No Access

A Typology Scheme for the Criteria Weighting Methods in MADM

Petroleum University of Technology, Department of Energy Economics & Management, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622022500985Cited by:5 (Source: Crossref)

Abstract

The concentration point of this study is Criteria Weighting (CW) solutions which are the methods to determine the weights of the criteria in Multiple Attribute Decision Making (MADM). Although there are various CW methods in the related literature, there is no extensive typology framework or coding approach for the methods. Hence, this paper aims at establishment of a novel comprehensive typology scheme with consistent notations for the CW methods, conducting an extensive review of different CW methods, and identification of relevant classifications. The motivation is to help a fast access to the relevant literature, better capabilities to address suitable CW methods in real-world problems, and better communication among the MADM/CW researchers. The basic feature of the proposed approach is the identified underlying concepts (called rule) of the CW methods. Under the study, several rules were identified and coded. The paper also portrays a complete and up-to-date survey of the published literature on the original CW methods. In addition, to select appropriate methods in real-life situations, a set of brief guidelines are raised up. This helps decision/policy makers to choose the best-fit methods to employ in their real-life challenges.

Keywords:

References

1. Y. Peng, G. Kou, G. Wang and Y. Shi , FAMCDM: A fusion approach of MCDM methods to rank multiclass classification algorithms, Omega 39(6) (2011) 677–689. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
2. G. Kou, Y. Lu, Y. Peng and Y. Shi , Evaluation of classification algorithms using MCDM and rank correlation, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 11(01) (2012) 197–225. Link, Web of Science, Google Scholar
3. M. A. Alsalem, R. Mohammed, O. S. Albahri, A. A. Zaidan, A. H. Alamoodi, K. Dawood, A. Alnoor, A. S. Albahri, B. B. Zaidan, U. Aickelin, H. Alsattar, M. Alazab and F. Jumaah , Rise of multi-attribute decision-making in combating COVID-19: A systematic review of the state-of-the-art literature, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 37(4) (2021) 1–111. Google Scholar
4. C. L. Hwang and K. Yoon , Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications: A State-of-the-art Survey (Springer, Berlin, 1981). Crossref, Google Scholar
5. F. I. Khan, R. Sadiq and M. M. Haddara , Risk-based inspection and maintenance (RBIM): Multi-attribute decision-making with aggregative risk analysis, Process Safety and Environmental Protection 82(6) (2004) 398–411. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
6. G. H. Tzeng and J. J. Huang , Multiple-Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications (CRC Press, Boca Raton, USA, 2011). Crossref, Google Scholar
7. O. S. Albahri, A. A. Zaidan, M. M. Salih, B. B. Zaidan, M. A. Khatari, M. A. Ahmed, A. S. Albahri and M. Alazab , Multidimensional benchmarking of the active queue management methods of network congestion control based on an extension of the fuzzy decision by opinion score method, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 36(2) (2021) 796–831. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
8. N. Bryson and A. Joseph , Generating consensus priority point vectors: A logarithmic goal programming approach, Computers & Operations Research 26(6) (1999) 637–643. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
9. T. L. Saaty , Decision making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary? European Journal of Operational Research 145(1) (2003) 85–91. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
10. E. U. Choo and W. C. Wedley , A common framework for deriving preference values from pair-wise comparison matrices, Computers & Operations Research 31(6) (2004) 893–908. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
11. M. A. Hatefi , Indifference Threshold-based attribute ratio analysis: A method for assigning the weights to the attributes in multiple attribute decision making, Applied Soft Computing 74 (2019) 643–651. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
12. R. L. Keeney and H. Raiffa , Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-offs (John Wiley and Sons, NY, USA, 1976). Google Scholar
13. M. Weber and K. Borcherding , Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multi-attribute decision making, European Journal of Operational Research 67(1) (1993) 1–12. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
14. H. Vgood , Multi-criteria Evaluation for Urban and Regional Planning (Delftsche Uitgevers, Maatschappij, Pion, London, UK, 1982). Google Scholar
15. G. H. Tzeng, T. Y. Chen and J. C. Wang , A weight assessing method with habitual domains, European Journal of Operational Research 110(2) (1998) 342–367. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
16. R. Ramanathan , Data envelopment analysis for weight derivation and aggregation in the analytic hierarchy process, Computers & Operations Research 33(5) (2006) 1289–1307. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
17. P. A. Bottomley and J. R. Doyle , A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: Good, better, and best, Omega 29 (2001) 553–560. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
18. M. P. Strager and R. S. Rosenberger , Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: Weights and measures in spatial MCA, Ecological Economics 58 (2006) 79–92. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
