Promethee γ: A new Promethee based method for partial ranking based on valued coalitions of monocriterion net flow scores

IF 1.9 Q3 MANAGEMENT Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Pub Date : 2023-03-07 DOI:10.1002/mcda.1805
Gilles Dejaegere, Yves De Smet
{"title":"Promethee γ: A new Promethee based method for partial ranking based on valued coalitions of monocriterion net flow scores","authors":"Gilles Dejaegere,&nbsp;Yves De Smet","doi":"10.1002/mcda.1805","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Multicriteria decision aid consists of helping decision makers to compare (rank, choose, sort, etc.) different alternatives which are evaluated on conflicting criteria. In the last decades, numerous decision aid methods have been developed. Three main categories of decision aid methods are usually considered: the aggregating, interactive and outranking methods. While aggregation methods produce a complete ranking of the set of alternatives, outranking methods usually allow some pairs of alternatives to remain incomparable. This happens either if the two alternatives present some strong conflicting information or if there are not enough elements in the decision problem to state the preference or indifference between them. A well-known family of outranking procedures are the <span>Promethee</span> methods. The aim of this work is first to provide an analysis of the incomparability relation produced by <span>Promethee I</span>. From our point of view, some shortcomings of this incomparability relation are presented. Then, a new method based on the comparison of weighted coalitions of mono-criterion net flow score differences, called <span>Promethee</span> <math>\n <mrow>\n <mi>γ</mi>\n </mrow></math>, is proposed. <span>Promethee</span> <math>\n <mrow>\n <mi>γ</mi>\n </mrow></math> and <span>Promethee i</span> are then further compared.</p>","PeriodicalId":45876,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis","volume":"30 3-4","pages":"147-160"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-07","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.1805","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

Multicriteria decision aid consists of helping decision makers to compare (rank, choose, sort, etc.) different alternatives which are evaluated on conflicting criteria. In the last decades, numerous decision aid methods have been developed. Three main categories of decision aid methods are usually considered: the aggregating, interactive and outranking methods. While aggregation methods produce a complete ranking of the set of alternatives, outranking methods usually allow some pairs of alternatives to remain incomparable. This happens either if the two alternatives present some strong conflicting information or if there are not enough elements in the decision problem to state the preference or indifference between them. A well-known family of outranking procedures are the Promethee methods. The aim of this work is first to provide an analysis of the incomparability relation produced by Promethee I. From our point of view, some shortcomings of this incomparability relation are presented. Then, a new method based on the comparison of weighted coalitions of mono-criterion net flow score differences, called Promethee γ , is proposed. Promethee γ and Promethee i are then further compared.

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
Promethee γ:一种新的基于Promethee的基于单准则净流量得分的有值联盟的部分排序方法
多标准决策辅助包括帮助决策者比较(排名,选择,排序等)不同的备选方案,这些备选方案是根据相互冲突的标准进行评估的。在过去的几十年里,已经开发了许多辅助决策的方法。通常考虑的决策辅助方法主要有三类:聚合法、交互法和超排序法。虽然聚合方法对备选方案集进行了完整的排序,但排序方法通常允许一些备选方案对保持不可比较。如果两个备选方案提供了一些强烈的冲突信息,或者决策问题中没有足够的元素来说明它们之间的偏好或冷漠,就会发生这种情况。普罗米修斯方法是一个著名的高级程序家族。本文的目的首先是对普罗米修斯一号提出的不可比较关系进行分析。从我们的观点来看,这种不可比较关系存在一些缺陷。然后,提出了一种基于单标准净流量评分差异加权联合比较的新方法Promethee γ。然后进一步比较普罗米修斯γ和普罗米修斯i。
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
A Multi-Objective Optimization for Determination of Sustainable Crop Pattern Using Game Theory A Multi-Criteria Decision Support Tool for Shared Decision Making in Clinical Consultation Issue Information A Bibliometric Exploration of Multiple Criteria Decision Aid and Clustering—A Conceptual Taxonomy Monitoring Sustainable Development Goals: Stepwise Benchmarking Approach
×
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