Technique of Accurate Ranking Order (TARO): A novel multi criteria analysis approach in performance evaluation of industrial robots for material handling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rank reversal in decision making is a common phenomenon resulting in confusion and ambiguity in selection procedure especially while multiple multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) techniques are independently applied. To eradicate this confusion, this paper proposes a novel MCDM methodology namely Technique of Accurate Ranking Order (TARO). The TARO method is an extension of conventional MCDM approaches. The proposed method commences at the end of conventional methodologies with the final selection values. The proposed technique, using an advanced version of entropy weighting method, initially measures weights of the final selection values. Subsequently, based on the final section values and their computed weights, TARO measures accurate selection indices that determine the accurate ranking order of the alternatives. The proposed technique is illustrated by three real life examples on robot selection problems. The results obtained by TARO justify the validity, applicability and requirements of the proposed techniques for proper decision making under the MCDM environment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.063 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".