A Unified Hybrid AHP, Utility, TOPSIS Decision Model for Enhancing Ranking Reliability in Complex Multi-Criteria Problems
Keywords:
Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM), Unified Decision Model, Hybrid AHP-Utility-TOPSIS, Ranking Reliability, Preference RepresentationAbstract
This study proposes a unified mathematical framework that integrates the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), and Utility Theory to enhance multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) in complex environments. While AHP provides a structured mechanism for deriving criterion weights, TOPSIS offers an effective geometric ranking approach, and Utility Theory captures nonlinear preferences and risk attitudes. However, these methods often operate independently, resulting in inconsistent rankings and incomplete representation of decision-maker behavior. The proposed framework bridges these gaps by combining AHP-derived weights, utility-transformed criterion values, and TOPSIS proximity measures into an integrated decision function. A numerical case study illustrates the full application of the model, including weight calculation, utility transformation, ideal-solution analysis, and composite scoring. Results show that the unified model produces more stable and discriminative rankings than pure AHP, pure TOPSIS, or pure Utility Theory. Sensitivity and robustness analyses further demonstrate that the integrated approach maintains ranking consistency under variations in weights, normalization methods, and utility parameters. Comparative validation using Spearman correlation confirms strong agreement with established methods while improving resilience to uncertainty. Overall, this research contributes a comprehensive and theoretically grounded MCDM framework that better reflects human judgment, strengthens ranking reliability, and is adaptable to diverse decision contexts. The unified model offers a powerful tool for practitioners and researchers seeking more accurate and robust decision support in multi-criteria environments.
Downloads
References
M. Aruldoss, T. M. Lakshmi, and V. P. Venkatesan, “A survey on multi criteria decision making methods and its applications,” Am. J. Inf. Syst., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 31–43, 2013.
K. V Katsikopoulos and G. Gigerenzer, “One-reason decision-making: Modeling violations of expected utility theory,” J. Risk Uncertain., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 35–56, 2008.
K. P. Yoon and W. K. Kim, “The behavioral TOPSIS,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 89, pp. 266–272, 2017.
R. R?dulescu, P. Mannion, D. M. Roijers, and A. Nowé, “Multi-objective multi-agent decision making: a utility-based analysis and survey,” Auton. Agent. Multi. Agent. Syst., vol. 34, no. 1, p. 10, 2020.
C.-H. Chen, “A novel multi-criteria decision-making model for building material supplier selection based on entropy-AHP weighted TOPSIS,” Entropy, vol. 22, no. 2, p. 259, 2020.
Y.-M. Wang and C. Parkan, “A general multiple attribute decision-making approach for integrating subjective preferences and objective information,” Fuzzy Sets Syst., vol. 157, no. 10, pp. 1333–1345, 2006.
D. Liginlal and T. T. Ow, “Modeling attitude to risk in human decision processes: An application of fuzzy measures,” Fuzzy Sets Syst., vol. 157, no. 23, pp. 3040–3054, 2006.
C.-W. Chang, C.-R. Wu, and H.-L. Lin, “Applying fuzzy hierarchy multiple attributes to construct an expert decision making process,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 7363–7368, 2009.
J. Sun, J. Wu, and D. Guo, “Performance ranking of units considering ideal and anti-ideal DMU with common weights,” Appl. Math. Model., vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 6301–6310, 2013.
H. Yao, H. J. Hamilton, and L. Geng, “A unified framework for utility-based measures for mining itemsets,” in Proc. of ACM SIGKDD 2nd Workshop on Utility-Based Data Mining, Citeseer, 2006, pp. 28–37.
V. Köbberling and P. P. Wakker, “Preference foundations for nonexpected utility: A generalized and simplified technique,” Math. Oper. Res., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 395–423, 2003.
J.-R. Chou, “A weighted linear combination ranking technique for multi-criteria decision analysis,” South African J. Econ. Manag. Sci., vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 28–41, 2013.
S. Chamoli, “Hybrid FAHP (fuzzy analytical hierarchy process)-FTOPSIS (fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity of an ideal solution) approach for performance evaluation of the V down perforated baffle roughened rectangular channel,” Energy, vol. 84, pp. 432–442, 2015.
Y. Ju and A. Wang, “Emergency alternative evaluation under group decision makers: A method of incorporating DS/AHP with extended TOPSIS,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 1315–1323, 2012.
M. Al-Dhafeeri, An analytic hierarchy process for technical risk assessment selection. The University of Manchester (United Kingdom), 2018.
G. Midgley, R. Y. Cavana, J. Brocklesby, J. L. Foote, D. R. R. Wood, and A. Ahuriri-Driscoll, “Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 229, no. 1, pp. 143–154, 2013.
C. A. B. e Costa, M. C. Carnero, and M. D. Oliveira, “A multi-criteria model for auditing a Predictive Maintenance Programme,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 217, no. 2, pp. 381–393, 2012.
E. Herowati, U. Ciptomulyono, J. Parung, and S. Suparno, “Expertise-based experts importance weights in adverse judgment,” ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci., vol. 9, no. 9, pp. 1428–1435, 2014.
T. K. Dijkstra, “On the extraction of weights from pairwise comparison matrices,” Cent. Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 103–123, 2013.
A. D. Youngblood and T. R. Collins, “Addressing balanced scorecard trade-off issues between performance metrics using multi-attribute utility theory,” Eng. Manag. J., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 11–17, 2003.
Z. Yue, “An extended TOPSIS for determining weights of decision makers with interval numbers,” Knowledge-based Syst., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 146–153, 2011.
V. R. R. Jose, R. F. Nau, and R. L. Winkler, “Scoring rules, generalized entropy, and utility maximization,” Oper. Res., vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 1146–1157, 2008.
J. Paetz, “Finding optimal decision scores by evolutionary strategies,” Artif. Intell. Med., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 85–95, 2004.
H. Lam, “Robust sensitivity analysis for stochastic systems,” Math. Oper. Res., vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 1248–1275, 2016.
B. Srdjevic and Z. Srdjevic, “Bi-criteria evolution strategy in estimating weights from the AHP ratio-scale matrices,” Appl. Math. Comput., vol. 218, no. 4, pp. 1254–1266, 2011.
S. Riedmaier, B. Danquah, B. Schick, and F. Diermeyer, “Unified framework and survey for model verification, validation and uncertainty quantification,” Arch. Comput. Methods Eng., 2020.
P. P. Bonissone, R. Subbu, and J. Lizzi, “Multicriteria decision making (MCDM): a framework for research and applications,” IEEE Comput. Intell. Mag., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 48–61, 2009.
A. Ishak, “Analysis of fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS methods in multi criteria decision making: Literature review,” in IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, IOP Publishing, 2020, p. 12147.
J. Kim, S. Rasouli, and H. Timmermans, “Hybrid choice models: principles and recent progress incorporating social influence and nonlinear utility functions,” Procedia Environ. Sci., vol. 22, pp. 20–34, 2014.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Jonhariono Sihotang, Juliana Batubara
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