19. W. G. Stillwell, D. A. Seaver and W. Edwards , A comparison of weight approximation techniques in multi-attribute utility decision making, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 28(1) (1981) 62–77. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
20. G. Wascher, H. Hausner and H. Schumann , An improved typology of cutting and packing problems, European Journal of Operational Research 183(3) (2007) 1109–1130. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
21. D. Pamucar, Z. Stevic and S. Sremac , A new model for determining weight coefficients of criteria in MCDM models: Full consistency method (FUCOM), Symmetry 10(393) (2018) 2–22. Google Scholar
22. M. Danielson and L. Ekenberg , An improvement to swing techniques for elicitation in MCDM methods, Knowledge-Based Systems 168 (2019) 70–79. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
23. M. Zizovic, D. Pamucar, G. Cirovic, M. M. Zizovic and B. D. Miljkovic , Model for determining weight confidents by forming a non-decreasing series at criteria significance levels (NDSL), Mathematics 8(745) (2020b). Google Scholar
24. K. V. Ittersum, J. M. E. Pennings, B. Wansink and H. C. M. van Trijp , The validity of attribute-importance measurement: A review, Journal of Business Research 60(11) (2007) 1177–1190. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
25. F. F. Silva, C. L. M. Souza, F. F. Silva, H. G. Costa, H. R. M. Hora and M. E. Junior , Elicitation of criteria weights for multi-criteria models: Bibliometrics, typologies, characteristics and applications, Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management 18(4) (2021) e2021901. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
26. Z. P. Fan, J. Ma and Q. Zhang , An approach to multiple attribute decision making based on fuzzy preference information on alternatives, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 131(1) (2002) 101–106. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
27. M. Danielson and L. Ekenberg , The CAR method for using preference strength in multi-criteria decision making, Group Decision and Negotiation 25(4) (2016) 775–797. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
28. J. Ma, Z. P. Fan and L. H. Huang , A subjective and objective integrated approach to determine attributes weights, European Journal of Operational Research 112(2) (1999) 397–404. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
29. Y. M. Wang and C. Parkan , A general multiple attribute decision making approach for integrating subjective preferences and objective information, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 157(10) (2006) 1333–1345. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
30. Y. M. Wang and Y. Luo , Integration of correlations with standard deviations for determining attributes weights in multiple attribute decision making, Mathematical and Computer Modelling 51(1–2) (2010) 1–12. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
31. Z. Xu , Attribute weights determination models for consensus maximization in mu ltiple attribute group decision making, International Journal of General Systems 40(7) (2013) 755–774. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
32. G. L. Yang, J. B. Yang, D. L. Xu and M. Khoveyni , A three-stage hybrid approach for weight assignment in MADM, Omega 71 (2017) 93–105. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
33. H. Sellak, B. Ouhbi, B. Frikh and B. Ikken , Expertise-based consensus building for MCGDM with hesitant fuzzy linguistic information, Information Fusion 50 (2019) 54–70. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
34. Z. S. Chen, X. Zhang, R. M. Rodriguez, W. Pedrycz and L. Martinez , Expertise-based bid evaluation for construction-contractor selection with generalized comparative linguistic ELECTRE III, Automation in Construction 125(2021) (2021) 103578. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
35. M. Zeleny , Multiple Criteria Decision Making (McGraw-Hill, NY, USA, 1982). Google Scholar
36. C. Kao , Weight determination for consistently ranking alternatives in multiple criteria decision analysis, Applied Mathematical Modeling 34(7) (2010) 1779–1787. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
37. T. L. Saaty , The Analytic Hierarchy Process (McGraw-Hill, NY, USA, 1980). Google Scholar
38. R. M. Dawes and B. Corrigan , Linear models in decision making, Psychological Bulletin 81(2) (1974) 91–106. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
39. P. J. Hoffman , The paramorphic representation of clinical judgment, Psychological Bull 57(2) (1960) 116–131. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
40. J. R. Doyle, R. H. Green and P. A. Bottomley , Judging relative importance: direct rating and point allocation are not equivalent, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 70(1) (1997) 65–72. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
41. P. G. Leon , On the death of SMART and the birth of GRAPA, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 71(3) (1997) 249–262. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
42. D. Von Winterfeldt and W. Edwards , Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, UK, 1986). Google Scholar
43. A. Larsson, M. Riabacke, M. Danielson and L. Ekenberg , Cardinal and rank ordering of criteria-addressing prescription within weight elicitation, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 14(6) (2015) 1299–1330. Link, Web of Science, Google Scholar
44. C. W. Churchman and R. L. Ackoff , An approximate measure of value, Journal of the Operations Research Society 2(2) (1954) 172–187. Web of Science, Google Scholar
