An application of TOPSIS and BWM for portfolio allocation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article introduces a comprehensive analysis of 20 leading companies, scrutinized through their financial metrics across various sectors. By deploying multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques, we aim to offer investors a clear and objective perspective on which companies stand out as the best investment options. Among the MCDM techniques, the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is utilized, renowned for its efficiency in handling complex decision-making scenarios which is conducted by two clauses. 1) Implementing TOPSIS with assigning equal weights and same share to every chosen metrics as criteria and 2) employ BWM (Best Worst Method) to calculate these weights base on their significance and relevancy to the prosses of ranking. According to the Result gained from the computation, ranks 1 to 5 belong to the similar companies with both assumptions which are Ford Motor Co, BP plc, Tesla Inc, General Motors Co and Exxon Mobil Corp. The consistency in rankings across two different weighting assumptions highlights the robustness of the criteria used, ensuring stable and reliable outcomes. This enhances the credibility of the findings, making them more trustworthy and citable for those who seek reliable and robust methodologies for informed investment decisions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".