A Study of Different Distance Metrics in the TOPSIS Method

To improve the decision-making process, more and more systems are being developed based on a group of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods. Each method is based on different approaches leading to a final result. It is possible to modify the default performance of these methods, but in this case, it is worth checking whether it affects the achieved results. In this paper, the technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution (TOPSIS) method was used to examine the chosen distance metric’s influence to obtained results. The Euclidean and Manhattan distances were compared, while obtained rankings were compared with the similarity coefficients to check their correlation. It shows that used distance metric has an impact on the results and they are significantly different.

[1]  Wojciech Sałabun,et al.  A New Coefficient of Rankings Similarity in Decision-Making Problems , 2020, ICCS.

[2]  E. Stanley Lee,et al.  An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making , 2007, Math. Comput. Model..

[3]  L. Phillips,et al.  Estimating the Harms of Nicotine-Containing Products Using the MCDA Approach , 2014, European Addiction Research.

[4]  David Bamford,et al.  Development, test and comparison of two Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) models: A case of healthcare infrastructure location , 2015, Expert Syst. Appl..

[5]  Thierry Lavoie,et al.  An accurate estimation of the Levenshtein distance using metric trees and Manhattan distance , 2012, 2012 6th International Workshop on Software Clones (IWSC).

[6]  Wojciech Salabun,et al.  A comparative case study of the VIKOR and TOPSIS rankings similarity , 2020, KES.

[7]  Adel Guitouni,et al.  Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method , 1998, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[8]  Andrii Shekhovtsov,et al.  Do distance-based multi-criteria decision analysis methods create similar rankings? , 2020, KES.

[9]  V. V. Podinovski,et al.  The quantitative importance of criteria For MCDA , 2002 .

[10]  Holger R. Maier,et al.  Distance-based and stochastic uncertainty analysis for multi-criteria decision analysis in Excel using Visual Basic for Applications , 2006, Environ. Model. Softw..

[11]  Gary G. Yen,et al.  Minimum Manhattan Distance Approach to Multiple Criteria Decision Making in Multiobjective Optimization Problems , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[12]  Morteza Yazdani,et al.  A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications , 2012, Expert Syst. Appl..

[13]  Wojciech Salabun,et al.  Are MCDA Methods Benchmarkable? A Comparative Study of TOPSIS, VIKOR, COPRAS, and PROMETHEE II Methods , 2020, Symmetry.

[14]  Wojciech Sałabun,et al.  Efficiency of Methods for Determining the Relevance of Criteria in Sustainable Transport Problems: A Comparative Case Study , 2020, Sustainability.

[15]  Didar Zowghi,et al.  Utilizing TOPSIS: A Multi Criteria Decision Analysis Technique for Non-Functional Requirements Conflicts , 2014, APRES.

[16]  Ahmad A. Alzahrani,et al.  A Food Recommender System Considering Nutritional Information and User Preferences , 2019, IEEE Access.

[17]  Alejandra Duenas,et al.  Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. , 2012, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[18]  Solomon Peter Gbanie,et al.  Modelling landfill location using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA): Case study Bo, Southern Sierra Leone , 2013 .

[19]  Luciano da Fontoura Costa,et al.  2D Euclidean distance transform algorithms: A comparative survey , 2008, CSUR.

[20]  Wojciech Sałabun,et al.  Green Supplier Selection Framework Based on Multi-Criteria Decision-Analysis Approach , 2016 .

[21]  Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng,et al.  Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[22]  Jaroslaw Jankowski,et al.  Knowledge management in MCDA domain , 2015, 2015 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS).

[23]  Subodh Chandra Pal,et al.  Assessment of groundwater vulnerability to over-exploitation using MCDA, AHP, fuzzy logic and novel ensemble models: a case study of Goghat-I and II blocks of West Bengal, India , 2020, Environmental Earth Sciences.

[24]  Wojciech Sałabun,et al.  Identification of Players Ranking in E-Sport , 2020, Applied Sciences.

[25]  Valentinas Podvezko,et al.  The Comparative Analysis of MCDA Methods SAW and COPRAS , 2011 .

[26]  P. Danielsson Euclidean distance mapping , 1980 .

[27]  A. Bahaj,et al.  Assessing socially acceptable locations for onshore wind energy using a GIS-MCDA approach , 2019, International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies.

[28]  Wojciech Salabun,et al.  Fuzzy Model Identification Using Monolithic and Structured Approaches in Decision Problems with Partially Incomplete Data , 2020, Symmetry.