Loading in 5 sec....

A Study on the Compatibility between Decision VectorsPowerPoint Presentation

A Study on the Compatibility between Decision Vectors

- 58 Views
- Uploaded on

Download Presentation
## PowerPoint Slideshow about ' A Study on the Compatibility between Decision Vectors' - ronnie

**An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation**

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript

### A Study on the Compatibility between Decision Vectors

So w and Actual are: Not compatible by S, H, or IVP Compatible by G and E

### A Study on the Compatibility between Decision Vectors

Claudio Garuti

Universidad Federico Santa María, Chile

Valério Salomon

Sao Paulo State University, [email protected]

A Study on the Compatibility between Decision Vectors

- Introduction
- Compatibility between two vectors
- Examples of compatibility indexes utilization
- Concluding remarks
References

What is Compatibility?

What is Useful for?

Compatible (compatibilis) = To have the right proportion to joint or connect at the same time with other (empathy)

Under the same decision problem, two compatible persons should have close visions

What is useful for?

To know when two metrics of decision are close

To know how close are two different ways of thinking

To know the closeness of two complex behavior patterns

To know the degree of matching of two groups (sellers & buyers)

…And many other issues.

What is Compatibility?

What is Useful for?

Proximity=Intensity

M.TopologyO.Topology

Under the same decision problem, two compatible persons should have close visions.

But, what means when says: …two compatible persons should have close visions?

1.- It means that they should make the same choice?

Two candidates: A, B for an election

Three people :P1: choose candidate A, P2 & P3: choice candidate B,

P1 & P2: regular people: Intensity of preference= 45-55 & 55-45 respectvely

P3: extremist: Intensity of preference= 5-95

Is really P2 more compatible with P3 just because they make the same choice?

2.- Or, it means they should have similar metric of decision

In order topology metric of decision means intensity of choice, (dominance degree of A over B)

So, compatibility is not related only with order of choice,

is something more complex, more “systemic”, it is related with the intensity of choices.

Different Formulas to Assess Compatibility

Hilbert formula (Hilbert´s index): C(A, B) = Log {Maxi(ai/bi)/Mini(ai/bi)}

Simple inner vector product (IVP): C(A, B) = {A}•{B} /n = (Si ai x 1/bi )/n

Hadamard product (Saaty`s index): C(A, B) = [A]•[B]t /n2 = [S iSj aij x 1/bij] /n2

Euclidian formula (normalized): C(A, B) = SQRT(1/2 S i(ai–bi)2)

Despite Compatibility is a new theme in MCDM, some limitations of these formulashas already been identified.

Garuti (2007) proposes another compatibility index, G, starting on inner product between two vectors, but based on the physics view of vector relation:

Examples:Work=F•d = (Fd) x (projection of F-d); P=V•I= (VI) x (projection of V-I)

Graphically:

x

- = 0° → total projection → → total vector similarity → total compatibility
- x ∙ y = 1

y

- = 90° → no projection → → no vector similarity → total incompatibility
- x ∙ y = 0

x

y

Garuti‘s compatibility index, between x and y

Projectioni x Importancei (weight)

If x = y, then G = 1

If G < .9, (or 1-G>10%) then Garuti (2007) proposes that x and y were considered as not compatible vectors.

3. Examples of compatibility index G

Relative electric consumption of household appliances

Consistency checking: m = 0.02, OK! (compatibility needs consistency).

w and Actualseems to be close to each other, but are they really close?

How we can measure that closeness? (weighted proximity problem).

3. Examples of compatibility index G

Relative electric consumption of household appliances

- We have:
- S = 1.455 (45% > 10%)
- H = 1.832 (83%> 10%)
- IVP =1.63 (63%> 10%)
- G = 0.92 (8% < 10%)
- E=0.0032 (0.3%)

w and Actual are compatible vectors indeed

and G is the only one index that assess it correctly

in a weighted environment.

anguish

evolution

cofe

secretion

allergy

Tabbaco

HTA

Diabetes

fever

Compatibility Index G (closeness)

10% (hepatitis)

97% (irritable colon)

73% (ulcer)

15% (common flu)

18% (H1N1)

55% (colitis)

…% (…..)

Disease A--------

Disease B--------

Disease D--------

= Disease B (GCI=97%)

(irritable colon)

Disease E---------

Disease C--------

Disease F---------

Disease G---------

3.- One more complex case: Profiles Compatibility

w2

w3

w4

w5

w6

w7

w8

w9

w10

w1

Terminal

criteria

1

0

SCALES OF

INTENSITY

Patient X--------

GCIi = Garuti`s General Compatibility Index Between each Disease Profile and Patient Profile

IF G P90% THEN the profiles are compatibles.

Note: Higher compatibility represent higher likelihood (or certainty) that patient present that disease.

- 4. Concluding remarks
- With the compatibility index G, we can answer:
- “When close really means close”
- G is an index able to measure compatibility in weighted environment.
- G can assess if a specific metric is a good metric (compatible with actual metric (physical or economical)).
- G can establish if two complex profiles are aligned (for instance, degree of alignment between D&O profiles).
- G can establish if two different people really have compatible point of views (compatible decision metric, very useful in conflict resolution).
- As Compatibility is a new theme in MCDM, more study and applications will be necessary to prove this theory in Decision Making.

Garuti, C. Measuring compatibility (closeness) in weighted environments: when close really means close? Int. Symposium on AHP, 9, Vina del Mar, 2007.

Saaty, T. L. Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory. 2 ed. Pittsburgh : RWS, 2006.

Wallenius, J., et al. Multiple criteria decision making, multiattribute utility theory: recent accomplishments and what lies ahead. Management Science, 7, 2008, Vol. 54, pp. 1336-1349.

Whitaker, R. 2007. Validation examples of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling. 2007, Vol. 46, pp. 840-859.

Claudio Garuti Thanks to SADIO, Argentina and Universidad Federico Santa María, Chile

Valério Salomon thanks the Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) for financial support

Download Presentation

Connecting to Server..