Ranking aggregation of preferences with common set of weights using goal programming method

Document Type: Research Paper

Author

Department of Mathematics, Arak Branch, Islamic Azad University, Arak, Iran.

Abstract

In aggregation of preferences system, each decision maker (DM) selects a subset of the alternative and places them in a ranked order. The key issue of the aggregation preference is how to determine the weights associated with different ranking places. To avoid the subjectivity in determining the weights, data envelopment analysis (DEA) is used in Cook and Kress to determine the most favorable weights for each alternative. With respect to DEA-based models, two main criticisms appear in the literature: multiple top-ties and overly diverse weights. DEA models use assignments of the same aggregate value (equal to unity) to evaluate multiple alternatives as efficient. There is no criterion to discriminate among these alternatives in order to construct a ranking of alternatives. furthermore, overly diverse weights can appear, given that each alternative can have its own vector of weights (i.e., the one that maximizes its aggregate value). Thus, the efficiencies of different alternatives obtained by different sets of weights may be unable to be compared and ranked on the same basis In order to solve these two problems above, In order to rank all the alternatives on the same scale, In this paper we proposed an improvement to Kornbluth’s approach by introducing an multiple objective linear programming (MOLP) approach for generating a common set of weights in the DEA framework. In order to solve the MOLP model we use a goal programming (GP) model. solving the GP model gives us a common set of weights and then the efficiency scores of candidate can be obtained by using these common weights and finally we can rank all alternative.

Keywords


Andersen. P., Petersen N.C. (1993). A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis, Management Science 39, 1261–1264.

[2] Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W. (1952) Chance constraints and normal deviates, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 57 (1952) 134–148.

[3] Charnes A., Cooper W.W. (1961), Management Models and Industrial Applications of Linear Programming; John Wiley, New York.

[4] Charnes, A., Cooper W.W., E. Rhodes. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units, European Journal of Operational Research 2, (4) 429–444.

 [5] Cook, W.D. and Krees, M., (1990). A data envelopment model for aggregating preference     rankings. Management Science 36, 11, pp. 1302-1310.

[6] Foroughi, A.A.,  Tamiz, M. (2005). An effective total ranking model for a ranked voting system, Omega 33, 491–496.

 [7] Green, R.H., Doyle, J.R. and Cook, W.D. (1996). Preference voting and project ranking using   DEA and cross-evaluation. European Journal of Operational Research 90, 3, pp. 461-472.

[8] Ganley, J.A, Cubbin, J.S. (1992­) Public sector efficiency measurement: applications of data envelopment analysis. Amsterdam: North-Holland;

[9] Hashimoto, A. (1997). A ranked voting system using a DEA/AR exclusion model: A note.      European Journal of Operational Research 97, 3, pp. 600-604.

[10] Jahanshahloo, G.R., Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, F., Khanmohammadi, M., & Kazemimanesh, M. (2012) A method for discrimination efficient candidates with ranked voting data by common weightMathematical and Computational Applications, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.1-8.

[11] Kao, C., Hung, H.T. (2005) Data envelopment analysis with common weights: the compromise solution approach, J. Oper. Res. Soc. 56 (10), 1196–1203.

[12] Kornbluth J. (1991), Analysing policy effectiveness using cone restricted data envelopment   analysis; Journal of the Operational Research Society 42; 1097-1104.

[13] Lee, S.M. (1973) Goal programming for decision analysis of multiple objectives, Sloan Manage. Rev. 14 , 11–24.

[14] Lee, S.M., Clayton, S.R. (1972) A goal programming model for academic resource allocation, Manage. Sci. 18 (8), B395–B408.

[15] Liu, F.H.F., Peng, H.H. (2008) Ranking of units on the DEA frontier with common weights, Comput. Oper. Res. 35 (5), 1624–1637.

[16] Noguchi, H., Ogawa, M., and Ishii, H. (2002). The appropriate total ranking method using DEA for multiple categorized purposes. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 146, 155–166.

[17] Obata, T. and Ishii, H. (2003). A method for discriminating efficient candidates with ranked voting data. European Journal of Operational Research 151, 1, pp. 233-237.

[18] Tompson, F.D., Singleton, JR., Thrall, R.M., Smith B.A. (1986) Comparative Site Evaluations for Locating a High Energy Lab in Texas, Intetfaces, 1380-1395

[19] Wang, Y.M., Chin, K.S., and Yang, J.B. (2007). Three new models for preference voting and aggregation. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58 1389–1393.

[20] Wang, Y.M., Luo, Y., Lan, Y.X. (2011) Common weights for fully ranking decision making units by regression analysis, Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (8), 9122–9128.

 [21] Wang, Y.M., Luo, Y. (2006) DEA efficiency assessment using ideal and anti-ideal decision making units, Appl. Math. Comput. 173 (2) (2006) 902–915.

[22] Wang, Y. M., Luo, Y., and Liang, L. (2009). Ranking decision making units by imposing a minimum weight restriction in the data envelopment analysis. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 223(1), 469–484.

[23] Zerafat Angiz, M. Z., Emrouznejad, A., Mustafa, A., and Rashidi Komijan, A. (2009). Selecting the most preferable alternatives in group decision making problemusing DEA. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 9599–9602.