Experimental Evaluation of Suitability of Selected Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for Large-Scale Agent-Based Simulations
Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) can be formally implemented by various methods. This study compares suitability of four selected MCDM methods, namely WPM, TOPSIS, VIKOR, and PROMETHEE, for future applications in agent-based computational economic (ACE) models of larger scale (i.e., over 10 000...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2016-11, Vol.11 (11), p.e0165171-e0165171 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | e0165171 |
---|---|
container_issue | 11 |
container_start_page | e0165171 |
container_title | PloS one |
container_volume | 11 |
creator | Bures, Vladimír Tucník, Petr |
description | Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) can be formally implemented by various methods. This study compares suitability of four selected MCDM methods, namely WPM, TOPSIS, VIKOR, and PROMETHEE, for future applications in agent-based computational economic (ACE) models of larger scale (i.e., over 10 000 agents in one geographical region). These four MCDM methods were selected according to their appropriateness for computational processing in ACE applications. Tests of the selected methods were conducted on four hardware configurations. For each method, 100 tests were performed, which represented one testing iteration. With four testing iterations conducted on each hardware setting and separated testing of all configurations with the-server parameter de/activated, altogether, 12800 data points were collected and consequently analyzed. An illustrational decision-making scenario was used which allows the mutual comparison of all of the selected decision making methods. Our test results suggest that although all methods are convenient and can be used in practice, the VIKOR method accomplished the tests with the best results and thus can be recommended as the most suitable for simulations of large-scale agent-based models. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0165171 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1835681335</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A471806371</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_f564f185a013436da4c466e696ff8343</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A471806371</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c725t-e28d57086834bb12744d26fd8c544d6b517db59b18497e31bccc12e506688bb53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk0Fv0zAUxyMEYmPwDRBEQkJwSLHj2HEuSKUUqNRqEgWuluM4qYsbF9uZtiPfHKfNpgbtMOUQx_n9_-_5-b0oegnBBKIcftiazrZcT_amlRMACYY5fBSdwwKlCUkBenyyPoueObcFACNKyNPoLM0pIIDA8-jv_HovrdrJ1nMdz6-47rhXpo1NHa875XmptPI3h0-ppfCyiled9iqZWeWDksefpVAuSJIV_63aJl5JvzGVi2tj4yW3jUzWgmsZT5sQJPnEXbBYq12nD4Hc8-hJzbWTL4b3RfTzy_zH7FuyvPy6mE2XichT7BOZ0grngBKKsrKEaZ5lVUrqigocVqQMx69KXJSQZkUuESyFEDCVGBBCaVlidBG9PvrutXFsqJ5jkCJMKESoJxZHojJ8y_ahKtzeMMMVO2wY2zBuvRJashqTrIYUcwBRhkjFM5ERIklB6jokiILXxyFaV-5kJcLRLdcj0_GfVm1YY64YBgWkMA8G7wYDa_500nm2U05IrXkrTdfnnRFUFBCBB6AI4xQVuHd98x96fyEGqgn3xlRbm5Ci6E3ZNMth6J3QgIGa3EOFp5I7JUJX1irsjwTvR4LAeHntG945xxbr7w9nL3-N2bcn7EZy7TfO6O7QXmMwO4LCGuesrO_uAwLWD9VtNVg_VGwYqiB7dXqXd6LbKUL_AEoDG4s</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1835681335</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Experimental Evaluation of Suitability of Selected Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for Large-Scale Agent-Based Simulations</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Bures, Vladimír ; Tucník, Petr</creator><contributor>Amblard, Frederic</contributor><creatorcontrib>Bures, Vladimír ; Tucník, Petr ; Amblard, Frederic</creatorcontrib><description>Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) can be formally implemented by various methods. This study compares suitability of four selected MCDM methods, namely WPM, TOPSIS, VIKOR, and PROMETHEE, for future applications in agent-based computational economic (ACE) models of larger scale (i.e., over 10 000 agents in one geographical region). These four MCDM methods were selected according to their appropriateness for computational processing in ACE applications. Tests of the selected methods were conducted on four hardware configurations. For each method, 100 tests were performed, which represented one testing iteration. With four testing iterations conducted on each hardware setting and separated testing of all configurations with the-server parameter de/activated, altogether, 12800 data points were collected and consequently analyzed. An illustrational decision-making scenario was used which allows the mutual comparison of all of the selected decision making methods. Our test results suggest that although all methods are convenient and can be used in practice, the VIKOR method accomplished the tests with the best results and thus can be recommended as the most suitable for simulations of large-scale agent-based models.