45. A. L. Knoll and A. Engelberg , Weighting multiple objectives: The Churchman-Ackoff technique revisited, Computers & Operations Research 5(3) (1978) 165–177. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
46. V. Kersulien, E. K. Zavadskas and Z. Turskis , Selection of rational dispute method by applying new step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA), Journal of Business Economics and Management 11(2) (2010) 243–258. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
47. J. Rezaei , Best-worst multi-criteria decision making method, Omega 53 (2015) 49–57. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
48. D. Stanujkic, E. K. Zavadskas, D. Karabasevic, F. Smarandache and Z. Turskis , The use of the pivot pairwise relative criteria importance assessment (PIPRECIA) method for determining the weights of criteria, Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting 20(4) (2017) 118–136. Web of Science, Google Scholar
49. M. Zizovic and D. Pamucar , New model for determining criteria weights: Level-based weight assignment (LBWA) model, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering 2(2) (2019) 126–137. Crossref, Google Scholar
50. T. L. Saaty , A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15(3) (1977) 234–281. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
51. A. T. W. Chu, R. E. Kalaba and K. Spingarn , A comparison of two methods for determining the weights of belonging to fuzzy sets, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 27(4) (1979) 531–538. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
52. R. E. Stueur and E. U. Choo , An interactive weighted Tchebyche2 procedure for multiple objective programming, Mathematical Programming 26(3) (1983) 326–344. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
53. R. E. Jensen, Comparisons of eigenvector, least squares, chi square and logarithmic least squares methods of scaling a reciprocal matrix, Trinity University, Working Paper, No. 127 (1984). Google Scholar
54. G. Crawford and C. Williams , A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 29(4) (1985) 387–405. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
55. K. O. Cogger and P. L. Yu , Eigen-weight vectors and least distance approximation for revealed preference in pairwise weight ratios, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 46(4) (1985) 483–491. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
56. F. Zahedi , A simulation study of estimation methods in the analytic hierarchy process, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 20(6) (1986) 347–354. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
57. G. Islei and A. G. Lockett , Judgmental modeling based on geometric least square, European Journal of Operational Research 36(1) (1988) 27–35. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
58. A. Arbel , A linear programming approach for processing approximate articulation of preference, in Multiple Criteria Decision Support, eds. P. Korhonen, A. Lewandowski and J. Wallenius (Springer, Berlin, 1989), pp. 79–86. Google Scholar
59. N. Bryson , A goal programming method for generating priority vectors, Journal of the Operational Research Society 46(5) (1995) 641–648. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
60. J. W. Ra , Chain-wise paired comparisons, Decision Sciences 30(2) (1999) 581–599. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
61. Z. S. Xu , Generalized chi-square method for the estimation of weights, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 107(1) (2000) 183–192. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
62. L. Mikhailov , A fuzzy programming method for deriving priorities in the analytic hierarchy process, Journal of the Operational Research Society 51(3) (2000) 341–349. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
63. S. Lipovetsky and W. M. Conklin , Robust estimation of priorities in the AHP, European Journal of Operational Research 137(1) (2002) 110–122. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
64. E. Herrera-Viedma, F. Herrera, F. Chiclana and M. Luque , Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations, European Journal of Operational Research 154(1) (2004) 98–109. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
65. S. I. Gass and T. Rapcsak , Singular value decomposition in AHP, European Journal of Operational Research 154(3) (2004) 573–584. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
66. B. Chandrana, B. Goldenb and E. Wasilc , Linear programming models for estimating weights in the analytic hierarchy process, Computers & Operations Research 32(9) (2005) 2235–2254. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
67. B. Srdjevic , Combining different prioritization methods in the analytic hierarchy process synthesis, Computers & Operations Research 32(7) (2005) 1897–1919. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
68. C. C. Lin , An enhanced goal programming method for generating priority vectors, Journal of the Operational Research Society 57(12) (2006) 1491–1496. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
69. Y. M. Wang, C. Parkan and Y. Luo , Priority estimation in the AHP through maximization of correlation coefficient, Applied Mathematical Modelling 31(12) (2007) 2711–2718. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
70. A. Z. Grzybowski , Goal programming approach for deriving priority vectors — some new ideas, Scientific Research of the Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science 9(1) (2010) 17–27. Google Scholar
71. B. Srdjevic and Z. Srdjevic , Bi-criteria evolution strategy in estimating weights from the AHP ratio-scale matrices, Applied Mathematics and Computation 218(1) (2011) 1254–1266. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
72. V. Shukla and G. Auriol , Methodology for determining stakeholders’ criteria weights in systems engineering, in Proc. Posters Workshop at CSD & M, Paris, 4 December (2013), France. Google Scholar
73. C. Lin, G. Kou and D. Ergu , A heuristic approach for deriving the priority vector in AHP, Applied Mathematical Modelling 37(8) (2013) 5828–5836. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
74. G. Kou and C. Lin , A cosine maximization method for the priority vector derivation in AHP, European Journal of Operational Research 235(1) (2014) 225–232. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
75. J. Zhang, G. Kou, Y. Peng and Y. Zhang , Estimating priorities from relative deviations in pairwise comparison matrices, Information Sciences 552 (2021) 310–327. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
76. T. L. Saaty , Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the Analytic Hierarchy Process (RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1994). Google Scholar
77. C. A. Bana e Costa, Structuration, construction et exploitation d’un modele multi critere d’aide a la decision, Ph.D. dissertation, Technical University of Lisbon, Lisbon (1992). Google Scholar
78. J. Barzilai, W. D. Cook and B. Golany , Consistent weights for judgments matrices of the relative importance of alternatives, Operations Research Letters 6(3) (1987) 131–134. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
79. Q. Zhang, J. C. H. Chen and P. P. Chong , Decision consolidation: Criteria weight determination using multiple preferences formats, Decision Support Systems 38(2) (2004) 247–258. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
80. J. Kacprzyk , Group decision making with a fuzzy majority, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 18(2) (1986) 105–118. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
81. M. Jahazi and S. Hossein-Nejad , The development of an optimum manufacturing and material selection process for the fabrication of labyrinth seal strips, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 152(3) (2004) 272–275. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
82. B. D. Dehghan-Manshadi, H. Mahmudi, A. Abedian and R. Mahmudi , A novel method for materials selection in mechanical design: Combination of non-linear normalization and a modified digital logic method, Material & Design 28(1) (2007) 8–15. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
83. M. Alemi-Ardakani, A. S. Milani, S. Yannacopoulos and G. Shokouhi , On the effect of subjective, objective and combinative weighting in multiple criteria decision making: A case study on impact optimization of composites, Expert Systems with Applications 46 (2016) 426–438. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
84. L. E. Shirland, R. R. Jesse, R. L. Thompson and C. L. Iacovou , Determining attribute weights using mathematical programming, Omega 31 (2003) 423–437. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
85. A. J. Klee , The role of decision models in the evaluation of competing environmental health alternatives, Management Science 18(2) (1971) 52–52. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
86. D. Yu, G. Kou, Z. Xu and S. Shi , Analysis of collaboration evolution in AHP research: 1982–2018, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 20(1) (2021) 7–36. Link, Web of Science, Google Scholar
87. T. L. Saaty , Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process (RWS Publication, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1996). Google Scholar
88. J. J. H. Liou, G. H. Tzeng and H. C. Chang , Airline safety measurement using a hybrid model, Journal of Air Transport Management 13(4) (2007) 243–249. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
89. E. Fontela and A. Gabus, DEMATEL, Innovative Methods, Technical report no. 2, Structural analysis of the world problematique, Battelle Geneva Research Institute (1974). Google Scholar
90. A. Hasani and H. Mokhtari , Self-efficiency assessment of sustainable dynamic network healthcare service system under uncertainty: Hybrid fuzzy DEA-MCDM method, Scientia Iranica 29(4) (2022) 2191–2209. Web of Science, Google Scholar
91. M. Doumpos and C. Zopounidis , A multi-criteria classification approach based on pairwise comparisons, European Journal of Operational Research 158(2) (2004) 378–389. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
92. J. Brans and P. Vincke , A preference ranking organization method: The PROMETHEE method for multiple criteria decision making, Management Science 31(6) (1985) 647–656. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
93. Y. M. Wang and C. Parkan , Multiple attribute decision making based on fuzzy preference information on alternatives: ranking and weighting, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 153(3) (2005) 331–346. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
94. F. Lolli, E. Balugani, A. Ishizaka, R. Gamberini, M. A. Butturi, S. Marinello and B. Rimini , On the elicitation of criteria weights in PROMETHEE-based ranking methods for a mobile application, Expert Systems with Applications 120 (2019) 217–227. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
95. J. Wang and S. Zionts , Using ordinal data to estimate cardinal values, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 22(3–4) (2015) 185–196. Crossref, Google Scholar
96. M. G. Kendall , Rank Correlation Method, 3rd edn. (Griffin, London, UK, 1948). Google Scholar
