Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

Comparing intelligent systems under deployment constraints requires more than predictiveaccuracy.This paper develops Compression-Prediction-Resource Intelligence Efficiency (CPR-IE) as a protocol-relative ordering by representational economy, predictive quality, and resourceburden. The analysis separates two questions-how raw resource consumption is represented, andhow the resulting attributes are aggregated. Proportional-increment composition uniquely yieldslogarithmic cumulative burden, and context-independent ratio response yields power responsesto compression, prediction, and burden; with reference normalization the representation is I(C,P,T).We prove Pareto consistency, unit invariance, boundary behavior, trade-off identities, ranking-stability regions, and cross-task aggregation. A translog parent model makes interaction restrictions explicit, and further results establish cardinal and ordinal identification, sub-Gaussianfinite-sample ranking guarantees, robust selection under exponent uncertainty, and deterministicregret bounds. Minimum description length, algorithmic complexity, proper scoring rules, varia-tional inference, and Landauer's principle motivate measurement choices but do not entail theformula. CPR-IE is a constructed efficiency representation, not a universal law or a definition ofintelligence itself.

The paper addresses several ranking-dependent decision support methods. Ordinal information on compared objects can be used to improve the quality of expert data during estimation and help reduce the number of comparisons that the experts need to perform. In the paper we compare three incomplete ranking-dependent pair-wise comparison patterns which can be used in the Analytic Hierarchy Process - Best-worst method, Best-Second Best (Top 2) method, and the original maximum difference method. The first two comparison patterns (and respective methods) are incomplete, while the third can be a complete one. We determine conditions under which these three methods can be compared in terms of stability to expert errors. We also present the results of a simulation-type experiment, in which the three methods are compared. The research allows us to define the most stable incomplete ranking-dependent pair-wise comparison pattern and reduce the number of comparisons without loss of credibility of expert session results. The research contributes to algorithmic, cognitive, and applied aspects of decision support in uncertain environments.

Wafer fabrication exhibits unique characteristics, including reentrant process flows, variable bottlenecks, and highly variable process conditions. In order to identify the most severe bottleneck at each moment in time for semiconductor wafer fabrication, this research presents the Dynamic Multi-Criteria Bottleneck Severity Index (DMBSI), a new, data-driven methodology for analysing multiple diagnostic signals of cycle time to changes in process parameters, and the impact of reworks on cycle time in order to generate an interpretable, unified measure of bottleneck severity. The experimental validation of DMBSI was conducted using Manufacturing Execution System (MES) logs collected from 22 wafer production lots at a commercial 200 mm wafer fabrication line operated by Seagate Technology. Using 5-fold cross-validation, the GA-optimised DMBSI achieves a Pearson correlation of r = 0.80 with observed cycle-time contributions, representing an 8.1% improvement over the expert heuristic baseline (r = 0.74) and substantially outperforming the Theory of Constraints (TOC; r = 0.60) and Value Stream Mapping (VSM; r = -0.30). Furthermore, the unique time-windowed component of DMBSI enabled the identification of temporal bottleneck migration patterns, which shifted from the dominant constraints associated with dielectric deposition steps in the early production windows to those associated with over- and under-inspection in the later production windows. The integrated what-if counterfactual analysis demonstrated that a 50% reduction in waiting time at the top-ranked bottleneck step would reduce the mean cycle time by 7.2%, with the top five bottleneck steps offering a combined potential reduction of approximately 19%.

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.

Pairwise comparison (PC) via pairwise reciprocal matrices (PRMs) is central to the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Although the traditional eigenvector method is widely applied to derive priorities, its theoretical robustness in reflecting true priority vectors remains debated. Building upon a previous iteration of this study, this research develops the revised Least Penalty-Squared Prioritization (LPSP) optimization models, including the revised Least Product of Penalty and Direct Squares (LPPDS) and revised Weighted Squares (LPPWS), to minimize the revised Root Mean Penalty-Squared Variance (RMPSV) and the revised Root Mean Penalty-Weighted Square Variance (RMPSWV). However, solving these non-linear formulations is computationally complex for decision-makers. To overcome these limitations, this study proposes the Parallel Osprey Optimized Least Penalty-Squared Prioritization (POO-LPSP) method. By integrating an improved bio-inspired metaheuristic Parallel Osprey Optimization Algorithm (POOA), this framework efficiently solves complex LPSP models to minimize RMPSV and RMPSWV, thereby enhancing prioritization reliability. The practical utility and computational efficiency of the POO-LPSP method are validated through a numerical application focusing on a Generative AI (GAI) vendor selection problem. To extend, POO-LPSP can serve as a robust alternative to Saaty's Eigen system method for AHP applications.

