IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v277y2019i1p391-393.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A note on using centroid weights in additive multi-criteria decision analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Kunsch, Pierre L.
  • Ishizaka, Alessio

Abstract

In this short communication, the authors challenge the comparison experiments made by several authors regarding the performances of surrogate weights frequently used in additive multicriteria decision analysis. Statistical tests compare the rankings obtained, either with random ‘true weights’ from a given weight simplex, or with the considered surrogate techniques. It is shown that the performance ranking of the surrogate techniques entirely depends on the way the weight simplex is defined. As an example, the rank-order-centroid weights, often found in this way to be the most performant ones, are only first-ranked when a point-allocation elicitation approach is adopted.

Suggested Citation

  • Kunsch, Pierre L. & Ishizaka, Alessio, 2019. "A note on using centroid weights in additive multi-criteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(1), pages 391-393.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:277:y:2019:i:1:p:391-393
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2019.02.021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221719301493
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.02.021?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pierre L. Kunsch & Jean-Pierre Brans, 2019. "Visualising multi-criteria weight elicitation by multiple stakeholders in complex decision systems," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 955-971, December.
    2. Kunsch, Pierre L. & Ishizaka, Alessio, 2018. "Multiple-criteria performance ranking based on profile distributions: An application to university research evaluations," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 48-64.
    3. Butler, John & Jia, Jianmin & Dyer, James, 1997. "Simulation techniques for the sensitivity analysis of multi-criteria decision models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 103(3), pages 531-546, December.
    4. F. Hutton Barron & Bruce E. Barrett, 1996. "Decision Quality Using Ranked Attribute Weights," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(11), pages 1515-1523, November.
    5. J. P. Brans & Ph. Vincke, 1985. "Note---A Preference Ranking Organisation Method," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 647-656, June.
    6. Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg, 2017. "A Robustness Study of State-of-the-Art Surrogate Weights for MCDM," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 677-691, July.
    7. de Almeida Filho, Adiel T. & Clemente, Thárcylla R.N. & Morais, Danielle Costa & de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira, 2018. "Preference modeling experiments with surrogate weighting procedures for the PROMETHEE method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 453-461.
    8. Ahn, Byeong Seok, 2017. "Approximate weighting method for multiattribute decision problems with imprecise parameters," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 87-95.
    9. Ahn, Byeong Seok, 2011. "Compatible weighting method with rank order centroid: Maximum entropy ordered weighted averaging approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 212(3), pages 552-559, August.
    10. Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg, 2016. "The CAR Method for Using Preference Strength in Multi-criteria Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 775-797, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Milad Zamanifar & Timo Hartmann, 2021. "A prescriptive framework for recommending decision attributes of infrastructure disaster recovery problems," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 633-650, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. de Almeida Filho, Adiel T. & Clemente, Thárcylla R.N. & Morais, Danielle Costa & de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira, 2018. "Preference modeling experiments with surrogate weighting procedures for the PROMETHEE method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 453-461.
    2. Pierre L. Kunsch & Jean-Pierre Brans, 2019. "Visualising multi-criteria weight elicitation by multiple stakeholders in complex decision systems," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 955-971, December.
    3. Mehmet Ali Dereli & Emre Tercan, 2021. "Comparison of GIS-based surrogate weighting methods for multi-directional landfill site selection in West Mediterranean Planning Region in Turkey," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 3438-3457, March.
    4. Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg, 2016. "The CAR Method for Using Preference Strength in Multi-criteria Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 775-797, July.
    5. Stephen P. Chambal & Jeffery D. Weir & Yucel R. Kahraman & Alex J. Gutman, 2011. "A Practical Procedure for Customizable One-Way Sensitivity Analysis in Additive Value Models," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 303-321, December.
    6. Roger Chapman Burk & Richard M. Nehring, 2023. "An Empirical Comparison of Rank-Based Surrogate Weights in Additive Multiattribute Decision Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 55-72, March.
    7. Luis V. Montiel & J. Eric Bickel, 2014. "A Generalized Sampling Approach for Multilinear Utility Functions Given Partial Preference Information," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 11(3), pages 147-170, September.
    8. Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2012. "A comparison of simplified value function approaches for treating uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 456-464.
    9. Manel Baucells & Juan A. Carrasco & Robin M. Hogarth, 2008. "Cumulative Dominance and Heuristic Performance in Binary Multiattribute Choice," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 1289-1304, October.
    10. Hsu-Shih Shih, 2016. "A Mixed-Data Evaluation in Group TOPSIS with Differentiated Decision Power," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 537-565, May.
    11. Ali Abbas, 2004. "Maximum Entropy Utility," Game Theory and Information 0403002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Lahdelma, Risto & Makkonen, Simo & Salminen, Pekka, 2009. "Two ways to handle dependent uncertainties in multi-criteria decision problems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 79-92, February.
    13. Donald Ukpanyang & Julio Terrados-Cepeda & Manuel Jesus Hermoso-Orzaez, 2022. "Multi-Criteria Selection of Waste-to-Energy Technologies for Slum/Informal Settlements Using the PROMETHEE Technique: A Case Study of the Greater Karu Urban Area in Nigeria," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-26, May.
    14. Ewa Roszkowska, 2020. "The extention rank ordering criteria weighting methods in fuzzy enviroment," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 30(2), pages 91-114.
    15. Hesham K. Alfares & Salih O. Duffuaa, 2016. "Simulation-Based Evaluation of Criteria Rank-Weighting Methods in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(01), pages 43-61, January.
    16. Jessop, Alan, 2014. "IMP: A decision aid for multiattribute evaluation using imprecise weight estimates," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 18-29.
    17. Amin Mahmoudi & Saad Ahmed Javed, 2023. "Uncertainty Analysis in Group Decisions through Interval Ordinal Priority Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 807-833, August.
    18. Nadejda Komendantova & Leena Marashdeh & Love Ekenberg & Mats Danielson & Franziska Dettner & Simon Hilpert & Clemens Wingenbach & Kholoud Hassouneh & Ahmed Al-Salaymeh, 2020. "Water–Energy Nexus: Addressing Stakeholder Preferences in Jordan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-16, July.
    19. Ali E. Abbas, 2006. "Maximum Entropy Utility," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 54(2), pages 277-290, April.
    20. Luigi Fabbris & Manuela Scioni, 2021. "Pooling Rankings to Obtain a Set of Scores for a Composite Indicator of Erasmus + Mobility Effects," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 156(2), pages 481-497, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:277:y:2019:i:1:p:391-393. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.