Evaluation of Corporate Sustainability

As a consequence of an increasing demand in sustainable development for business organizations, the evaluation of corporate sustainability has become a topic intensively focused by academic researchers and business practitioners. Several techniques in the context of multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) have been suggested to facilitate the evaluation and the analysis of sustainability performance. However, due to the complexity of evaluation, such as a compilation of quantitative and qualitative measures, interrelationships among various sustainability criteria, the assessor’s hesitation in scoring, or incomplete information, simple techniques may not be able to generate reliable results which can reflect the overall sustainability performance of a company. This paper proposes a series of mathematical formulations based upon the evidential reasoning (ER) approach which can be used to aggregate results from qualitative judgments with quantitative measurements under various types of complex and uncertain situations. The evaluation of corporate sustainability through the ER model is demonstrated using actual data generated from three sugar manufacturing companies in Thailand. The proposed model facilitates managers in analysing the performance and identifying improvement plans and goals. It also simplifies decision making related to sustainable development initiatives. The model can be generalized to a wider area of performance assessment, as well as to any cases of multiple criteria analysis

An Empirical Comparison of Three Inference Methods

In this paper, an empirical evaluation of three inference methods for uncertain reasoning is presented in the context of Pathfinder, a large expert system for the diagnosis of lymph-node pathology. The inference procedures evaluated are (1) Bayes' theorem, assuming evidence is conditionally independent given each hypothesis; (2) odds-likelihood updating, assuming evidence is conditionally independent given each hypothesis and given the negation of each hypothesis; and (3) a inference method related to the Dempster-Shafer theory of belief. Both expert-rating and decision-theoretic metrics are used to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the inference methods.Comment: Appears in Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI1988

A logic-based analysis of Dempster-Shafer theory

AbstractDempster-Shafer (DS) theory is formulated in terms of propositional logic, using the implicit notion of provability underlying DS theory. Dempster-Shafer theory can be modeled in terms of propositional logic by the tuple (Σ, ϱ), where Σ is a set of propositional clauses and ϱ is an assignment of mass to each clause Σi ϵ Σ. It is shown that the disjunction of minimal support clauses for a clause Σi with respect to a set Σ of propositional clauses, ξ(Σi, Σ), when represented in terms of symbols for the ϱi 's, corresponds to a symbolic representation of the Dempster-Shafer belief function for δi. The combination of Belief functions using Dempster's rule of combination corresponds to a combination of the corresponding support clauses. The disjointness of the Boolean formulas representing DS Belief functions is shown to be necessary. Methods of computing disjoint formulas using network reliability techniques are discussed.In addition, the computational complexity of deriving DS Belief functions, including that of the logic-based methods which are the focus of this paper, is explored. Because of intractability even for moderately sized problem instances, efficient approximation methods are proposed for such computations. Finally, implementations of DS theory based on domain restrictions of DS theory, hypertree embeddings, and the ATMS, are examined

AN INTUITIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE THEORY OF EVIDENCE IN THE CONTEXT OF BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INDEXING

Models of bibliographical Indexing concern the construction of effective keyword taxonomies and the representation of relevance between document s and keywords. The theory of evidence concerns the elicitation and manipulation of degrees of belief rendered by multiple sources of evidence to a common set of propositions. The paper presents a formal framework in which adaptive taxonomies and probabilistic indexing are induced dynamically by the relevance opinions of the library's patrons. Different measures of relevance and mechanisms for combining them are presented and shown to be isomorphic to the belief functions and combination rules of the theory of evidence. The paper thus has two objectives: (i) to treat formally slippery concepts like probabilistic indexing and average relevance, and (ii) to provide an intuitive justification to the Dempster Shafer theory of evidence, using bibliographical indexing as a canonical example.Information Systems Working Papers Serie