IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2606.07253.html

TOPSIS-RAD: Ranking According to Desires

Author

Listed:
  • Leonardo Fernandes Costa
  • Helder Gomes Costa
  • Diogo Lima
  • Brunno Rodrigues

Abstract

Traditional TOPSIS derives its reference points -- the Positive Ideal Solution ($PIS$) and Negative Ideal Solution ($NIS$) -- from the observed alternative set, making rankings susceptible to misalignment with decision-maker (DM) requirements, sensitivity to outlier performances, and rank reversal. This paper proposes TOPSIS-RAD, which addresses these issues by incorporating two arrays of DM-defined reference levels. Vetoed Performance Levels ($VPL$) exclude non-viable alternatives before normalisation, preventing them from distorting the ranking frontiers. Desired Performance Levels ($DPL$) cap performances at the DM's desired level before normalisation, anchoring the $PIS$ in explicit aspirations rather than dataset extremes. Three toy examples demonstrate each mechanism: $VPL$ reshapes normalisation boundaries by removing a non-viable alternative; fixed $DPL$ frontiers stabilise rankings by limiting the influence of performances well above the desired level. The method preserves the familiar distance-based structure of TOPSIS while grounding the ranking in stable, DM-specified boundaries. Limitations and future research directions are also discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Leonardo Fernandes Costa & Helder Gomes Costa & Diogo Lima & Brunno Rodrigues, 2026. "TOPSIS-RAD: Ranking According to Desires," Papers 2606.07253, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2606.07253
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.07253
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jiancheng Tu & Zhibin Wu, 2025. "Analytic hierarchy process rank reversals: causes and solutions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 346(2), pages 1785-1809, March.
    2. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    3. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    4. F. Hutton Barron & Bruce E. Barrett, 1996. "Decision Quality Using Ranked Attribute Weights," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(11), pages 1515-1523, November.
    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. Juuso Pajasmaa & Kaisa Miettinen & Johanna Silvennoinen, 2025. "Group Decision Making in Multiobjective Optimization: A Systematic Literature Review," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 329-371, April.
    2. Kik, M.C. & Claassen, G.D.H. & Meuwissen, M.P.M. & Smit, A.B. & Saatkamp, H.W., 2021. "Actor analysis for sustainable soil management – A case study from the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    3. Zheng Yuan & Baohua Wen & Cheng He & Jin Zhou & Zhonghua Zhou & Feng Xu, 2022. "Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Analysis to Rural Spatial Sustainability Evaluation: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-31, May.
    4. Wendi Chen & Jiaxing Gu & Shouzhen Zeng & Xiaoying Xie, 2023. "Solid Waste Landfill Site Assessment Framework Based on Single-Valued Neutrosophic Hybrid Aggregation and Multi-Criteria Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-21, March.
    5. Amelia Bilbao-Terol & Mar Arenas-Parra & Raquel Quiroga-García & Celia Bilbao-Terol, 2022. "An extended best–worst multiple reference point method: application in the assessment of non-life insurance companies," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 5323-5362, November.
    6. Madjid Tavana & Mehdi Soltanifar & Francisco J. Santos-Arteaga, 2023. "Analytical hierarchy process: revolution and evolution," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 879-907, July.
    7. B. Ahn & S. Choi, 2012. "Aggregation of ordinal data using ordered weighted averaging operator weights," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 201(1), pages 1-16, December.
    8. 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.
    9. K. Koppiahraj & S. Bathrinath & V. G. Venkatesh & Venkatesh Mani & Yangyan Shi, 2023. "Optimal sustainability assessment method selection: a practitioner perspective," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 324(1), pages 629-662, May.
    10. Omid Valizadeh & Mojtaba Ghiyasi, 2023. "Assessing telecommunication contractor firms using a hybrid DEA-BWM method," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 33(4), pages 189-200.
    11. Babak Daneshvar Rouyendegh & Kazim Topuz & Ali Dag & Asil Oztekin, 2019. "An AHP-IFT Integrated Model for Performance Evaluation of E-Commerce Web Sites," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(6), pages 1345-1355, December.
    12. Ferenc Bognár & Balázs Szentes & Petra Benedek, 2022. "Development of the PRISM Risk Assessment Method Based on a Multiple AHP-TOPSIS Approach," Risks, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, November.
    13. Agata Sielska, 2015. "The impact of weights on the quality of agricultural producers' multicriteria decision models," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 25(4), pages 51-69.
    14. Jiménez, Antonio & Mateos, Alfonso & Sabio, Pilar, 2013. "Dominance intensity measure within fuzzy weight oriented MAUT: An application," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 397-405.
    15. Szádoczki, Zsombor & Bozóki, Sándor & Tekile, Hailemariam Abebe, 2022. "Filling in pattern designs for incomplete pairwise comparison matrices: (Quasi-)regular graphs with minimal diameter," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    16. Dragiša Stanujkić & Darjan Karabašević & Gabrijela Popović & Predrag S. Stanimirović & Muzafer Saračević & Florentin Smarandache & Vasilios N. Katsikis & Alptekin Ulutaş, 2021. "A New Grey Approach for Using SWARA and PIPRECIA Methods in a Group Decision-Making Environment," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(13), pages 1-16, July.
    17. Cinelli, Marco & Kadziński, Miłosz & Miebs, Grzegorz & Gonzalez, Michael & Słowiński, Roman, 2022. "Recommending multiple criteria decision analysis methods with a new taxonomy-based decision support system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(2), pages 633-651.
    18. Kumar, Aalok & Anbanandam, Ramesh, 2022. "Assessment of environmental and social sustainability performance of the freight transportation industry: An index-based approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 43-60.
    19. 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.
    20. Ocampo, Lanndon & Aro, Joerabell Lourdes & Evangelista, Samantha Shane & Maturan, Fatima & Atibing, Nadine May & Yamagishi, Kafferine & Selerio, Egberto, 2023. "Synthesis of strategies in post-COVID-19 public sector supply chains under an intuitionistic fuzzy environment," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:arx:papers:2606.07253. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arxiv.org/ .

    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.