确定标准权重的基本统计方法

IF 2.5 4区 计算机科学 Q3 COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Üzeyir Fidan
{"title":"确定标准权重的基本统计方法","authors":"Üzeyir Fidan","doi":"10.1142/s0219622024500093","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The proliferation of technology has facilitated data accessibility, leading to an expansion in the range of criteria employed in decision problem design. This situation offers an advantage for making precise and rational decisions, but when it comes to managing spending, it becomes a disadvantage. Specifically, the expense of acquiring expert views utilized in the computation of criteria weights by subjective approaches experiences a substantial rise. Hence, decision-makers may employ objective methodologies to determine criterion weights. Nevertheless, objective methods provide a more limited range of choices compared to subjective methods. The study aims to utilize two widely recognized fundamental statistical approaches in order to enhance the capabilities of objective methods. One of the suggested approaches is the dissimilarity-based weighting method, which calculates the differentiation of values within the criteria. Another approach is the weighting method, which relies on the interquartile range. The methods were adapted as means of weighting criteria. Explanatory examples were provided, simulation-based comparisons were conducted, and ultimately applied to an actual data set. The data from each scenario were compared using the factorial analysis of variance method. The findings produced demonstrate that the proposed methods align with other objective methodologies. Furthermore, the proposed approaches were observed to take more time to finish the procedure compared to the Entropy and Standard Deviation methods, but less time compared to the Critic and Merec methods. Consequently, the suggested techniques are introduced as alternative approaches derived from established fundamental statistical procedures, which are straightforward to comprehend and valuable for professionals.</p>","PeriodicalId":50315,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Basic Statistical Methods in Determining Criteria Weights\",\"authors\":\"Üzeyir Fidan\",\"doi\":\"10.1142/s0219622024500093\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The proliferation of technology has facilitated data accessibility, leading to an expansion in the range of criteria employed in decision problem design. This situation offers an advantage for making precise and rational decisions, but when it comes to managing spending, it becomes a disadvantage. Specifically, the expense of acquiring expert views utilized in the computation of criteria weights by subjective approaches experiences a substantial rise. Hence, decision-makers may employ objective methodologies to determine criterion weights. Nevertheless, objective methods provide a more limited range of choices compared to subjective methods. The study aims to utilize two widely recognized fundamental statistical approaches in order to enhance the capabilities of objective methods. One of the suggested approaches is the dissimilarity-based weighting method, which calculates the differentiation of values within the criteria. Another approach is the weighting method, which relies on the interquartile range. The methods were adapted as means of weighting criteria. Explanatory examples were provided, simulation-based comparisons were conducted, and ultimately applied to an actual data set. The data from each scenario were compared using the factorial analysis of variance method. The findings produced demonstrate that the proposed methods align with other objective methodologies. Furthermore, the proposed approaches were observed to take more time to finish the procedure compared to the Entropy and Standard Deviation methods, but less time compared to the Critic and Merec methods. Consequently, the suggested techniques are introduced as alternative approaches derived from established fundamental statistical procedures, which are straightforward to comprehend and valuable for professionals.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50315,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219622024500093\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"计算机科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219622024500093","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

技术的普及促进了数据的获取,从而扩大了决策问题设计所采用的标准范围。这种情况为做出精确、合理的决策提供了有利条件,但在支出管理方面却成了不利因素。具体来说,主观方法在计算标准权重时所使用的专家意见的获取成本大幅上升。因此,决策者可以采用客观方法来确定标准权重。不过,与主观方法相比,客观方法提供的选择范围更为有限。本研究旨在利用两种广受认可的基本统计方法来提高客观方法的能力。建议采用的方法之一是基于差异的加权法,该方法可计算标准内的差异值。另一种方法是基于四分位数区间的加权法。对这些方法进行了调整,作为标准加权的手段。提供了解释性示例,进行了模拟比较,并最终应用于实际数据集。使用因子方差分析方法对每个方案的数据进行了比较。研究结果表明,建议的方法与其他客观方法一致。此外,与熵法和标准偏差法相比,建议的方法完成程序所需的时间更长,但与 Critic 法和 Merec 法相比,所需的时间更短。因此,建议采用的技术是从已确立的基本统计程序中衍生出来的替代方法,对专业人员来说简单易懂且极具价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Basic Statistical Methods in Determining Criteria Weights

The proliferation of technology has facilitated data accessibility, leading to an expansion in the range of criteria employed in decision problem design. This situation offers an advantage for making precise and rational decisions, but when it comes to managing spending, it becomes a disadvantage. Specifically, the expense of acquiring expert views utilized in the computation of criteria weights by subjective approaches experiences a substantial rise. Hence, decision-makers may employ objective methodologies to determine criterion weights. Nevertheless, objective methods provide a more limited range of choices compared to subjective methods. The study aims to utilize two widely recognized fundamental statistical approaches in order to enhance the capabilities of objective methods. One of the suggested approaches is the dissimilarity-based weighting method, which calculates the differentiation of values within the criteria. Another approach is the weighting method, which relies on the interquartile range. The methods were adapted as means of weighting criteria. Explanatory examples were provided, simulation-based comparisons were conducted, and ultimately applied to an actual data set. The data from each scenario were compared using the factorial analysis of variance method. The findings produced demonstrate that the proposed methods align with other objective methodologies. Furthermore, the proposed approaches were observed to take more time to finish the procedure compared to the Entropy and Standard Deviation methods, but less time compared to the Critic and Merec methods. Consequently, the suggested techniques are introduced as alternative approaches derived from established fundamental statistical procedures, which are straightforward to comprehend and valuable for professionals.

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
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making (IJITDM) provides a global forum for exchanging research findings and case studies which bridge the latest information technology and various decision-making techniques. It promotes how information technology improves decision techniques as well as how the development of decision-making tools affects the information technology era. The journal is peer-reviewed and publishes both high-quality academic (theoretical or empirical) and practical papers in the broad ranges of information technology related topics including, but not limited to the following: • Artificial Intelligence and Decision Making • Bio-informatics and Medical Decision Making • Cluster Computing and Performance • Data Mining and Web Mining • Data Warehouse and Applications • Database Performance Evaluation • Decision Making and Distributed Systems • Decision Making and Electronic Transaction and Payment • Decision Making of Internet Companies • Decision Making on Information Security • Decision Models for Electronic Commerce • Decision Models for Internet Based on Companies • Decision Support Systems • Decision Technologies in Information System Design • Digital Library Designs • Economic Decisions and Information Systems • Enterprise Computing and Evaluation • Fuzzy Logic and Internet • Group Decision Making and Software • Habitual Domain and Information Technology • Human Computer Interaction • Information Ethics and Legal Evaluations • Information Overload • Information Policy Making • Information Retrieval Systems • Information Technology and Organizational Behavior • Intelligent Agents Technologies • Intelligent and Fuzzy Information Processing • Internet Service and Training • Knowledge Representation Models • Making Decision through Internet • Multimedia and Decision Making [...]
×
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