Computers & Operations Research 28 (2001) 397}409

Establishing dominance and potential optimality in

multi-criteria analysis with imprecise weight and value
Yun Seong Eum, Kyung Sam Park, Soung Hie Kim*
Graduate School of Management, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, 207-43 Cheongryang, Dongdaemun,
Seoul 130-012, South Korea
Received 1 December 1998; received in revised form 1 April 1999

Abstract

The model presented in this paper does not require exact estimations of decision parameters such as
attribute weights and values that may often be considerable cognitive burden of human decision makers.
Information on the decision parameters is only assumed to be in the form of arbitrary linear inequalities
which form constraints in the model. We consider two criteria, dominance and potential optimality, to check
whether or not each alternative is outperform for a "xed feasible region denoted by the constraints. In
particular, we develop a method to identify potential optimality of alternatives when all (or subsets) of the
attribute values as well as weights are imprecisely know. This formulation becomes a nonlinear programming
problem hard to be solved generally so that we provide in this paper how this problem is transformed into
a linear programming equivalent.

Scope and purpose

Most managerial decisions involve choosing an optimal alternative from a number of available alterna-
tives. Researchers have proposed a lot of methods to assist decision makers in choice making with a set of,
usually con#icting, criteria or attributes. Many of these approaches require exact (or precise) information
about either or both attribute values and/or trade-o! weights. In some practice, however, it is not easy for
decision makers to provide such exact data because, for example, intangible attributes to re#ect social and
environmental impacts may be included. To cope with such problem, a mathematical programming
model-based approach to multi-criteria decision analysis is presented in this paper when both attribute
weights and marginal values are imprecisely identi"ed. A weighted additive rule is used to evaluate the
performance of alternatives. We then show how to obtain non-dominated and potentially optimal alterna-
tives in order to support choice making.  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Multi-criteria decision analysis; Imprecise information; Dominance; Potential optimality

* Corresponding author. Tel.: #82-958-3601; fax: #82-958-3604.

E-mail address: seekim@kaist.ac.kr (S.H. Kim).
 The author gratefully acknowledges support for this research from Korea Research Foundation in Korea.

0305-0548/00/$ - see front matter  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 0 5 - 0 5 4 8 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 1 2 4 - 0
398 Y.S. Eum et al. / Computers & Operations Research 28 (2001) 397}409

1. Introduction

Multi-criteria decision analysis deals with situations in which decision alternatives are evaluated
on a "nite number of attributes i"1,2, n. One of the best known and the most widely used ways
to evaluate alternative x"(x ,2, x )2 is to utilize the weighted additive decomposition
 L
L
v(x)" w v (x ) (1)
G G G
G
of a value function v. Here v is the marginal value function of attribute i such that v : x P[0, 1]
G G G
and w *0 is the weight which represents the relative importance of the ith attribute. This
G
evaluation function has been well examined in the literature (e.g., Keeney and Rai!a [1], Dyer and
Sarin [2]).
Suppose that there is a "nite set of all available alternatives, X"+x,2, xH,2, xK,LRL. The
decision maker then seeks to choose an alternative xH3X, the optimal or most preferred alterna-
tive, which we assume such that

