IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v47y2013i6p3335-3347.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

GMADM-based attributes selection method in developing prediction model

Author

Listed:
  • Sue-Fen Huang
  • Ching-Hsue Cheng

Abstract

Attribute Selection is an important issue for developing a prediction model, however, how to determine an effective attribute selection algorithm is an important but difficult issue. Attribute selection can effectively delete the irrelevant and redundant attributes to increase the prediction accuracy, and evaluating attribute selection methods usually need to consider several criteria such as accuracy, type I error, and type II error. In this paper, the selected attribute process is modeled as a group multiple attributes decision making (GMADM) problem. In evaluating different GMACD methods, the most results usually are consistently, But there are some situations where the evaluated outcomes have different results. The GMADM method is useful tool for evaluating attribute selection algorithms, and the TOPSIS is capable of identifying a compromised solution when different GMADM method result in conflicting rankings. Therefore, this paper proposes an objective (persuasive) GMADM-based attributes selection method to solve this disagreement and help decision makers pick the most suitable method. After verification, the proposed model is more persuasive to evaluate the attributes selection methods for developing prediction model. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Sue-Fen Huang & Ching-Hsue Cheng, 2013. "GMADM-based attributes selection method in developing prediction model," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(6), pages 3335-3347, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:47:y:2013:i:6:p:3335-3347
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-012-9722-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11135-012-9722-3
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-012-9722-3?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. Schneeweiss, H. & Mathes, H., 1995. "Factor Analysis and Principal Components," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 105-124, October.
    2. Charnes, A. & Cooper, W. W. & Rhodes, E., 1978. "Measuring the efficiency of decision making units," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 2(6), pages 429-444, November.
    3. Peng, Yi & Kou, Gang & Wang, Guoxun & Shi, Yong, 2011. "FAMCDM: A fusion approach of MCDM methods to rank multiclass classification algorithms," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 677-689, December.
    4. Menjoge, Rajiv S. & Welsch, Roy E., 2010. "A diagnostic method for simultaneous feature selection and outlier identification in linear regression," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 54(12), pages 3181-3193, December.
    5. Giles, David E. A. & Srivastava, Virendra K., 1993. "The exact distribution of a least squares regression coefficient estimator after a preliminary t-test," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 59-64, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Franz R. Hahn, 2007. "Determinants of Bank Efficiency in Europe. Assessing Bank Performance Across Markets," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 31499, January-A.
    2. repec:lan:wpaper:1115 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Azarnoosh Kafi & Behrouz Daneshian & Mohsen Rostamy-Malkhalifeh, 2021. "Forecasting the confidence interval of efficiency in fuzzy DEA," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 31(1), pages 41-59.
    4. Costa, Marcelo Azevedo & Lopes, Ana Lúcia Miranda & de Pinho Matos, Giordano Bruno Braz, 2015. "Statistical evaluation of Data Envelopment Analysis versus COLS Cobb–Douglas benchmarking models for the 2011 Brazilian tariff revision," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 47-60.
    5. Kristiaan Kerstens & Ignace Van de Woestyne, 2018. "Enumeration algorithms for FDH directional distance functions under different returns to scale assumptions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 271(2), pages 1067-1078, December.
    6. Yi Peng, 2015. "Regional earthquake vulnerability assessment using a combination of MCDM methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 234(1), pages 95-110, November.
    7. Ahmad, Usman, 2011. "Financial Reforms and Banking Efficiency: Case of Pakistan," MPRA Paper 34220, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Bowlin, W. F., 1995. "A characterization of the financial condition of the United States' aerospace-defense industrial base," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 539-555, October.
    9. Büschken, Joachim, 2009. "When does data envelopment analysis outperform a naïve efficiency measurement model?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 192(2), pages 647-657, January.
    10. Helmi Hammami & Thanh Ngo & David Tripe & Dinh-Tri Vo, 2022. "Ranking with a Euclidean common set of weights in data envelopment analysis: with application to the Eurozone banking sector," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 311(2), pages 675-694, April.
    11. Khanal, Aditya & Koirala, Krishna & Regmi, Madhav, 2016. "Do Financial Constraints Affect Production Efficiency in Drought Prone Areas? A Case from Indonesian Rice Growers," 2016 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2016, San Antonio, Texas 230087, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    12. Jahangoshai Rezaee, Mustafa & Jozmaleki, Mehrdad & Valipour, Mahsa, 2018. "Integrating dynamic fuzzy C-means, data envelopment analysis and artificial neural network to online prediction performance of companies in stock exchange," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 489(C), pages 78-93.
    13. Vuciterna, Rina & Thomsen, Michael & Popp, Jennie & Musliu, Arben, 2017. "Efficiency and Competitiveness of Kosovo Raspberry Producers," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252770, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    14. Bogetoft, Peter & Nielsen, Kurt, 2003. "Yardstick Based Procurement Design In Natural Resource Management," 2003 Annual Meeting, August 16-22, 2003, Durban, South Africa 25910, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Singer, Marcos & Donoso, Patricio & Poblete, Francisco, 2002. "Semi-autonomous planning using linear programming in the Chilean General Treasury," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(2), pages 517-529, July.
    16. Chai, Naijie & Zhou, Wenliang & Hu, Xinlei, 2022. "Safety evaluation of urban rail transit operation considering uncertainty and risk preference: A case study in China," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 267-288.
    17. Fang, Lei, 2022. "Measuring and decomposing group performance under centralized management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(3), pages 1006-1013.
    18. Chih-HAI YANG & Leah WU & Hui-Lin LIN, 2010. "Analysis of total-factor cultivated land efficiency in China's agriculture," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 56(5), pages 231-242.
    19. Jinyi Hu, 2023. "Linguistic Multiple-Attribute Decision Making Based on Regret Theory and Minimax-DEA," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-14, October.
    20. António Afonso & José Alves, 2023. "Are fiscal consolidation episodes helpful for public sector efficiency?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(31), pages 3547-3560, July.
    21. Chen, Yufeng & Ni, Liangfu & Liu, Kelong, 2021. "Does China's new energy vehicle industry innovate efficiently? A three-stage dynamic network slacks-based measure approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).

    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:spr:qualqt:v:47:y:2013:i:6:p:3335-3347. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.