97. J. Simos, Evaluation environnementale: Un processus cognitifnegocie, Ph.D. Dissertation, DGF-EPFL, Lausanne (1990). Google Scholar
98. J. Figueira and B. Roy , Determining the weights of criteria in the ELECTRE-type methods with a revised SIMOS’ procedure, European Journal of Operational Research 139(2) (2002) 317–326. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
99. E. Siskosa and N. Tsotsolas , Elicitation of criteria importance weights through the Simos method: A robustness concern, European Journal of Operational Research 246(2) (2015) 543–553. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
100. F. H. Barron , Selecting a best multi attribute alternative with partial information about attribute weights, Acta Psychologica 80(1–3) (1992) 91–103. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
101. F. A. Lootsma , Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis via Ratio and Difference Judgment (Springer, Berlin, 1999). Crossref, Google Scholar
102. H. K. Alfares and S. O. Duffuaa , Assigning cardinal weights in multi-criteria decision making based on ordinal ranking, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 15(5–6) (2008) 125–133. Crossref, Google Scholar
103. B. S. Ahn and K. S. Park , Least-Squared ordered weighted averaging operator weights, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 23(1) (2008) 33–49. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
104. R. R. Yager , On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multi-criteria decision making, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 18(1) (1988) 183–190. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
105. M. Danielson and L. Ekenberg , Rank ordering methods for multi-criteria decisions, in Proc. 14th Group Decision and Negotiation (GDN 2014), 10–13 June 2014, Toulouse University, France. Google Scholar
106. D. Liu, T. Li and D. Liang , An integrated approach towards modelling ranked weights, Computers & Industrial Engineering 147(106629) (2020) 1–16. Google Scholar
107. J. H. Paelinck , Qualitative multiple criterion analysis, environmental protection and multi-regional development, Regional Science Association 36(1) (1976) 59–74. Crossref, Google Scholar
108. H. Vgood, Multi-criteria evaluation with mixed qualitative and quantitative data. Working paper, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, London (IIASA) (1983). Google Scholar
109. R. Roberts and P. Goodwin , Weight approximations in multi-attribute decision models, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 11(6) (2002) 291–303. Crossref, Google Scholar
110. M. J. Asgharpour , Group Decision Making and Game Theory (in Persian) (Tehran University Publication, Tehran, Iran, 2003). Google Scholar
111. P. Sarabando and L. C. Dias , Simple procedures of choice in multi-criteria problems without precise information about the alternatives’ values, Computers & Operations Research 37(12) (2010) 2239–2247. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
112. B. S. Ahn , Compatible weighting method with rank order centroid: Maximum entropy ordered weighted averaging approach, European Journal of Operational Research 212(3) (2011) 552–559. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
113. V. Diaby, V. Sanogo and K. R. Moussa , ELICIT: An alternative imprecise weight elicitation technique for use in multi-criteria decision analysis for healthcare, Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 16(1) (2016) 141–147. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
114. B. S. Ahn , Approximate weighting method for multi-attribute decision problems with imprecise parameters, Omega 72 (2017) 87–95. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
115. G. Garrod and K. Willis , Economic Valuation of the Environment, Methods and Case Studies (Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, UK, 1999). Google Scholar
116. B. Nemeth, A. Molna, S. Bozoki, K. Wijaya, A. Inotai, J. D. Campbell and Z. Kalo , Comparison of weighting methods used in multi-criteria decision analysis frameworks in healthcare with focus on low- and middle-income countries, Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research 8(4) (2019) 195–204. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
117. L. L. Thurstone , A law of comparative judgment, Psychological Review 34(4) (1927) 273–286. Crossref, Google Scholar
118. P. E. Green and V. Srinivasan , Conjoint analysis in consumer behavior: Status and outlook, Journal of Consumer Research 5(1) (1978) 103–123. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
119. R. N. Shepard , The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function I, Psychometrica 27(2) (1962a) 125–140. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
120. R. N. Shepard , The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function II, Psychometrica 27(2) (1962b) 219–246. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
121. P. Hansen and F. A. Ombler , New method for scoring additive multi-attribute value models using pairwise rankings of alternatives, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 15(3–4) (2008) 87–107. Crossref, Google Scholar
122. S. R. Watson and D. M. Buede , Decision Synthesis: The Principles and Practice of Decision Analysis (Cambridge University Press, NY, USA, 1987). Google Scholar
123. T. Solymosi and J. Dombi , A method for determining the weights of criteria: The centralized weights, European Journal of Operational Research 26(1) (1986) 35–41. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
