Coherence Shifts in Probabilistic Inference Tasks

The fast-and-frugal heuristics approach to probabilistic inference assumes that individuals often employ simple heuristics to integrate cue information that commonly function in a non-reciprocal fashion. Specifically, the subjective validity of a certain cue remains stable during the application of a heuristic and is not changed by the presence or absence of another cue. The parallel-constraint-satisfaction model, in contrast, predicts that information is processed in a reciprocal fashion. Specifically, it assumes that subjective cue validities interactively af-fect each other and are modified to coherently support the favored choice. Corresponding to the model’s simulation, we predicted the direction of such coherence shifts.Cue validities were measured before, after (Exp. 1) and during judgment (Exp. 2 & 3). Coherence shifts were found in environments involving real-world cue knowledge (weather forecasts) and in a domain for which the application of fast-and-frugal heuristics has been demonstrated (city-size tasks). The results indicate that subjective cue validities are not fixed parameters, but that they are interactively changed to form coherent representations of the task.Judgment, Connectionism, Parallel Constraint Satisfaction, Fast-and-Frugal Heuristics, Adaptive Decision Making, Bounded Rationality

COLAB : a hybrid knowledge representation and compilation laboratory

Knowledge bases for real-world domains such as mechanical engineering require expressive and efficient representation and processing tools. We pursue a declarative-compilative approach to knowledge engineering. While Horn logic (as implemented in PROLOG) is well-suited for representing relational clauses, other kinds of declarative knowledge call for hybrid extensions: functional dependencies and higher-order knowledge should be modeled directly. Forward (bottom-up) reasoning should be integrated with backward (top-down) reasoning. Constraint propagation should be used wherever possible instead of search-intensive resolution. Taxonomic knowledge should be classified into an intuitive subsumption hierarchy. Our LISP-based tools provide direct translators of these declarative representations into abstract machines such as an extended Warren Abstract Machine (WAM) and specialized inference engines that are interfaced to each other. More importantly, we provide source-to-source transformers between various knowledge types, both for user convenience and machine efficiency. These formalisms with their translators and transformers have been developed as part of COLAB, a compilation laboratory for studying what we call, respectively, "vertical\u27; and "horizontal\u27; compilation of knowledge, as well as for exploring the synergetic collaboration of the knowledge representation formalisms. A case study in the realm of mechanical engineering has been an important driving force behind the development of COLAB. It will be used as the source of examples throughout the paper when discussing the enhanced formalisms, the hybrid representation architecture, and the compilers

Reflexion and reflection: A social cognitive neuroscience approach to attributional inference

N/

Prospects for Electric Mobility: Systemic, Economic and Environmental Issues

The transport sector, which is currently almost completely based on fossil fuels, is one of the major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. Heading towards a more sustainable development of mobility could be possible with more energy efficient automotive technologies such as battery electric vehicles. The number of electric vehicles has been increasing over the last decade, but there are still many challenges that have to be solved in the future. This Special Issue “Prospects for Electric Mobility: Systemic, Economic and Environmental Issues” contributes to the better understanding of the current situation as well as the future prospects and impediments for electro mobility. The published papers range from historical development of electricity use in different transport modes and the recent challenges up to future perspectives

Argumentation dialogues in web-based GDSS: an approach using machine learning techniques

