Proceedings of the 17th Conference on Computer Science and Intelligence Systems

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15439/2022F255

Citation: Proceedings of the 17th Conference on Computer Science and Intelligence Systems, M. Ganzha, L. Maciaszek, M. Paprzycki, D. Ślęzak (eds). ACSIS, Vol. 30, pages 783–787 (2022)

Full text

Abstract. In many cases involving multi-criteria decision-making, we need compromise solutions. This is a crucial aspect due to the specific characteristics of decision problems. However, the proposed trade-off approaches are often complex to verify to what extent they are reliable. Therefore, this paper proposes a new iterative approach based on decision option evaluations from selected multi-criteria decision-making methods, i.e., TOPSIS, VIKOR, and SPOTIS. The obtained results have high similarity among each other, which was measured by Spearman's weighted correlation coefficient and WS ranking similarity coefficient. Furthermore, the proposed approach showed high efficiency and adaptability of the generated results.

References

1. A. Karczmarczyk, J. Wątróbski, J. Jankowski, and E. Ziemba, “Comparative study of ict and sis measurement in polish households using a mcda-based approach,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 159, pp. 2616–2628, 2019.
2. W. Sałabun, J. Wątróbski, and A. Shekhovtsov, “Are mcda methods benchmarkable? a comparative study of topsis, vikor, copras, and promethee ii methods,” Symmetry, vol. 12, no. 9, p. 1549, 2020.
3. A. M. Ghaleb, H. Kaid, A. Alsamhan, S. H. Mian, and L. Hidri, “Assessment and comparison of various mcdm approaches in the selection of manufacturing process,” Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 2020, 2020.
4. M. Baydaş and O. E. Elma, “An objectıve criteria proposal for the comparison of mcdm and weighting methods in financial performance measurement: An application in borsa istanbul,” Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 257–279, 2021.
5. Z. Liao, H. Liao, and B. Lev, “Compromise solutions for stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis with uncertain preferences and non-monotonic criteria,” International Transactions in Operational Research, 2021.
6. Ž. Stević, D. Pamučar, A. Puška, and P. Chatterjee, “Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new mcdm method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (marcos),” Computers & Industrial Engineering, vol. 140, p. 106231, 2020.
7. F. Ecer, “A consolidated mcdm framework for performance assessment of battery electric vehicles based on ranking strategies,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 143, p. 110916, 2021.
8. A. Bączkiewicz, B. Kizielewicz, A. Shekhovtsov, J. Wątróbski, and W. Sałabun, “Methodical aspects of mcdm based e-commerce recommender system,” Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 2192–2229, 2021.
9. W. Serrai, A. Abdelli, L. Mokdad, and Y. Hammal, “Towards an efficient and a more accurate web service selection using mcdm methods,” Journal of computational science, vol. 22, pp. 253–267, 2017.
10. H. Zhao, B. Li, H. Lu, X. Wang, H. Li, S. Guo, W. Xue, and Y. Wang, “Economy-environment-energy performance evaluation of cchp microgrid system: A hybrid multi-criteria decision-making method,” Energy, vol. 240, p. 122830, 2022.
11. S. Chakraborty, “Topsis and modified topsis: A comparative analysis,” Decision Analytics Journal, vol. 2, p. 100021, 2022.
12. P. Ziemba, A. Becker, and J. Becker, “A consensus measure of expert judgment in the fuzzy topsis method,” Symmetry, vol. 12, no. 2, p. 204, 2020.
13. D. Abdul, J. Wenqi, and A. Tanveer, “Prioritization of renewable energy source for electricity generation through ahp-vikor integrated methodology,” Renewable Energy, vol. 184, pp. 1018–1032, 2022.
14. J. Dezert, A. Tchamova, D. Han, and J.-M. Tacnet, “The spotis rank reversal free method for multi-criteria decision-making support,” in 2020 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION). IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–8.
15. P. A. Zuidema, F. Babst, P. Groenendijk, V. Trouet, A. Abiyu, R. Acuña-Soto, E. Adenesky-Filho, R. Alfaro-Sánchez, J. R. V. Aragão, G. Assis-Pereira et al., “Tropical tree growth driven by dry-season climate variability,” Nature Geoscience, pp. 1–8, 2022.
16. W. Sałabun and K. Urbaniak, “A new coefficient of rankings similarity in decision-making problems,” in International Conference on Computational Science. Springer, 2020, pp. 632–645.