Table 18 Rankings obtained in the TSC aggregation using the basic preference model and various MCDM methods
From: Framework for multi-criteria assessment of classification models for the purposes of credit scoring
Method | Â | A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A5 | A6 | A7 | A8 | A9 | A10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Empirical ranking | Â | 7 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 10 | 8 | 9 | 6 | 3 |
PROSA-C + PROMETHEE II | \({\phi }_{net}\) | − 0.0180 | 0.0351 | 0.0680 | 0.0665 | 0.0498 | − 0.1119 | − 0.0236 | − 0.0843 | 0.0021 | 0.0164 |
| Â | Rank | 7 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 10 | 8 | 9 | 6 | 5 |
PROMETHEE II | \({\phi }_{net}\) | − 0.0299 | 0.0109 | 0.0472 | 0.0657 | 0.0323 | − 0.0842 | − 0.0189 | − 0.0917 | 0.0339 | 0.0347 |
| Â | Rank | 8 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 9 | 7 | 10 | 4 | 3 |
SAW | Score | 77.61 | 82.55 | 88.74 | 96.72 | 86.80 | 65.10 | 75.07 | 69.70 | 87.60 | 84.10 |
| Â | Rank | 7 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 10 | 8 | 9 | 3 | 5 |
TOPSIS | Score | 0.3701 | 0.6997 | 0.8361 | 0.9376 | 0.6201 | 0.2307 | 0.3446 | 0.2195 | 0.6854 | 0.7368 |
| Â | Rank | 7 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 9 | 8 | 10 | 5 | 3 |