nach oben

Erschienen in:

2020 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

A New Coefficient of Rankings Similarity in Decision-Making Problems

verfasst von : Wojciech Sałabun, Karol Urbaniak

Erschienen in: Computational Science – ICCS 2020

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Multi-criteria decision-making methods are tools that facilitate and help to make better and more responsible decisions. Their main objective is usually to establish a ranking of alternatives, where the best solution is in the first place and the worst in the last place. However, using different techniques to solve the same decisional problem may result in rankings that are not the same. How can we test their similarity? For this purpose, scientists most often use different correlation measures, which unfortunately do not fully meet their objective.

In this paper, we identify the shortcomings of currently used coefficients to measure the similarity of two rankings in decision-making problems. Afterward, we present a new coefficient that is much better suited to compare the reference ranking and the tested rankings. In our proposal, positions at the top of the ranking have a more significant impact on the similarity than those further away, which is right in the decision-making domain. Finally, we show a set of numerical examples, where this new coefficient is presented as an efficient tool to compare rankings in the decision-making field.

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 "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

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 Joint Entity Linking for Web Tables with Hybrid Semantic Matching

Nächstes Kapitel Innovativeness Analysis of Scholarly Publications by Age Prediction Using Ordinal Regression

de Almeida, A.: Multicriteria modelling for a repair contract problem based on utility and the ELECTRE I method. IMA J. Manag. Math. 13(1), 29–37 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1093/imaman/13.1.29MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

de Andrade, G., Alves, L., Andrade, F., de Mello, J.: Evaluation of power plants technologies using multicriteria methodology MACBETH. IEEE Lat. Am. Trans. 14(1), 188–198 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/TLA.2016.7430079CrossRef

Ashraf, Q., Habaebi, M., Islam, M.R.: TOPSIS-based service arbitration for autonomic internet of things. IEEE Access 4, 1313–1320 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2545741CrossRef

Bandyopadhyay, S.: Ranking of suppliers with MCDA technique and probabilistic criteria. In: International Conference on Data Science and Engineering, pp. 1–5. IEEE, August 2016. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDSE.2016.7823948

Bandyopadhyay, S.: Application of fuzzy probabilistic TOPSIS on a multi-criteria decision making problem. In: Second International Conference on Electrical, Computer and Communication Technologies, pp. 1–3. IEEE, February 2017. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICECCT.2017.8118038

Blest, D.C.: Theory & methods: Rank correlation - an alternative measure. Aust. NZ. J. Stat. 42(1), 101–111 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-842X.00110MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

Brazdil, P.B., Soares, C.: A comparison of ranking methods for classification algorithm selection. In: López de Mántaras, R., Plaza, E. (eds.) ECML 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1810, pp. 63–75. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45164-1_8CrossRef

Cavalcante, V., Alexandre, C., Ferreira, R.P., de Almeida, A.T.: A preventive maintenance decision model based on multicriteria method PROMETHEE II integrated with Bayesian approach. IMA J. Manag. Math. 21(4), 333–348 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1093/imaman/dpn017MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

Ceballos, B., Lamata, M.T., Pelta, D.A.: A comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods. Prog. Artif. Intell. 5(4), 315–322 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13748-016-0093-1CrossRef

10.

Pinto da Costa, J., Soares, C.: A weighted rank measure of correlation. Aust. NZ. J. Stat. 47(4), 515–529 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-842X.2005.00413.xMathSciNetCrossRefMATH

11.

Fagin, R., Kumar, R., Sivakumar, D.: Comparing top k lists. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2003, pp. 28–36. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, USA (2003). https://doi.org/10.1137/S0895480102412856

12.

Faizi, S., Rashid, T., Sałabun, W., Zafar, S., Wątróbski, J.: Decision making with uncertainty using hesitant fuzzy sets. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 20(1), 93–103 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-017-0313-2MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

13.

Genest, C., Plante, J.F.: On blest’s measure of rank correlation. Can. J. Stat. 31(1), 35–52 (2003). https://doi.org/10.2307/3315902MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

14.

Goodman, L., Kruskal, W.: Measures of association for cross classifications. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 49(268), 732–764 (1954). https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1954.10501231CrossRefMATH

15.

Haddad, M., Sanders, D.: Selecting a best compromise direction for a powered wheelchair using PROMETHEE. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 27(2), 228–235 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2019.2892587CrossRef

16.

Hemili, M., Laouar, M.R.: Use of multi-criteria decision analysis to make collection management decisions. In: 3rd International Conference on Pattern Analysis and Intelligent Systems, pp. 1–5. IEEE, October 2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/PAIS.2018.8598495

17.