 
L
v(xH)"max v(xH)" w v (xH) . (2)
G G G
+H G
If the decision parameters w and v ( ) ) are all exactly or numerically assessed by the decision maker,
G G
choosing xH is done by simple calculation using (2). In some practice, however, it is no simple
matter actually to measure the exact values of weights. Rather, the decision maker gives only
certain linear relations which express imprecise information about the weights. Examples of
imprecise weights are in the form of bounded descriptions; w\)w )w> or o\w )w )o>w ;
G G G G  G G 
and rankings; w *2*w . Use of linear programming approaches for some special and/or
 L
arbitrary forms of imprecise weights has been discussed in the literature; while identifying only
non-dominated alternatives in [3}11], methods for simultaneously dealing with dominance and
potential optimality can be found in [12}16].
We now assume, to deal with even more general situation, that the marginal values v (x ) of
G G
attribute i are known, for example, only to lie within prescribed bounds such as v\(x ))v (x )
G G G G
)v>(x ). This may arise from the following situations: The decision maker can only specify a range
G G
x 3[x\, x>] for the possible outcomes (or consequences) of alternative x on attribute i. The desired
G G G
bounds for v (x ) can then be obtained from the known value function v in a manner that, for an
G G G
increasing value function v , these bounds are given by v\(x )"v (x\) and v>(x )"v (x>).
G G G G G G G G G
Conversely, if x is estimated as an exact number such as x( but the value function v is known
G G G
imprecisely so that there is a range of possible values for outcome x( , then the desired bounds v\(x )
G G G
and v>(x ) are de"ned as the lower and upper values that v can have. Because of imprecise
G G G
information about either or both outcomes and/or value functions, on the other hand, it may be
possible to have other forms of values v (x ) such as rankings; v (x)*2*v (xK)*0; and
G G G G G G
rankings of di!erences between alternatives; v (x)!v (x)*2*v (xK\)!v (xK)*0.
G G G G G G G G
Incorporating the imprecision of both weights and values into (1) apparently brings some
computational di$culties in evaluating alternatives under consideration. One can see that (1)
involves a non-linear formula since the decision parameters w and v (x ) are partially known.
G G G
These computational di$culties, however, have been partly overcome in prior studies [18}20,24].
 Y.S. Eum et al. / Computers & Operations Research 28 (2001) 397}409 399

A point to be noted is that all of these papers mainly deal with dominance but not potential
optimality of alternatives. Here dominance means a componentwise dominance which we compre-
hend as preference relationships between only actual alternatives. In contrast to this compon-
entwise dominance, potential optimality is regarded as a mixed or convex dominance. This is
accomplished by testing whether an actual alternative is dominated by a virtual (or actual)
alternative that is generated from a convex combination of one or more of other actual alternatives.
We therefore address in this paper potential optimality in case that imprecise information about
both weights and marginal values are incorporated into an existing multi-attribute evaluation
model as in (1). For convenience, some prior approaches for dominance and potential optimality
are described in the next section. This is followed by our development and, "nally, conclusions.

2. Earlier methods

2.1. Dominance when only weights are imprecise

Suppose that the attribute weights are known imprecisely which we represent as a set of
constraints, w"(w ,2, w )3=. As noted previously, we include the set = to designate at least
 L
one or more of conditions

Week rankings: w *2*w *0, (3a)

 L
Strict rankings: w !w *e , i"1,2, n!1, (3b)
G G> G
Di!erence rankings: w !w *2*w !w *0, (3c)
  L\ L
Fixed bounds: w\)w )w>, i"1,2, n, (3d)
G G G
Ratio bounds: o\w )w )o>w , i"2,2, n (3e)
G  G G 
or any other condition that may be available from the decision maker. We thus comprehend that
the constraint set = can include `arbitrary linear inequalitiesa of imprecise weights that are
assumed to be consistent. Note that = can also include a normalization condition, w "1, since
G G
we utilize an evaluation function as in (1).
In this situation, the dominance relation of alternatives is de"ned as

De5nition 1 (Dominance). Let a preference relation P on the set of alternatives X: xIPxH means
that alternative xI dominates (or is preferred to) xH. Then xIPxH holds if and only if

L
w [v (xI)!v (xH)]'0 ∀w3=. (4)
G G G G G
G
As can be seen in prior studies (e.g., Kmietowicz and Pearman [5], Insua and French [15],
Athanassopoulos and Podinovski [16]), this dominance test in a pairwise sense can be
400 Y.S. Eum et al. / Computers & Operations Research 28 (2001) 397}409

implemented by employing the following linear programming technique:

