IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v102y2021ics030504832030671x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A method to analyze the rank reversal problem in the ELECTRE II method

Author

Listed:
  • Liu, Xianliang
  • Ma, Yonghao

Abstract

In multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods, the rank reversal is a highly important problem for analyzing the reliability of MCDM methods. The main objective of this paper is to analyze and precisely predict the occurrence of rank reversal in the ELECTRE II method. First, some useful properties of the optimal alternatives are obtained in the descending and ascending distillation processes. Second, two new concepts named combination relation digraph and numerator matrix are proposed to precisely analyze and greatly simplify the rank reversal in the ELECTRE II method. Third, all the reasons for the rank reversal in the ELECTRE II method are revealed more completely. Fourth, the necessary and sufficient conditions are proposed for determining whether or not the rank reversal occurs in the ELECTRE II method. Additionally, the proposed methods in this paper are valid for analyzing the rank reversal in the ELECTRE method with discriminating thresholds. Finally, five examples are used to evaluate the correctness and effectiveness of the methods that are proposed in this paper.

Suggested Citation

  • Liu, Xianliang & Ma, Yonghao, 2021. "A method to analyze the rank reversal problem in the ELECTRE II method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:102:y:2021:i:c:s030504832030671x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.omega.2020.102317
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030504832030671X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.omega.2020.102317?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James S. Dyer, 1990. "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 249-258, March.
    2. Troutt, MD & Tadisina, SK, 1990. "Corrigendum and further results: Rank reversal and the dependence of priorities on the underlying MAV function," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 655-656.
    3. Stewart, TJ, 1992. "A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 20(5-6), pages 569-586.
    4. Thomas L. Saaty, 1990. "An Exposition of the AHP in Reply to the Paper "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 259-268, March.
    5. Dodd, F. J. & Donegan, H. A. & McMaster, T. B. M., 1995. "Inverse inconsistency in analytic hierarchies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 86-93, January.
    6. Shao, Meng & Han, Zhixin & Sun, Jinwei & Xiao, Chengsi & Zhang, Shulei & Zhao, Yuanxu, 2020. "A review of multi-criteria decision making applications for renewable energy site selection," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 377-403.
    7. Usha Ramanathan & Ramakrishnan Ramanathan, 2011. "An investigation into rank reversal properties of the multiplicative AHP," International Journal of Operational Research, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 11(1), pages 54-77.
    8. Bana e Costa, Carlos A. & Vansnick, Jean-Claude, 2008. "A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(3), pages 1422-1428, June.
    9. Roy, B. & Figueira, J.R. & Almeida-Dias, J., 2014. "Discriminating thresholds as a tool to cope with imperfect knowledge in multiple criteria decision aiding: Theoretical results and practical issues," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 9-20.
    10. Alper, Değer & Başdar, Canan, 2017. "A Comparison of TOPSIS and ELECTRE Methods: An Application on the Factoring Industry," Business and Economics Research Journal, Uludag University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, vol. 8(3), pages 627-646, July.
    11. Figueira, José Rui & Roy, Bernard, 2009. "A note on the paper, "Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods", by Wang and Triantaphyllou, Omega (2008)," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 731-733, June.
    12. Sajjad Zahir, 2009. "Normalisation and rank reversals in the additive analytic hierarchy process: a new analysis," International Journal of Operational Research, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 4(4), pages 446-467.
    13. James S. Dyer, 1990. "A Clarification of "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 274-275, March.
    14. Troutt, Marvin D, 1988. "Rank reversal and the dependence of priorities on the underlying MAV function," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 365-367.
    15. Jun, Dong & Tian-tian, Feng & Yi-sheng, Yang & Yu, Ma, 2014. "Macro-site selection of wind/solar hybrid power station based on ELECTRE-II," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 194-204.
    16. Stam, Antonie & Duarte Silva, A. Pedro, 2003. "On multiplicative priority rating methods for the AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 92-108, February.
    17. Wang, Xiaoting & Triantaphyllou, Evangelos, 2008. "Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 45-63, February.
    18. Céline Verly & Yves De Smet, 2013. "Some results about rank reversal instances in the PROMETHEE methods," International Journal of Multicriteria Decision Making, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(4), pages 325-345.
    19. Saaty, Thomas L., 1994. "Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 426-447, May.
