Which Objective Weight Method Is Better: PCA or Entropy?

Wu, RMX

Which Objective Weight Method Is Better: PCA or Entropy?

Wu, RMX

Permalink

Publisher:: Iris Publishers LLC
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Scientific Journal of Research & Reviews, 2022, 3, (2)
Issue Date:: 2022-03-15

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Published versionAdobe PDF (272.78 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Wu, RMX
dc.date.accessioned	2023-07-07T05:24:59Z
dc.date.available	2023-07-07T05:24:59Z
dc.date.issued	2022-03-15
dc.identifier.citation	Scientific Journal of Research & Reviews, 2022, 3, (2)
dc.identifier.issn	2687-8097
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/171290
dc.description.abstract	<jats:p>Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods have significantly been used for evaluating and ranking critical factors with conflicting characteristics in different fields and disciplines. Up-to-date literature indicated no study reported which method was most suitable for assessing hazard, risk, and emergency assessment. Practicians were still seeking a single responsive approach to keep the computing system’s lower load. The recent study indicated the PCA as the predominant, and the Entropy method as the second most widely adopted method. However, there was no answer for a better approach between the PCA and Entropy method. The practical implication suggested that comparative analysis should always be conducted to each case and determine the appropriate weighting method in the relevant circumstances or business system applications.</jats:p>
dc.language	en
dc.publisher	Iris Publishers LLC
dc.relation.ispartof	Scientific Journal of Research & Reviews
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.33552/sjrr.2022.03.000558
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.title	Which Objective Weight Method Is Better: PCA or Entropy?
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	3
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology/School of Professional Practice and Leadership
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
dc.date.updated	2023-07-07T05:24:59Z
pubs.issue	2
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	3
utslib.citation.issue	2

Abstract:

Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods have significantly been used for evaluating and ranking critical factors with conflicting characteristics in different fields and disciplines. Up-to-date literature indicated no study reported which method was most suitable for assessing hazard, risk, and emergency assessment. Practicians were still seeking a single responsive approach to keep the computing system’s lower load. The recent study indicated the PCA as the predominant, and the Entropy method as the second most widely adopted method. However, there was no answer for a better approach between the PCA and Entropy method. The practical implication suggested that comparative analysis should always be conducted to each case and determine the appropriate weighting method in the relevant circumstances or business system applications.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/171290