Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Building Recommendations

  • Chapter
Book cover Evaluation and Decision Models with Multiple Criteria

Part of the book series: International Handbooks on Information Systems ((INFOSYS))

Abstract

This chapter briefly presents a number of techniques that can be used to build recommendations in each of three classical problem statements (choosing, ranking, and sorting) on the basis of a preference model. We start with the simple case of a preference model based on a value function. We then turn to more complex cases.

This chapter is based on Bouyssou et al. (2006,, Chap. 7).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This is true when A is finite. The general case may be more tricky: while the relation ≥ on \(\mathbb{R}\) is complete and transitive, \(G(\geq, \mathbb{R})\) is clearly empty. The same is true with ≥ on the open \(\left ]0, 1\right [\) interval.

  2. 2.

    That is, π k+1 is at least as good as π k on all criteria and strictly better on some criterion.

  3. 3.

    That is, it is strictly better on all criteria.

References

  • Bana e Costa, C. A. (1986). A multicriteria decision aid methodology to deal with conflictuous situation on weights. European Journal of Operational Research, 26, 22–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bana e Costa, C. A. (1988). A methodology for sensitivity analysis in three-criteria problems: a case study in municipal management. European Journal of Operational Research, 33, 159–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barthélémy, J. -P., Guénoche, A., & Hudry, O. (1989). Median linear orders: heuristics and a branch and bound algorithm. European Journal of Operational Research, 42, 313–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berge, C. (1970). Graphes et hypergraphes. Paris: Dunod.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bisdorff, R., Meyer, P., & Roubens, M. (2008). Rubis: a bipolar-valued outranking method for the choice problem. 4OR. A Quarterly Journal of Operations Rsearch, 6(2), 143–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou, D. (1992). Ranking methods based on valued preference relations: a characterization of the net flow network. European Journal of Operational Research, 60, 61–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou, D. (1996). Outranking relations: do they have special properties? Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 5, 99–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou, D., & Marchant, T. (2007a). An axiomatic approach to noncompensatory sorting methods in MCDM, I: the case of two categories. European Journal of Operational Research, 178(1), 217–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou, D., & Marchant, T. (2007b). An axiomatic approach to noncompensatory sorting methods in MCDM, II: more than two categories. European Journal of Operational Research, 178(1), 246–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou, D., Marchant, T., Pirlot, M., Tsoukiàs, A., & Vincke, P. (2006). Evaluation and decision models: Stepping stones for the analyst. Boston: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou, D., & Perny, P. (1992). Ranking methods for valued preference relations: a characterization of a method based on entering and leaving flows. European Journal of Operational Research, 61, 186–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou, D., & Pirlot, M. (1997). Choosing and ranking on the basis of fuzzy preference relations with the “min in favor”. In G. Fandel, & T. Gal (Eds.), Multiple criteria decision making. Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference, Hagen (Germany) (pp. 115–127). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou, D., & Vincke, P. (1997). Ranking alternatives on the basis of preference relations: a progress report with special emphasis on outranking relations. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 6, 77–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brans, J. -P., & Vincke, P. (1985). A preference ranking organisation method (The PROMETHEE method for multiple criteria decision-making). Management Science, 31(6), 647–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnetski, J., & Soland, R. (1978). Multiple-attribute decision making with partial information: the comparative hypervolume criterion. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 25, 279–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charon, I., & Hudry, O. (2007). A survey on the linear ordering problem for weighted or unweighted tournaments. 4OR, 5(1), 5–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dias, L., & Mousseau, V. (2003). IRIS: a DSS for multiple criteria sorting problems. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 12, 285–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dias, L. C., & Lamboray, C. (2010). Extensions of the prudence principle to exploit a valued outranking relation. European Journal of Operational Research, 201(3), 828–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dias, L. C., & Mousseau, V. (2006). Inferring ELECTRE’s veto-related parameters from outranking examples. European Journal of Operational Research, 170(1), 172–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dias, L. C., Mousseau, V., Figueira, J., & Clímaco, J. N. (2002). An aggregation/disaggregation approach to obtain robust conclusions with ELECTRE TRI. European Journal of Operational Research, 138, 332–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, D., Fargier, H., Perny, P., & Prade, H. (2003). A characterization of generalized concordance rules in multicriteria decision-making. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 18(7), 751–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dushnik, B., & Miller, E. (1941). Partially ordered sets. American Journal of Mathematics, 63, 600–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutta, B., & Laslier, J. -F. (1999). Comparison functions and choice correspondences. Social Choice and Welfare, 16, 513–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1977). Condorcet social choice functions. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 33, 469–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greco, S., Figueira, J., & Słowiński, R. (2009). Building a set of additive value functions representing a reference preorder and intensities of preference: GRIP method. European Journal of Operational Research, 195(2), 460–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greco, S., Mousseau, V., & Słowiński, R. (2008). Ordinal regression revisited: multiple criteria ranking using a set of additive value functions. European Journal of Operational Research, 191(2), 415–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greco, S., Mousseau, V., & Słowiński, R. (2010). Multiple criteria sorting with a set of additive value functions. European Journal of Operational Research, 207(3), 1455–1470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henriet, D. (1985). The Copeland choice function: an axiomatic characterization. Social Choice and Welfare, 2, 49–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacquet-Lagrèze, É. (1995). An application of the UTA discriminant model for the evaluation of R&D projects. In P. Pardalos, Y. Siskos, & C. Zopounidis (Eds.), Advances in multicriteria analysis (pp. 203–211). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jacquet-Lagrèze, É., & Siskos, J. (1982). Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision making: the UTA method. European Journal of Operational Research, 10, 151–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahdelma, R., Hokkanen, J., & Salminen, P. (1998). SMAA - stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 106(1), 137–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laslier, J. -F. (1997). Tournament solutions and majority voting. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Massaglia, R., & Ostanello, A. (1991). N-Tomic: a support system for multicriteria segmentation problems. In P. Korhonen, A. Lewandowski, & J. Wallenius (Eds.), Multiple criteria decision support. LNEMS (Vol. 356, pp. 167–174). IIASA. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarvey, D. C. (1953). A theorem on the construction of voting paradoxes. Econometrica, 21, 608–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moscarola, J., & Roy, B. (1977). Procédure automatique d’examen de dossiers fondée sur une segmentation trichotomique en présence de critères multiple. RAIRO / Operations Research, 11(2), 145–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mousseau, V., Figueira, J., & Naux, J. P. (2001). Using assignment examples to infer weights for ELECTRE TRI method: some experimental results. European Journal of Operational Research, 130, 263–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mousseau, V., & Słowiński, R. (1998). Inferring an ELECTRE TRI model from assignment examples. Journal of Global Optimization, 12, 157–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ngo The, A., & Mousseau, V. (2002). Using assignment examples to infer category limits for the ELECTRE TRI method. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 11(1), 29–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peris, J. E., & Subiza, B. (1999). Condorcet choice correspondences for weak tournaments. Social Choice and Welfare, 16, 217–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirlot, M. (1995). A characterisation of ‘min’ as a procedure for exploiting valued preference relations and related results. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 4, 37–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy, B. (1968). Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples (la méthode ELECTRE). RIRO, 2, 57–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, B. (1969/1970). Algèbre moderne et théorie des graphes orientées vers les sciences économiques et sociales (Vols. I and II). Paris: Dunod.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, B. (1978). ELECTRE III: un algorithme de classement fondé sur une représentation floue des préférences en présence de critères multiples. Cahiers du CERO, 20, 3–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, B. (1981). A multicriteria analysis for trichotomic segmentation problems. In P. Nijkamp, & J. Spronk (Eds.), Multiple criteria analysis: Operational methods (pp. 245–257). Aldershot: Gower Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, B. (1996). Multicriteria methodology for decision aiding. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Original version in French (1985). “Méthodologie multicritère d’aide à la décision. Paris: Economica