Tese de doutoramento em InformaticsA tomada de decisão está presente no dia a dia de qualquer pessoa, mesmo que muitas vezes ela não tenha consciência disso. As decisões podem estar relacionadas com problemas quotidianos, ou podem estar relacionadas com questões mais complexas, como é o caso das questões organizacionais. Normalmente, no contexto organizacional, as decisões são tomadas em grupo. Os Sistemas de Apoio à Decisão em Grupo têm sido estudados ao longo das últimas décadas com o objetivo de melhorar o apoio prestado aos decisores nas mais diversas situações e/ou problemas a resolver. Existem duas abordagens principais à implementação de Sistemas de Apoio à Decisão em Grupo: a abordagem clássica, baseada na agregação matemática das preferências dos diferentes elementos do grupo e as abordagens baseadas na negociação automática (e.g. Teoria dos Jogos, Argumentação, entre outras). Os atuais Sistemas de Apoio à Decisão em Grupo baseados em argumentação podem gerar uma enorme quantidade de dados. O objetivo deste trabalho de investigação é estudar e desenvolver modelos utilizando técnicas de aprendizagem automática para extrair conhecimento dos diálogos argumentativos realizados pelos decisores, mais concretamente, pretende-se criar modelos para analisar, classificar e processar esses dados, potencializando a geração de novo conhecimento que será utilizado tanto por agentes inteligentes, como por decisiores reais. Promovendo desta forma a obtenção de consenso entre os membros do grupo. Com base no estudo da literatura e nos desafios em aberto neste domínio, formulou-se a seguinte hipótese de investigação - É possível usar técnicas de aprendizagem automática para apoiar diálogos argumentativos em Sistemas de Apoio à Decisão em Grupo baseados na web. No âmbito dos trabalhos desenvolvidos, foram aplicados algoritmos de classificação supervisionados a um conjunto de dados contendo argumentos extraídos de debates online, criando um classificador de frases argumentativas que pode classificar automaticamente (A favor/Contra) frases argumentativas trocadas no contexto da tomada de decisão. Foi desenvolvido um modelo de clustering dinâmico para organizar as conversas com base nos argumentos utilizados. Além disso, foi proposto um Sistema de Apoio à Decisão em Grupo baseado na web que possibilita apoiar grupos de decisores independentemente de sua localização geográfica. O sistema permite a criação de problemas multicritério e a configuração das preferências, intenções e interesses de cada decisor. Este sistema de apoio à decisão baseado na web inclui os dashboards de relatórios inteligentes que são gerados através dos resultados dos trabalhos alcançados pelos modelos anteriores já referidos. A concretização de cada um dos objetivos permitiu validar as questões de investigação identificadas e assim responder positivamente à hipótese definida.Decision-making is present in anyone’s daily life, even if they are often unaware of it. Decisions can be related to everyday problems, or they can be related to more complex issues, such as organizational issues. Normally, in the organizational context, decisions are made in groups. Group Decision Support Systems have been studied over the past decades with the aim of improving the support provided to decision-makers in the most diverse situations and/or problems to be solved. There are two main approaches to implementing Group Decision Support Systems: the classical approach, based on the mathematical aggregation of the preferences of the different elements of the group, and the approaches based on automatic negotiation (e.g. Game Theory, Argumentation, among others). Current argumentation-based Group Decision Support Systems can generate an enormous amount of data. The objective of this research work is to study and develop models using automatic learning techniques to extract knowledge from argumentative dialogues carried out by decision-makers, more specifically, it is intended to create models to analyze, classify and process these data, enhancing the generation of new knowledge that will be used both by intelligent agents and by real decision-makers. Promoting in this way the achievement of consensus among the members of the group. Based on the literature study and the open challenges in this domain, the following research hypothesis was formulated - It is possible to use machine learning techniques to support argumentative dialogues in web-based Group Decision Support Systems. As part of the work developed, supervised classification algorithms were applied to a data set containing arguments extracted from online debates, creating an argumentative sentence classifier that can automatically classify (For/Against) argumentative sentences exchanged in the context of decision-making. A dynamic clustering model was developed to organize conversations based on the arguments used. In addition, a web-based Group Decision Support System was proposed that makes it possible to support groups of decision-makers regardless of their geographic location. The system allows the creation of multicriteria problems and the configuration of preferences, intentions, and interests of each decision-maker. This web-based decision support system includes dashboards of intelligent reports that are generated through the results of the work achieved by the previous models already mentioned. The achievement of each objective allowed validation of the identified research questions and thus responded positively to the defined hypothesis.I also thank to Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, for the Ph.D. grant funding with the reference: SFRH/BD/137150/2018

Forecasting the environmental, social and governance rating of firms by using corporate financial performance variables: A rough sets approach