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165171</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27806061</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Agent-based models ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Commodities ; Computation ; Computer and Information Sciences ; Computer applications ; Computer simulation ; Configurations ; Data points ; Decision analysis ; Decision Making ; Decision Support Techniques ; Dimensional analysis ; Economic models ; Energy industry ; Hardware ; Humans ; Informatics ; Iterative methods ; Knowledge management ; Methods ; Microelectromechanical systems ; Models, Economic ; Multiple criterion ; Personal computers ; Physical Sciences ; Portable computers ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Scale (ratio) ; Simulation ; Social Sciences ; Studies ; Test procedures</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2016-11, Vol.11 (11), p.e0165171-e0165171</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2016 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2016 Tučník, Bureš. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2016 Tučník, Bureš 2016 Tučník, Bureš</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c725t-e28d57086834bb12744d26fd8c544d6b517db59b18497e31bccc12e506688bb53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c725t-e28d57086834bb12744d26fd8c544d6b517db59b18497e31bccc12e506688bb53</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7788-7445</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5091817/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5091817/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,2928,23866,27924,27925,53791,53793,79600,79601</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27806061$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Amblard, Frederic</contributor><creatorcontrib>Bures, Vladimír</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tucník, Petr</creatorcontrib><title>Experimental Evaluation of Suitability of Selected Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for Large-Scale Agent-Based Simulations</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) can be formally implemented by various methods. This study compares suitability of four selected MCDM methods, namely WPM, TOPSIS, VIKOR, and PROMETHEE, for future applications in agent-based computational economic (ACE) models of larger scale (i.e., over 10 000 agents in one geographical region). These four MCDM methods were selected according to their appropriateness for computational processing in ACE applications. Tests of the selected methods were conducted on four hardware configurations. For each method, 100 tests were performed, which represented one testing iteration. With four testing iterations conducted on each hardware setting and separated testing of all configurations with the-server parameter de/activated, altogether, 12800 data points were collected and consequently analyzed. An illustrational decision-making scenario was used which allows the mutual comparison of all of the selected decision making methods. Our test results suggest that although all methods are convenient and can be used in practice, the VIKOR method accomplished the tests with the best results and thus can be recommended as the most suitable for simulations of large-scale agent-based models.</description><subject>Agent-based models</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Commodities</subject><subject>Computation</subject><subject>Computer and Information Sciences</subject><subject>Computer applications</subject><subject>Computer simulation</subject><subject>Configurations</subject><subject>Data points</subject><subject>Decision analysis</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>Decision Support Techniques</subject><subject>Dimensional analysis</subject><subject>Economic models</subject><subject>Energy industry</subject><subject>Hardware</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Informatics</subject><subject>Iterative methods</subject><subject>Knowledge management</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Microelectromechanical systems</subject><subject>Models, Economic</subject><subject>Multiple criterion</subject><subject>Personal computers</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Portable computers</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Scale (ratio)</subject><subject>Simulation</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Test procedures</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk0Fv0zAUxyMEYmPwDRBEQkJwSLHj2HEuSKUUqNRqEgWuluM4qYsbF9uZtiPfHKfNpgbtMOUQx_n9_-_5-b0oegnBBKIcftiazrZcT_amlRMACYY5fBSdwwKlCUkBenyyPoueObcFACNKyNPoLM0pIIDA8-jv_HovrdrJ1nMdz6-47rhXpo1NHa875XmptPI3h0-ppfCyiled9iqZWeWDksefpVAuSJIV_63aJl5JvzGVi2tj4yW3jUzWgmsZT5sQJPnEXbBYq12nD4Hc8-hJzbWTL4b3RfTzy_zH7FuyvPy6mE2XichT7BOZ0grngBKKsrKEaZ5lVUrqigocVqQMx69KXJSQZkUuESyFEDCVGBBCaVlidBG9PvrutXFsqJ5jkCJMKESoJxZHojJ8y_ahKtzeMMMVO2wY2zBuvRJashqTrIYUcwBRhkjFM5ERIklB6jokiILXxyFaV-5kJcLRLdcj0_GfVm1YY64YBgWkMA8G7wYDa_500nm2U05IrXkrTdfnnRFUFBCBB6AI4xQVuHd98x96fyEGqgn3xlRbm5Ci6E3ZNMth6J3QgIGa3EOFp5I7JUJX1irsjwTvR4LAeHntG945xxbr7w9nL3-N2bcn7EZy7TfO6O7QXmMwO4LCGuesrO_uAwLWD9VtNVg_VGwYqiB7dXqXd6LbKUL_AEoDG4s</recordid><startdate>20161102</startdate><enddate>20161102</enddate><creator>Bures, Vladimír</creator><creator>Tucník, Petr</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7788-7445</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20161102</creationdate><title>Experimental Evaluation of Suitability of