Advertisement

WITS 2020 pp 25-35 | Cite as

New Metrics to Measure the Quality of the Ranking Results Obtained by the Multi-criteria Decision-Making Methods

Conference paper
  • 14 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 745)

Abstract

Nowadays, there is a panoply of multi-criteria decision-making methods which are proposed in the literature to solve the ranking problematic, where each method has its resolution process and has its drawbacks and advantages. These methods aim to rank from best to worst a finite set of alternatives while taking into account a set of conflictual criteria. The purpose of this article is to propose specific metrics that will be useful to measure the quality of the rankings obtained by different methods. Thus, these quality measures can help the decision-maker to choose the best ranking objectively when adopting several methods. To show and prove the importance and relevance of the metrics proposed, a set of twenty-five examples of rankings will be examined. The results of the experiment conclusively show that all the proposed metrics lead to significant and equivalent quality measures.

Keywords

Multi-criteria decision making Multi-criteria aggregation procedure Pearson correlation coefficient Kendall metric Euclidian metric Hölder metric The measure of ranking quality 

References

  1. 1.
    Abounaima MC, Mazouri FZE, Lamrini L, Nfissi N, Makhfi NE, Ouzarf M (2020) The pearson correlation coefficient applied to compare multi-criteria methods: case the ranking problematic. In: 2020 1st international conference on innovative research in applied science, engineering and technology (IRASET), pp 1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1109/IRASET48871.2020.9092242
  2. 2.
    Aruldoss M, Lakshmi TM, VenkatesanVP (2013) A survey on multi criteria decision making methods and its applications. Am J Inf Syst 1(1).  https://doi.org/10.12691/ajis-1-1-5
  3. 3.
    Govindan K, Jepsen MB (2016) Electre: a comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur J Oper Res 250(1):1–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.07.019MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Roy B, Bouyssou D (1993) Aide multicritère méthodes et cas. Economica, PariszbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Kildienė S (2014) State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technol Econo Dev Econ 20(1):165–179.  https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2014.892037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    El Mazouri FZ, Abounaima MC, Zenkouar K (2019) Data mining combined to the multi-criteria decision analysis for the improvement of road safety: case of France. J Big Data 6(1):5.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-018-0165-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kumar G, Parimala N (2019) A sensitivity analysis on weight sum method MCDM approach for product recommendation. In: Distributed computing and internet technology, pp 185–193.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05366-6_15
  8. 8.
    Vivekanandan N, Viswanathan K, Gupta S (2010) Errata to: optimization of cropping pattern using goal programming approach. Opsearch 47(1):104–104.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-010-0007-0CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Behzadian M, Khanmohammadi Otaghsara S, Yazdani M, Ignatius J (2012) A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Exp Syst Appl 39(17): 13051–13069.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.056
  10. 10.
    Emovon I, Oghenenyerovwho OS (2020) Application of MCDM method in material selection for optimal design: a review. Res Mater 7:100115.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinma.2020.100115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mazouri FZE, Abounaima MC, Zenkouar K, Alaoui AEH (2018) Application of the ELECTRE III Method at the Moroccan Rural electrification program. Int J Electr Comput Eng (IJECE) 8(5):3285–3295.  https://doi.org/10.11591/ijece.v8i5.pp3285-3295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Behzadian M, Kazemzadeh RB, Albadvi A, Aghdasi M (2010) PROMETHEE: a comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur J Oper Res 200(1):198–215.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.021CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang M, Lin S-J, Lo Y-C (2010) The comparison between MAUT and PROMETHEE. In: 2010 IEEE international conference on industrial engineering and engineering management, pp 753–757.  https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEM.2010.5675608
  14. 14.
    Sánchez-Lozano JM, García-Cascales MS, Lamata MT (2016) Comparative TOPSIS-ELECTRE TRI methods for optimal sites for photovoltaic solar farms. Case study in Spain. J Clean Prod 127:387–398.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Intelligent Systems and Applications, Faculty of Sciences and TechnologiesSidi Mohammed Ben Abdellah UniversityFezMorocco
  2. 2.Faculty of Science and Technology AbdelmalekEssaadi UniversityAl HoceimaMorocco

Personalised recommendations