A new systematic and flexible method for developing hierarchical decision-making models

The common practice in multilevel decision-making (DM) systems is to achieve the final decision by going through a finite number of DM levels. In this study, a new multilevel DM model is proposed. This model is called the hierarchical DM (HDM) model and it is supposed to provide a flexible way of interaction and information flow between the consecutive levels that allows policy changes in DM procedures if necessary. In the model, in the early levels, there are primary agents that perform DM tasks. As the levels increase, the information associated with these agents is combined through suitable processes and agents with higher complexity are formed to carry out the DM tasks more elegantly. The HDM model is applied to the case study `Fault degree classification in a 4-tank water circulation system'. For this case study, the processes that connect the lower levels to the higher levels are agent development processes where a special decision fusion technique is its integral part. This decision fusion technique combines the previous level's decisions and their performance indicator suitably to contribute to the improvement of new agents in higher levels. Additionally, the proposed agent development process provides flexibility both in the training and validation phases, and less computational effort is required in the training phase compared to a single-agent development simulation carried out for the same DM task under similar circumstances. Hence, the HDM model puts forward an enhanced performance compared to a single agent with a more sophisticated structure. Finally, model validation and efficiency in the presence of noise are also simulated. The adaptability of the agent development process due to the flexible structure of the model also accounts for improved performance, as seen in the results.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Decision making, decision fusion, agents, genetic algorithms

A new systematic and flexible method for developing hierarchical decision-making models

Keywords:

Decision making, decision fusion, agents, genetic algorithms,

PDF

___

employed to deal with this problem.
Espinilla M, Liu J, Martinez L. An extended hierarchical linguistic model for decision-making problems. Comput Intell 2011; 27: 489–512.
Kilincci O, Onal SA. Fuzzy AHP approach for supplier selection in a washing machine company. Expert Syst Appl 2011; 38: 9656–9664.
Marimin M, Umano M, Hatono I, Tamura H. Hierarchical semi-numeric method for pairwise fuzzy group decision making. IEEE T Syst Man Cy B 2002; 32: 691–700.
Pasi G, Yager RR. Modeling the concept of majority opinion in group decision making. Inform Sciences 2006; 176: 390–414.
Ben-Arieh D, Easton T. Multi-criteria group consensus under linear cost opinion elasticity. Decis Support Syst 2007; 43: 713–721.
Xu Z, Cai X. Group consensus algorithms based on preference relations. Inform Sciences 2011; 180: 150–162.
Kacprzyk J, Zadrozny S. Towards a general and unified characterization of individual and collective choice functions under fuzzy and nonfuzzy preferences and majority via the ordered weighted average operators. Int J Intell Syst 2009; 24: 4–26.
Wang YM, Parkan C. Two new approaches for assessing the weights of fuzzy opinions in group decision analysis. Inform Sciences 2006; 176: 3538–3555.
Domshlak C, Hullermeier E, Kaci S, Prade H. Preferences in AI: an overview. Artif Intell 2011; 175: 1037–1052.
Ralescu AL, Ralescu DA, Yamakata Y. Inference by aggregation of evidence with applications to fuzzy probabilities. Inform Sciences 2007; 177: 378–387.
Pavlin G, Oude P, Maris M, Nunnink J, Hood T. A multi-agent systems approach to distributed Bayesian infor- mation fusion. Inform Fusion 2010; 11: 267–282.
Sycara K, Glinton R, Yu B, Giampapa J, Owens S, Lewis M, Grindle LTC. An integrated approach to high-level information fusion. Inform Fusion 2009; 10: 25–50.
Tan TZ, Ng GS, Quek C. A Novel biologically and psychologically inspired fuzzy decision support system: hierar- chical complementary learning. IEEE-ACM T Comput Bi 2008; 5: 67–79.
Beldek U, Leblebicio˘glu K. Local decision making and decision fusion in hierarchical levels. TOP 2009; 17: 44–69. [15]Lu J, Shi C, Zhang G. On bilevel multi-follower decision making: general framework and solutions. Inform Sciences 2006; 176: 1607–1627.
Zeng XJ, Keane JA. Approximation capabilities of hierarchical fuzzy systems. IEEE T Fuzzy Syst 2005; 13: 659–672. [17]Zhu Q, Aldridge SL, Resha TN. Hierarchical collective agent network (HCAN) for efficient fusion and management of multiple networked sensors. Inform Fusion 2007; 8: 266–280.
Mendis BSU, Gedeon TD. Complex structured decision making model: a hierarchical frame work for complex structured data. Inform Sciences 2012; 194: 85–106.
Beldek U. Design and improvement of multi-level decision-making models, PhD, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, 2009.
Asadzadeh L, Zamanifar K. An agent-based parallel approach for the job shop scheduling problem with genetic algorithms. Math Comput Model 2010; 52: 1957–1965.
Zadeh LA. Is there a need for fuzzy logic? Inform Sciences 2008; 178: 2751–2779.
Chen SM, Chang YC. Multi-variable fuzzy forecasting based on fuzzy clustering and fuzzy rule interpolation techniques. Inform Sciences 2010; 180: 4772–4783.
Simon D, Rarick R, Ergezer M, Du D. Analytical and numerical comparisons of biogeography-based optimization and genetic algorithms. Inform Sciences 2011; 181: 1224–1248.
Grewal MS, Andrews AP. Kalman Filtering. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2001.
Mei W, Shan G, Wang C. Practical development of the second-order extended Kalman filter for very long range radar tracking. Signal Process 2011; 91: 1240–1248.
Dursun M, Karsak EE. A fuzzy MCDM approach for personnel selection. Expert Syst Appl 2010; 37: 4324–4330. [27]Tsiporkova E, Boeva V. Multi-step ranking of alternatives in a multi-criteria and multi-expert decision making environment. Inform Sciences 2006; 176: 2673–2697.