 
L
min z " w [v (xI)!v (xH)] " w3= , (5)
IH G G G G G
G
where the values v ( ) ) are all known precisely.
G
To see alternative xI for non-dominance, one has to solve (m!1) linear programming problems
as in (5). We then say that alternative xI is non-dominated if and only if the optimal objective value
zH *0 for all jOk.
IH
On the other hand, there have been a number of methods to check dominance e$ciently and
e!ectively for some special types of imprecise weights. E$cient methods that imply the develop-
ment of special algorithms, rather than solving linear programming problem as in (5), can be found
in the papers (Sarin [3], Kmietowicz and Pearman [4], Kirkwood and Sarin [6], Pearman [10],
Fishburn [12], Hannan [13]). These deal with imprecise weights as in (3a)}(3d) separately or in
mixing two of these forms. Hazen [14] has proposed a method for dealing with strict inequality
forms of imprecise weights in which weak inequalities in (3a) and (3e) are replaced by strict ones. In
an e!ective manner, Cook and Kress [9] showed how to handle e being in strict rankings of (3b) in
G
that they treated e as variables to be maximized in order to maximize the discrimination power for
G
establishing dominance.

2.2. Potential optimality when only weights are imprecise

We turn to the potential optimality in case when weights are only known imprecisely as in (3).
The following de"nition helps us to proceed:

De5nition 2 (Potential optimality). Alternative xI3X is potentially optimal if and only if there
exists w3= such that

 
L L
w v (xI)"max w v (xH) . (6)
G G G G G G
G +H G

Note that this de"nition of potential optimality is similar to those in Athanassopoulos and
Podinovski [16] which may be more readily interpretable than others being studied.
To convert De"nition 2 into a solvable programming problem, we rewrite (6) in the following
linear inequality system:

L L
w v (xI)* w v (xH), j"1,2, m. (7)
G G G G G G
G G

We can then interpret De"nition 2 as alternative xI is potentially optimal if and only if linear
inequality system (7) is consistent for some w3=. This consideration yields the following linear
 Y.S. Eum et al. / Computers & Operations Research 28 (2001) 397}409 401

programming problem:

min u (8a)

s.t.

L
w [v (xI)!v (xH)]#u*0, ∀j, (8b)
G G G G G
G
w3=. (8c)

Arti"cial variable u is used to test the consistency of (8a)}(8c) when its optimal value uH is
achieved. We immediately know u*0 by directing our attention to the constraints in (8b) and
then observe u*0 if j"k. We can thus conclude that xI is potentially optimal alternative if and
only if uH"0. To test xI for potential optimality, only one linear programming problem as in
(8a)}(8c) has to be solved.
It is noted that (8a)}(8c) for testing potential optimality is technically equivalent to those in
Hannan [13] and Insua and French [15]. Only di!erence is such that these two papers use
u instead of u in (8b), and instead of objective min u in (8a) Hannan (p. 541) uses min u and
H H H
Insua and French (p. 179) use min u . In spite of this di!erence, all of three approaches can obtain
H H
the same result that is to identify potentially optimal alternatives but (8a)}(8c) is more computa-
tionally e$cient at hand. Moreover, analyzing the dual of (8a)}(8c) in this paper is easier to capture
the concept of convex dominance as demonstrated in Hazen [14] than other two approaches (see
Athanassopoulos and Podinovski [16] for the analysis of this dual side).

2.3. Dominance when both weights and values are imprecise

In addition to weight imprecision w"(w ,2, w )3= mentioned previously, we further assume
 L
that marginal values v (x ) are known imprecisely. Let v "+v (x),2, v (xK),3< LRL for any
G G G G G G G G
attribute i. The set < represents the permissible values of v ( ) ) for the ith attribute. To deal with
G G
arbitrary linear inequalities for v ( ) ), we use the forms like those of imprecise weights as in (3). Thus,
G
the v for each i assumes to include at least one or more of the following conditions:
G
v (x)*2*v (xK), (9a)
G G G G
v (xH)!v (xH>)*e , j"1,2, m!1, (9b)
G G G G GH
v (x)!v (x)*2*v (xK\)!v (xK)*0, (9c)
G G G G G G G G
v\(xH))v (xH))v>(xH), j"2,2, m!1 (9d)
G G G G G G
with v (x)"1 and v (xK)"0. Note, for all of these conditions, that we designated v (xH)"v (x),
G G G G G G G G
the most preferred value, v (x)"v (xK), the least preferred value, on the ith attribute. We thus have
G G G G
v (x)"1 and v (xK)"0 since evaluation function (1) is considered in this paper.
G G G G
402 Y.S. Eum et al. / Computers & Operations Research 28 (2001) 397}409

The de"nition of dominance, in case when both weights and marginal values are known
imprecisely like those in (3) and (9a)}(9d), can be given by the extension of (4) as follows:

De5nition 3 (Dominance). xIPxH holds if and only if

L
w [v (xI)!v (xH)]'0, ∀w3=; ∀v 3< , i"1,2, n. (10)
G G G G G G G
G
To test dominance between alternatives xI and xH, the following mathematical programming
model can be used:

 
L
min z " w [v (xI)!v (xH)] "w3=; v 3< , i"1,2, n . (11)
IH G G G G G G G
G
One can see that this model involves a computational di$culty because of the non-linear objective
function. As mentioned in our Introduction, however, there exist prior methods to resolve this
computational di$culty and hence obtaining an exact optimal solution (Sage and White [18],
White et al. [19], Moskovitz et al. [20]). More recently, Park and Kim [24] provide these methods
more formally, analyze some properties underlying (11), and discuss types of imprecise information
about w3= and v 3< .
G G
According to the method of Park and Kim [24], problem (11) can be solved by the following
techniques:

 
L
min z " w n (xI, xH) "w3= (12a)
IH G G G G
G
with
n (xI, xH )"min+v (xI)!v (xH) " v 3< ,, i"1,2, n. (12b)
G G G G G G G G G
Here, the optimal objective value zH to check dominance between xI and xH is obtained as follows:
IH
First, derive the value of n (xI, xH) by solving (12b) for each i, and substitute these n-values into (12a).
G G G
We can then solve the "nal linear programming problem (12a) and thus obtain zH . We then say
IH
xIPxH if and only if zH *0, kOj. To see xI for non-dominance, one has to solve (n#1)(m!1)
IH
linear programming problems as in (12).
Some other approaches to dealing with both weight and value imprecision can also be found in
the literature. Sarin [17] and Park et al. [22,23] proposed methods to evaluate alternatives with
some special types of marginal value information * the former dealt with bounded forms and the
latter was directed to rankings of di!erences between marginal values. Salo and Hamamainen [21]
developed an e$cient algorithm for evaluating alternatives under hierarchically structured valued
trees.
In summary, we have described, through this section, some previous mathematical programming
approaches to the identi"cation of dominance and potential optimality. As can be seen, there have
been methods developed for establishing dominance in a situation that both weights and values are
known imprecisely. However, we are aware of no previous approach to establishing potential
optimality in such situation. This is possibly because it involves treating a non-linear programming
 Y.S. Eum et al. / Computers & Operations Research 28 (2001) 397}409 403

problem since both weights and values are not known exactly. We thus develop a method to
address this problem in the next section.

3. Potential optimality with weight and value imprecision

3.1. The model

Let us assume w"(w ,2, w )3= as in (3) and v "+v (x),2, v (xK),3< for all attribute i as
 L G G G G G G
in (9). This implies that the weights and marginal values are all known in the form of arbitrary
linear inequalities that are assumed to be consistent. Our objective is then to demonstrate how to
deal with potential optimality in this more general situation. To achieve this, we "rst de"ne the
potential optimality which is the extension of (6) or more directly (7).

De5nition 4 (Potential optimality). Alternative xI3X is potentially optimal if and only if the
following set of (nonlinear) inequalities is consistent:
L L
w v (xI)* w v (xH), j"1,2, m,
G G G G G G
G G
w3=; v 3< , i"1,2, n. (13)
G H
This de"nition brings us the following mathematical programming problem to check alternative
xI for potential optimality:
min u (14a)
s.t.
L
w [v (xI)!v (xH)]#u*0, ∀j, (14b)
G G G G G
G
v 3< , i"1,2, n, (14c)
G G
w3=. (14d)
If all marginal values v (xH) are exact, then simple substitution produces the linear programming
G G
problem equivalent to (8a)}(8c). Because these exact values are not known in advance, however,
(14a)}(14d) involves treating a nonlinear problem and hence cannot be treated by standard
methods without further transformations like those we develop below.

3.2. The transformation

We now show that (14a)}(14d) is transformed into a linear programming problem. To do so, we
"rst introduce new variables y (xH) and let
G G
y (xH )"w v (xH) (15)
G G G G G
for all j"1,2, m and for each i"1,2, n. Clearly y ( ) )*0 ∀i, j.
G
404 Y.S. Eum et al. / Computers & Operations Research 28 (2001) 397}409

We assume that the value function v is monotonic and further increasing. Also assume that there
G
exists xHH such that xHH"max +xH, for each i. We then have v (xHH)"1 by de"nition, the most
G G H G G G
preferred value on the ith attribute. By this and using (15) we obtain
y (xHH)"w v (xHH)"w for each i. (16)
G G G G G G
From (15) and (16) we further have the following equation:
y (xH)
v (xH)" G GH for all j and for each i. (17)
G G y (xH )
G G
This implies that the set of constraints on the marginal values, v 3< , can be converted into new
G G
variables for use in these same constraints.
Note that if v is a monotone decreasing value function we use xHH such that xHH"min x +xH,.
G G G H G
Then the equations in (16) and (17) can also be valid. This can be still further extended to the case of
non-monotone value functions if we de"ne xHH appropriately.
G
To specify what are done in (15)}(17), we provide lemmas below. Lemma 1 gives rules for
transforming the imprecise marginal value information in the form of (9a)}(9d), that is v 3< in
G G
(14c), into the new set of constraints for use in the resulting linear programming problem. Lemma
2 is directed to the imprecise weight information in the form of (3), w3= in (14d). In what follows,
theorem summarizes all transformations and converts non-linear programming model given by
(14) into an ordinary linear programming problem.

Lemma 1. The constraints on the marginal values in (9a)}(9d) can be converted, respectively, into the
following new constraints:
y (x)*2*y (xK), (18a)
G G G G
y (xH )!y (xH>)*e ) y (xHH), j"1,2, m!1, (18b)
G G G G GH G G
y (x)!y (x)*2*y (xK\)!y (xK)*0, (18c)
G G G G G G G G
v\(xH) ) y (xHH))y (xH))v>(xH) ) y (xHH), j"2,2, m!1, (18d)
G G G G G G G G G G
where e , v\(xH ) and v>(xH ) are the given constants in advance.
GH G G G G
Proof. Consider the constraints in (9a). Using (17) it immediately follows that we have the
constraints in (18a). The remaining parts can be proven similarly using (17).
Lemma 2. The constraints on the weights in (3a)}(3e) can be replaced, respectively, by the following
new constraints:
y (xHH)*2*y (xHH)*0, (19a)
  L L
y (xHH)!y (xHH )*e , i"1,2, n!1, (19b)
G G G> G> G
y (xHH)!y (xHH)*2*y (xHH )!y (xHH)*0, (19c)
    L\ L\ L L
w\)y (xHH))w>, i"1,2, n, (19d)
G G G G
o\y (xHH))y (xHH))o>y (xHH), i"2,2, n, (19e)
G    G G  
where e , w\, w>, o\ and o> are constants given in advance.
G G G G G
 Y.S. Eum et al. / Computers & Operations Research 28 (2001) 397}409 405

Proof. Using (16), w "y (xHH) ∀i, this immediately transforms (3) into (19).
G G G
Theorem. Non-linear programming model (14)}(14d) is transformed into the following linear program-
ming problem:
min u (20a)
s.t.
L
[y (xI)!y (xH)]#u*0, ∀j, (20b)
G G G G
G
y "+y (xH),3> , i"1,2, n, (20c)
G G G G
yH"+y (xHH),3>H, (20d)
G G
where the new set > is dexned to include constraints as in (18a)}(18d) and >H to include constraints as
G
in (19a)}(19e).

Proof. This follows from Eq. (15) and Lemmas 1 and 2.