124. V. Mousseau , Eliciting information concerning the relative importance of criteria, in Advances in Multi-criteria Analysis, Non-convex Optimization and its Applications, eds. P. Pardalos, Y. Siskos and C. Zopounidis (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1995). Crossref, Google Scholar
125. P. Liu and W. Liu , Maclaurin symmetric means for linguistic z-numbers and their application to multiple attribute decision making, Scientia Iranica 28(5) (2021) 2910–2925. Web of Science, Google Scholar
126. R. Ginevicius , A new determining method for the criteria weights in multi-criteria evaluation, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 10(6) (2011) 1067–1095. Link, Web of Science, Google Scholar
127. D. Dalalah, M. Hajaneh and F. Batieha , A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making model for supplier selection, Expert Systems with Applications 38(7) (2011) 8384–8391. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
128. A. Kobryn , DEMATEL as a weighting method in multi-criteria decision making analysis, Multi Criteria Decision Making 12(11) (2017) 153–167. Crossref, Google Scholar
129. G. Kou, S. Yuksel and H. Dincer , Inventive problem-solving map of innovative carbon emission strategies for solar energy-based transportation investment projects, Applied Energy 311 (2022) 118680. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
130. R. Davoudabadi, S. Mousavi, E. K. Zavadskas and Y. Dorfeshan , Introducing MOWSCER method for multiple criteria group decision making: A new method of weighting in the structure of cause and effect relationships, International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making (2022) 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622022500663 Web of Science, Google Scholar
131. M. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M. Amiri, E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis and J. Antucheviciene , Simultaneous evaluation of criteria and alternatives (SECA) for multi-criteria decision making, Informatica 29(2) (2018) 265–280. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
132. M. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M. Amiri, E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis and J. Antucheviciene , Determination of objective weights using a new method based on the removal effects of criteria (MEREC), Symmetry 13 (2021) 525. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
133. Z. Moghaddas, M. Vaez-Ghasemi, F. Hosseinzadeh Lotfi and R. Farzipoor Saen , Stepwise pricing in evaluating revenue efficiency in data envelopment analysis: A case study of power plants, Scientia Iranica 29(2) (2022) 915–928. Web of Science, Google Scholar
134. G. R. Jahanshahloo, M. Zohrehbandian, S. Abbasian-Naghneh, E. Hadavandi and A. Ghanbari , Using DEA for evaluating the attribute weights and solving one MADM problem, Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 4(10) (2010) 5271–5276. Google Scholar
135. M. Zohrehbandian, A. Makui and A. A. Alinezhad , Compromise solution approach for finding common weighs in DEA: An improvement to Kao and Hung’s approach, Journal of the Operations Research Society 61(4) (2010) 604–610. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
136. A. Charnes, W. W. Cooper and E. Rhodes , Measuring the efficiency of decision making units, European Journal of Operational Research 2(6) (1978) 429–444. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
137. Y. Y. Song, G. L. Yang, J. B. Yang, M. Khoveyni and D. L. Xu , Using two-layer minimax optimization and DEA to determine attribute weights, Journal of Management Science and Engineering 3(2) (2018) 76–100. Crossref, Google Scholar
138. Z. P. Fan, Complicated multiple attribute decision making: Theory and applications, Ph.D. Dissertation, Northeastern University, Shenyang, PRC (1996). Google Scholar
139. J. C. Vansnick , On the problem of weights in multiple criteria decision making (the non-compensatory approach, European Journal of Operational Research 24(2) (1986) 288–294. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
140. R. Bisdorff, P. Meyer and T. Veneziano , Elicitation of criteria weights maximizing the stability of pairwise outranking statements, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 21(1–2) (2014) 113–124. Crossref, Google Scholar
141. D. Diakoulaki, G. Mavrotas and L. Papayannakis , Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The Critic Method, Computers & Operations Research 22(7) (1995) 763–770. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
142. M. Zizovic, B. D. Miljkovic and D. Marinkovic , Objective methods for determining criteria weight coefficients: A modification of the CRITIC method, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering 3(2) (2020a) 149–161. Crossref, Google Scholar
143. A. R. Krishnan, M. M. Kasim, R. Hamid and M. F. A. Ghazali , Modified CRITIC method to estimate the objective weights of decision criteria, Symmetry 13 (2021) 973. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
144. G. J. Szekely, M. L. Rizzo and N. K. Bakirov , Measuring and testing dependence by correlation of distances, Annuals of Statistics 35 (2007) 2769–2794. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
145. A. R. Paramanik, S. Sarkar and B. Sarkar , OSWMI: An objective-subjective weighted method for minimizing inconsistency in multi-criteria decision making, Computers & Industrial Engineering 169 (2022) 108138. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
146. C. E. Shannon , A mathematical theory of communication, Bell System Technical Journal 27 (1948) 379–423, 623–656. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
