Book chapter
К вопросу о составлении матриц парных сравнений в методе Т.Л. Саати
In book
The paper proposes a method of multicriteria optimization under interval stochastic uncertainty of estimates given by the subject for the relative importance of one criterion over the other and the different alternatives to each other for each criterion. The method is an extension of the deterministic Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for multicriteria optimization. It is use deterministic point estimates of the importance of criteria and alternatives for each criterion . While deterministic AHP allows to select the best alternative by a point maximum value of a global priority in the developed article interval stochastic AHP the global priorities are interval, making it difficult to make the best decision . To select the best interval alternative in this article introduce two criteria, whose values are maximized. The first criterion corresponds to the maximum of the lower and upper bounds of the intervals of global priorities of alternatives. The second criteria is the maximum of interval stability of alternatives. Application of the proposed approach is illustrated by a specific example. Also a comparison with the results obtained on the basis of interval arithmetic, show the failure of the latter, carried out.
The paper considers the basic statement of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), that the priorities of decision variants on individual criteria are compared on the ratio scales that are not linked to each other and are also independent of the priorities of criteria. According to the mathematical theory of measurement this approach is incorrect. To demonstrate its potential consequences a simple example in which the use of the AHP procedure leads to a clearly erroneous result is provided.
In authors' previous paper published in 2011 in «Control Sciences» journal one example of a bi-criterion decision analysis problem demonstrating that the use of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) may lead to a clearly erroneous result is given. However, the author of another paper published in 2012 in the same journal suggested that he found an error in our use of AHP and, consequently, our criticism of AHP is unsubstantiated. In this new paper the authors show that there was no mistake in the use of AHP in their original counter-example, and provide two further counter-examples that support their original conclusion.
The Chapter on Russia deals with the particularities of decision-making methodology used by the Supreme Court of Russia, in comparison with that of the US Supreme Court. It offers an overview of the Russian Supreme Court jurisdiction, justiciability and standing and the main issues arising in these areas.
The article discusses the formation of the structure and activity of the USSR State Defence Committee, analyzes formal and informal methods of implementation of its decisions
This volume contains the papers presented at CMDM 2016: The Workshop on Computer Modelling in Decision Making held on November 10{11, 2016 in Sara- tov. The CMDM 2016 workshop brings together researchers, postgraduate stu- dents and academics interested in computer and mathematical modelling in de- cision making in di erent areas. The CMDM 2016 workshop's main topic is computer and mathematical modelling in decision making in nance, insurance, banking, economic forecasting, investment and nancial analysis. The workshop takes place in Saratov State University (Saratov, Russia) on the 10th and 11th of November 2016 and is co-organized with the Central Bank of the Russian Fed- eration and the Department of Statistics and Data Analysis of Higher School of Economics (Moscow, Russia). The workshop is co-located with the V International Youth Research and Practice Conference on Mathematical and Computer Modelling in Economics, Insurance and Risk Management, Saratov, Russia, November 10{11, 2016. Fifteen papers were submitted and ten papers were accepted for presentation at the workshop after a careful peer reviewing process with discussions among reviewers and members of the program committee. Each paper was reviewed by at least two reviewers or members of the program committee. We would like to thank all reviewers for their helpful e orts. The CMDM 2016 workshop has been nancially supported by the Russian Fund for Basic Research (grant 16-31-10296). The EasyChair system has been used to manage the submissions, reviewing, and proceedings production and we would like to express our gratitude to the sta of EasyChair system for support.