An Overview of Classifier Fusion Methods

A number of classifier fusion methods have been recently developed opening an alternative approach leading to a potential improvement in the classification performance. As there is little theory of information fusion itself, currently we are faced with different methods designed for different problems and producing different results. This paper gives an overview of classifier fusion methods and attempts to identify new trends that may dominate this area of research in future. A taxonomy of fusion methods trying to bring some order into the existing “pudding of diversities” is also provided

Solving multiple-criteria R&D project selection problems with a data-driven evidential reasoning rule

In this paper, a likelihood based evidence acquisition approach is proposed to acquire evidence from experts'assessments as recorded in historical datasets. Then a data-driven evidential reasoning rule based model is introduced to R&D project selection process by combining multiple pieces of evidence with different weights and reliabilities. As a result, the total belief degrees and the overall performance can be generated for ranking and selecting projects. Finally, a case study on the R&D project selection for the National Science Foundation of China is conducted to show the effectiveness of the proposed model. The data-driven evidential reasoning rule based model for project evaluation and selection (1) utilizes experimental data to represent experts' assessments by using belief distributions over the set of final funding outcomes, and through this historic statistics it helps experts and applicants to understand the funding probability to a given assessment grade, (2) implies the mapping relationships between the evaluation grades and the final funding outcomes by using historical data, and (3) provides a way to make fair decisions by taking experts' reliabilities into account. In the data-driven evidential reasoning rule based model, experts play different roles in accordance with their reliabilities which are determined by their previous review track records, and the selection process is made interpretable and fairer. The newly proposed model reduces the time-consuming panel review work for both managers and experts, and significantly improves the efficiency and quality of project selection process. Although the model is demonstrated for project selection in the NSFC, it can be generalized to other funding agencies or industries.Comment: 20 pages, forthcoming in International Journal of Project Management (2019

An Overview of Classifier Fusion Methods

A number of classifier fusion methods have been recently developed opening an alternative approach leading to a potential improvement in the classification performance. As there is little theory of information fusion itself, currently we are faced with different methods designed for different problems and producing different results. This paper gives an overview of classifier fusion methods and attempts to identify new trends that may dominate this area of research in future. A taxonomy of fusion methods trying to bring some order into the existing “pudding of diversities” is also provided

Development of Interactive Support Systems for Multiobjective Decision Analysis under Uncertainty

This paper presents interactive multiobjective decision analysis support systems, called MIDASS, which is a newly developed interactive computer program for strategic use of expected utility theory. Decision analysis based on expected utility hypothesis is an established prescriptive approach for supporting business decisions under uncertainty, which embodies an effective procedure for seeking the best choice among alternatives. It is usually difficult, however, for the decision maker (DM) to apply it for the strategic use in the realistic business situations. MIDASS provides an integrated interactive computer system for supporting multiobjective decision analysis under uncertainty, which assists to derive an acceptable business solution for DM with the construction of his/her expected multiattribute utility fuction (EMUF).expected multiobjective decision analysis, MIDASS, expected multiattribute utility function (EMUF), intelligent decision support systems (IDSS).

A systematic review on multi-criteria group decision-making methods based on weights: analysis and classification scheme

Interest in group decision-making (GDM) has been increasing prominently over the last decade. Access to global databases, sophisticated sensors which can obtain multiple inputs or complex problems requiring opinions from several experts have driven interest in data aggregation. Consequently, the field has been widely studied from several viewpoints and multiple approaches have been proposed. Nevertheless, there is a lack of general framework. Moreover, this problem is exacerbated in the case of experts’ weighting methods, one of the most widely-used techniques to deal with multiple source aggregation. This lack of general classification scheme, or a guide to assist expert knowledge, leads to ambiguity or misreading for readers, who may be overwhelmed by the large amount of unclassified information currently available. To invert this situation, a general GDM framework is presented which divides and classifies all data aggregation techniques, focusing on and expanding the classification of experts’ weighting methods in terms of analysis type by carrying out an in-depth literature review. Results are not only classified but analysed and discussed regarding multiple characteristics, such as MCDMs in which they are applied, type of data used, ideal solutions considered or when they are applied. Furthermore, general requirements supplement this analysis such as initial influence, or component division considerations. As a result, this paper provides not only a general classification scheme and a detailed analysis of experts’ weighting methods but also a road map for researchers working on GDM topics or a guide for experts who use these methods. Furthermore, six significant contributions for future research pathways are provided in the conclusions.The first author acknowledges support from the Spanish Ministry of Universities [grant number FPU18/01471]. The second and third author wish to recognize their support from the Serra Hunter program. Finally, this work was supported by the Catalan agency AGAUR through its research group support program (2017SGR00227). This research is part of the R&D project IAQ4EDU, reference no. PID2020-117366RB-I00, funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/ 501100011033.Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version