We note that all variables in (20) are non-negative so that (20) is an ordinary linear programming
problem to be easily solved. Also note that a prior condition for weights, w "1, can be
G G
converted into the same condition involving new variables, y (xHH)"1, which we can put into the
G G G
set >H in (20d)
As described previously, the optimal solution uH to (20) is used to check alternative xI for
potential optimality. Alternative xI is potentially optimal if and only if uH"0 and is not
potentially optimal if and only if uH'0. Note that only one linear programming problem is solved
to test xI for potential optimality like the case when only weights are imprecisely known.

3.3. An illustration

Now we give a concrete example to move from the nonlinear model given by (14) to the linear
programming problem in (20) for identifying potential optimality of alternatives. Consider four
alternatives j"1,2, 4, which are valued by three attributes i"1, 2, 3. We assume that these
values are summarized in Table 1.
For the "rst two attribute, the marginal values of all alternatives are represented in the form of
bounded descriptions, for example, v (x )"1; 0.6)v (x ))0.7 and 0.8)v (x ))0.9. The
     
values for the last attribute, however, are symbolic and used to represent the ordinal relations.
More speci"cally, we regard these orders as strict rankings such that v (x )"1; v (x )!v (x )*
     
e ; v (x )!v (x )*e ; v (x )!v (x )*e ; v (x )"0; with all e are assumed, for simpli-
             GH
city, to be a value at 0.1.
Next, we also have imprecise information about weights in this potential optimality evaluation.
These are assumed to be in the form of ratio bounds,
0.7)w /w )0.8; 0.5)w /w )0.6
   
which are relative to the value of w to be regarded as the most important attribute.

406 Y.S. Eum et al. / Computers & Operations Research 28 (2001) 397}409

Table 1

i 1 2 3
j (bounds) (bounds) (strict orders)

1 1 [0.8, 0.9] 3
2 [0.6, 0.7] 0 2
3 [0.4, 0.5] 1 1
4 0 [0.6, 0.7] 4

The concrete model of (14a)}(14d) to check alternative x for potential optimality can then be

min u
s.t.

w [v (x)!v (xH )]#u*0, j"1,2, 4,
G G G G G
GR
< "+v (x )"1, 0.6)v (x ))0.7, 0.4)v (x ))0.5, v (x )"0,,
        
< "+0.8)v (x ))0.9, v (x )"0, v (x )"1, 0.6)v (x ))0.7,, (21)
        
< "+v (x )"1, v (x )!v (x )*0.1, v (x )!v (x )*0.1,
          
v (x )!v (x )*0.1, v (x )"0,,
     
="+0.7w )w )0.8w , 0.5w )w )0.6w , w #w #w "1,
        
with all w *0.
G
To transform this nonlinear model, we "rst identify the most preferred alternative, xHH for each i,
G
for use in (16) and (17). These are given by

xHH"x ; xHH"x ; xHH"x . (22)

     
Substituting these into (16) we obtain

w "y (x ); w "y (x ); w "y (x ) (23)

        
and into (17) we have

v (xH )"y (xH )/y (x ),

     
v (xH )"y (xH )/y (x ), (24)
     
v (xH )"y (xH )/y (x )
     
for all j"1,2, 4.
 Y.S. Eum et al. / Computers & Operations Research 28 (2001) 397}409 407

Using (15), (23) and (24), we obtain the following linear programming version of (21):
min u
s.t.

[y (x)!y (xH )]#u*0, j"1,2, 4,
G G G G
G
> "+0.6y (x ))y (x ))0.7y (x ), 0.4y (x ))y (x ))0.5y (x ), y (x )"0,,
              
> "+0.8y (x ))y (x ))0.9y (x ), y (x )"0, 0.6y (x ))y (x ))0.7y (x ),, (25)
              
