1
Mutli-Attribute Decision MakingEliciting Weights
Scott MatthewsCourses: 12-706 / 19-702
12-706 and 73-359 2
Admin Issues
HW 4 due todayNo Friday class this week
12-706 and 73-359 3
Multi-objective Methods
Multiobjective programming Mult. criteria decision making (MCDM)Is both an analytical philosophy and a
set of specific analytical techniques Deals explicitly with multi-criteria DM Provides mechanism incorporating values Promotes inclusive DM processes Encourages interdisciplinary approaches
12-706 and 73-359 4
2:1 Tradeoff Example
Find an existing point (any) and consider a hypothetical point you would trade for. You would be indifferent in this trade
E.g., V(30,9) -> H(31,7) H would get Uf = 6/10 and Uc = 4/7 Since we’re indifferent, U(V) must = U(H) kC(6/7) + kF(5/10) = kC(4/7) + kF(6/10) kC (2/7) = kF(1/10) <=> kF = kC (20/7) But kF + kC =1 <=> kC (20/7) + kC = 1 kC (27/7) = 1 ; kC = 7/27 = 0.26 (so kf=0.74)
12-706 and 73-359 5
With these weights..
U(M) = 0.26*1 + 0.74*0 = 0.26U(V) = 0.26*(6/7) + 0.74*0.5 = 0.593U(T) = 0.26*(3/7) + 0.74*1 = 0.851U(H) = 0.26*(4/7) + 0.74*0.6 = 0.593
Note H isnt really an option - just “checking” that we get same U as for Volvo (as expected)
12-706 and 73-359 6
Marginal Rate of Substitution
For our example == 1/2Which is what we said it should be(1 unit per 2 units)
M ij =ik i
+x −i−x
jk i+x −
i−x
0.26 / 7
0.74 /10
12-706 and 73-359 7
Eliciting Weights for MCDM
2:1 tradeoff (“pricing out”) is example about eliciting weights (i.e., 2:1 )
Method was direct, and was based on easy quantitative 0-1 scale
What are other options to help us?
12-706 and 73-359 8
Ratios
Helpful when attributes are not quantitative Car example: color (how much more do we like
red?) First ask sets of pairwise comparison questions Then set up quant scores Then put on 0-1 scale This is what MCDM software does (series of
pairwise comparisons)
12-706 and 73-359 9
MCDM - Swing Weights
Use hypothetical extreme combinations to determine weights
Base option = worst on all attributesOther options - “swing” one of the
attributes from worst to bestDetermine rank preference, find
weights
12-706 and 73-359
Choosing a Car
Car Fuel Eff (mpg) Comfort IndexMercedes 25 10Chevrolet 28 3Toyota 35 6Volvo 30 9Which dominated, non-dominated?
Dominated can be removed from decision BUT we’ll need to maintain their values for
ranking
12-706 and 73-359 11
Swing Weights Table
Combinations of varying all worst attribute values with each best attribute
How would we rank / rate options below? Combo Ran
kRate
Weight
Base 25 F, 3C 3 0
Fuel 35F, 6C
Comfort 25F, 10C
12-706 and 73-359 12
Example
Worst and best get 0, 100 ratings by default
If we assessed “Fuel” option highest, and suggested that “Comfort” option would give us a 20 (compared to 100) rating..
Combo Rank
Rate
Weight
Benchmark
25 F, 3C 3 0 0
Fuel 35F, 3C 1 100 100/120
Comfort 25F, 10C
2 20 20/120
12-706 and 73-359 13
Outcome of Swing Weights
Each row is a “worst case” utility and best case utility
E.g., U(“Fuel” option)= kf*Uf(35) + kc*Uc(6) U(Fuel)= kf*1 + 0 = kf
Same for U(comfort) option => kc
We assessed swing weights as utilities Utility of swinging each attribute from worst
to best gives us our (elicited) weights
12-706 and 73-359 14
So how to assess?
Proportional scoring ~ risk neutralRatios - good for qualitative attributes
First do qualitative comparisons (eg colors) Then derive a 0-1 scale
Incorporate risk attitudes (not neutral) We have used mostly linear utility Risky has lower utility
12-706 and 73-359 15
MCDM with Decision Trees
Incorporate uncertainties as event nodes with branches across possibilities See “summer job” example in Chapter
4.
12-706 and 73-359 16
12-706 and 73-359 17
Still need special (external) scales. And need to value/normalize them Give 100 to best, 0 to worst, find scale
for everything between (job fun) Get both criteria on 0-100 scales!