A Pairwise Comparison Matrix Framework for Large-Scale Decision Making

abstract: A Pairwise Comparison Matrix (PCM) is used to compute for relative priorities of criteria or alternatives and are integral components of widely applied decision making tools: the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and its generalized form, the Analytic Network Process (ANP). However, a PCM suffers from several issues limiting its application to large-scale decision problems, specifically: (1) to the curse of dimensionality, that is, a large number of pairwise comparisons need to be elicited from a decision maker (DM), (2) inconsistent and (3) imprecise preferences maybe obtained due to the limited cognitive power of DMs. This dissertation proposes a PCM Framework for Large-Scale Decisions to address these limitations in three phases as follows. The first phase proposes a binary integer program (BIP) to intelligently decompose a PCM into several mutually exclusive subsets using interdependence scores. As a result, the number of pairwise comparisons is reduced and the consistency of the PCM is improved. Since the subsets are disjoint, the most independent pivot element is identified to connect all subsets. This is done to derive the global weights of the elements from the original PCM. The proposed BIP is applied to both AHP and ANP methodologies. However, it is noted that the optimal number of subsets is provided subjectively by the DM and hence is subject to biases and judgement errors. The second phase proposes a trade-off PCM decomposition methodology to decompose a PCM into a number of optimally identified subsets. A BIP is proposed to balance the: (1) time savings by reducing pairwise comparisons, the level of PCM inconsistency, and (2) the accuracy of the weights. The proposed methodology is applied to the AHP to demonstrate its advantages and is compared to established methodologies. In the third phase, a beta distribution is proposed to generalize a wide variety of imprecise pairwise comparison distributions via a method of moments methodology. A Non-Linear Programming model is then developed that calculates PCM element weights which maximizes the preferences of the DM as well as minimizes the inconsistency simultaneously. Comparison experiments are conducted using datasets collected from literature to validate the proposed methodology.Dissertation/ThesisPh.D. Industrial Engineering 201

How to Treat Expert Judgment? With certainty it contains uncertainty!

PresentationTo be acceptably safe one must identify the risks one is exposed to. It is uncertain whether the threat really will materialize, but determining the size and probability of the risk is also full of uncertainty. When performing an analysis and preparing for decision making under uncertainty, quite frequently failure rate data, information on consequence severity or on a probability value, yes, even on the possibility an event can or cannot occur is lacking. In those cases, the only way to proceed is to revert to expert judgment. Even in case historical data are available, but one should like to know whether these data still hold in the current situation, an expert can be asked about their reliability. Anyhow, expert elicitation comes with an uncertainty depending on the expert’s reliability, which becomes very visible when two or more experts give different answers or even conflicting ones. This is not a new problem, and very bright minds have thought how to tackle it. But so far, however, the topic has not been given much attention in process safety and risk assessment. The paper has a review character and will present various approaches with detailed explanation and examples

Turning 18: What a Difference Application of Adult Criminal Law Makes

This paper contributes to the literature on specific deterrence by addressing the issue of selecting adolescents into adult and juvenile law systems. In Germany, different from the U.S. and most other countries, turning a critical cutoff age does not cause a sharp discontinuity from juvenile to adult penal law, but rather implies a shift to a discretionary system of both adult and juvenile law, dependent on the courts' impression of moral and mental personal development of the adolescent at the time of the act. The German legal system draws the line of adulthood at some fuzzy age interval between 18 and 21, which is well above the thresholds prevailing in the U.S. (16 to 18 years, state specific) and other countries such that the German evidence entails some external evidence to the previous literature mostly relying on U.S. data. Based on a unique inmate survey and two-equation models controlling for selectivity problems, results show that application of adult criminal law instead of juvenile penal law decreases expected recidivism of adolescents.survey data, selection, treatment effects, recidivism, crime