nach oben

Erschienen in:

2015 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

5. The EURO 2004 Best Poster Award: Choosing the Best Poster in a Scientific Conference

verfasst von : Raymond Bisdorff

Erschienen in: Evaluation and Decision Models with Multiple Criteria

Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The chapter concerns the attribution of the EURO Best Poster Award at the 20th EURO Conference, held in Rhodes, July 2004. We present the historical decision making process leading to the selection of the winner, followed by a thorough discussion of the constructed outranking models and of the best choice recommendation.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Building Recommendations

Nächstes Kapitel Multicriteria Evaluation-Based Framework for Composite Web Service Selection

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

A glossary with abbreviations and symbols is provided at the end of the chapter.

The seminal articles (Bisdorff et al., 2006, 2008) of the Rubis decision aiding methodology date from 2006 and 2008.

EURO K conferences, organised every 3 years, are the main dissemination instrument of EURO—the Federation of European Operational Research Societies, see http://www.euro-online.org.

The author of this chapter.

Here the evaluation sheet template has been made anonymous. The real instance showed the actual coordinates of the poster authors instead of the abstract identifier shown here.

A glossary with abbreviations and symbols is provided at the end of the chapter.

See (Bisdorff, 2002; Bisdorff et al., 2008).

The very short time period available between the posters’ evaluation and the final selection of the best posters is another procedural circumstance of the decision making process which made it rather difficult for the jury members to coordinate before the final selection procedure.

See global outranking per preference viewpoint in the Appendix “Overall Outranking per Preference Viewpoint”.

A common misunderstanding holds this apparent statistical correlation as the sufficient sign of a violation of the required preferential independence hypothesis. However, significant statistical correlations may well appear with preferentially independent criteria.

Except perhaps, the chair of the award jury, who may influence the final balance if an indeterminate situation arises. This was not the case here. On the contrary a clear and convincing solution appeared, as we will see later on.

As the r characteristic is supposed to admit only rational values, one may admit without loss of generality, that it is always possible to express the significance weights with a set of integer numbers. Here the corresponding integer numbers would be 4 for the Scientific Quality, 3 for the Contribution to OR Theory and/or Practice, 2 to the Originality, and 1 to the Presentation Quality point of view.

We follow here a suggestion made by Barbut (1980) who calls a median cut graph after Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas de Caritat, marquis de Condorcet (1743–1794). A French mathematician and political scientist who is the inventor of the pairwise voting procedure named after him.

The \(\mathop{S}\nolimits\) notation comes from the French term “ s urclasser” (to outrank).

Passing from the r characteristic function to classic election style majority percentages is readily achieved by shifting the r value up by 1. 0 and dividing the result by 2. 0. For instance, \(r(p_{10} \succapprox _{\mathbf{w}}p_{9})\, =\, 0.42\), which gives in percentages: (0. 42 + 1. 0)∕2. 0 = 0. 71 = 71 %.

See glossary entry “Kernel” at the end of the chapter.

The conversion formula for percentages is (Δ ^stab(Y ) + 1. 0)∕2. 0.

The EBPA 2004 jury members did not feel any need to consider such veto effects when deliberating on the final best poster choice. This is certainly related to the easy dominating situation of poster p ₁₀.

The classical outranking relation, as used in the various Electre methods, differs slightly from our bipolar definition here in the sense that the large performance difference polarization is solely operated for a veto situation, but not for a counter-veto situation. This unipolar handling may induce, however, abusive strict invalidation of otherwise more or less validated outranking situations (Bisdorff, 2013).

See the glossary at the end of chapter.

As classically done, \(> _{\mathbf{w}}\) denotes the asymmetric part of \(\geqslant _{\mathbf{w}}\), whereas \(= _{\mathbf{w}}\) denotes its symmetric part.

See the complete set of global outrankings from each preference point of view in Appendix “Overall Outranking per Preference Viewpoint”.

“…The goal of our research was to design a resolution method …that is easy to put into practice, that requires as few and reliable hypotheses as possible, and that meets the needs [of the decision maker] …” (Roy et al., 1966).

An XMCDA 2-0 encoding of the performance tableau may be downloaded from the webpage http://leopold-loewenheim.uni.lu/Digraph3/handbook/chapter-5/.

Arrow, K. J., & Raynaud, H. (1986, March) Social choice and multicriterion decision-making. MIT Press books (vol. 1). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Barbut, M. (1980). Médianes, Condorcet et Kendall. Mathématiques et Sciences Humaines, 69, 9–13.

Berge, C. (1956). La fonction de Grundy d’un graphe infini. Comptes Rendus. Académie des Sciences, Paris, 242, 1404–1405.

Berge, C. (2001). The theory of graphs (original title: The theory of graphs and its applications). Mineola, NY: Dover. (Originally published by Wiley 1962).

Bisdorff, R. (2002). Logical foundation of multicriteria preference aggregation. In D. Bouyssou, E. Jacquet-Lagrèze, P. Perny, R. Słowiński, D. Vanderpooten, & P. Vincke (Eds.), Aiding decisions with multiple criteria (pp. 379–403). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRef

Bisdorff, R. (2004). Concordant outranking with multiple criteria of ordinal significance. 4OR, 2(4), 293–308.

Bisdorff, R. (2008). On clustering the criteria in an outranking based decision aid approach. In H. A. L. Thi, P. Bouvry, & D. Pham (Eds.), Computation and optimization in information systems and management sciences. CCIS (pp. 409–418). Springer, Heidelberg.

Bisdorff, R. (2013). On polarizing outranking relations with large performance differences. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 20, 3–12.CrossRef

Bisdorff, R. (2014). Digraph3: a collection of python3 modules for computing with outranking digraphs. http://leopold-loewenheim.uni.lu/Digraph3/docSphinx/html.

Bisdorff, R., Meyer, P., & Roubens, M. (2008 June). Rubis: a bipolar-valued outranking method for the best choice decision problem. 4OR: A Quarterly Journal of Operations Research, 6(2), 143–165.

Bisdorff, R., Pirlot, M., & Roubens, M. (2006). Choices and kernels from bipolar valued digraphs. European Journal of Operational Research, 175, 155–170.CrossRef

Fishburn, P. C. (1977). Condorcet social choice functions. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 33(3), 469–489.CrossRef

Roy, B. (1985). Méthodologie multicritère d’aide à la décision. Paris: Economica.

Roy, B. (1991). The outranking approach and the foundations of electre methods. Theory and Decision, 31(1), 49–73.CrossRef

Roy, B., & Bouyssou, D. (1993). Aide Multicritère à la Décision: Méthodes et Cas. Paris: Economica.

Roy, B., Benayoun, R., & Sussmann, B. (1966). Electre: une méthode pour guider le choix en présence de points de vue multiples. Technical Report 49, Société d’Economie et de Mathématique Appliqué, Direction Scientifique.

Roy, B., Słowiński, R. (2008). Handling effects of reinforced preference and counter-veto in credibility of outranking. European Journal of Operational Research, 188(1), 185–190.CrossRef

Sen, A. K. (1986) Social choice theory. In K. J. Arrow, & M. D. Intriligator (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical economics (vol. 3, pp. 1073–1181). New York: North-Holland.

Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behaviour. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Roy, B. (1968). Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples: La méthode ELECTRE. Revue Francaise d’Informatique et de Recherche Opérationnelle, 8, 57–75.