IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v128y2024ics0305048324000823.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sensitivity analysis of the parameters for preference functions and rank reversal analysis in the PROMETHEE II method

Author

Listed:
  • Liu, Xianliang
  • Liu, Yunfei

Abstract

The PROMETHEE II method is a classical multiple criteria decision making method. However, it also exists the rank reversal which is a highly important problem for analyzing the reliability of a MCDM method. The main objective of this study is to analyze the sensitivity of the parameters for preference functions and the rank reversal problem in the PROMETHEE II method. By analyzing the parameters for preference functions from the standpoint of theoretics, a method is proposed to calculate the ranges of the parameters for four types of preference functions to remain the ranking of all the alternatives unchanged. Second, the sufficient and necessary condition of the rank reversal is obtained in the PROMETHEE II method when there are only three types of criteria, i.e., usual criteria, U-shape criteria and level criteria. Finally, two minor modification methods for the PROMETHEE II method itself are proposed by observing the net outranking flow formula. Numerical simulations show that the occurrence of the rank reversal is clearly reduced and the ranges of fault tolerance of the parameters for preference functions are significantly larger for each new modified PROMETHEE II method. The similarity of rankings is tested by using the similarity rank coefficient WS. This indicates the rationality of the two proposed modifications.

Suggested Citation

  • Liu, Xianliang & Liu, Yunfei, 2024. "Sensitivity analysis of the parameters for preference functions and rank reversal analysis in the PROMETHEE II method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:128:y:2024:i:c:s0305048324000823
    DOI: 10.1016/j.omega.2024.103116
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305048324000823
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.omega.2024.103116?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. Gilles Dejaegere & Yves De Smet, 2022. "A new threshold for the detection of possible rank reversal occurrences in PROMETHEE II rankings," International Journal of Multicriteria Decision Making, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 9(1), pages 1-16.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Wolters, W. T. M. & Mareschal, B., 1995. "Novel types of sensitivity analysis for additive MCDM methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 281-290, March.
    5. Greco, Salvatore & Matarazzo, Benedetto & Slowinski, Roman, 2001. "Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(1), pages 1-47, February.
    6. 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.
    7. Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Kannan Govindan & Jurgita Antucheviciene & Zenonas Turskis, 2016. "Hybrid multiple criteria decision-making methods: a review of applications for sustainability issues," Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(1), pages 857-887, January.
    8. Liu, Xianliang & Ma, Yonghao, 2021. "A method to analyze the rank reversal problem in the ELECTRE II method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    9. Wang, Xiaoting & Triantaphyllou, Evangelos, 2008. "Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 45-63, February.
    10. 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.
    11. James S. Dyer, 1990. "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 249-258, March.
    12. De Keyser, Wim & Peeters, Peter, 1996. "A note on the use of PROMETHEE multicriteria methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(3), pages 457-461, March.
    13. 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.
    14. Tolga Genc, 2014. "Sensitivity analysis on PROMETHEE and TOPSIS weights," International Journal of Management and Decision Making, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 13(4), pages 403-421.
    15. Hela Frikha & Habib Chabchoub & Jean-Marc Martel, 2010. "Inferring criteria's relative importance coefficients in PROMETHEE II," International Journal of Operational Research, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 7(2), pages 257-275.
    16. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans & Philippe Vincke, 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: the Prométhée method," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9307, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    17. Brans, J. P. & Vincke, Ph. & Mareschal, B., 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: The method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 228-238, February.
    18. James S. Dyer, 1990. "A Clarification of "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 274-275, March.
    19. Troutt, Marvin D, 1988. "Rank reversal and the dependence of priorities on the underlying MAV function," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 365-367.
    20. 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.
    21. Bouyssou, D. & Perny, P., 1992. "Ranking methods for valued preference relations : A characterization of a method based on leaving and entering flows," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(1-2), pages 186-194, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Liu, Xianliang & Ma, Yonghao, 2021. "A method to analyze the rank reversal problem in the ELECTRE II method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    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. 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.
    4. Saul I. Gass, 2005. "Model World: The Great Debate—MAUT Versus AHP," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 308-312, August.
    5. 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.
    6. Behzadian, Majid & Kazemzadeh, R.B. & Albadvi, A. & Aghdasi, M., 2010. "PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 198-215, January.
    7. Tomislav Sunko & Marko Mladineo & Mirjana Kovačić & Toni Mišković, 2024. "Multi-Criteria Analysis of Coast Guard Resource Deployment for Improvement of Maritime Safety and Environmental Protection: Case Study of Eastern Adriatic Sea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-17, August.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Tsuen-Ho Hsu & Ling-Zhong Lin, 2014. "Using Fuzzy Preference Method for Group Package Tour Based on the Risk Perception," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 299-323, March.
    13. Pohekar, S. D. & Ramachandran, M., 2004. "Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning--A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 365-381, August.
    14. Marco Araújo & Love Ekenberg & Mats Danielson & João Confraria, 2022. "A Multi-Criteria Approach to Decision Making in Broadband Technology Selection," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 387-418, April.
    15. 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.
    16. Ichiro Nishizaki & Hideki Katagiri & Tomohiro Hayashida, 2010. "Sensitivity analysis incorporating fuzzy evaluation for scaling constants of multiattribute utility functions," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 18(3), pages 383-396, September.
    17. Lai, S-K., 1995. "A preference-based interpretation of AHP," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 453-462, August.
    18. G Özerol & E Karasakal, 2008. "Interactive outranking approaches for multicriteria decision-making problems with imprecise information," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(9), pages 1253-1268, September.
    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:128:y:2024:i:c:s0305048324000823. 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.