Refining the PROMETHEE-scoring method: Propositions and an economic freedom assessment

IF 1.9 Q3 MANAGEMENT Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Pub Date : 2024-07-10 DOI:10.1002/mcda.1835
Igor Danilo Costa Matos, Helder Gomes Costa, Marcos Roboredo, Diogo Lima
{"title":"Refining the PROMETHEE-scoring method: Propositions and an economic freedom assessment","authors":"Igor Danilo Costa Matos,&nbsp;Helder Gomes Costa,&nbsp;Marcos Roboredo,&nbsp;Diogo Lima","doi":"10.1002/mcda.1835","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The recent PROMETHEE-Scoring approach offers a method for generating cardinal scores through an outranking procedure utilizing Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability and <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mi>σ</mi>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$$ \\sigma $$</annotation>\n </semantics></math>–<span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mi>μ</mi>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$$ \\mu $$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> analysis. In this paper, we illustrate some undesirable effects of this method and explore possible approaches to address them. First, we modify the original LP by inserting a new constraint that limits negative impacts caused by alternatives with low flow mean and standard deviation. Also, clustering is used to identify outliers in the decision matrix that may induce undesirable effects. A toy example demonstrates the issues and explores the proposed implementations. In addition, a numerical application is presented where a set of countries is ordered based on criteria from an economic freedom assessment. Both the numerical application and the toy example show that the propositions can improve the consistency of the results and prevent inconsistent outputs. The results include comparisons between the rank of alternatives when using purely the PROMETHEE-Scoring method, the proposed improvements, and the expected results from SMAA-PROMETHEE.</p>","PeriodicalId":45876,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mcda.1835","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The recent PROMETHEE-Scoring approach offers a method for generating cardinal scores through an outranking procedure utilizing Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability and σ $$ \sigma $$ μ $$ \mu $$ analysis. In this paper, we illustrate some undesirable effects of this method and explore possible approaches to address them. First, we modify the original LP by inserting a new constraint that limits negative impacts caused by alternatives with low flow mean and standard deviation. Also, clustering is used to identify outliers in the decision matrix that may induce undesirable effects. A toy example demonstrates the issues and explores the proposed implementations. In addition, a numerical application is presented where a set of countries is ordered based on criteria from an economic freedom assessment. Both the numerical application and the toy example show that the propositions can improve the consistency of the results and prevent inconsistent outputs. The results include comparisons between the rank of alternatives when using purely the PROMETHEE-Scoring method, the proposed improvements, and the expected results from SMAA-PROMETHEE.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
改进 PROMETHEE 评分方法:命题和经济自由度评估
最近的 PROMETHEE-Scoring 方法提供了一种方法,通过利用随机多标准可接受性和 σ $$ \sigma $$ - μ $$ \mu $$ 分析的排序程序来生成心智分数。在本文中,我们说明了这种方法的一些不良影响,并探讨了解决这些问题的可行方法。首先,我们修改了原始 LP,插入了一个新的约束条件,以限制流量均值和标准差较低的替代方案造成的负面影响。此外,我们还利用聚类来识别决策矩阵中可能会产生不良影响的异常值。一个玩具示例演示了这些问题,并探讨了建议的实施方法。此外,还介绍了一个数值应用,根据经济自由度评估标准对一组国家进行排序。数值应用和玩具示例都表明,这些命题可以提高结果的一致性,防止出现不一致的结果。结果包括纯粹使用 PROMETHEE 计分方法、建议的改进方法和 SMAA-PROMETHEE 的预期结果之间的比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: The Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis was launched in 1992, and from the outset has aimed to be the repository of choice for papers covering all aspects of MCDA/MCDM. The journal provides an international forum for the presentation and discussion of all aspects of research, application and evaluation of multi-criteria decision analysis, and publishes material from a variety of disciplines and all schools of thought. Papers addressing mathematical, theoretical, and behavioural aspects are welcome, as are case studies, applications and evaluation of techniques and methodologies.
期刊最新文献
Monitoring Sustainable Development Goals: Stepwise Benchmarking Approach Charting the evolutionary conceptual pathway of analytic network process research: A main path analysis Socio-economic strategy for settlement of refugees amidst crisis: The case of Pak-Afghan Refining the PROMETHEE-scoring method: Propositions and an economic freedom assessment Validation, adaptation and application of a multi-criteria decision analysis-based framework for chemotherapeutic agents in Egypt
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1