An Interactive Decision Procedure with Multiple Attributes under Risk

  • Hartmut Holz
  • Karl Mosler
Conference paper


Consider a finite set of alternatives under risk which have multiple attributes. MARPI is an interactive computer-based procedure to find an efficient choice in the sense of linear expected utility. The choice is based on incomplete information about the decision maker’s preferences which is elicited and processed in a sequential way. The information includes qualitative properties of the multivariate utility function such as monotoneity, risk aversion, and separability. Further, in case of an additively separable utility function, bounds on the attribute weights are elicited, and preferences (not necessarily indifferences) between sure amounts and lotteries are asked from the decision maker. The lotteries are Bernoulli lotteries generated by MARPI using special strategies. At every stage of the procedure the efficient set of alternatives is determined with respect to the information elicited so far.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Dyckerhoff, R. (1992). Decomposition of multivariate utility functions in non-additive expected utility theory. Paper presented to the 16th Symposium on Operations Research held at the University of Trier at September 9-11, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. [2).
    Hershey, J.C. and Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1985). Probability versus certainty equivalence methods in utility measurement, are they equivalent? Management Science 31, p. 1213–1231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Keeney, R. and Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Keeney, R. and Sicherman, A. (1976). Assessing and analyzing preferences concerning multiple objectives: An interactive computer program. Behavioral Science 21, p. 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Kirkwood, C.W. and van der Feltz, L.C. (1986). Personal Computer Programs for Decision Analysis, Volume 1: User Manual. Technical Report, Department of Decision and Information Systems, College of Business, Arizona State University.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Lotfi, V. and Teich, J.E. (1991). Multicriteria decision making using personal computers. In: Korhonen, P., Lewandowski, A., and Wallenius, J. (eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Support, Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Mosler, K.C. (1982). Entscheidungsregeln bei Risiko: Multivariate stochastische Dominanz. Springer, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Mosler, K.C. (1991). Multiattribute utility functions, partial information on coefficients, and efficient choice. OR Spektrum 13, p. 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    von Nitzsch, R. and Weber, M. (1988). Utility function assessment on a microcomputer: an interactive procedure. Annals of Operations Research 16, p. 149–160.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Sarin, R.K. (1977). Interactive evaluation and bound procedure for selecting multiattribute alternatives. In: Starr, M. and Zeleny, M. (eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Making, North-Holland, New York, p. 211–224.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Weber, M. (1987). Decision making with incomplete information. European J. of Operational Research 28, p. 44–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hartmut Holz
    • 1
  • Karl Mosler
    • 1
  1. 1.FB Wirtschafts- und OrganisationswissenschaftenUniversität der BundeswehrHamburg 70Germany

Personalised recommendations