    20. Doumpos, Michalis & Figueira, José Rui, 2019. "A multicriteria outranking approach for modeling corporate credit ratings: An application of the Electre Tri-nC method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 166-180.
    21. Liao, Huchang & Wu, Xingli & Mi, Xiaomei & Herrera, Francisco, 2020. "An integrated method for cognitive complex multiple experts multiple criteria decision making based on ELECTRE III with weighted Borda rule," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Su, Weihua & Chen, Sibo & Zhang, Chonghui & Li, Kevin W., 2023. "A subgroup dominance-based benefit of the doubt method for addressing rank reversals: A case study of the human development index in Europe," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(3), pages 1299-1317.
    2. Mehdi Rajabi Asadabadi & Hadi Badri Ahmadi & Himanshu Gupta & James J. H. Liou, 2023. "Supplier selection to support environmental sustainability: the stratified BWM TOPSIS method," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 322(1), pages 321-344, March.
    3. Ecer, Fatih & Pamucar, Dragan, 2022. "A novel LOPCOW‐DOBI multi‐criteria sustainability performance assessment methodology: An application in developing country banking sector," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ardalan Bafahm & Minghe Sun, 2019. "Some Conflicting Results in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(02), pages 465-486, March.
    2. Alessio Ishizaka & Sajid Siraj, 2020. "Interactive consistency correction in the analytic hierarchy process to preserve ranks," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 43(2), pages 443-464, December.
    3. Cinelli, Marco & Kadziński, Miłosz & Gonzalez, Michael & Słowiński, Roman, 2020. "How to support the application of multiple criteria decision analysis? Let us start with a comprehensive taxonomy," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    4. Gomez-Limon, J.A. & Atance, I., 2004. "Identification of public objectives related to agricultural sector support," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 26(8-9), pages 1045-1071, December.
    5. Blanca Ceballos & David A. Pelta & María T. Lamata, 2018. "Rank Reversal and the VIKOR Method: An Empirical Evaluation," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(02), pages 513-525, March.
    6. Faramondi, Luca & Oliva, Gabriele & Setola, Roberto & Bozóki, Sándor, 2023. "Robustness to rank reversal in pairwise comparison matrices based on uncertainty bounds," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(2), pages 676-688.
    7. Leung, Lawrence C. & Cao, Dong, 2001. "On the efficacy of modeling multi-attribute decision problems using AHP and Sinarchy," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 39-49, July.
    8. Schneider, Frank, 2008. "Multiple criteria decision making in application layer networks," Bayreuth Reports on Information Systems Management 36, University of Bayreuth, Chair of Information Systems Management.
    9. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Solomon, Anthony & Wishart, Nicole & Dublish, Sandipa, 1998. "Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 507-529, June.
    10. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(4), pages 700-710, April.
    11. Tomashevskii, I.L., 2015. "Eigenvector ranking method as a measuring tool: Formulas for errors," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(3), pages 774-780.
    12. Majumdar, Abhijit & Tiwari, Manoj Kumar & Agarwal, Aastha & Prajapat, Kanika, 2021. "A new case of rank reversal in analytic hierarchy process due to aggregation of cost and benefit criteria," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 8(C).
    13. Hussein Sayed & Ramadan Hamed & Samaa Hazem Hosny & Alyaa Hegazy Abdelhamid, 2018. "Avoiding Ranking Contradictions in Human Development Index Using Goal Programming," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 138(2), pages 405-442, July.
    14. Dong, Yucheng & Xu, Yinfeng & Li, Hongyi & Dai, Min, 2008. "A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 229-242, April.
    15. Schuwirth, N. & Reichert, P. & Lienert, J., 2012. "Methodological aspects of multi-criteria decision analysis for policy support: A case study on pharmaceutical removal from hospital wastewater," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 220(2), pages 472-483.
    16. José A. Gómez-Limón & Ignacio Atance, 2004. "Identification of Public Objectives Related to Agricultural Sector Support," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2004/57, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    17. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    18. Lai, S-K., 1995. "A preference-based interpretation of AHP," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 453-462, August.
    19. James G. Dolan & Donald R. Bordley, 1994. "Isoniazid Prophylaxis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 14(1), pages 1-8, February.
    20. Ozan Çakır & İbrahim Gürler & Bora Gündüzyeli, 2022. "Analysis of a Non-Discriminating Criterion in Simple Additive Weighting Deep Hierarchy," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(17), pages 1-22, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:102:y:2021:i:c:s030504832030671x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.