Rank aggregation methods dealing with incomplete information applied to Smart Cities

City-rankings have become a central instrument for assessing the attractiveness of urban regions over the last years. Demographic, environmental, economic, political and socio-cultural factors are forcing the urban world to design and implement Smart Cities. A set of multidimensional components underlies the fuzzy smart city concept. As a result cities are evaluated and ranked with regard to different characteristics, and smart city measures are achieved through chosen indicators. Therefore, the problem of combining multiple rankings to form an aggregate ranking, which compares city performance, is recognized as a useful tool in this context. Moreover, a usual situation is when incomplete information arises and only partial rankings may be supplied. This paper addresses the general problem of rank aggregation dealing with incomplete information based on rank aggregation methods and multicriteria decision making theory. It consists on constructing a consensus ranking from partial rankings of a set of objects provided according different criteria. Our techniques rely on outranking matrices as a way of collecting relevance information from input data, theory of fuzzy preference relations and the PageRank algorithm.

[1]  Dorit S. Hochbaum,et al.  Methodologies and Algorithms for Group-Rankings Decision , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[2]  Enrique Herrera-Viedma,et al.  Managing incomplete preference relations in decision making: A review and future trends , 2015, Inf. Sci..

[3]  Umberto Straccia,et al.  Web metasearch: rank vs. score based rank aggregation methods , 2003, SAC '03.

[4]  Mark S. Fox Foundation Ontologies Requirements for Global City Indicators , 2014, AAAI 2014.

[5]  José Ramón Gil-García,et al.  Understanding Smart Cities: An Integrative Framework , 2012, HICSS.

[6]  G. Munda “Measuring Sustainability”: A Multi-Criterion Framework , 2005 .

[7]  Mohamed Farah,et al.  An outranking approach for rank aggregation in information retrieval , 2007, SIGIR.

[8]  L. Seiford,et al.  Priority Ranking and Consensus Formation , 1978 .

[9]  David J. Hand,et al.  Who's #1? The science of rating and ranking , 2012 .

[10]  Esther Dopazo,et al.  A parametric GP model dealing with incomplete information for group decision-making , 2011, Appl. Math. Comput..

[11]  Sergey Brin,et al.  The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine , 1998, Comput. Networks.

[12]  Giuseppe Munda,et al.  Noncompensatory/nonlinear composite indicators for ranking countries: a defensible setting , 2009 .

[13]  Moni Naor,et al.  Rank aggregation methods for the Web , 2001, WWW '01.

[14]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[15]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Group Decision-Making Model With Incomplete Fuzzy Preference Relations Based on Additive Consistency , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics).

[16]  M. Bohanec,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 2004 .

[17]  James P. Keener,et al.  The Perron-Frobenius Theorem and the Ranking of Football Teams , 1993, SIAM Rev..

[18]  Jacinto González-Pachón,et al.  Aggregation of partial ordinal rankings: an interval goal programming approach , 2001, Comput. Oper. Res..

[19]  Esther Dopazo,et al.  A parametric model for determining consensus priority vectors from fuzzy comparison matrices , 2014, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[20]  T. Tanino Fuzzy preference orderings in group decision making , 1984 .

[21]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Individual and Social Strategies to Deal with Ignorance Situations in Multi-Person Decision Making , 2009, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak..