting systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 2.1.1Uninominal election. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 2.1.2Election by rankings .
5、. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 2.1.3Some theoretical results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 2.2Modelling the preferences of a voter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 2.2.1Rankings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 2.2.2Fuzzy relations . . . . . . . . .
6、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 2.2.3Other models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 2.3The voting process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 2.3.1 Defi nition of the set of candidates. . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 2.3.2 Defi nition of the set of the voters
7、. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 2.3.3Choice of the aggregation method. . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 2.4Social choice and multiple criteria decision support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 2.4.1Analogies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 2.5Co
8、nclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 3Building and aggregating evaluations29 3.1Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 3.1.1Motivation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 3.1.2Evaluating students in Univers
9、ities . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 3.2Grading students in a given course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 3.2.1What is a grade? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 3.2.2The grading process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 3.2.3Interpreting grades . . . . . . . . . .
10、. . . . . . . . . . . . .37 3.2.4Why use grades? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 3.3Aggregating grades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 3.3.1Rules for aggregating grades. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 v vi 3.3.2Aggregating grades using a weighted average.
11、 . . . . . . .42 3.4Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 4Constructing measures53 4.1The human development index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 4.1.1Scale Normalisation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 4.1.2Compensation. . . . . . . . . .
12、. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 4.1.3Dimension independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 4.1.4Scale construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 4.1.5Statistical aspects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 4.2Air quality index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13、. . . . . . . . . . .61 4.2.1Monotonicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 4.2.2Non compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 4.2.3Meaningfulness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 4.3The decathlon score. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14、. . . . . .63 4.3.1Role of the decathlon score. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 4.4Indicators and multiple criteria decision support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 4.5Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 5Assessing compet
15、ing projects71 5.1Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71 5.2The principles of CBA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73 5.2.1 Choosing between investment projects in private fi rms . . .73 5.2.2From Corporate Finance to CBA . . . . . . . . . . . .
16、. . .75 5.2.3Theoretical foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76 5.3Some examples in transportation studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 5.3.1 Prevision of traffi c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 5.3.2Time gains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80
17、 5.3.3Security gains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81 5.3.4 Other eff ects and remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 5.4Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83 6Comparing on several attributes87 6.1Thierrys choice. . . . . . . . . .
18、. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87 6.1.1Description of the case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88 6.1.2Reasoning with preferences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 6.2The weighted sum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97 6.2.1Transforming the evaluations . . . . . . .
19、. . . . . . . . . .98 6.2.2Using the weighted sum on the case. . . . . . . . . . . . .99 6.2.3Is the resulting ranking reliable?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99 6.2.4 The diffi culties of a proper usage of the weighted sum. . .101 6.2.5Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
20、5 6.3The additive value model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106 6.3.1Direct methods for determining single-attribute value functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107 vii 6.3.2AHP and Saatys eigenvalue method . . . . . . . . . . . . .111 6.3.3An indirect method for a
21、ssessing single-attribute value func- tions and trade-off s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117 6.3.4Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124 6.4Outranking methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124 6.4.1Condorcet-like procedures in decision an
22、alysis . . . . . . . .124 6.4.2A simple outranking method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129 6.4.3Using ELECTRE I on the case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131 6.4.4Main features and problems of elementary outranking ap- proaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139 6.4.5Ad
23、vanced outranking methods: from thresholding towards valued relations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141 6.5General conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .144 7Deciding automatically147 7.1Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24、. .147 7.2A System with Explicit Decision Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .149 7.2.1Designing a decision system for automatic watering . . . . .150 7.2.2Linking symbolic and numerical representations . . . . . . .150 7.2.3Interpreting input labels as scalars . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153 7.2.4I
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- Evaluation and Decision Models Critical Perspective
链接地址:https://www.31doc.com/p-3757112.html