Quantitative Behavioral Finance December

pages

English

Documents

Écrit par
Gabriella Marcarelli

Publié par
pefav

Lire un extrait

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne En savoir plus

Découvre YouScribe en t'inscrivant gratuitement

Je m'inscris

Découvre YouScribe en t'inscrivant gratuitement

Je m'inscris

pages

English

Ebook

Lire un extrait

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne En savoir plus

Publié par

pefav

Nombre de lectures

Langue

English

Poids de l'ouvrage

2 Mo

QBF 2010 Quantitative Behavioral Finance December 8-10, 2010 Nice Consistency of judgments in Multi Criteria Decision Making Bice Cavallo Livia D'Apuzzo Massimo Squillante University of Naples Federico II University of Sannio Italy

hierarchy process

?? costs-benefits

analytic hierarchy

making problem

process

decision maker

multi-criteria decision

Voir

Publié par

pefav

Nombre de lectures

Langue

English

Poids de l'ouvrage

2 Mo

Quantitative Behavioral Finance
December 8-10, 2010
Nice
Consistency of judgments in
Multi Criteria Decision Making
Bice Cavallo
Livia D’Apuzzo
Massimo Squillante
University of Naples Federico II
University of Sannio
Italy
QBF 2010 AHP
  Analytic Hierarchy Process
  Applications
  Costs-Benefits analysis
QBF 2010 AHP
  The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a
multi-criteria decision making method, first
introduced by T.L. Saaty (Saaty, 1980 and
1994) in the 70s. The principles of the AHP
are logic, comprehensive, and it can be used
in both quantitative and qualitative multi-
criteria decision making problems.
QBF 2010 AHP
  The multi-criteria decision making problem is structured into a hierarchy.
  .
QBF 2010 AHP
  The multi-criteria decision making problem is structured into a hierarchy.
  At the top the main objective that the decision maker is aiming will be depicted.
Goal Livel 1
QBF 2010 AHP
  The multi-criteria decision making problem is structured into a hierarchy.
  At the top the main objective that the decision maker is aiming will be depicted.
  In order to ease the decision process, the problem is broken down into sections
based on all possible related criteria that contribute to the decision making.
  These selection criteria form the second level of the hierarchy.
Goal Livel 1
Criteria A Criteria B Criteria C Livel 2
QBF 2010 AHP
  Lastly, all the alternatives are put at the lowest level of the hierarchy.
Goal Livel 1
Criteria A Criteria B Criteria C Livel 2
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Livel 3
QBF 2010 AHP
  The decision maker may even decompose
the problem further by considering subcriteria
under each one of the selection criteria in
level two.
  This exercise is believed to further assist the
decision maker in achieving the best
decision.
QBF 2010 AHP
Goal Livel 1
Criteria A Criteria B Criteria C Livel 2
Sub-criteria 1a Sub-criteria 2a Sub-criteria 1b Sub-criteria 2b Sub-criteria 1c Sub-criteria 2c
Livel 3
Livel 4 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
QBF 2010 AHP
Goal Livel 1
p3
p1 p2
Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Livel 2
v13 v21 v v12 22 v v11 23
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Livel 3
  v(A ) =p v + p v + p v 1 1 11 2 12 3 13
  v(A ) =p v + p v + p v 2 1 21 2 22 3 23
QBF 2010