A simulation study on the probabilities of rank reversal, tie making, and tie breaking for multiple criteria decision making methods

IF 6.7 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT
Lisheng Jiang , Huchang Liao , Bernard De Baets
{"title":"A simulation study on the probabilities of rank reversal, tie making, and tie breaking for multiple criteria decision making methods","authors":"Lisheng Jiang ,&nbsp;Huchang Liao ,&nbsp;Bernard De Baets","doi":"10.1016/j.omega.2023.103033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods can be affected by preference reversal, meaning that the order of two alternatives is reversed after adding or deleting another alternative. Here, we focus on methods that produce rankings with ties (<em>i.e.</em>, weak orders). In this context, one usually talks about rank reversal. Existing rank reversal probability simulation experiments are subject to improvement on the following points: (1) the small number of MCDM methods included, (2) the unclear relation between the rank reversal probability and the rank of the deleted alternative, and (3) the lack of consideration of ties. In this paper, considering both strict preferences and ties, we distinguish two new phenomena: tie breaking, <em>i.e.</em>, the shift from a tie to a strict preference, and tie making, <em>i.e.</em>, the shift from a strict preference to a tie. To investigate the probabilities of rank reversal, tie making, and tie breaking, a simulation study involving thirty versions of twelve MCDM methods and six simulation factors is set up. Results demonstrate that for MCDM methods using pairwise comparison data, deleting an alternative ranked first or last leads to smaller probabilities than deleting an alternative in the middle, while the opposite holds for the methods using evaluation data under criteria. Four findings and three suggestions are given to help decision makers select MCDM methods to use.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":19529,"journal":{"name":"Omega-international Journal of Management Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Omega-international Journal of Management Science","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305048323001974","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods can be affected by preference reversal, meaning that the order of two alternatives is reversed after adding or deleting another alternative. Here, we focus on methods that produce rankings with ties (i.e., weak orders). In this context, one usually talks about rank reversal. Existing rank reversal probability simulation experiments are subject to improvement on the following points: (1) the small number of MCDM methods included, (2) the unclear relation between the rank reversal probability and the rank of the deleted alternative, and (3) the lack of consideration of ties. In this paper, considering both strict preferences and ties, we distinguish two new phenomena: tie breaking, i.e., the shift from a tie to a strict preference, and tie making, i.e., the shift from a strict preference to a tie. To investigate the probabilities of rank reversal, tie making, and tie breaking, a simulation study involving thirty versions of twelve MCDM methods and six simulation factors is set up. Results demonstrate that for MCDM methods using pairwise comparison data, deleting an alternative ranked first or last leads to smaller probabilities than deleting an alternative in the middle, while the opposite holds for the methods using evaluation data under criteria. Four findings and three suggestions are given to help decision makers select MCDM methods to use.

关于多重标准决策方法中排名逆转、打成平手和打破平局概率的模拟研究
多标准决策(MCDM)方法可能会受到偏好逆转的影响,即在添加或删除另一个备选方案后,两个备选方案的顺序会发生逆转。在此,我们重点讨论产生并列排序(即弱排序)的方法。在这种情况下,人们通常会谈论排序反转。现有的排序反转概率模拟实验在以下几点有待改进:(1) 包含的 MCDM 方法数量较少;(2) 排序反转概率与被删除备选方案的排序之间的关系不明确;(3) 缺乏对并列关系的考虑。在本文中,考虑到严格偏好和并列,我们区分了两种新现象:并列打破,即从并列转变为严格偏好;并列形成,即从严格偏好转变为并列。为了研究排名逆转、打成平手和打破平局的概率,我们设置了一个模拟研究,涉及 12 种 MCDM 方法的 30 个版本和 6 个模拟因素。结果表明,对于使用成对比较数据的 MCDM 方法,删除排名第一或最后的备选方案的概率小于删除排名中间的备选方案的概率,而使用标准下评价数据的方法则相反。本文给出了四项结论和三项建议,以帮助决策者选择要使用的 MCDM 方法。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Omega-international Journal of Management Science
Omega-international Journal of Management Science 管理科学-运筹学与管理科学
CiteScore
13.80
自引率
11.60%
发文量
130
审稿时长
56 days
期刊介绍: Omega reports on developments in management, including the latest research results and applications. Original contributions and review articles describe the state of the art in specific fields or functions of management, while there are shorter critical assessments of particular management techniques. Other features of the journal are the "Memoranda" section for short communications and "Feedback", a correspondence column. Omega is both stimulating reading and an important source for practising managers, specialists in management services, operational research workers and management scientists, management consultants, academics, students and research personnel throughout the world. The material published is of high quality and relevance, written in a manner which makes it accessible to all of this wide-ranging readership. Preference will be given to papers with implications to the practice of management. Submissions of purely theoretical papers are discouraged. The review of material for publication in the journal reflects this aim.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信