A Credibility and Strategic Behavior Approach in Hesitant Multiple Criteria Decision-Making With Application to Sustainable Transportation
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication date
2023
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Citation
Santos-Arteaga, F. J., Di Caprio, D., Tavana, M., & Tena, E. C. (2023). A Credibility and Strategic Behavior Approach in Hesitant Multiple Criteria Decision-Making With Application to Sustainable Transportation. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 31(2), 460-474. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2022.3188875
Abstract
—Multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods
do not account for the potentially strategic evaluations of experts.
Once the ranking is delivered, decision makers (DMs) select the first
alternative without questioning the credibility of the evaluations
received from the experts. We formalize the selection problem of a
DM who must choose from a set of alternatives according to both
their characteristics and the credibility of the reports received. That
is, we transform anMCDM setting into a game-theoretical scenario.
We build our analysis on a recent extension of hesitant fuzzy
numbers incorporated within the formal structure of technique
for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution. We define
the restrictions that must be imposed regarding the credibility of
the evaluations and the capacity of experts to form coalitions and
manipulate rankings based on their subjective preferences. This
feature constitutes a considerable drawback in real-life scenarios,
mainly when dealing with environmental and sustainable strategic problems. In this regard, sustainable transportation problems
incorporate both technical variables and subjective assessments
whose values can be strategically reported by experts. We extend
a real-life study case accounting for the evaluations of several
experts to demonstrate the importance of strategic incentives for
the rankings obtained when implementing MCDM techniques.
We numerically illustrate the interactions between the experts’
reporting strategies and the formal tools available for the DMs to
counteract potential manipulations of the final ranking.