{"title":"A simulation study on the probabilities of rank reversal, tie making, and tie breaking for multiple criteria decision making methods","authors":"Lisheng Jiang , Huchang Liao , 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.
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.