Local pairwise comparisons are a standard tool for learning how people want decision rules to work, e.g., in participatory design or alignment. However, their use builds in two strong assumptions: that local comparisons are sufficient evidence about how a person wants an automated decision rule to behave, and that people can always answer those comparisons decisively. We investigate how these assumptions may be compromised under internal pluralism: the idea that an individual evaluates decision rules according to multiple authoritative priorities about how the rule should behave. We provide a formal model of such pluralistic preferences over decision rules, which then lets us identify two distinct failures of forced local pairwise comparison data. First, priorities such as proportionality, egalitarianism, and equal treatment are inherently global: what they imply in one case can depend on what happens elsewhere, so local comparisons may fail to capture them. Second, even when priorities are representable locally, tension between strongly-held priorities can generate internal conflict, producing potentially costly behavioral distortions when comparisons are forced. We then use our model to investigate the alternative -- allowing people to report indecision -- and our findings suggest that doing so can considerably reduce the number of queries needed to learn preferences accurately. We conclude by describing how our model points toward preference-learning methods that elicit these priorities directly, yielding more faithful and interpretable accounts of what people value.

The integration of multiple thematic data layers into a single composite map, known as the cartographic synthesis problem, is typically addressed through expert-driven weighting schemes. This study presents a multi-objective formulation of cartographic synthesis grounded in spatial autocorrelation structure. We develop a bi-objective evolutionary framework, GIS-moGA, that estimates layer weights by simultaneously maximizing global spatial structure, measured by Global Moran's I, and minimizing local spatial heterogeneity, measured by the variance of Local Indicators of Spatial Association (LISA). Because naive evaluation of spatial relationships requires O(N^2) operations, direct computation becomes impractical for larger datasets. We address this challenge by exploiting the 97.7% sparsity of queen contiguity matrices, reducing effective complexity to O(N k) and enabling scalable municipal-level analysis. The framework is evaluated on a high-dimensional spatial epidemiology dataset with N = 523 units from Araraquara, Brazil. A 64-scenario experimental design is used to examine evolutionary behavior across parameter settings. Results show that higher mutation rates are important for maintaining population diversity and preventing premature convergence in spatially autocorrelated fitness landscapes, where crossover operators can disrupt geographically coherent structures. Compared with expert-derived Analytic Hierarchy Process baselines, the resulting Pareto fronts show substantial hypervolume gains and significant improvements in spatial coherence (p < 0.001, Cliff's delta = 0.87). These findings provide a systematic and scalable framework for data-driven geographic multi-criteria decision analysis.

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.

Human decision-making often involves choosing between multi-attribute alternatives, yet classical models assume fully compensatory utility aggregation despite evidence that people reject options with poor performance on critical attributes. We propose a bounded trade-off reasoning framework in which decisions are governed by a screening process that evaluates the balance between gains and losses across attributes. The model introduces a trade-off tolerance parameter that controls acceptable imbalance and can vary across contexts. Through simulation, we show that this mechanism produces preference patterns that differ from standard utility-based models and captures context-dependent variation in trade-off behavior. These results establish bounded trade-off screening as a plausible computational mechanism for multi-attribute choice and generate testable predictions for future behavioral studies.

Evaluating Knowledge Graph Completion (KGC) models remains challenging because standard assessment relies on isolated rank-based metrics such as MRR, Hits$@$k, and Mean Rank, which often produce conflicting model orderings across datasets. A model that leads on MRR may trail on Hits@1, and strong performance on one dataset may not generalize to another. This fragmentation hinders comparison, enables selective reporting, and obscures real progress. We reframe KGC evaluation as a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) problem and present a meta-analysis of seven aggregators across five tests: consistency, cross-dataset stability, metric independence, robustness under noise, and generalizability. Each test is averaged over leave-one-model-out (LOMO) and leave-one-group-out (LOGO) removals so that reliability reflects aggregator behavior across diverse model subsets. Across tail $(h,r,?)$ and relation $(h,?,t)$ prediction, Pareto-optimal analysis identifies Z-score as the most balanced aggregator, which ranks DualE highest for tail prediction and FMS (Flow-Modulated Scoring) highest for relation prediction. A test-sensitivity analysis using the same removals shows that consistency and stability are largely removal-invariant, while generalizability and independence are the most sensitive. The framework resolves evaluation inconsistencies and offers evidence-based guidance for aggregator selection and model benchmarking in KGC.

Traditional TOPSIS derives its reference points -- the Positive Ideal Solution ($PIS$) and Negative Ideal Solution ($NIS$) -- from the observed alternative set, making rankings susceptible to misalignment with decision-maker (DM) requirements, sensitivity to outlier performances, and rank reversal. This paper proposes TOPSIS-RAD, which addresses these issues by incorporating two arrays of DM-defined reference levels. Vetoed Performance Levels ($VPL$) exclude non-viable alternatives before normalisation, preventing them from distorting the ranking frontiers. Desired Performance Levels ($DPL$) cap performances at the DM's desired level before normalisation, anchoring the $PIS$ in explicit aspirations rather than dataset extremes. Three toy examples demonstrate each mechanism: $VPL$ reshapes normalisation boundaries by removing a non-viable alternative; fixed $DPL$ frontiers stabilise rankings by limiting the influence of performances well above the desired level. The method preserves the familiar distance-based structure of TOPSIS while grounding the ranking in stable, DM-specified boundaries. Limitations and future research directions are also discussed.