12-706 and 73-359 18
12-706 and 73-359 19
12-706 and 73-359 20
Next Step: Weights
Need weights between 2 criteria Don’t forget they are based on whole
scale e.g., you value “improving salary on
scale 0-100 at 3x what you value fun going from 0-100”. Not just “salary vs. fun”
12-706 and 73-359 21Proportional Scoring for Salary, Subjective Rankings for Fun
12-706 and 73-359 22
12-706 and 73-359 23
12-706 and 73-359 24
12-706 and 73-359 25
Notes
While forest job dominates in-town, recall it has caveats: These estimates, these tradeoffs, these
weights, etc. Might not be a general result.
Make sure you look at tutorial at end of Chapter 4 on how to simplify with plugins
Read Chap 15 Eugene library example!
12-706 and 73-359 26
How to solve MCDM problems
All methods (AHP, SMART, ..) return some sort of weighting factor set Use these weighting factors in
conjunction with data values (mpg, price, ..) to make value functions
In multilevel/hierarchical trees, deal with each set of weights at each level of tree
12-706 and 73-359 27
Stochastic Dominance “Defined”
A is better than B if:Pr(Profit > $z |A) ≥ Pr(Profit > $z |B),
for all possible values of $z.Or (complementarity..)Pr(Profit ≤ $z |A) ≤ Pr(Profit ≤ $z |B),
for all possible values of $z.A FOSD B iff FA(z) ≤ FB(z) for all z
12-706 and 73-359 28
Stochastic Dominance:Example #1
CRP below for 2 strategies shows “Accept $2 Billion” is dominated by the other.
12-706 and 73-359 29
Stochastic Dominance (again)
Chapter 4 (Risk Profiles) introduced deterministic and stochastic dominance We looked at discrete, but similar for continuous How do we compare payoff distributions? Two concepts: A is better than B because A provides unambiguously higher
returns than B A is better than B because A is unambiguously less risky than B If an option Stochastically dominates another, it must have a
higher expected value
12-706 and 73-359 30
First-Order Stochastic Dominance (FOSD)
Case 1: A is better than B because A provides unambiguously higher returns than B Every expected utility maximizer prefers A to B (prefers more to less) For every x, the probability of getting at least x is higher
under A than under B. Say A “first order stochastic dominates B” if:
Notation: FA(x) is cdf of A, FB(x) is cdf of B. FB(x) ≥ FA(x) for all x, with one strict inequality or .. for any non-decr. U(x), ∫U(x)dFA(x) ≥ ∫U(x)dFB(x) Expected value of A is higher than B
12-706 and 73-359 31
FOSD
Source: http://www.nes.ru/~agoriaev/IT05notes.pdf
12-706 and 73-359 32
FOSD Example
Option A Option B
Profit ($M) Prob.
0 ≤ x < 5 0.2
5 ≤ x < 10 0.3
10 ≤ x < 15
0.4
15 ≤ x < 20
0.1
Profit ($M) Prob.
0 ≤ x < 5 0
5 ≤ x < 10 0.1
10 ≤ x < 15
0.5
15 ≤ x < 20
0.3
20 ≤ x < 25
0.1
12-706 and 73-359 33
First-Order Stochastic Dominance
00.20.40.60.8
1
0 5 10 15 20 25
Profit ($millions)
Cumulative Probability
AB
12-706 and 73-359 34
Second-Order Stochastic Dominance (SOSD)
How to compare 2 lotteries based on risk Given lotteries/distributions w/ same mean
So we’re looking for a rule by which we can say “B is riskier than A because every risk averse person prefers A to B”
A ‘SOSD’ B if For every non-decreasing (concave) U(x)..
€
U(x)dFA (x)0
x
∫ ≥ U(x)dFB (x)0
x
∫
€
[FB (x) − FA (x)]dx0
x
∫ ≥ 0,∀x
12-706 and 73-359 35
SOSD Example
Option A Option B
Profit ($M) Prob.
0 ≤ x < 5 0.1
5 ≤ x < 10 0.3
10 ≤ x < 15
0.4
15 ≤ x < 20
0.2
Profit ($M) Prob.
0 ≤ x < 5 0.3
5 ≤ x < 10 0.3
10 ≤ x < 15
0.2
15 ≤ x < 20
0.1
20 ≤ x < 25
0.1
12-706 and 73-359 36
Second-Order Stochastic Dominance
00.20.40.60.8
1
0 5 10 15 20 25
Profit ($millions)
Cumulative Probability
AB
Area 2
Area 1
12-706 and 73-359 37
SOSD
12-706 and 73-359 38
SD and MCDM
As long as criteria are independent (e.g., fun and salary) then Then if one alternative SD another on
each individual attribute, then it will SD the other when weights/attribute scores combined
(e.g., marginal and joint prob distributions)