Advertisement

Rank Reversal as a Source of Uncertainty and Manipulation in the PROMETHEE II Ranking: A First Investigation

  • Julien Roland
  • Yves De Smet
  • Céline Verly
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 300)

Abstract

PROMETHEE II is an aggregating procedure based on pairwise comparisons for ranking alternatives evaluated on multiple criteria. As other outranking methods, PROMETHEE II does not satisfy the assumption of independence to third alternatives. In other words, the ranks of two given alternatives may be influenced by the presence of a third one. This phenomenon, also called rank reversal, can be viewed as a source of uncertainty on the final ranking. Additionally, it raises the natural question of possible rank manipulations by adding ”well-chosen” alternatives. This problem is studied in the context of a simplified version of the PROMETHEE II method also known as the Copland score. A linear program is proposed to test whether there is a way to rank a given alternative at the first position by adding artificial ones. Simulations are used to quantify the likelihood of this possibility and to test if it can be avoided.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Barzilai, J., Golany, B.: AHP rank reversal, normalization and aggregation rules. INFOR 32, 57–63 (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belton, V., Gear, T.: On a Short-comming of Saaty’s method of Analytic Hierarchies. Omega 11, 228–230 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brans, J.P., Mareschal, B.: PROMETHEE Methods. In: Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M. (eds.) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, pp. 163–196. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Copeland, A.: A “reasonable” social welfare function. Mimeographed notes from a Seminar on Applications of Mathematics to the Scoial Sciences. University of Michigan (1951)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Keyser, W., Peeters, P.: A note on the use of PROMETHHE multicriteria methods. European Journal of Operational Research 89, 457–461 (1996)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harker, P.T., Vargas, L.G.: The theory of ratio scale estimation: Saaty’s analytic hierarchy process. Management Science 33, 1383–1403 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mareschal, B., De Smet, Y., Nemery, P.: Rank reversal in the PROMETHEE II method: Some new results. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 2008 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, pp. 959–963 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G.: The legitimacy of rank reversal. Omega 12, 513–516 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Saaty, T.L.: Decision making, new information, ranking and structure. Mathematical Modelling 8, 125–132 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Triantaphyllou, E.: Two New Cases of Rank Reversal when the AHP and Some of its Additive Variants are Used that do not Occur with the Multiplicative AHP. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 10, 11–25 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vincke, P.: L’aide Multicritère à la décision. Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles-Ellipses (1989)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wang, Y.-M., Elhag, T.M.S.: An approach to avoiding rank reversal in AHP. Decision Support Systems 42, 1474–1480 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang, X., Triantaphyllou, E.: Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods. Omega 36, 45–63 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julien Roland
    • 1
  • Yves De Smet
    • 1
  • Céline Verly
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer & Decision Engineering (CoDE) DepartmentEcole Polytechnique de Bruxelles, Université Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations