A Theoretical Framework for Analysing the Notion of Relative Importance of Criteria

Multiple-criteria decision aid almost always requires the use of weights, importance coefficients or even a hierarchy of criteria, veto thresholds, etc. These are importance parameters that are used to differentiate the role devoted to each criterion in the construction of comprehensive preferences. Many researchers have studied the problem of how to assign values to such parameters, but few of them have tried to analyse in detail what underlies the notion of importance of criteria and to give a clear formal definition of it. In this paper our purpose is to define a theoretical framework so as to analyse the notion of the importance of criteria under very general conditions. Within this framework it clearly appears that the importance of criteria is taken into account in very different ways in various aggregation procedures. This framework also allows us to shed new light on fundamental questions such as: Under what conditions is it possible to state that one criterion is more important than another? Are importance parameters of the various aggregation procedures dependent on or independent of the encoding of criteria? What are the links between the two concepts of the importance of criteria and the compensatoriness of preferences? This theoretical framework seems to us sufficiently general to ground further research in order to define theoretically valid elicitation methods for importance parameters.     

Logic and Aggregation

Paraconsistent logic is an area of philosophical logic that has yet to find acceptance from a wider audience. The area remains, in a word, disreputable. In this essay, we try to reassure potential consumers that it is not necessary to become a radical in order to use paraconsistent logic. According to the radicals, the problem is the absurd classical account of contradiction: Classically inconsistent sets explode only because bourgeois classical semantics holds, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that both A and A cannot simultaneously be true! We suggest (more modestly) that there is, at least sometimes, something else worth preserving, even in an inconsistent, unsatisfiable premise set. In this paper we present, in a new guise, a very general version of this preservationist approach to paraconsistency.     

Aggregation behavior of Au atoms and atomic islands on liquid surfaces

The aggregation behavior of Au atoms and atomic islands on silicone oil surfaces has been systematically investigated by analyzing the evolution of surface coverage. The apparent Au surface coverage increases linearly with the nominal film thickness at low thicknesses and the rate of increase is almost independent of deposition flux. However, as the deposition flux increases, the surface coverage goes up linearly. Further analysis reveals that the deposition flux strongly affects the system free-energy of the island-oil system and therefore the aggregation behavior of the Au atoms and islands.     

Coherence and transituational generality in coping: The unity and the diversity

Abstract

We investigated the transituational coherence of coping strategy use by collecting coping data on multiple occasions, and assessing the effects of aggregation over varying numbers of occasions. Study 1 examined the effects of aggregating daily coping reports over three- and six-day periods. Study 2 extended the results of Study 1 by assessing the extent to which aggregation increased the correlation between a dispositional coping measure and daily coping reports. Both studies strongly supported the hypothesis that aggregation would enhance the consistency of coping preferences, suggesting some degree of coherence within the domain of coping strategy used. Aggregated coping reports correlated with each other at significantly higher levels (ranging from 0.46 to 0.77 in Study 1 and from 0.65 to 0.95 in Study 2), than unaggregated coping reports (ranging from ?0.12 to 0.30 in Study 1 and from 0.12 to 0.53 in Study 2). Study 2 also showed that aggregated daily reports were better predictors of subsequent coping than scores derived from a standard dispositional coping survey.     

Assessing risky public investments with MUSTARD

This paper presents a practical implementation of multicriteria methodologies based on the UTA model by Jacquet‐Lagrèze and Siskos and Quasi‐UTA model by Beuthe and Scannella, which are specified with a non‐linear, but piecewise linear, additive utility function. In contrast with the general UTA model, the Quasi‐UTA specification structures the partial utilities as recursive exponential functions of only one curvature parameter. This allows for a reduction of the quantity of information necessary to build the utility function. The software MUSTARD implements different variants of these models. Firstly, it offers the basic deterministic UTA model of disaggregation, but also its first programmed stochastic version. In both cases, the software proceeds stepwise and interactively helping the decision maker to formulate the problem and state preferences between projects; in the stochastic case, the decision maker is even helped to build the criteria distributions. The Quasi‐UTA specification can be introduced in this disaggregation model. Secondly, the software offers an aggregation model whereby the Quasi‐UTA partial utility functions are built separately through specific questioning processes. The questions relating to deterministic criteria are of the ‘direct rating type’, while those of the stochastic criteria are either of the ‘variable probability’ or the ‘variable outcome’ type. The criteria weights can be assessed by the ‘swing weight’ method or by a UTA‐II side‐program. As an example as well as a test of the Quasi‐UTA aggregation approach, the paper presents its application to a real problem of selecting road investment projects in Belgium. Several experts and civil servants were interviewed, and their individual utility functions derived. The projects are ranked according to their rate of return, which is computed on the basis of the projects certain equivalent money value. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

教条悖论：行为心理学家的新挑战

在各种专业或私人情境中, 人们经常需要整合不同的意见来判断某一观点的对错。当观点的形式类似于将多个论点组合而成的逻辑公式(使用“且”、“或”等逻辑连接词)时, 容易产生教条悖论(doctrinal paradox)。即, 虽然整体意见支持该观点是正确的(或错误的), 但是分析这些整体意见中所包含的各个论点, 却会得到相反的结论。教条悖论是判断整合研究中关注的重要问题, 已在各科学领域引发大量的规范性研究。行为心理学家需在这个重要问题上开展系统研究。本文简要介绍了教条悖论及其过往研究, 总结已有的行为数据, 并指出未来行为研究的方向和视角。     

An impossibility theorem for verisimilitude

In this paper, we show that Arrow’s well-known impossibility theorem is instrumental in bringing the ongoing discussion about verisimilitude to a more general level of abstraction. After some preparatory technical steps, we show that Arrow’s requirements for voting procedures in social choice are also natural desiderata for a general verisimilitude definition that places content and likeness considerations on the same footing. Our main result states that no qualitative unifying procedure of a functional form can simultaneously satisfy the requirements of Unanimity, Independence of irrelevant alternatives and Non-dictatorship at the level of sentence variables. By giving a formal account of the incompatibility of the considerations of content and likeness, our impossibility result makes it possible to systematize the discussion about verisimilitude, and to understand it in more general terms.     

Learning about food: starlings, skinner boxes, and earthworms

Despite its importance as a tool for understanding a wide range of animal behavior, the study of reinforcement schedules in the laboratory has suffered from difficulties in the biological interpretation of its findings. This study is an operant-laboratory investigation of the ability of European starlings, Sturnus vulgaris, to learn to respond adaptively to the problem of foraging on patchily distributed prey that are uncertainly located in space. In order to maximize the biological relevance of the laboratory study, variation in the aggregation of earthworms, Lumbricus terrestris (a prey species), was rigorously quantified from the field, and the experimental birds were presented with reinforcement schedules designed to represent the extremes of the observed variation. The results demonstrate that, even for a single prey species, the degree to which individuals are aggregated can vary markedly over a range of spatial scales, and that starlings can rapidly learn to respond, in an adaptive manner, to these variations. These findings suggest that starlings are capable of adjusting their behavior to facilitate the efficient exploitation of prey that occurs in patches of an uncertain nature, and thus illustrate the heuristic value of an ecologically informed operant-laboratory approach to studying foraging behavior.     

Yes,Virginia, there Really are Paraconsistent Logics

B. H. Slater has argued that there cannot be any truly paraconsistent logics, because it's always more plausible to suppose whatever negation symbol is used in the language is not a real negation, than to accept the paraconsistent reading. In this paper I neither endorse nor dispute Slater's argument concerning negation; instead, my aim is to show that as an argument against paraconsistency, it misses (some of) the target. A important class of paraconsistent logics — the preservationist logics — are not subject to this objection. In addition I show that if we identify logics by means of consequence relations, at least one dialetheic logic can be reinterpreted in preservationist (non-dialetheic) terms. Thus the interest of paraconsistent consequence relations — even those that emerge from dialetheic approaches — does not depend on the tenability of dialetheism. Of course, if dialetheism is defensible, then paraconsistent logic will be required to cope with it. But the existence (and interest) of paraconsistent logics does not depend on a defense of dialetheism.