Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) represents one of the core research streams in the field of operations research (OR). Altough numerous sound MCDM methods for various kind of applications exist, the application of such methods in the practical field is found rarely. The reason for this gap between scientific development and practical acceptance can be found in two distinct points: On the one hand, MCDM methods naturally tend to build on rather complex mathematical foundations. Decision makers (DMs) in practice are mostly experts in their area of expertise but do not necessarily have solid education or experience with high-level mathematical methods. Thus, in order to not alienate DMs in practice, academic research has to translate mathematically challenging models into easy-to-use, self-explaining tools that can effectively support real-life decision scenarios. On the other hand, academic research in MCDM often ends in the proposal of a theoretical model, that may be sound and promising, but never leaves the field of academics due to its theoretical nature. Therefore, the underlying dissertation investigates on the usage of MCDM methods for integration in a decision support system (DSS), implemented as a sofware that is easy to distribute and applicable to decision problems in practice. This study tries to mitigate the lack of MCDM acceptance by analysing MCDM methods according to their applicability, pointing out possible improvements and validating proposed advancements. (author's abstract)

Künstliche Intelligenz und selbst-lernende Systeme, die ihr Verhalten aufgrund vergangener Entscheidungen und historischer Daten adaptieren, spielen eine im- mer größer werdende Rollen in unserem Alltag. Wir sind umgeben von einer großen Zahl algorithmischer Entscheidungshilfen, sowie einer stetig wachsenden Zahl algorithmischer Entscheidungssysteme. Rankings und sortierte Listen von Suchergebnissen stellen dabei das wesentliche Instrument unserer Onlinesuche nach Inhalten, Produkten, Freizeitaktivitäten und relevanten Personen dar. Aus diesem Grund bestimmt die Reihenfolge der Suchergebnisse nicht nur die Zufriedenheit der Suchenden, sondern auch die Chancen der Sortierten auf Bildung, ökonomischen und sogar sozialen Erfolg. Wissenschaft und Politik sorgen sich aus diesem Grund mehr und mehr um systematische Diskriminierung und Bias durch selbst-lernende Systeme. Um der Diskriminierung im Kontext von Rankings und sortierten Suchergeb- nissen Herr zu werden, sind folgende drei Probleme zu addressieren: Zunächst müssen wir die ethischen Eigenschaften und moralischen Ziele verschiedener Sit- uationen erarbeiten, in denen Rankings eingesetzt werden. Diese sollen mit den ethischen Werten der Algorithmen übereinstimmen, die zur Vermeidung von diskri- minierenden Rankings Anwendung finden. Zweitens ist es notwendig, ethische Wertesysteme in Mathematik und Algorithmen zu übersetzen, um sämtliche moralis- chen Ziele bedienen zu können. Drittens sollten diese Methoden einem breiten Publikum zugänglich sein, das sowohl Programmierer:innen, als auch Jurist:innen und Politiker:innen umfasst. / Artificial intelligence and adaptive systems, that learn patterns from past behavior and historic data, play an increasing role in our day-to-day lives. We are surrounded by a vast amount of algorithmic decision aids, and more and more by algorithmic decision making systems, too. As a subcategory, ranked search results have become the main mechanism, by which we find content, products, places, and people online. Thus their ordering contributes not only to the satisfaction of the searcher, but also to career and business opportunities, educational placement, and even social success of those being ranked. Therefore researchers have become increasingly concerned with systematic biases and discrimination in data-driven ranking models. To address the problem of discrimination and fairness in the context of rank- ings, three main problems have to be solved: First, we have to understand the philosophical properties of different ranking situations and all important fairness definitions to be able to decide which method would be the most appropriate for a given context. Second, we have to make sure that, for any fairness requirement in a ranking context, a formal definition that meets such requirements exists. More concretely, if a ranking context, for example, requires group fairness to be met, we need an actual definition for group fairness in rankings in the first place. Third, the methods together with their underlying fairness concepts and properties need to be available to a wide range of audiences, from programmers, to policy makers and politicians.