Weighted power–weakness ratio for multi-criteria decision making

Abstract This work presents the weighted power–weakness ratio (wPWR), a multivariate index for multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) and ranking comparison. The index derives from the power–weakness ratio (PWR) originally proposed to select the strongest winner of tournaments, which has been re-adapted in this study to solve MCDM problems. Key features of wPWR are: (1) its multivariate character, (2) the ability to account simultaneously for the strengths and weaknesses of each element, (3) the possibility to weight criteria according to previous knowledge about the problem. In order to analyze wPWR, we selected three datasets available in scientific literature. The obtained wPWR scores and rankings were compared with four well-established techniques: Simple Average Ranking, Dominance, Reciprocal Rank Fusion and Kendall–Wei approach. Where rankings obtained by other techniques were available from literature, they were also included in the analysis. Results highlighted a correct correlation between wPWR and the other ranking measures, but also interesting differences that support its introduction in the field of MCDM and chemometrics.

[1]  E Ferguson,et al.  From comparative risk assessment to multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive management: recent developments and applications. , 2006, Environment international.

[2]  Watze de Wolf,et al.  A rule-based screening environmental risk assessment tool derived from EUSES. , 2005, Chemosphere.

[3]  Roberto Todeschini,et al.  N3 and BNN: Two New Similarity Based Classification Methods in Comparison with Other Classifiers , 2015, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[4]  E. Choo,et al.  Interpretation of criteria weights in multicriteria decision making , 1999 .

[5]  T. Seager,et al.  Application of Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Environmental Decision Making , 2005, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[6]  H. A. David.  Ranking the Players in a Round Robin Tournament , 1971 .

[7]  C. Berge,et al.  La Théorie des Graphes , 2000 .

[8]  Gülçin Büyüközkan,et al.  Using a multi-criteria decision making approach to evaluate mobile phone alternatives , 2007, Comput. Stand. Interfaces.

[9]  Gangan Prathap,et al.  The "Tournaments" Metaphor in Citation Impact Studies: Power-Weakness Ratios (PWR) as a Journal Indicator , 2014, ArXiv.

[10]  Teh-Hsing Wei,et al.  The algebraic foundations of ranking theory , 1952 .

[11]  Dudley J. Cowden,et al.  A Method of Evaluating Contestants , 1975 .

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

[13]  Hans-Jürgen Zimmermann,et al.  Multi-Criteria Analyse , 1991 .

[14]  M. Kendall.  Further contributions to the theory of paired comparisons , 1955 .

[15]  M. Ramachandran,et al.  Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning--A review , 2004 .

[16]  Peter Willett,et al.  Combination Rules for Group Fusion in Similarity‐Based Virtual Screening , 2010, Molecular informatics.

[17]  Ramiz M. Aliguliyev,et al.  Weighted Consensus Index for Assessment of The Scientific Performance of Researchers , 2014 .

[18]  A. Smilde,et al.  Multicriteria decision making , 1992 .

[19]  L. Carlsen.  A combined QSAR and partial order ranking approach to risk assessment , 2006, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[20]  Gangan Prathap,et al.  The Best Team at IPL 2014 and EPL 2013-2014 , 2014 .

[21]  Georges Adunlin,et al.  Application of multicriteria decision analysis in health care: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis , 2015, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[22]  C. Ramanujacharyulu,et al.  Analysis of preferential experiments , 1964 .

[23]  C. Zopounidis,et al.  Multi‐criteria decision aid in financial decision making: methodologies and literature review , 2002 .

[24]  L. Carlsen.  Hierarchical partial order ranking. , 2008, Environmental pollution.