Abstract:Data normalization is a fundamental part of preprocessing in decision-making problems. It enables aggregating and comparing different decision attributes using Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods. However, the choice of normalization technique significantly influences the final ranking. Different rankings are obtained using different normalization techniques for the same alternatives and methods. At the same time, the rank-reversal phenomenon is observed in many popular MCDM methods. This paper addresses the challenge of developing the MCDA method, which is rank-reversal free and solves the choosing normalization technique problem. We propose a new method called Compromise-COMET (C-COMET), which identifies the adaptive decision model based on many normalization techniques and finds a compromise solution. The Characteristic Objects METhod (COMET) has been modified to include a voting algorithm to assess characteristic objects. This approach is distinct from previous hybrid approaches, which integrated different MCDA methods with COMET since the main focus of this work is to obtain a compromise solution based on indirect voting. It means that instead of voting for the ranking of alternatives (like in the Copeland, Borda, or the Rank Position Method (RPM)), we vote for the preferences of characteristic objects. We identify a continuous assessment model free of the rank-reversal phenomenon in the result. Our investigation shows a study case where the Compromise-COMET method is considered with the TOPSIS method in detail. Afterward, we present more analysis for using C-COMET with Weighted Aggregated Sum Product ASSessment (WASPAS), COmbined COmpromise SOlution (COCOSO), MultiAttributive Ideal-Real Comparative Analysis (MAIRCA), and Measurement Alternatives and Ranking according to COmpromise Solution (MARCOS) methods to show the robustness of our proposal approach. The C-COMET algorithm models results with high values of weighted Spearman correlation and the weighted similarity (WS) coefficient, confirming our proposal's accuracy.

Are MCDA Methods Benchmarkable? A Comparative Study of TOPSIS, VIKOR, COPRAS, and PROMETHEE II Methods

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Methods Comparison

Simple additive weighting—A metamodel for multiple criteria decision analysis methods

The Compromise-COMET Method for Identifying an Adaptive Multi-Criteria Decision Model

A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods

Analysis of a Robot Selection Problem Using Two Newly Developed Hybrid MCDM Models of TOPSIS-ARAS and COPRAS-ARAS

TOPSIS and Modified TOPSIS: A Comparative Analysis

A Comparative Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision Methods for Personnel Selection: A Practical Approach

A Comparison of Various Aggregation Functions in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Drug Benefit-Risk Assessment

The use of multi-criteria decision-making methods in project portfolio selection: a literature review and future research directions

Sensitivity Assessment of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods in Chemical Engineering Optimization Applications

Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS

Are multi-criteria decision-making tools useful? An experimental comparative study of three methods

Preference Ranking on the Basis of Ideal-Average Distance Method for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making

Large-scale multiple criteria decision-making with missing values: project selection through TOPSIS-OPA

Integrated analytic hierarchy process and multi-criteria decision-making approach: An Application for Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Control Method Selection

Proposal of an innovative MCDA evaluation methodology: knowledge discovery through rank reversal, standard deviation, and relationship with stock return

A Study of Decision Process in MCDM Problems with Large Number of Criteria

Adaptive multi-criteria decision making for electric vehicles: a hybrid approach based on RANCOM and ESP-SPOTIS

Analytic Hierarchy Process in Multiple–Criteria Decision–Making: A Model Example