Selected Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for Large-Scale Agent-Based Simulations</title><author>Bures, Vladimír ; Tucník, Petr</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c725t-e28d57086834bb12744d26fd8c544d6b517db59b18497e31bccc12e506688bb53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Agent-based models</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Commodities</topic><topic>Computation</topic><topic>Computer and Information Sciences</topic><topic>Computer applications</topic><topic>Computer simulation</topic><topic>Configurations</topic><topic>Data points</topic><topic>Decision analysis</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>Decision Support Techniques</topic><topic>Dimensional analysis</topic><topic>Economic models</topic><topic>Energy industry</topic><topic>Hardware</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Informatics</topic><topic>Iterative methods</topic><topic>Knowledge management</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Microelectromechanical systems</topic><topic>Models, Economic</topic><topic>Multiple criterion</topic><topic>Personal computers</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Portable computers</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Scale (ratio)</topic><topic>Simulation</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Test procedures</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bures, Vladimír</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tucník, Petr</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bures, Vladimír</au><au>Tucník, Petr</au><au>Amblard, Frederic</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Experimental Evaluation of Suitability of Selected Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for Large-Scale Agent-Based Simulations</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2016-11-02</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>e0165171</spage><epage>e0165171</epage><pages>e0165171-e0165171</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) can be formally implemented by various methods. This study compares suitability of four selected MCDM methods, namely WPM, TOPSIS, VIKOR, and PROMETHEE, for future applications in agent-based computational economic (ACE) models of larger scale (i.e., over 10 000 agents in one geographical region). These four MCDM methods were selected according to their appropriateness for computational processing in ACE applications. Tests of the selected methods were conducted on four hardware configurations. For each method, 100 tests were performed, which represented one testing iteration. With four testing iterations conducted on each hardware setting and separated testing of all configurations with the-server parameter de/activated, altogether, 12800 data points were collected and consequently analyzed. An illustrational decision-making scenario was used which allows the mutual comparison of all of the selected decision making methods. Our test results suggest that although all methods are convenient and can be used in practice, the VIKOR method accomplished the tests with the best results and thus can be recommended as the most suitable for simulations of large-scale agent-based models.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>27806061</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0165171</doi><tpages>e0165171</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7788-7445</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
ispartof | PloS one, 2016-11, Vol.11 (11), p.e0165171-e0165171 |
issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1835681335 |
source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
subjects | Agent-based models Biology and Life Sciences Commodities Computation Computer and Information Sciences Computer applications Computer simulation Configurations Data points Decision analysis Decision Making Decision Support Techniques Dimensional analysis Economic models Energy industry Hardware Humans Informatics Iterative methods Knowledge management Methods Microelectromechanical systems Models, Economic Multiple criterion Personal computers Physical Sciences Portable computers Research and Analysis Methods Scale (ratio) Simulation Social Sciences Studies Test procedures |
title | Experimental Evaluation of Suitability of Selected Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for Large-Scale Agent-Based Simulations |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T09%3A05%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Experimental%20Evaluation%20of%20Suitability%20of%20Selected%20Multi-Criteria%20Decision-Making%20Methods%20for%20Large-Scale%20Agent-Based%20Simulations&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Bures,%20Vladim%C3%ADr&rft.date=2016-11-02&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=e0165171&rft.epage=e0165171&rft.pages=e0165171-e0165171&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0165171&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA471806371%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1835681335&rft_id=info:pmid/27806061&rft_galeid=A471806371&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_f564f185a013436da4c466e696ff8343&rfr_iscdi=true |