147. Y. M. Wang , Using the method of maximizing deviations to make decision for multi-indices, Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics 8(3) (1997) 21–26. Google Scholar
148. H. W. Lo, C. C. Hsu, C. N. Huang and J. J. H. Liou , An ITARA-TOPSIS based integrated assessment model to identify potential product and system risks, Mathematics 9 (2021) 239. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
149. E. K. Zavadskas , Integrated Resource Assessment and Selection Decisions in Construction (in Russian) (Mokslas, Vilnius, 1987). Google Scholar
150. B. G. Mirkin , Problema Grupovogo Vibora (in Russian) (Nauka, Moscow, Russia, 1974). Google Scholar
151. L. J. Savage , The theory of statistical decision, Journal of American Statistical Association 46(253) (1951) 55–67. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
152. V. Lotfi, T. J. Stewart and S. Zionts , An aspiration-level interactive model for multiple-criteria decision making, Computers & Operations Research 19(7) (1992) 671–681. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
153. M. Rogers and M. Bruen , A new system for weighting environmental criteria for use within ELECTRE III, European Journal of Operational Research 107(3) (1998) 552–563. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
154. A. T. De Almeida, J. A. De Almeida, A. P. C. Seixas Costa and A. T. De Almeida-Filho , A new method for elicitation of criteria weights in additive models: Flexible and interactive trade-off, European Journal of Operational Research 250(1) (2016) 179–191. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
155. M. A. Hatefi , BRAW: Block-wise rating the attribute weights in MADM, Computers and Industrial Engineering 156(107274) (2021) 1–14. Google Scholar
156. A. Krylovas, E. K. Zavadskas, N. Kosareva and S. Dadelo , New KEMIRA method for determining criteria priority and weights in solving MCDM problem, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 13(6) (2014) 1119–1133. Link, Web of Science, Google Scholar
157. A. Krylovas, E. K. Zavadskas and N. Kosareva , Multiple criteria decision making KEMIRA-M method for solution of location alternatives, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja 29(1) (2016) 50–65. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
158. A. Krylovas, N. Kosareva and E. K. Zavadskas , WEBIRA — comparative analysis of weight balancing method, International Journal of Computers Communications and Control 12(2) (2017) 238–253. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
159. A. Krylovas, S. Dadelo, N. Kosareva and E. K. Zavadskas , Entropy–KEMIRA approach for MCDM problem solution in human resources selection task, International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making 16(05) (2017) 1183–1209. Link, Web of Science, Google Scholar
160. J. Zheng, S. A. M. Takougang, V. Mousseau and M. Pirlot , Learning criteria weights of an optimistic ELECTRE TRI sorting rule, Computers & Operations Research 49 (2014) 28–40. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
161. H. Kaabi, K. Jabeur and L. Enneifar , Learning criteria weights with TOPSIS method and continuous VNS for multi-criteria inventory classification, Electronic Notes in Discrete Mathematics 47 (2015) 197–204. Crossref, Google Scholar
162. M. Aggarwal , On learning of weights through preferences, Information Sciences 321 (2015) 90–102. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
163. V. Srinivasan and A. D. Shocker , Linear programming techniques for multidimensional analysis of preference, Psychometrika 38(3) (1973) 337–342. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
164. D. Horsky and M. R. Rao , Estimation of attribute weights from preference comparisons, Management Sciences 30(7) (1984) 1801–822. Web of Science, Google Scholar
165. M. Randelovic, S. Nedeljkovic, M. Jovanovic, M. Cabarkapa, V. Stojanovic, A. Aleksic and D. Randelovic , Use of determination of the importance of criteria in business-friendly certification of cities as sustainable local economic development planning tool, Symmetry 12 (2020) 425. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12030425 Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
166. E. K. Zavadskas and V. Podvezko , Integrated determination of objective criteria weights in MCDM, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 15(2) (2016) 267–283. Link, Web of Science, Google Scholar
167. I. Vinogradova, V. Podvezko and E. K. Zavadskas , The recalculation of the weights of criteria in MCDM methods using the bayes approach, Symmetry 10(205) (2018) 2–18. Google Scholar
168. H. Jeffreys , Scientific Inference, 3rd edn. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1973). Google Scholar
169. L. Ustinovichius , Determining integrated weights of attributes, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 7(4) (2001) 321–326. Crossref, Google Scholar
170. R. V. Rao and B. K. Patel , A subjective and objective integrated multiple attribute decision making method for material selection, Materials and Design 31(10) (2010) 4738–4747. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
171. E. Krishnan, R. Mohammed, A. Alnoor, O. S. Albahri, A. A. Zaidan, H. Alsattar, A. S. Albahri, B. B. Zaidan, G. Kou, R. A. Hamid and A. H. Alamoodi , Interval type 2 trapezoidal-fuzzy weighted with zero inconsistency combined with VIKOR for evaluating smart e-tourism applications, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 36(9) (2021) 4723–4774. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
