Using Social Choice Function for Multi Criteria Decision Making Problems

Abstract

Many social choice preference functions or aggregation techniques, such as Borda, Copeland, Dodgson, Kemeny, are employed to obtain integrated solutions in multi-criteria decision problems. On the other hand, the number of studies comparing these techniques in the context of aggregation procedures in multi-criteria decision problems is limited. Furthermore, the advantages and disadvantages of the techniques have not been adequately discussed. In this context, the applicability of Borda, Copeland Dodgson, and Kemeny techniques in solving multi-criteria decision problems was investigated in this study. Analyses were performed on 500,000 samples containing various alternatives and sequences produced using the R software. The Kendall W test was used to assess the compatibility of the aggregation techniques. As a result, as the number of alternatives in the problem increases, the examined techniques produce an incomplete ranking. The features of the new aggregation technique to be developed were also determined in the context of the obtained results.

Keywords

• 22E46
• 53C35
• 57S20

References

1. Albulescu, A.-C., Grozavu, A., Larion, D., & Burghiu, G. (2022). Assessing the earthquake systemic vulnerability of the urban centres in the South-East region of Romania. The tale of Galați and Brăila Cities, Romania. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 13(1), 1106–1133. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2022.2065219
2. Almutairi, K., Mostafaeipour, A., Jahanshahi, E., Jooyandeh, E., Himri, Y., Jahangiri, M., Issakhov, A., Chowdhury, S., Hosseini Dehshiri, S., Hosseini Dehshiri, S., & Techato, K. (2021). Ranking Locations for Hydrogen Production Using Hybrid Wind-Solar: A Case Study. Sustainability, 13(8), 4524–4525. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084524
3. Arrow, K. J. (1951). Social choice and individual values. Yale University Press.
4. Aytekin, A., & Orakçı, E. (2020). Spor Kulüplerinin Performanslarının Çok Kriterli Karar Verme ve Toplulaştırma Teknikleriyle İncelenmesi. Ekonomi, Politika & Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 435–470. https://doi.org/10.30784/epfad.752483
5. Azadfallah, M. (2016). A Supplier Selection Using a Group Decision Making Under Multiple Criteria by Considering Individual Criteria Set. Journal of Supply Chain Management Systems, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.21863/jscms/2016.5.2.029
6. Banihabib, M. E., Hashemi, F., & Shabestari, M. H. (2016). A Framework for Sustainable Strategic Planning of Water Demand and Supply in Arid Regions. Sustainable Development, 25(3), 254–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1650
7. Barak, S., & Mokfi, T. (2019). Evaluation and selection of clustering methods using a hybrid group MCDM. Expert Systems with Applications, 138, 112817–112818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2019.07.034
8. Bartholdi, J., Tovey, C. A., & Trick, M. A. (1989). Voting schemes for which it can be difficult to tell who won the election. Social Choice and Welfare, 6(2), 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00303169

9. Black, D. (1948). On the Rationale of Group Decision-making. Journal of Political Economy, 56(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1086/256633
10. Boehmer, N., & Schaar, N. (2023). Collecting, classifying, analyzing, and using real-world ranking data. Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 1706–1715.
11. Copeland, A. H. (1951). A reasonable social welfare function.
12. Dodgson, C. (1876). A method of taking votes on more than two issues. The Theory of Committees and Elections.
13. Donyaii, A., Sarraf, A., & Ahmadi, H. (2020). Water Reservoir Multiobjective Optimal Operation Using Grey Wolf Optimizer. Shock and Vibration, 2020, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8870464
14. Dortaj, A., Maghsoudy, S., Doulati Ardejani, F., & Eskandari, Z. (2020). A hybrid multi-criteria decision making method for site selection of subsurface dams in semi-arid region of Iran. Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 10, 100284–100285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2019.100284
15. Duleba, S., & Moslem, S. (2018). Sustainable Urban Transport Development with Stakeholder Participation, an AHP-Kendall Model: A Case Study for Mersin. Sustainability, 10(10), 3647–3648. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103647
16. Ecer, F. (2021). A consolidated MCDM framework for performance assessment of battery electric vehicles based on ranking strategies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 143, 110916–110917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110916
17. Firouzi, S., Allahyari, M. S., Isazadeh, M., Nikkhah, A., & Van Haute, S. (2021). Hybrid multi-criteria decision-making approach to select appropriate biomass resources for biofuel production. Science of the Total Environment, 770, 144449–144450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144449
18. Gaertner, W. (2006). A primer in social choice theory. Oxford University Press.
19. Gök Kısa, A. C., & Perçin, S. (2020). Bulanık Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yaklaşimi İle Türkiye İmalat Sanayii'nde Performans Ölçümü. Uluslararası İktisadi Ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, 31–56. https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.522799
20. Heckelman, J. C., & Miller, N. R. (2015). Introduction: issues in social choice and voting. In Handbook of Social Choice and Voting. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783470730.00005
21. Honarmande Azimi, M., Taghizadeh, H., Fegh-hi Farahmand, N., & Pourmahmoud, J. (2014). Selection of industrial robots using the Polygons area method. International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, 5(4), 631–646. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijiec.2014.6.001
22. Kemeny, J. G. (1959). Mathematics without numbers. Daedalus, 88(4), 577–591.
23. Kendall, M. G., & Smith, B. B. (1939). The problem of m rankings. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 10(3), 275–287.
24. Kiani, M., Bagheri, M., Ebrahimi, A., & Alimohammadlou, M. (2019). A model for prioritizing outsourceable activities in universities through an integrated fuzzy-MCDM method. International Journal of Construction Management, 22(5), 784–800. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1645264
25. Li, X., Wang, X., & Xiao, G. (2017). A comparative study of rank aggregation methods for partial and top ranked lists in genomic applications. Briefings in Bioinformatics, 20(1), 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbx101
26. May, K. O. (1952). A Set of Independent Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Simple Majority Decision. Econometrica, 20(4), 680–681. https://doi.org/10.2307/1907651
27. Moghimi, M., & Taghizadeh Yazdi, M. (2017). Applying Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) Methods for Economic Ranking of Tehran-22 Districts to Establish Financial and Commercial Centers (Case: City of Tehran). Journal of Urban Economics and Management, 5(20), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.29252/iueam.5.20.39
28. Mostafaeipour, A., & Jooyandeh, E. (2017). Prioritizing the locations for hydrogen production using a hybrid wind-solar system: A case study. Advances in Energy Research, 5(2), 107–108.
29. Nanson, E. J. (1883). Methods of election. Royal Society of Victoria.
30. Penn, E. M. (2015). Arrow's Theorem and its descendants. In Handbook of Social Choice and Voting. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783470730.00022
31. Rossi, F., Venable, K. B., & Walsh, T. (2011). A Short Introduction to Preferences: Between Artificial Intelligence and Social Choice. Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, 5(4), 1–102. https://doi.org/10.2200/s00372ed1v01y201107aim014
32. Sen, A. (1970). Collective choice and social welfare. Holden-Day.
33. Sidney, S. (1957). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 125(3), 497–498.
34. Supçiller, A. A., & Deligöz, K. (2018). Tedarikçi Seçimi Probleminin Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleriyle Uzlaşık Çözümü. Uluslararası İktisadi Ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, 355–368. https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.352742
35. Tavana, M., Shaabani, A., & Valaei, N. (2020). An integrated fuzzy framework for analyzing barriers to the implementation of continuous improvement in manufacturing. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 38(1), 116–146. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijqrm-06-2019-0196
36. Tuş Işık, A., & Aytaç Adalı, E. (2016). A new integrated decision making approach based on SWARA and OCRA methods for the hotel selection problem. International Journal of Advanced Operations Management, 8(2), 140–151. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJAOM.2016.079681
37. Ustinovichius, L., Zavadskas, E. K., & Podvezko, V. (2007). Application of a quantitative multiple criteria decision making (MCDM-1) approach to the analysis of investments in construction. Control and Cybernetics, 36(1), 251–268.
38. Voogd, J. H. (1982). Multicriteria Evaluation for Urban and Regional Planning.
39. Wang, J.-J., Jing, Y.-Y., Zhang, C.-F., & Zhao, J.-H. (2009). Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(9), 2263–2278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.06.021
40. Yakut, E. (2020). OECD ülkelerinin bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri gelişmişliklerinin MOORA ve WASPAS yöntemiyle değerlendirilerek kullanılan yöntemlerin Copeland yöntemiyle karşılaştırılması. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 24(3), 1275–1294.
41. Zanakis, S. H., Solomon, A., Wishart, N., & Dublish, S. (1998). Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 107(3), 507–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0377-2217(97)00147-1
42. Zavadskas, E., Cavallaro, F., Podvezko, V., Ubarte, I., & Kaklauskas, A. (2017). MCDM Assessment of a Healthy and Safe Built Environment According to Sustainable Development Principles: A Practical Neighborhood Approach in Vilnius. Sustainability, 9(5), 702–703. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050702
43. Çakır, E., & Özdemir, M. (2018). Alti Sigma Projelerinin Bulanik Copras Yöntemiyle Değerlendirilmesi: Bir Üretim İşletmesi Örneği. Verimlilik Dergisi, 1, 7–39.
44. Ömürbek, N., & Akçakaya, E. (2018). Forbes 2000 Listesinde Yeralan Havacilik Sektöründeki Şirketlerin Entropi, MAUT, COPRAS ve SAW Yöntemleri İle Analizi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(1), 257–278.
45. Şahin, M. (2021). A comprehensive analysis of weighting and multicriteria methods in the context of sustainable energy. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 18(6), 1591–1616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-020-02922-7