Ishizaka, A., Siraj, S.: Are multi-criteria decision-making tools useful? An experimental comparative study of three methods. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 264(2), 462–471 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.05.041MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

18.

Ivlev, I., Jablonsky, J., Kneppo, P.: Multiple-criteria comparative analysis of magnetic resonance imaging systems. Int. J. Med. Eng. Inform. 8(2), 124–141 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMEI.2016.075757CrossRef

19.

Jeremic, V.M., Radojicic, Z.: A new approach in the evaluation of team chess championships rankings. J. Quan. Anal. Sports 6(3), 1–11 (2010). https://doi.org/10.2202/1559-0410.1257CrossRef

20.

Kendall, M.G.: A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika 30(1/2), 81–93 (1938). https://doi.org/10.2307/2332226CrossRefMATH

21.

Luo, H.C., Sun, Z.X.: A study on stock ranking and selection strategy based on UTA method under the condition of inconsistence. In: 2014 International Conference on Management Science & Engineering 21th Annual Conference Proceedings, pp. 1347–1353. IEEE, August 2014. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMSE.2014.6930387

22.

de Monti, A., Toro, P.D., Droste-Franke, B., Omann, I., Stagl, S.: Assessing the quality of different MCDA methods. In: Getzner, M., Spash, C., Stagl, S. (eds.) Alternatives for Environmental Evaluation, chap. 5, pp. 115–149. Routledge (2004). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203412879

23.

Mulliner, E., Malys, N., Maliene, V.: Comparative analysis of mcdm methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability. Omega 59, 146–156 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.013CrossRef

24.

Ray, T., Triantaphyllou, E.: Evaluation of rankings with regard to the possible number of agreements and conflicts. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 106(1), 129–136 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00304-4CrossRef

25.

Sałabun, W.: The characteristic objects method: a new distance-based approach to multicriteria decision-making problems. J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 22(1–2), 37–50 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.1525CrossRef

26.

Sałabun, W., Karczmarczyk, A., Wa̧tróbski, J., Jankowski, J.: Handling data uncertainty in decision making with comet. In: IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence, pp. 1478–1484. IEEE, November 2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/SSCI.2018.8628934

27.

Sałabun, W., Piegat, A.: Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Artif. Intell. Rev. 1, 1–15 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-016-9511-9CrossRef

28.

Sari, J., Gernowo, R., Suseno, J.: Deciding endemic area of dengue fever using simple multi attribute rating technique exploiting ranks. In: 10th International Conference on Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, pp. 482–487. IEEE, July 2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICITEED.2018.8534882

29.

Shen, K., Tzeng., G.: A refined DRSA model for the financial performance prediction of commercial banks. In: International Conference on Fuzzy Theory and Its Applications, pp. 352–357. IEEE, December 2013. https://doi.org/10.1109/iFuzzy.2013.6825463

30.

Shieh, G.S.: A weighted Kendall’s tau statistic. Stat. Probab. Lett. 39(1), 17–24 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7152(98)00006-6MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

31.

Spearman, C.: The proof and measurement of association between two things. Am. J. Psychol. 15(1), 72–101 (1904). https://doi.org/10.2307/1422689CrossRef

32.

Tian, G., Zhang, H., Zhou, M., Li, Z.: AHP, gray correlation, and TOPSIS combined approach to green performance evaluation of design alternatives. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.: Syst. Part A Syst. Hum. 48(7), 1093–1105 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2016.2640179CrossRef

33.

Wa̧tróbski, J., Jankowski, J., Ziemba, P., Karczmarczyk, A., Zioło, M.: Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection. Omega, 86, 107–124 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2018.07.004

34.

Yaraghi, N., Tabesh, P., Guan, P., Zhuang, J.: Comparison of AHP and Monte Carlo AHP under different levels of uncertainty. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 62(1), 122–132 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2014.2360082CrossRef

35.

Zhang, C., Liu, X., Jin, J.G., Liu, Y.: A stochastic ANP-GCE approach for vulnerability assessment in the water supply system with uncertainties. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 63(1), 78–90 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2015.2501651CrossRef

36.

Zhang, P., Yao, H., Qiu, C., Liu, Y.: Virtual network embedding using node multiple metrics based on simplified ELECTRE method. IEEE Access 6, 37314–37327 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2847910CrossRef

Titel: A New Coefficient of Rankings Similarity in Decision-Making Problems
verfasst von: Wojciech Sałabun
Karol Urbaniak
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Computational Science – ICCS 2020
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-50416-8

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-50417-5

Copyright-Jahr: 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50417-5_47

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

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

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"