[EN] The environmental, social, and governance (ESG) rating of firms is a useful tool for stakeholders and investment decision-makers. This paper develops a rough set model to relate ESG scores to popular corporate financial performance measures. This methodology permits handling with information in an uncertain, ambiguous, and imperfect context. A large database was gathered, including ESG scores, as well as industry sector and financial variables for publicly traded European companies during the period 2013-2018. We carried out 500 simulations of the rough set model for different values in the discretization parameter and different grouping scenarios of firms regarding ESG scores. The results suggest that the variables considered are useful in the prediction of ESG rank when firms are clustered in three or four equally balanced groups. However, the prediction power vanishes when a larger number of groups is computed. This would suggest that industry sector and financial variables serve to find big differences across firms regarding ESG, but the significance of the model drops when small differences in ESG performance are scrutinized.García García, F.; González-Bueno, J.; Guijarro, F.; Oliver-Muncharaz, J. (2020). Forecasting the environmental, social and governance rating of firms by using corporate financial performance variables: A rough sets approach. Sustainability. 12(8):1-18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083324S118128García-Rodríguez, F. J., García-Rodríguez, J. L., Castilla-Gutiérrez, C., & Major, S. A. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility of Oil Companies in Developing Countries: From Altruism to Business Strategy. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(6), 371-384. doi:10.1002/csr.1320García, González-Bueno, Oliver, & Riley. (2019). Selecting Socially Responsible Portfolios: A Fuzzy Multicriteria Approach. Sustainability, 11(9), 2496. doi:10.3390/su11092496Arribas, I., Espinós-Vañó, M. D., García, F., & Tamošiūnienė, R. (2019). Negative screening and sustainable portfolio diversification. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 6(4), 1566-1586. doi:10.9770/jesi.2019.6.4(2)Martínez-Ferrero, J., Gallego-Álvarez, I., & García-Sánchez, I. M. (2015). A Bidirectional Analysis of Earnings Management and Corporate Social Responsibility: The Moderating Effect of Stakeholder and Investor Protection. Australian Accounting Review, 25(4), 359-371. doi:10.1111/auar.12075Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1/2), 51-71. doi:10.1023/b:busi.0000039399.90587.34Jensen, M. C. (2002). Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235-256. doi:10.2307/3857812Charlo, M. J., Moya, I., & Muñoz, A. M. (2017). Sustainable Development in Spanish Listed Companies: A Strategic Approach. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24(3), 222-234. doi:10.1002/csr.1403Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: what’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125-139. doi:10.1002/1097-0266(200101)22:23.0.co;2-hMio, C., Venturelli, A., & Leopizzi, R. (2015). Management by objectives and corporate social responsibility disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(3), 325-364. doi:10.1108/aaaj-09-2013-1480Venturelli, A., Caputo, F., Leopizzi, R., Mastroleo, G., & Mio, C. (2017). How can CSR identity be evaluated? A pilot study using a Fuzzy Expert System. Journal of Cleaner Production, 141, 1000-1010. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.172Lii, Y.-S., Wu, K.-W., & Ding, M.-C. (2011). Doing Good Does Good? Sustainable Marketing of CSR and Consumer Evaluations. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(1), 15-28. doi:10.1002/csr.294Sheikh, S., & Beise‐Zee, R. (2011). Corporate social responsibility or cause‐related marketing? The role of cause specificity of CSR. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28(1), 27-39. doi:10.1108/07363761111101921Hermawan, A., & Gunardi, A. (2019). Motivation for disclosure of corporate social responsibility: evidence from banking industry in Indonesia. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 6(3), 1297-1306. doi:10.9770/jesi.2019.6.3(17)Davis, K. (1967). Understanding the social responsibility puzzle. Business Horizons, 10(4), 45-50. doi:10.1016/0007-6813(67)90007-9Labib Eid, N., & Robert Sabella, A. (2014). A fresh approach to corporate social responsibility (CSR): partnerships between businesses and non-profit sectors. Corporate Governance, 14(3), 352-362. doi:10.1108/cg-01-2013-0011Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (2002). Ties that bind in business ethics: Social contracts and why they matter. Journal of Banking & Finance, 26(9), 1853-1865. doi:10.1016/s0378-4266(02)00195-4Jahn, J., & Brühl, R. (2016). How Friedman’s View on Individual Freedom Relates to Stakeholder Theory and Social Contract Theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(1), 41-52. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3353-xSison, A. J. G. (2009). From CSR to Corporate Citizenship: Anglo-American and Continental European Perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(S3), 235-246. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0395-3Lee, J. W., & Tan, W. N. (2019). Global Corporate Citizenship: Cross-cultural Comparison of Best Practices in the Global Automotive Industry. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 6(1), 261-271. doi:10.13106/jafeb.2019.vol6.no1.261Wartick, S. L., & Rude, R. E. (1986). Issues Management: Corporate Fad or Corporate Function? California Management Review, 29(1), 124-140. doi:10.2307/41165231Preston, L. E., & Post, J. E. (1981). Private Management and Public Policy. California Management Review, 23(3), 56-62. doi:10.2307/41172602Shnayder, L., van Rijnsoever, F. J., & Hekkert, M. P. (2016). Motivations for Corporate Social Responsibility in the packaged food industry: an institutional and stakeholder management perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 122, 212-227. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.030Wartick, S. L., & Cochran, P. L. (1985). The Evolution of the Corporate Social Performance Model. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 758-769. doi:10.5465/amr.1985.4279099Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2003). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Three-Domain Approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 503-530. doi:10.5840/beq200313435Cassel, D. (2001). Human Rights and Business Responsibilities in the Global Marketplace. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(2), 261-274. doi:10.2307/3857749Hart, S. L., & Ahuja, G. (1996). DOES IT PAY TO BE GREEN? AN EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EMISSION REDUCTION AND FIRM PERFORMANCE. Business Strategy and the Environment, 5(1), 30-37. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0836(199603)5:13.0.co;2-qHang, M., Geyer-Klingeberg, J., & Rathgeber, A. W. (2018). It is merely a matter of time: A meta-analysis of the causality between environmental performance and financial performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(2), 257-273. doi:10.1002/bse.2215McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate Social Responsibility: a Theory of the Firm Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117-127. doi:10.5465/amr.2001.4011987Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer Satisfaction, and Market Value. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1-18. doi:10.1509/jmkg.70.4.001Seifert, B., Morris, S. A., & Bartkus, B. R. (2004). Having, Giving, and Getting: Slack Resources, Corporate Philanthropy, and Firm Financial Performance. Business & Society, 43(2), 135-161. doi:10.1177/0007650304263919Brammer, S., Brooks, C., & Pavelin, S. (2006). Corporate Social Performance and Stock Returns: UK Evidence from Disaggregate Measures. Financial Management, 35(3), 97-116. doi:10.1111/j.1755-053x.2006.tb00149.xArribas, I., Espinós-Vañó, M. D., García, F., & Oliver, J. (2019). Defining socially responsible companies according to retail investors’ preferences. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 7(2), 1641-1653. doi:10.9770/jesi.2019.7.2(59)Arribas, I., Espinós-Vañó, M., García, F., & Morales-Bañuelos, P. (2019). The Inclusion of Socially Irresponsible Companies in Sustainable Stock Indices. Sustainability, 11(7), 2047. doi:10.3390/su11072047BACCARO, L., & MELE, V. (2011). FOR LACK OF ANYTHING BETTER? INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND GLOBAL CORPORATE CODES. Public Administration, 89(2), 451-470. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01918.xChatterji, A. K., Levine, D. I., & Toffel, M. W. (2009). How Well Do Social Ratings Actually Measure Corporate Social Responsibility? Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18(1), 125-169. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9134.2009.00210.xGangi, F., & Varrone, N. (2018). Screening activities by socially responsible funds: A matter of agency? Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 842-855. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.228Utz, S., & Wimmer, M. (2014). Are they any good at all? A financial and ethical analysis of socially responsible mutual funds. Journal of Asset Management, 15(1), 72-82. doi:10.1057/jam.2014.8Roberts, P. W., & Dowling, G. R. (2002). Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1077-1093. doi:10.1002/smj.274Julian, S. D., & Ofori-dankwa, J. C. (2013). Financial resource availability and corporate social responsibility expenditures in a sub-Saharan economy: The institutional difference hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 34(11), 1314-1330. doi:10.1002/smj.2070Garcia-Castro, R., Ariño, M. A., & Canela, M. A. (2009). Does Social Performance Really Lead to Financial Performance? Accounting for Endogeneity. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(1), 107-126. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0143-8Dupire, M., & M’Zali, B. (2016). CSR Strategies in Response to Competitive Pressures. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(3), 603-623. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2981-xLin, W. L., Law, S. H., Ho, J. A., & Sambasivan, M. (2019). The causality direction of the corporate social responsibility – Corporate financial performance Nexus: Application of Panel Vector Autoregression approach. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 48, 401-418. doi:10.1016/j.najef.2019.03.004Van Beurden, P., & Gössling, T. (2008). The Worth of Values – A Literature Review on the Relation Between Corporate Social and Financial Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2), 407-424. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9894-xJankalová, M., & Jankal, R. (2017). The assessment of corporate social responsibility: approaches analysis. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 4(4), 441-459. doi:10.9770/jesi.2017.4.4(4)Marom, I. Y. (2006). Toward a Unified Theory of the CSP–CFP Link. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(2), 191-200. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9023-7Chen, C.-M., & Delmas, M. (2010). Measuring Corporate Social Performance: An Efficiency Perspective. Production and Operations Management, 20(6), 789-804. doi:10.1111/j.1937-5956.2010.01202.xMuñoz-Torres, M. J., Fernández-Izquierdo, M. Á., Rivera-Lirio, J. M., & Escrig-Olmedo, E. (2018). Can environmental, social, and governance rating agencies favor business models that promote a more sustainable development? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(2), 439-452. doi:10.1002/csr.1695Guijarro, F., & Poyatos, J. (2018). Designing a Sustainable Development Goal Index through a Goal Programming Model: The Case of EU-28 Countries. Sustainability, 10(9), 3167. doi:10.3390/su10093167Guijarro, F. (2019). A Multicriteria Model for the Assessment of Countries’ Environmental Performance. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(16), 2868. doi:10.3390/ijerph16162868Escrig-Olmedo, E., Fernández-Izquierdo, M., Ferrero-Ferrero, I., Rivera-Lirio, J., & Muñoz-Torres, M. (2019). Rating the Raters: Evaluating how ESG Rating Agencies Integrate Sustainability Principles. Sustainability, 11(3), 915. doi:10.3390/su11030915Mattingly, J. E. (2015). Corporate Social Performance: A Review of Empirical Research Examining the Corporation–Society Relationship Using Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini Social Ratings Data. Business & Society, 56(6), 796-839. doi:10.1177/0007650315585761Landi, G., & Sciarelli, M. (2019). Towards a more ethical market: the impact of ESG rating on corporate financial performance. Social Responsibility Journal, 15(1), 11-27. doi:10.1108/srj-11-2017-0254Martínez-Ferrero, J., & Frías-Aceituno, J. V. (2013). Relationship Between Sustainable Development and Financial Performance: International Empirical Research. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(1), 20-39. doi:10.1002/bse.1803Grewatsch, S., & Kleindienst, I. (2015). When Does It Pay to be Good? Moderators and Mediators in the Corporate Sustainability–Corporate Financial Performance Relationship: A Critical Review. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(2), 383-416. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2852-5López, M. V., Garcia, A., & Rodriguez, L. (2007). Sustainable Development and Corporate Performance: A Study Based on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(3), 285-300. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9253-8Kang, C., Germann, F., & Grewal, R. (2016). Washing Away Your Sins? Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Social Irresponsibility, and Firm Performance. Journal of Marketing, 80(2), 59-79. doi:10.1509/jm.15.0324WADDOCK, S. A., & GRAVES, S. B. (1997). THE CORPORATE SOCIAL PERFORMANCE-FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE LINK. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303-319. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199704)18:43.0.co;2-gChin, M. K., Hambrick, D. C., & Treviño, L. K. (2013). Political Ideologies of CEOs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2), 197-232. doi:10.1177/0001839213486984Chung, S. (Andy), Pyo, H., & Guiral, A. (2019). Who Is the Beneficiary of Slack on Corporate Financial Performance and Corporate Philanthropy? Evidence from South Korea. Sustainability, 11(1), 252. doi:10.3390/su11010252El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Kwok, C. C. Y., & Mishra, D. R. (2011). Does corporate social responsibility affect the cost of capital? Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(9), 2388-2406. doi:10.1016/j.jbankfin.2011.02.007Mishra, S., & Modi, S. B. (2012). Positive and Negative Corporate Social Responsibility, Financial Leverage, and Idiosyncratic Risk. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(2), 431-448. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1526-9Cheng, B., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 1-23. doi:10.1002/smj.2131Bhuiyan, M. B. U., & Nguyen, T. H. N. (2019). Impact of CSR on cost of debt and cost of capital: Australian evidence. Social Responsibility Journal, 16(3), 419-430. doi:10.1108/srj-08-2018-0208Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2005). Corporate Reputation and Philanthropy: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(1), 29-44. doi:10.1007/s10551-005-7443-4Sparkes, R., & Cowton, C. J. (2004). The Maturing of Socially Responsible Investment: A Review of the Developing Link with Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 52(1), 45-57. doi:10.1023/b:busi.0000033106.43260.99Hudson, R. (2005). Ethical Investing: Ethical Investors and Managers. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(4), 641-657. doi:10.5840/beq200515445Oikonomou, I., Brooks, C., & Pavelin, S. (2014). The Effects of Corporate Social Performance on the Cost of Corporate Debt and Credit Ratings. Financial Review, 49(1), 49-75. doi:10.1111/fire.12025Kotchen, M., & Moon, J. J. (2012). Corporate Social Responsibility for Irresponsibility. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 12(1). doi:10.1515/1935-1682.3308Flammer, C. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility and Shareholder Reaction: The Environmental Awareness of Investors. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 758-781. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0744Godfrey, P. C., Merrill, C. B., & Hansen, J. M. (2009). The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: an empirical test of the risk management hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4), 425-445. doi:10.1002/smj.750LINS, K. V., SERVAES, H., & TAMAYO, A. (2017). Social Capital, Trust, and Firm Performance: The Value of Corporate Social Responsibility during the Financial Crisis. The Journal of Finance, 72(4), 1785-1824. doi:10.1111/jofi.12505Bouslah, K., Kryzanowski, L., & M’Zali, B. (2016). Social Performance and Firm Risk: Impact of the Financial Crisis. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(3), 643-669. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3017-xKoh, P.-S., Qian, C., & Wang, H. (2013). Firm litigation risk and the insurance value of corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(10), 1464-1482. doi:10.1002/smj.2171Drempetic, S., Klein, C., & Zwergel, B. (2019). The Influence of Firm Size on the ESG Score: Corporate Sustainability Ratings Under Review. Journal of Business Ethics, 167(2), 333-360. doi:10.1007/s10551-019-04164-1ADAMS, C. A., HILL, W.-Y., & ROBERTS, C. B. (1998). CORPORATE SOCIAL REPORTING PRACTICES IN WESTERN EUROPE: LEGITIMATING CORPORATE BEHAVIOUR? The British Accounting Review, 30(1), 1-21. doi:10.1006/bare.1997.0060Neu, D., Warsame, H., & Pedwell, K. (1998). Managing Public Impressions: Environmental Disclosures in Annual Reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23(3), 265-282. doi:10.1016/s0361-3682(97)00008-1Brammer, S., & Pavelin, S. (2004). Voluntary social disclosures by large UK companies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 13(2-3), 86-99. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8608.2004.00356.xHaniffa, R. M., & Cooke, T. E. (2005). The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24(5), 391-430. doi:10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2005.06.001Surroca, J., Tribó, J. A., & Waddock, S. (2009). Corporate responsibility and financial performance: the role of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5), 463-490. doi:10.1002/smj.820Pawlak, Z. (1982). Rough sets. International Journal of Computer & Information Sciences, 11(5), 341-356. doi:10.1007/bf01001956Kim, Y., & Enke, D. (2016). Developing a rule change trading system for the futures market using rough set analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 59, 165-173. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2016.04.031Podsiadlo, M., & Rybinski, H. (2016). Financial time series forecasting using rough sets with time-weighted rule voting. Expert Systems with Applications, 66, 219-233. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2016.08.066Chen, Y.-S. (2012). Classifying credit ratings for Asian banks using integrating feature selection and the CPDA-based rough sets approach. Knowledge-Based Systems, 26, 259-270. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2011.08.021Chen, X., Zhang, X., Zhou, J., & Zhou, K. (2019). Rolling Bearings Fault Diagnosis Based on Tree Heuristic Feature Selection and the Dependent Feature Vector Combined with Rough Sets. Applied Sciences, 9(6), 1161. doi:10.3390/app9061161Liang, F., Xu, Y., Li, W., Ning, X., Liu, X., & Liu, A. (2017). Recognition Algorithm Based on Improved FCM and Rough Sets for Meibomian Gland Morphology. Applied Sciences, 7(2), 192. doi:10.3390/app7020192Roy, B. (1993). Decision science or decision-aid science? European Journal of Operational Research, 66(2), 184-203. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(93)90312-bSun, J., Li, H., Huang, Q.-H., & He, K.-Y. (2014). Predicting financial distress and corporate failure: A review from the state-of-the-art definitions, modeling, sampling, and featuring approaches. Knowledge-Based Systems, 57, 41-56. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2013.12.006https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/RoughSets/index.htm

