Sorting problem statement

Several possible issues

or problematic

A can be an evolutive set, A(t)

A(t)
The actions are uncomparable and each action has to be considered
indipendently from the others and its intrinsic value has to be
defined
The DM needs more
guarantees on the quality of an
action. a absolute versus relative
judgement

A reference
model
A(t)

ELECTRE and the problematic

ar

a1

Eight criteria, the evaluations of a1 on the criteria (profile of

a1
), the evaluation profile of a positive reference action
(i.e. the acceptability condition) (- - - -)
Is a1 acceptable?

ELECTRE and the problematic

And is this action acceptable?

Bipolar reference

a1

Absolute refutability (rr)

Absolute acceptability (ra)

Bipolar reference

a2

Absolute refutability (rr)

Absolute acceptability (ra)

Bipolar reference

a3

Absolute refutability (rr)

Absolute acceptability (ra)

Bipolar reference

a1

rr
ra

a1S rr

a1S ra

rr S a1

r a S a1

Processes and problem situations in which

actions have to be assigned to specific categories
Project selection, evaluation of applicants for loans
or grants, medical diagnosis, ...
Risk assessment and management (in financial
ambits e.g. business failure risk, in enterprise
risk management, in relation to the environment
and the territory problems, ...)
Management processes (maintenance problems,
supplier control, client management, monitoring,
human resources, ... )

Structure of the methods ELECTRE

for the sorting ptoblems
Input: a finite set A or an evolutive one A(t), F, R = r , pj
Phase O: definition of the assignment rules (structure and
category number, nature of R - the reference set -, rules to
assign the candidates to the categories), preference
modeling, calibration of the parameters and R validation
Phase I: Outranking model (to compare (a,r) and (r,a))
Phase II: application of the rules to assign the candidates to
the categories
Result analysis

The trichotomic segmentation method with

a multi-profile intersecting reference set
Input: A(t), F, R = BUC , pj
Phase O: preference and assignment rules modeling,
verification of the reference set consistency and
calibration of the parameters
Phase I: Outranking model of ELECTRE II or I
Phase II: application of the rules to assign the
candidates to the categories of Accetable or Refutable
Result analysis

Bipolar reference

a1

rr
ra

a1S rr

a1S ra

rr S a1

r a S a1

Multiple not hierarchical references: a trichotomic

segmentation method with a multi-profile intersecting
reference set

an

Absolute refutability (C)

Absolute acceptability (B1 e B2)

Phase II: decision situations and rules for a

bipolar reference
b

a1

c
a2

a3

a7

a5
b

a6

a10

c
a8

c
b

a4

a11
b

a12

a9
c

Verification of the reference set (R) consistency

(a, a)

b1

b2

c1

b1
b2
c1
c2
c3

0,14

0,90

0,87 0,45

0,81

0,70

0,67

0,46

0,66

0,42

0,70

0,58

0,54

0,67

0,41

Threshold
*= 0.65

c2

c3
1

0,19 0,71

c1
b1
b2

c2

c3

Trichotomic segmentation method with a

multi-profile intersecting reference set
Phase II: 4 situations
b1

a1

b2

b1

c2

b2

b1

c1

c3

c1

a1

c2
c3

a1

c2

b2

b1
b2

c1

c3

c1

a1

c2
c3

Phase II: applications of the

assignment rules
b1

a1

b2

b1

c2

b2

b1

c1

c3

c1

a1

c2
c3

a1

c2

b2

b1
b2

c1

c3

c1

a1

c2
c3

Multiple hierarchical reference

C1
C2

am

C3
C4
C5
Categories of sequential assignment for the candidate actions
(in terms of risk, urgency,adequacy,..........)

ELECTRE TRI: a sorting method with a multiple

hierarchical reference set
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
Reference profiles (i.e. combinations of values on the family of
criteria) which represent the theoretical limits between the categories

Cj

Category but also strategy of action which is associated to the category, in

relation to a specific activity (of monitoring and control, design, activation of
new processes,....)

ELECTRE Tri: a sorting method with a multiple

hierarchical reference set
Input: A(t), F, R = r , pj
Phase O: preference and assignment rules modeling,
calibration of the parameters (ELECTRE Tri
Assistant)
Phase I: Outranking model of ELECTRE III
Phase II: the pessimistic (or conjunctive) assignment
procedure and the optimistic (or disjunctive) one to
assign the candidates to the sequential categories
Result analysis

Ordered categories defined by limit profiles

k-1

g
g

g3

...
1

Imprecision, uncertainty and ill determination of the data

require discrimination thresholds that identify the limits
between situations of indifference and strict preference

k-1

g
g

g3

...
1

Partial concordance index cj(a,b)

c (a, b)
j

Direction of preference

g (a)
g(b) - p(b)
j

g (b) - q(b)
j

g (b)
j

c (b, a)
j

Direction of preference

g (a)
g (b)
j

g (b) +q(b)
j

g(b) +p(b)
j

D (a,
b)
j
Senso di preferenza
1

- v(b)
- p(b)
g(b)
g(b)
j
j
j
j

g(b)
j

g(a)
j

D (b,
a)
j
Senso di preferenza
1

+ p(b)
+ v(b)
g(b)
g(b)
g(b)
j
j
j
j
j

gj(a)

Phase II: example

Degrees of credibility of the outranking relation

bmin
b1
b2
b3
bmax
|-----------|--------|--------|----------|
C2
C3
C4
C1

s(ai,b1)

s(b1,ai)

s(ai,b2)

s(b2,ai)

s(ai,b3)

s(b3,ai)

a1

0.70

0.50

0.56

0.75

0.21

0.81

a2

0.95

0.32

0.65

0.70

0.29

0.98

Cuting level = 0.60

a1 - pessimistic procedure
a1/Sb3 (a1 does not outrank b3)
a1/Sb2
a1Sb1
Then a1 C2
a1 - optimistic procedure
b1/f a1 (b1 is not preferred to a1)
b2f a1
Then a1 C2