> "+y (x )!y (x )*0.1y (x ), y (x )!y (x )*0.1y (x ),
            
y (x )!y (x )*0.1y (x ), y (x )"0,,
       
>H"+0.7y (x ))y (x ))0.8y (x ), 0.5y (x ))y (x ))0.6y (x ),
           
y (x )#y (x )#y (x )"1,,
     
where all variables are non-negative.
For example, in < of (21), 0.6)v (x ))0.7 is translated into 0.6y (x ))y (x ))0.7y (x )
        
as in > of (25), because v (x )"y (x )/y (x ) in (24). Note that the translation of v (x )"1
        
results in a redundant constraint, thus omitting from the new set > in (25). Similar rules can be

applied to the remaining parts. Finally, the translation of = in (21) into >H in (25) is done by noting
(23).
Now, we solve the problem in (25) to obtain whether alternative x is potentially optimal. We
then "nd x is potentially optimal alternative since uH"0. Solving the linear programming
problems for other three alternatives gives us the fact that alternative x is also potentially optimal
but other two alternatives are not (uH"0.2 for x and uH"0.496 for x).

4. Conclusions

We have provided an extended model for establishing potential optimality of alternatives in

multi-criteria decision analysis. Previous approaches as in [14}16] have assumed that attribute
weights are known imprecisely but with exact marginal values, so linear programming technique
can be used as a way to check potential optimality. We relaxed this assumption so that imprecise
information on both weights and values are incorporated into the previous de"nition of potential
optimality. The resulting model, however, becomes a non-linear programming problem not to be
readily solvable by standard methods so that we have developed a method to transform this
non-linear model into a linear programming equivalent. Furthermore, the extended model can
involve arbitrary linear inequalities that represent imprecise weight and value information from
decision makers.
It should be noted that the transformation technique developed in this paper for use in
establishing potential optimality di!ers from the previous methods for checking dominance, as in
[18}20,24], under imprecise information on both weights and values. As can be seen in Section 2.3,
the previous model involves treating a non-linear problem in which the objective function becomes
non-linear but with linear constraints. A separable concept is hence used to replace this non-linear
408 Y.S. Eum et al. / Computers & Operations Research 28 (2001) 397}409

model with a several number of linear programming problems. This separable concept, however,
cannot be applied to the model for establishing potential optimality, because this model involves
treating a non-linear problem in the constraints rather than in the objective function. We thus
developed a new method to transform it into a linear programming equivalent, where a change of
variable technique was employed as shown in Section 3.
We also note that the transformation technique developed in this paper can also be applied to
the non-linear model for dealing with dominance between alternatives. Speci"cally, applying this
technique to problem (11) yields the following linear programming problem:
L
min z " [y (xI)!y (xH)] (26a)
IH G G G G
G
s.t.
y "+y (xH),3> , i"1,2, n, (26b)
G G G G
yH"+y (xHH),3>H. (26c)
G G
Thus, we can check dominance between alternatives using (26a)}(26c). Note that the previous
approach to the treatment of problem (11) results in a group of linear programming problem given
by (12a) and (12b). We can hence use either (12a) (12b) or (26a)}(26c) to see alternative xI for
non-dominance. It should be noted, however, that when using (12a) and (12b) we have to solve
many number of linear programming problems (i.e., (n#1)(m!1)) for non-dominance of xI. In
contrast, using (26a)}(26c) requires us to solve greatly reduced number of linear programming
problems (i.e., m!1). Consequently, our development can be utilized not only to check potential
optimality but also to test dominance of alternatives and would be an improved way at hand.

References

[1] Keeney RL, Rai!a H. Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeo!s. New York: Wiley, 1976.
[2] Dyer JS, Sarin RK. Measurable multiattribute value functions. Operations Research 1979;27(4):810}22.
[3] Sarin RK. Elicitation of subjective probabilities in the context of decision-making. Decision Sciences 1978;9:37}48.
[4] Kmietowiz ZW, Pearman AD. Decision theory and strict ranking of probabilities. European Journal of Opera-
tional Research 1982;9:397}404.
[5] Kmietowicz ZW, Pearman AD. Decision theory, linear partial information and statistical dominance. Omega
1984;12:391}9.
[6] Kirkwood CW, Sarin RK. Ranking with partial information: a method and an application. Operations Research
1985;33:38}48.
[7] Weber M. A method of multiattribute decision making with incomplete information. Management Science
1985;31(11):1365}71.
[8] Weber M. Decision making with incomplete information. European Journal of Operational Research
1987;28:44}57.
[9] Cook WD, Kress M. A multiple criteria decision model with ordinal preference data. European Journal of
Operational Research 1991;54:191}8.
[10] Pearman AD. Establishing dominance in multiattribute decision making using an ordered metric method. Journal
of the Operational Research Society 1993;44:461}9.
[11] Carrizosa E, Conde E, Fernandez FR, Puerto J. Multi-criteria analysis with partial information about the
weighting coe$cients. European Journal of Operational Research 1995;81:291}301.
 Y.S. Eum et al. / Computers & Operations Research 28 (2001) 397}409 409