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roy, B. (1998). A missing link in OR-DA: robustness analysis. Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences, 23(3), 141–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, B. (2010). Robustness in operational research and decision aiding: a multi-faceted issue. European Journal of Operational Research, 200(3), 629–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy, B., & Bertier, P. (1973). La méthode ELECTRE II: une application au media-planning. In M. Ross (Ed.), OR’72 (pp. 291–302). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, B., & Bouyssou, D. (1993). Aide multicritère à la décision: méthodes et cas. Paris: Economica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, B., & Skalka, J. -M. (1984). ELECTRE IS: aspects méthodologiques et guide d’utilisation. Technical Report. Paris: Université Paris Dauphine (Document du LAMSADE, 30).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubinstein, A. (1980). Ranking the participants in a tournament. SIAM Journal of Applied Mathematics, 38, 108–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, T. (1986). The logic of collective choice. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siskos, J. (1982). A way to deal with fuzzy preferences in multi-criteria decision problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 10, 314–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tervonen, T., Figueira, J. R., Lahdelma, R., Almeida-Dias, J., & Salminen, P. (2009). A stochastic method for robustness analysis in sorting problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 192, 236–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Brink, R., & Gilles, R. P. (2003). Ranking by outdegress for directed graphs. Discrete Mathematics, 271(1–3), 261–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vincke, P. (1992). Exploitation of a crisp relation in a ranking problem. Theory and Decision, 32, 221–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of games and economic behavior (2nd ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, W. (1992). Aide multicritère à la décision dans le cadre de la problématique du tri: concepts, méthodes et applications. Thèse de doctorat, Université Paris Dauphine, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zopounidis, C., & Doumpos, M. (2000a). Building additive utilities for multi-group hierarchical discrimination: the MHDIS method. Optimization Methods & Software, 14(3), 219–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zopounidis, C., & Doumpos, M. (2000b). PREFDIS: a multicriteria decision support system for sorting decision problems. Computers & Operations Research, 27(7–8), 779–797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zopounidis, C., & Doumpos, M. (2001). A preference disaggregation decision support system for financial classification problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 130(2), 402–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zopounidis, C., & Doumpos, M. (2002). Multicriteria classification and sorting methods: a literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 138(2), 229–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CNRS–LAMSADE & Université Paris Dauphine, Place du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, F-75775, Paris Cedex 16, France

    Denis Bouyssou & Alexis Tsoukiàs

  2. Department of Data analysis, Ghent University, H. Dunantlaan 1, B-9000, Gent, Belgium

    Thierry Marchant

  3. Faculté Polytechnique, Université de Mons, 9, Rue de Houdain, 7000, Mons, Belgium

    Marc Pirlot

  4. Ecole Polytechnique, Université libre de Bruxelles, Campus de la Plaine, CP210/01, boulevard du Triomphe, 1050, Bruxelles, Belgium

    Philippe Vincke

Authors
  1. Denis Bouyssou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thierry Marchant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marc Pirlot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alexis Tsoukiàs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Philippe Vincke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denis Bouyssou .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Science, Technology and Communication, Computer Science and Communications, Research Unit, University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Raymond Bisdorff

  2. Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

    Luis C. Dias

  3. Télécom Bretagne, Brest Cedex, France

    Patrick Meyer

  4. Ecole Centrale Paris, Châtenay-Malabry Cedex, France

    Vincent Mousseau

  5. Faculté Polytechnique, Université de Mons, Mons, Belgium

    Marc Pirlot

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bouyssou, D., Marchant, T., Pirlot, M., Tsoukiàs, A., Vincke, P. (2015). Building Recommendations. In: Bisdorff, R., Dias, L., Meyer, P., Mousseau, V., Pirlot, M. (eds) Evaluation and Decision Models with Multiple Criteria. International Handbooks on Information Systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46816-6_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation