1. Proceedings
  2. I3M
  3. 2021
  4. MAS
  5. 10.46354/i3m.2021.mas.020

A novel approach to handle intransitive judgements in industrial control problems

  • a Silvia Carpitella, 

  • b Miroslav Pištěk , 
  • d Masahiro Inuiguchi, 
  • d Václav Kratochvíl 
  • a,b Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Information Theory and Automation, Prague, Czech Republic
  • a,b,d Faculty of Management, University of Economics, Jindřichův Hradec, Czech Republic
  • c Osaka University, Graduate School of Engineering Science, Toyonaka, Osaka, Japan
Cite as
Carpitella S., Pištěk M., Inuiguchi M., Kratochvíl V. (2021). A novel approach to handle intransitive judgements in industrial control problems. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Modeling & Applied Simulation (MAS 2021), pp. 162-169. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46354/i3m.2021.mas.020

Abstract

As top managers have to lead decision-making processes every day, they use a various palette of supporting tools, often without the knowledge of their theoretical backgrounds. Nevertheless, especially when dealing with judgements provided by experts, some theoretical assumptions have to be fulfilled. One of them is transitivity, an intuitively appealing property that is usually taken for granted. When incorporated in the decision-making process, intransitivity of judgements or preferences can lead to unwanted consequences and the results of decision-supporting tools can be misleading. It seems that such an issue is not often addressed in industrial control problems involving manufacturing industries. To this end, we offer a simple and efficient method to deal with intransitive preferences in this research domain. To illustrate the applicability of this general mathematical method, we use it to support the risk management process in the food industry. The obtained results provide meaningful managerial implications.

References

  1. Abel, E., Mikhailov, L., and Keane, J. (2015). Group aggregation of pairwise comparisons using multi-objective
    optimization. Information Sciences, 322:257–275.
  2. Amenta, P., Lucadamo, A., and Marcarelli, G. (2020). On the transitivity and consistency approximated thresholds of some consistency indices for pairwise comparison matrices. Information Sciences, 507:274–287
  3. Bar-Hillel, M. and Margalit, A. (1988). How vicious are cycles of intransitive choice? Theory and Decision,
    24(2):119–145
  4. Blagojevic, B., Srdjevic, B., Srdjevic, Z., and Zoranovic, T. (2016). Heuristic aggregation of individual judgments in
    ahp group decision making using simulated annealing algorithm. Information Sciences, 330:260–273
  5. Butler, D., Pogrebna, G., and Blavatskyy, P. R. (2016). Predictably Intransitive Preferences. SSRN Electronic Journal, 13(3):217–236.
  6. Dong, Q. and Cooper, O. (2016). A peer-to-peer dynamic adaptive consensus reaching model for the group ahp
    decision making. European Journal of Operational Research, 250(2):521–530.
  7. Fishburn, P. C. (1982). Nontransitive measurable utility. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 26(1):31–67
  8. Theory. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Franek, J. and Kresta, A. (2014). Judgment scales and consistency measure in ahp. Procedia Economics and Finance, 12:164–173
  9. Grzybowski, A. Z. and Starczewski, T. (2020). New look at the inconsistency analysis in the pairwisecomparisons-based prioritization problems. Expert Systems with Applications, page 113549
  10. Hsieh, M.-c., Wang, E. M.-y., Lee, W.-c., Li, L.-w., Hsieh, C.-y., Tsai, W., Wang, C.-p., Huang, J.-l., and Liu, T.-
    c. (2018). Application of hfacs, fuzzy topsis, and ahp for identifying important human error factors in emergency departments in taiwan. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 67:171–179
  11. Iavicoli, S., Boccuni, F., Buresti, G., Gagliardi, D., Persechino, B., Rondinone, B., and Valenti, A. (2020). Documento tecnico sulla possibile rimodulazione delle misure di contenimento del contagio da sars-cov-2 nei luoghi di lavoro e strategie di prevenzione
  12. Kreweras, G. (1961). Sur une possibilite de rationaliser les intransitivites. La Decision,Colloques Internationaux du CNRS, Paris, pages 27–3
  13. Lehrer, K. and Wagner, C. (2012). Rational consensus in science and society: A philosophical and mathematical study, volume 24. Springer Science & Business Media
  14. Liu, F., Zhang, J.-W., Zhang, W.-G., and Pedrycz, W. (2020). Decision making with a sequential modeling of pairwise comparison process. Knowledge-Based Systems, page 105642
  15. Machina, M. J. (2004). Nonexpected Utility Theory. In Teugels, J. L. and Sundt, B., editors, Encyclopedia of Actuarial Science, volume 2, pages 1173–1179. John Wiley
    & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK
  16. Pištěk, M. (2018). Continuous SSB representation of preferences. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 77:59–65
  17. Pištěk, M. (2019). SSB representation of preferences:
    Weakening of convexity assumptions. Journal of Mathematical Economics, pages 84–88.
  18. Ramanathan, R. and Ganesh, L. (1994). Group preference aggregation methods employed in ahp: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members’ weightages. European journal of operational research,
    79(2):249–265.
  19. Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. of mathematical psychology,
    15(3):234–28
  20. Saaty, T. L. (2000). Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process, volume 6. RWS publications
  21. Starmer, C. (2000). Developements in Non-expected Utility Theory: The hunt for a descriptive Teory of Choice
    under risk. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(2):332–382.
  22. Tversky, A. (1969). Intransitivity of Preference. Psychological Review, 76(1):31–48
  23. Von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. (1953). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University
    Press, Princeton
  24. Wikipedia contributors (2020). Analytic hierarchy process – leader example — Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
    [Online; accessed 25-September-2020]
  25. Wu, Z. and Xu, J. (2012). A consistency and consensus based decision support model for group decision making with multiplicative preference relations. Decision Support Systems, 52(3):757–767