加性多属性决策分析中基于秩的代理权重的实证比较

IF 2.5 4区 管理学 Q3 MANAGEMENT Decision Analysis Pub Date : 2022-06-17 DOI:10.1287/deca.2022.0456
R. C. Burk, Richard M. Nehring
{"title":"加性多属性决策分析中基于秩的代理权重的实证比较","authors":"R. C. Burk, Richard M. Nehring","doi":"10.1287/deca.2022.0456","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many methods for creating surrogate swing weights based only on the rank order of the attributes are proposed to avoid the cost and effort of eliciting weights in multiattribute decision analysis. We explore empirically how well eight different methods perform based on a large sample of real-world elicited weights. We use the Euclidean distance from the elicited weights to judge the quality of the surrogate weights as well as three other metrics. The sum reciprocal method gives results, on average, statistically closest to the elicited weights for all metrics used. The equal ratio method using a fixed ratio of 0.716 performs just as well on three of the metrics. The rank sum method, the simplest and one of the oldest methods, performs generally next best. The rank order centroid method, which does well in simulation studies, performs relatively poorly in this evaluation using real-world data.","PeriodicalId":46460,"journal":{"name":"Decision Analysis","volume":"85 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Empirical Comparison of Rank-Based Surrogate Weights in Additive Multiattribute Decision Analysis\",\"authors\":\"R. C. Burk, Richard M. Nehring\",\"doi\":\"10.1287/deca.2022.0456\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Many methods for creating surrogate swing weights based only on the rank order of the attributes are proposed to avoid the cost and effort of eliciting weights in multiattribute decision analysis. We explore empirically how well eight different methods perform based on a large sample of real-world elicited weights. We use the Euclidean distance from the elicited weights to judge the quality of the surrogate weights as well as three other metrics. The sum reciprocal method gives results, on average, statistically closest to the elicited weights for all metrics used. The equal ratio method using a fixed ratio of 0.716 performs just as well on three of the metrics. The rank sum method, the simplest and one of the oldest methods, performs generally next best. The rank order centroid method, which does well in simulation studies, performs relatively poorly in this evaluation using real-world data.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46460,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Decision Analysis\",\"volume\":\"85 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Decision Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.2022.0456\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Decision Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.2022.0456","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

为了避免在多属性决策分析中产生权重的成本和工作量,提出了许多仅基于属性的等级顺序来创建代理摆动权值的方法。我们从经验上探讨了八种不同的方法基于现实世界的大样本得出的权重的表现。我们使用欧几里得距离从引出的权重来判断代理权重的质量以及其他三个指标。平均而言,和倒数法给出的结果在统计上最接近所使用的所有指标的所得权重。使用固定比率0.716的等比率方法在三个指标上的表现也一样好。秩和方法是最简单的方法之一,也是最古老的方法之一,它的性能通常是次优的。秩序质心方法在模拟研究中表现良好,但在使用实际数据进行评估时表现相对较差。
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
An Empirical Comparison of Rank-Based Surrogate Weights in Additive Multiattribute Decision Analysis
Many methods for creating surrogate swing weights based only on the rank order of the attributes are proposed to avoid the cost and effort of eliciting weights in multiattribute decision analysis. We explore empirically how well eight different methods perform based on a large sample of real-world elicited weights. We use the Euclidean distance from the elicited weights to judge the quality of the surrogate weights as well as three other metrics. The sum reciprocal method gives results, on average, statistically closest to the elicited weights for all metrics used. The equal ratio method using a fixed ratio of 0.716 performs just as well on three of the metrics. The rank sum method, the simplest and one of the oldest methods, performs generally next best. The rank order centroid method, which does well in simulation studies, performs relatively poorly in this evaluation using real-world data.
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
Decision Analysis
Decision Analysis MANAGEMENT-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
21.10%
发文量
19
期刊最新文献
Measuring and Mitigating the Risk of Advanced Cyberattackers On the Value of Information Across Decision Problems From the Editor: 2023 Clemen–Kleinmuntz Decision Analysis Best Paper Award Reply to “Comment on ‘Whose Judgement? Reflections on Elicitation in Bayesian Analysis’ ” Whose Judgement? Reflections on Elicitation in Bayesian Analysis
×
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