[12] Fishburn PC. Analysis of decisions with incomplete knowledge of probabilities. Operations Research
1965;13(2):217}37.
[13] Hannan EL. Obtaining nondominated priority vectors for multiple objective decisionmaking problems with
di!erent combinations of cardinal and ordinal information. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics
1981;11:538}43.
[14] Hazen GB. Partial information, dominance, and potential optimality in multiattribute utility theory. Operations
Research 1986;34(2):296}310.
[15] Insua DR, French S. A framework for sensitivity analysis in discrete multi-objective decision-making. European
Journal of Operational Research 1991;54:176}90.
[16] Athanassopoulos AD, Podinovski VV. Dominance and potential optimality in multiple criteria decision analysis
with imprecise information. Journal of the Operational Research Society 1997;48:142}50.
[17] Sarin RK. Interactive evaluation and bound procedure for selecting multi-attributed alternatives. TIMS Studies in
the Management Sciences 1997;6:211}24.
[18] Sage AP, White CC. ARIADNE: a knowledge-based interactive system for planning and decision support. IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 1984;14:35}47.
[19] White CC, Sage AP, Dozono S. A model of multiattribute decisionmaking and trade-o! weight determination
under uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 1984;14:223}9.
[20] Moskowitz H, Preckel PW, Yang A. Multi-criteria robust interactive decision analysis (MCRID) for optimizing
public policies. European Journal of Operational Research 1992;56:219}36.
[21] Salo AA, Hamamainen RP. Preference assessment by imprecise ratio statements. Operations Research
1992;40(6):1053}61.
[22] Park KS, Kim SH, Yoon WC. Establishing strict dominance between alternatives with special type of incomplete
information. European Journal of Operational Research 1996;96:398}406.
[23] Park KS, Kim SH, Yoon WC. An extended model for establishing dominance in multiattribute decisionmaking.
Journal of the Operational Research Society 1996;47:1415}20.
[24] Park KS, Kim SH. Tools for interactive multiattribute decisionmaking with Incompletely Identi"ed Information.
European Journal of Operational Research 1997;98:111}23.

Yun Seong Eum is a doctoral candidate of Graduate School of Management at KAIST. He received his B.S. from
Kyung Hee University and M.S. from Yonsei University. His research interests include Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis,
Group Decision Support Systems, Technical Forecasting, Business Reengineering, and CALS/EC.
Dr. Kyung Sam Park His principal research interests are in the area of Decision Support Systems, Multi-Criteria and
Data Envelopment Analysis, Information Systems Evaluation, and Mathematical Programming. Recently Dr. Park has
devoted his major research e!orts to Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) and Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA).
Through this e!ort, he has developed theories and methods for MCDA and DEA with imprecise data or information. His
developments have been published in international journals such as Computers and Operations Research, European
Journal of Operational Research, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Journal of Productivity
Analysis, Management Science, Operations Research, among others.
Soung Hie Kim is a Professor of Graduate School of Management at KAIST. He holds B.S. from Seoul National
University, and a M.S. from University of Missouri-Columbia, and Ph.D. in Engineering-Economic Systems from
Stanford University. His teaching and research specialties are in the "eld of Decision Analysis, Multi-Criteria Decision-
Making, Decision Support Systems, Group Decision-Making, Technical Forecasting, and Business Reengineering. He
has published papers which have appeared in Computers and Operations Research, European Journal of Operational
Research, Expert Systems with Applications, Information and Decision Technologies, Journal of the Operational Research
Society, Naval Research Logistics, Technical Forecasting and Social Change, etc.