Optimising airline maintenance scheduling decisions

Airline maintenance scheduling (AMS) studies how plans or schedules are constructed to ensure that a fleet is efficiently maintained and that airline operational demands are met. Additionally, such schedules must take into consideration the different regulations airlines are subject to, while minimising maintenance costs. In this thesis, we study different formulations, solution methods, and modelling considerations, for the AMS and related problems to propose two main contributions. First, we present a new type of multi-objective mixed integer linear programming formulation which challenges traditional time discretisation. Employing the concept of time intervals, we efficiently model the airline maintenance scheduling problem with tail assignment considerations. With a focus on workshop resource allocation and individual aircraft flight operations, and the use of a custom iterative algorithm, we solve large and long-term real-world instances (16000 flights, 529 aircraft, 8 maintenance workshops) in reasonable computational time. Moreover, we provide evidence to suggest, that our framework provides near-optimal solutions, and that inter-airline cooperation is beneficial for workshops. Second, we propose a new hybrid solution procedure to solve the aircraft recovery problem. Here, we study how to re-schedule flights and re-assign aircraft to these, to resume airline operations after an unforeseen disruption. We do so while taking operational restrictions into account. Specifically, restrictions on aircraft, maintenance, crew duty, and passenger delay are accounted for. The flexibility of the approach allows for further operational restrictions to be easily introduced. The hybrid solution procedure involves the combination of column generation with learning-based hyperheuristics. The latter, adaptively selects exact or metaheuristic algorithms to generate columns. The five different algorithms implemented, two of which we developed, were collected and released as a Python package (Torres Sanchez, 2020). Findings suggest that the framework produces fast and insightful recovery solutions

A framework for the local information dynamics of distributed computation in complex systems

The nature of distributed computation has often been described in terms of the component operations of universal computation: information storage, transfer and modification. We review the first complete framework that quantifies each of these individual information dynamics on a local scale within a system, and describes the manner in which they interact to create non-trivial computation where "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts". We describe the application of the framework to cellular automata, a simple yet powerful model of distributed computation. This is an important application, because the framework is the first to provide quantitative evidence for several important conjectures about distributed computation in cellular automata: that blinkers embody information storage, particles are information transfer agents, and particle collisions are information modification events. The framework is also shown to contrast the computations conducted by several well-known cellular automata, highlighting the importance of information coherence in complex computation. The results reviewed here provide important quantitative insights into the fundamental nature of distributed computation and the dynamics of complex systems, as well as impetus for the framework to be applied to the analysis and design of other systems.Comment: 44 pages, 8 figure