基于同一数据标准化方法的多准则决策方法比较

H. Dung, Duc Trung Do, V. Nguyen
{"title":"基于同一数据标准化方法的多准则决策方法比较","authors":"H. Dung, Duc Trung Do, V. Nguyen","doi":"10.2478/scjme-2022-0016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The ranking results of the alternatives are heavily influenced by the decision making method, data normalization method, and calculation method for criterion weights. In this study, five multi-criteria decision-making methods were compared: MABAC, COCOSO, MAIRCA, VIKOR, and ROV. All of these methods use the same data normarmalization method. The weights for the criteria were determined using four methods: Equal, ROC, RS, and Entropy. In two different examples, the combination of multi-criteria decision-making methods with weighting methods for ranking alternatives is demonstrated. In each example, the number of options and the number of criteria are also different. The results in both examples show that regardless of the weighting method, multi-criteria decision-making methods always determine the same best solution. Furthermore, the direction of future research has been mentioned in the final section of this paper.","PeriodicalId":445896,"journal":{"name":"Strojnícky časopis - Journal of Mechanical Engineering","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods Using The Same Data Standardization Method\",\"authors\":\"H. Dung, Duc Trung Do, V. Nguyen\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/scjme-2022-0016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The ranking results of the alternatives are heavily influenced by the decision making method, data normalization method, and calculation method for criterion weights. In this study, five multi-criteria decision-making methods were compared: MABAC, COCOSO, MAIRCA, VIKOR, and ROV. All of these methods use the same data normarmalization method. The weights for the criteria were determined using four methods: Equal, ROC, RS, and Entropy. In two different examples, the combination of multi-criteria decision-making methods with weighting methods for ranking alternatives is demonstrated. In each example, the number of options and the number of criteria are also different. The results in both examples show that regardless of the weighting method, multi-criteria decision-making methods always determine the same best solution. Furthermore, the direction of future research has been mentioned in the final section of this paper.\",\"PeriodicalId\":445896,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Strojnícky časopis - Journal of Mechanical Engineering\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Strojnícky časopis - Journal of Mechanical Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/scjme-2022-0016\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Strojnícky časopis - Journal of Mechanical Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/scjme-2022-0016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

摘要选择方案的排序结果受决策方法、数据归一化方法和指标权重计算方法的影响较大。在本研究中,比较了五种多准则决策方法:MABAC、COCOSO、MAIRCA、VIKOR和ROV。所有这些方法都使用相同的数据规范化方法。采用四种方法确定标准的权重:Equal、ROC、RS和Entropy。在两个不同的例子中,演示了多准则决策方法与加权方法的组合,以对备选方案进行排序。在每个示例中,选项的数量和条件的数量也不同。两个算例的结果表明,无论采用何种加权方法,多准则决策方法总是确定相同的最优解。最后,本文提出了今后的研究方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods Using The Same Data Standardization Method
Abstract The ranking results of the alternatives are heavily influenced by the decision making method, data normalization method, and calculation method for criterion weights. In this study, five multi-criteria decision-making methods were compared: MABAC, COCOSO, MAIRCA, VIKOR, and ROV. All of these methods use the same data normarmalization method. The weights for the criteria were determined using four methods: Equal, ROC, RS, and Entropy. In two different examples, the combination of multi-criteria decision-making methods with weighting methods for ranking alternatives is demonstrated. In each example, the number of options and the number of criteria are also different. The results in both examples show that regardless of the weighting method, multi-criteria decision-making methods always determine the same best solution. Furthermore, the direction of future research has been mentioned in the final section of this paper.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Scientific Basis for the Substantiation of Process Regulations for the Micro-Cutting of Hardened Gears Meshing Characteristics of Profile Shifted Cylindrical Quasi-Involute Arc-Tooth-Trace Gears. Part 2. Calculation Results Process Parameters and Conditions of Intensified Composting of Kitchen Biowaste Simulation of Energy Conversion Processes in Linear Electromagnetic Motors with Through Axial Channel Effect of Thermal Barriers on the Martensitic Transformation in a Bar Jominy
×
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