José María Moreno-Jiménez

Bio: José María Moreno-Jiménez is an academic researcher from University of Zaragoza. The author has contributed to research in topics: Analytic hierarchy process & Group decision-making. The author has an hindex of 23, co-authored 70 publications receiving 2179 citations.

Consensus Building in AHP-Group Decision Making: A Bayesian Approach

Abstract: This paper examines consensus building in AHP-group decision making from a Bayesian perspective. In accordance with the multicriteria procedural rationality paradigm, the methodology employed in this study permits the automatic identification, in a local context, of “agreement” and “disagreement” zones among the actors involved. This approach is based on the analysis of the pairwise comparison matrices provided by the actors themselves. In addition, the study integrates the attitudes of the actors implicated in the decision-making process and puts forward a number of semiautomatic initiatives for establishing consensus. This information is given to the actors as the first step in the negotiation processes. The knowledge obtained will be incorporated into the system via the learning process developed during the resolution of the problem. The proposed methodology, valid for the analysis of incomplete or imprecise pairwise comparison matrices, is illustrated by an example.

Aggregation of Individual Preference Structures in Ahp-Group Decision Making

Abstract: This paper presents a new procedure, to which we have given the name Aggregation of Individual Preference Structures (AIPS), whose objective is to deal with multiactor decision making when using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) as the methodological support. This procedure incorporates ideas similar to Borda count methods and transfers to the case of preference structures the principle of aggregation employed in the two approaches traditionally followed in AHP-group decision making (aggregation of individual judgments and aggregation of individual priorities). The new aggregation method allows us to capture: (i) the richness of uncertainty inherent to human beings; (ii) the vision of each decision maker within the context of the problem; (iii) the interdependencies between the alternatives being compared and (iv) the intensities of the preferences that each decision maker gives to these interdependencies. From the preference structure distribution associated to each decision maker, this new approach (AIPS) provides the holistic importance of each alternative and ranking, as well as the most representative preference structure distribution for the group. The knowledge derived from these could be employed as an initial step in the search for consensus, which characterises the negotiation processes followed by the actors involved in the resolution of decisional problems.

The knowledge complexity of interactive proof-systems

Abstract: Usually, a proof of a theorem contains more knowledge than the mere fact that the theorem is true. For instance, to prove that a graph is Hamiltonian it suffices to exhibit a Hamiltonian tour in it; however, this seems to contain more knowledge than the single bit Hamiltonian/non-Hamiltonian.In this paper a computational complexity theory of the “knowledge” contained in a proof is developed. Zero-knowledge proofs are defined as those proofs that convey no additional knowledge other than the correctness of the proposition in question. Examples of zero-knowledge proof systems are given for the languages of quadratic residuosity and 'quadratic nonresiduosity. These are the first examples of zero-knowledge proofs for languages not known to be efficiently recognizable.

Competing for the Future

Abstract: Everybody knows that digital technology has revolutionized our economy and our lifestyles. But how many of us really understand the drivers behind the technology – the significance of going digital; the miniaturization of electronic devices; the role of venture capital in financing the revolution; the importance of research and development? How many of us understand what it takes to make money from innovative technologies? Should we worry about manufacturing going offshore? What is the role of India and China in the digital economy? Drawing on a lifetime’s experience in the industry, as an engineer, a senior manager, and as a partner in a global venture capital firm, Henry Kressel offers an expert personalized answer to all these questions. He explains how the technology works, why it matters, how it is financed, and what the key lessons are for public policy.

Democracy and Its Critics

Abstract: The course is focused on historical texts, most of them philosophical. Context for understanding the texts and the course of democratic development will be provided in lecture and discussions, and by some background readings (Dunn). We begin with the remarkable Athenian democracy, and its frequent enemy the Spartan oligarchy. In Athens legislation was passed directly by an assembly of all citizens, and executive officials were selected by lot rather than by competitive election. Athenian oligarchs such as Plato more admired Sparta, and their disdain for the democracy became the judgment of the ages, until well after the modern democratic revolutions. Marsilius of Padua in the early Middle Ages argued for popular sovereignty. The Italian citystates of the Middle Ages did without kings, and looked back to Rome and Greece for republican models. During the English Civil War republicans debated whether the few or the many should be full citizens of the regime. The English, French, and American revolutions struggled with justifying and establishing a representative democracy suitable for a large state, and relied on election rather than lot to select officials. The English established a constitutional monarchy, admired in Europe, and adapted by the Americans in their republican constitution. The American Revolution helped inspire the French, and the French inspired republican and democratic revolution throughout Europe during the 19 century.