Comparison of Multi-Criteria Group Decision-Making Methods for Urban Sewer Network Plan Selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selecting a suitable sewer network plan for a city is a complex and challenging task that requires discussion among a group of experts and the consideration of multiple conflicting criteria with different measurement units. A number of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods have been proposed for analyzing sewer network selection problems, each having their own distinct advantages and limitations. Although many decision-making techniques are available, decision-makers are confronted with the difficult task of selecting the appropriate MCDM method, as each method can lead to different results when applied to an identical problem. This paper evaluates four different multi-criteria decision-making methods, which are the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), Elimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité (ELECTRE III) and the Preference Ranking Organization METHods for Enrichment Evaluations II (PROMETHEE II), for one sewer network group decision problem in the early stage of sewer water infrastructure asset management. Moreover, during the implementation of different MCDM methods, the Delphi technique is introduced to organize and structure the discussions among all the decision-makers. The results of the study are examined based on each method’s ability to provide accurate representations of the decision-makers’ preferences and their experience implementing each method. As a conclusion, decision-makers identify PROMETHEE II as their favorite method, AHP is more time and energy consuming and results in a number of inconsistencies, while TOPSIS loses information during vector normalization for multi-dimension criteria, and ELECTRE III’s results are inconclusive.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".