From Outranking Flow Scores to Linear Programs: Group Decision Making in PROMETHEE II

In multiparty multiobjective optimization problems, solution sets are usually evaluated using classical performance metrics, aggregated across DMs. However, such mean-based evaluations may be unfair by favoring certain parties, as they assume identical geometric approximation quality to each party's PF carries comparable evaluative significance. Moreover, prevailing notions of MPMOP optimal solutions are restricted to strictly common Pareto optimal solutions, representing a narrow form of cooperation in multiparty decision making scenarios. These limitations obscure whether a solution set reflects balanced relative gains or meaningful consensus among heterogeneous DMs. To address these issues, this paper develops a fairness-aware performance evaluation framework grounded in a generalized notion of consensus solutions. From a cooperative game-theoretic perspective, we formalize four axioms that a fairness-aware evaluation function for MPMOPs should satisfy. By introducing a concession rate vector to quantify acceptable compromises by individual DMs, we generalize the classical definition of MPMOP optimal solutions and embed classical performance metrics into a Nash-product-based evaluation framework, which is theoretically shown to satisfy all axioms. To support empirical validation, we further construct benchmark problems that extend existing MPMOP suites by incorporating consensus-deficient negotiation structures. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed evaluation framework is able to distinguish algorithmic performance in a manner consistent with consensus-aware fairness considerations. Specifically, algorithms converging toward strictly common solutions are assigned higher evaluation scores when such solutions exist, whereas in the absence of strictly common solutions, algorithms that effectively cover the commonly acceptable region are more favorably evaluated.

For many years, the pairwise comparison method has been widely used for decision-making involving experts. The best-known example of this method is the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). In this now classic approach, the weights of alternatives are calculated using the principal eigenvector of the comparison matrix. In this paper, we present a statistical view of the pairwise comparison method, using reference values and the geometric mean to calculate alternative priorities. Thanks to this approach, we can simultaneously capture both the phenomenon of inconsistency in pairwise comparisons and the preference distance between alternatives. In this paper, we define indicators that measure the quality of the obtained weight vector, which, thanks to the statistical approach, have a clear and intuitive interpretation.

Fairness has become a central concern in ranking problems involving individuals or social groups, particularly under the Responsible Artificial Intelligence agenda. In Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis (SMAA) provides a robust framework for handling uncertainty and incomplete preference information, but it does not explicitly address fairness in the resulting rankings. This paper proposes SMAA-Fair, a fairness-aware extension of SMAA for ranking problems. The approach reweights the simulated rankings generated by SMAA according to their level of group fairness, so that fairer rankings contribute more strongly to the acceptability indices and central weights vector. The framework is independent of the aggregation model and can incorporate different fairness metrics. In this study, Statistical Parity, normalized discounted Kullback--Leibler divergence (rKL) and normalized discounted cumulative Kullback--Leibler divergence (nDKL) are adopted. Rankings are derived from the fairness-adjusted acceptability matrix using expected ranking and maximum acceptability ranking. We also derive the central weight according to the degree of fairness in the obtained rankings. Numerical experiments with synthetic and real data show that SMAA-Fair improves the representation of protected groups among favourable ranking positions, while preserving robustness to preference uncertainty.