We propose KO-PDE-IDENT, a data-driven framework for identifying parsimonious partial differential equations (PDEs) with false discovery rate (FDR) control. PDE discovery from noisy observations is often hindered by extreme multicollinearity among candidate terms, which causes typical sparse-regression methods to select spurious terms. To address this problem, KO-PDE-IDENT initially mines a support set of potential candidate terms via model-X knockoff filters with finite-sample FDR control, then refines and ranks the surviving PDE alternatives. The framework integrates three components. First, knockoff feature statistics are constructed by coupling $\ell_{0}$-constrained adaptive best-subset selection with SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), yielding an effective and computationally efficient difference statistic. Second, a recursive feature elimination (RFE) procedure removes terms whose marginal contributions are dispensable and assesses statistical necessity through knockoff-perturbed hypothesis testing. Third, the final model selection is formulated as a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem, where the optimal governing equation is the alternative that best balances a wide range of criteria such as predictive accuracy, model complexity and coefficient uncertainty. We evaluate KO-PDE-IDENT on five canonical PDEs under severe noise corruption. Empirical results show that our framework can exactly recover the true PDE structure, eliminating false discoveries while retaining all true underlying terms, with low coefficient estimation error.

Effective skills-aware talent recommendation must balance behavioral transition patterns, trajectory-sensitive adaptation, and inspectable occupation-level criteria. Evidence from public benchmarks on how these signals interact, however, remains limited. This study proposes CF-RL-TOPSIS, an interpretable late-fusion model that integrates a transition-aware collaborative branch, a compact reinforcement-style occupation-family bandit, and an entropy-weighted TOPSIS branch constructed from six semantic proxies; the validation-selected fusion coefficients remain auditable. The model is evaluated on two frozen public ICT talent-history benchmarks, JobHop and Karrierewege, using repeated chronological top-5 ranking and paired Wilcoxon tests. On JobHop the full hybrid attains NDCG@5 = 0.3040 +/- 0.0073 and significantly surpasses repeat-last, item Markov, transition-aware collaborative filtering, the CF+TOPSIS hybrid, GRU4Rec, and SASRec (p <= 0.0039 across planned comparisons). On Karrierewege the hybrid remains competitive but does not significantly exceed the strongest Markov baseline, revealing a persistence-dominated setting in which the bandit branch appropriately shrinks to near-zero weight. Proxy-sensitivity, family-level deep Q-network, and runtime checks support this interpretation, and a worked user-level case shows how branch scores, criterion weights, and rank shifts can be inspected for an individual recommendation. The contribution is not a benchmark-agnostic superiority claim, but a reproducible account of the conditions under which transparent late fusion adds value beyond simple continuation heuristics. In semantically rich, non-saturating talent-history regimes the three branches reinforce one another; in persistence-dominated regimes the same architecture remains competitive through its collaborative backbone, with the adaptive branch correctly inactive.

In sales and marketing, customer segmentation is an important tool for formulating strategies for customer treatment and supply chain management. Most segmentation implementations rely on limited criteria, such as recency, frequency, and monetary (RFM) modeling, which often fail to capture complex business interactions. In this work, we design and evaluate a dynamic multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method in a business-to-business (B2B) manufacturing context by 1) extending RFM to dimensions of stability and growth, 2) integrating an adaptive and analytical hierarchical process to match business objectives, and 3) evaluating multivariate time-series clustering models. We then measure customer stability, tracking between-segment transitions, and volatility over time, and apply a graph-based consensus model to further strengthen the analysis. We test the efficacy of the proposed method using a real-world manufacturing company dataset to segment more than 3,000 B2B customers, showing strong robustness to temporal shifts. The implementation enables domain experts with preferential analytics to devise their strategies, providing effective decision support for B2B customer segmentation.

As intelligent systems are increasingly implemented in our society to make autonomous decisions, their commitment to human values raises serious concerns. Their alignment with human values remains a critical challenge because it can jeopardise the integrity and security of citizens. For this reason, an innovative human-centred and values-driven approach to decision making is required. In this work, we introduce the Fuzzy-Unweighted Value-Based Decision Making (FUW-VBDM) framework, where agents incorporate both quantitative and qualitative criteria to generate human-centred decisions. We also address the normative bias introduced by stakeholders with arbitrary weights by removing prior weights and introducing a fuzzy domain of decision variables defined for a score function. This concept allows us to generalise any VBDM problem as the search for feasible solutions when optimising the score in the weight domain. To provide a solution to FUW-VBDM, we present Rankzzy, a customizable unweighted ranking method that integrates fuzzy-based reasoning to quantify uncertainty. We mathematically prove the consistency of the Rankzzy for any admissible configuration selected by stakeholders. We show the applicability of our method through an illustrative case study, which we also use as a running example. The evaluation conducted indicates a reduced computational cost in large-scale value-based decision-making problems and a strong rank performance regarding existing approaches when employing the aggregation via Pythagorean means.

A series of papers has introduced the Heuristic Rating Estimation method, which evaluates a set of alternatives based on pairwise comparisons and the weights of reference alternatives. We formulate the conditions under which the HRE method can be applied correctly. The research considers both arithmetic and geometric algorithms for complete and incomplete pairwise comparison methods. The illustrative examples show that the estimations of inconsistency in the arithmetic variant are optimal.

Which tasks inside an enterprise workflow can a large-language-model agent reliably handle, and under what conditions? Most business process modeling frameworks still answer this at the activity level, even though a single activity can bundle work of radically different difficulty. This paper takes the analysis a step smaller. We describe two design artifacts developed in a financial-services IT setting: T-IPO, which represents each task as an eight-element tuple, and LARA (LLM Agent Readiness Assessment), a five-dimension rubric that scores a task's readiness for agent substitution. Compliance Sensitivity carries $1.5\times$ weight, a value we fixed through a three-round Delphi study and cross-checked with AHP. The rubric produces four levels, L1 to L4, and applies a floor rule so that a task with maximum compliance load cannot be classified below L3 no matter what the other scores say. Both artifacts sit inside a larger methodology (PARTIS) that we map onto BWW ontology in Section 3. We evaluate the instruments across 127 tasks. Inter-rater agreement reaches Fleiss' $κ= 0.80$; a replication at three further institutions returns $κ= 0.73$. A controlled comparison against activity-level assessment suggests, though does not prove, an improvement in predictive utility at the task level. Pilot deployment of 120 task instances confirms that auto-completion decays monotonically from $95\%$ at L1 through about $70\%$ at L2 to about $40\%$ at L3. Exploratory factor analysis points to a two-factor structure: task readiness seems to be determined jointly by cognitive-execution complexity and governance-compliance intensity. We close with a recalibration procedure (LARA-TCA) so the rubric can keep pace with evolving LLM capabilities.

High-stakes decision-making involves navigating multiple competing objectives with expensive evaluations. For instance, in brachytherapy, clinicians must balance maximizing tumor coverage (e.g., an aspirational target or soft bound of >95% coverage) against strict organ dose limits (e.g., a non-negotiable hard bound of <601cGy to the bladder). Selecting Pareto-optimal solutions that match implicit preferences is challenging, as exhaustive Pareto frontier exploration is computationally and cognitively prohibitive, necessitating interactive frameworks to guide users. While decision-makers (DMs) often possess domain knowledge to narrow the search via such soft-hard bounds, current methods often lack systematic approaches to iteratively refine these multi-faceted preference structures. Furthermore, DMs often require confidence that they have not overlooked superior alternatives, a paramount necessity in high-stakes scenarios. We present Active-MoSH, an interactive local-global framework designed for this process. Its local component integrates probabilistic preference learning with an active sampling strategy to adaptively refine Pareto subsets while minimizing cognitive burden. To bolster decision confidence, Active-MoSH's global component, C-MoSH, leverages multi-objective sensitivity analysis to identify potentially overlooked, high-value points beyond immediate feedback. We demonstrate Active-MoSH's performance benefits through diverse synthetic and real-world applications. A high-stakes case study with real cervical cancer brachytherapy treatment plans and an image selection user study further validate our hypotheses regarding the framework's ability to improve convergence, enhance DM confidence, and provide expressive preference articulation.

The probabilistic linguistic term has been proposed to deal with probability distributions in provided linguistic evaluations. However, because it has some fundamental defects, it is often difficult for decision-makers to get reasonable information of linguistic evaluations for group decision making. In addition, weight information plays a significant role in dynamic information fusion and decision making process. However, there are few research methods to determine the dynamic attribute weight with time. In this paper, I propose the concept of double fuzzy probability interval linguistic term set (DFPILTS). Firstly, fuzzy semantic integration, DFPILTS definition, its preference relationship, some basic algorithms and aggregation operators are defined. Then, a fuzzy linguistic Markov matrix with its network is developed. Then, a weight determination method based on distance measure and information entropy to reducing the inconsistency of DFPILPR and obtain collective priority vector based on group consensus is developed. Finally, an aggregation-based approach is developed, and an optimal investment case from a financial risk is used to illustrate the application of DFPILTS and decision method in multi-criteria decision making.