172. R. T. Mohammed, A. A. Zaidan, R. Yaakob, N. M. Sharef, R. H. Abdullah, B. B. Zaidan, O. S. Albahri and K. H. Abdulkareem , Determining importance of many-objective optimization competitive algorithms evaluation criteria based on a novel fuzzy-weighted zero-inconsistency method, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 21(01) (2022) 195–241. Link, Web of Science, Google Scholar
173. G. Kou, O. Olgu Akdeniz, H. Dincer and S. Yuksel , Fintech investments in European banks: A hybrid IT2 fuzzy multidimensional decision making approach, Financial Innovation 7(39) (2021a) 1–28. Google Scholar
174. F. Liang, M. Brunelli, K. Septian and J. Rezaei , Belief-based best worst method, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 20(1) (2021) 287–320. Link, Web of Science, Google Scholar
175. M. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, E. K. Zavadskas, M. Amiri and J. Antucheviciene , A new method of assessment based on fuzzy ranking and aggregated weights (AFRAW) for MCDM problems under type-2 fuzzy environment, Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research 50(1) (2016) 39–68. Web of Science, Google Scholar
176. E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Stevic, I. Tanackov and O. Prentkovskis , A novel multi-criteria approach — rough step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis method (R-SWARA) and its application in logistics, Studies in Informatics and Control 27(1) (2018) 97–106. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
177. N. F. Pan , Fuzzy AHP approach for selecting the suitable bridge construction method, Automation in Construction 17 (2008) 958–965. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
178. M. L. Tseng and A. S. F. Chiu , Evaluating firm’s green supply chain management in linguistic preferences, Journal of Cleaner Production 40 (2013) 22–31. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
179. Y. J. Lai and C. L. Hwang , Fuzzy Multiple Objective Decision Making: Methods and Applications (Springer, Berlin, 1996). Google Scholar
180. A. Borovicka , New approach for estimation of criteria weights based on a linguistic evaluation, Expert Systems with Applications 125 (2019) 100–111. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
181. B. Ezell, C. J. Lynch and P. T. Hester , Methods for weighting decisions to assist modelers and decision analysts: A review of ratio assignment and approximate techniques, Applied Science 11 (2021) 10397. Crossref, Google Scholar
182. I. H. Sarker, A. Colman, J. Han, A. I. Khan, Y. B. Abushark and K. Salah , BehavDT: A behavioral decision tree learning to build user-centric context-aware predictive model, Mobile Networks and Applications 25 (2020) 1151–1161. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
183. T. C. Wang and H. D. Lee , Developing a fuzzy TOPSIS approach based on subjective weights and objective weights, Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 8980–8985. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
184. M. Zhou, X. Liu, Y. Chen, X. Qian, J. Yang and J. Wu , Assignment of attribute weights with belief distributions for MADM under uncertainties, Knowledge-Based Systems 189(3) (2020) 105–110. Google Scholar
185. D. H. Stimson , Utility measurement in public health decision making, Management Science 16(2) (1969) B17–B30. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
186. F. Barron and B. E. Barrett , Decision quality using ranked attribute weights, Management Science 42(11) (1996) 1515–1523. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
187. P. Sureeyatanapas, K. Sriwattananusart, T. Niyamosoth, W. Sessomboon and S. Arunyanart , Supplier selection towards uncertain and unavailable information: An extension of TOPSIS method, Operations Research Perspectives 5 (2018) 69–79. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
188. M. Amiri and M. S. M. M. Emamat , Goal programming model for BWM, Informatica 31(1) (2020) 21–34. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
189. G. A. Miller , The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capability for processing information, Psychological Review 63 (1965) 81–97. Crossref, Google Scholar
190. X. Xu , A note on the subjective and objective integrated approach to determine attributes weights, European Journal of Operational Research 156(2) (2004) 530–532. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
191. A. Jahan and K. L. Edwards , A state-of-the-art survey on the influence of normalization techniques in ranking: Improving the materials selection process in engineering design, Materials and Design 65 (2015) 335–342. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
192. S. Saffarzadeh, A. Hadi-vencheh and A. Jamshidi , Weight determination and ranking priority in interval group MCDM, Scientia Iranica 27(6) (2020) 3242–3252. Web of Science, Google Scholar
193. G. Kou, Y. Xu, Y. Peng, F. Shen, K. Chang and S. Kou , Bankruptcy prediction for SMEs using transactional data and two-stage multi-objective feature selection, Decision Support Systems 140 (2021b) 113429. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
194. W. Edwards , Social utilities, The Engineering Economist Summer Symposium Series 6 (1977) 119–129. Google Scholar
195. E. U. Choo, B. Schoner and W. C. Wedley , Interpretation of criteria weights in multi-criteria decision making, Computers & Industrial Engineering 37(3) (1999) 527–541. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
196. M. A. Hatefi and H. R. Balilehvand , Risk assessment of oil and gas drilling operation: An empirical case using a hybrid GROC-VIMUN-modified FMEA method, Process Safety and Environmental Protection 170 (2023) 392–402. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar