CN115115212A - Autonomous optimization sorting method suitable for similar schemes - Google Patents
Autonomous optimization sorting method suitable for similar schemes Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- CN115115212A CN115115212A CN202210725609.XA CN202210725609A CN115115212A CN 115115212 A CN115115212 A CN 115115212A CN 202210725609 A CN202210725609 A CN 202210725609A CN 115115212 A CN115115212 A CN 115115212A
- Authority
- CN
- China
- Prior art keywords
- voting
- score
- scheme
- scoring
- sorting
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Pending
Links
Images
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
- G06Q10/063—Operations research, analysis or management
- G06Q10/0639—Performance analysis of employees; Performance analysis of enterprise or organisation operations
- G06Q10/06393—Score-carding, benchmarking or key performance indicator [KPI] analysis
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F17/00—Digital computing or data processing equipment or methods, specially adapted for specific functions
- G06F17/10—Complex mathematical operations
- G06F17/16—Matrix or vector computation, e.g. matrix-matrix or matrix-vector multiplication, matrix factorization
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G07—CHECKING-DEVICES
- G07C—TIME OR ATTENDANCE REGISTERS; REGISTERING OR INDICATING THE WORKING OF MACHINES; GENERATING RANDOM NUMBERS; VOTING OR LOTTERY APPARATUS; ARRANGEMENTS, SYSTEMS OR APPARATUS FOR CHECKING NOT PROVIDED FOR ELSEWHERE
- G07C13/00—Voting apparatus
Landscapes
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
- General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- Human Resources & Organizations (AREA)
- Mathematical Physics (AREA)
- Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
- Economics (AREA)
- Computational Mathematics (AREA)
- Data Mining & Analysis (AREA)
- Strategic Management (AREA)
- Pure & Applied Mathematics (AREA)
- Development Economics (AREA)
- Mathematical Optimization (AREA)
- Mathematical Analysis (AREA)
- Entrepreneurship & Innovation (AREA)
- Educational Administration (AREA)
- Computing Systems (AREA)
- General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
- Tourism & Hospitality (AREA)
- Quality & Reliability (AREA)
- Operations Research (AREA)
- Marketing (AREA)
- Algebra (AREA)
- Game Theory and Decision Science (AREA)
- Databases & Information Systems (AREA)
- Software Systems (AREA)
- General Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)
Abstract
The invention discloses an autonomous optimization sorting method suitable for similar schemes, which comprises the steps of quantitatively scoring alternative schemes A in an expert comprehensive quantitative scoring mode, performing first-step sorting according to the score, and listing alternative scheme sets B with equal comprehensive scores; performing the second step of sorting by adopting a voting scoring mode aiming at the alternative schemes B with equal scores, and simultaneously finding out scheme sets C with the same voting scores; and (4) adopting a centralized conference manner to clarify the conditions for the scheme sets C with the same voting scores, and carrying out collective research to obtain a final sequencing conclusion. The method mainly solves the problems of low decision efficiency and the like caused by small difference between the advantages and the disadvantages of alternative schemes in the field of multi-objective decision making and multi-attribute decision making, difficulty in ranking the advantages and the disadvantages under the conditions of the same quantitative scoring or voting scoring result and the like of the alternative schemes, provides support for scientific and reasonable comprehensive evaluation, and effectively improves the decision making efficiency.
Description
Technical Field
The invention belongs to the technical field of data processing, and particularly relates to an autonomous optimal sorting method suitable for similar schemes.
Background
The scientific comprehensive evaluation method is a main means for fair and fair assessment, and comprehensive evaluation is comprehensive consideration of the score results of various evaluation indexes of the alternative schemes and the influence weight of the indexes on the comprehensive evaluation results. For the cross and influence of evaluation index systems, a quantitative scoring mode is difficult to be scientific, and meanwhile, when the scoring results of different alternative schemes are the same, the quality of the alternative schemes is difficult to be reasonably sequenced. If the modes such as voting and the like are adopted only and greatly influenced by subjective factors, and the situations that the votes obtained by different alternative schemes are the same are faced at the same time, the comprehensive evaluation results of the alternative schemes are difficult to reach the consistency, and then scientific decisions are made.
Therefore, an autonomous optimal sorting method suitable for similar schemes is urgently needed to be established, accurate objective data support of scheme sorting can be ensured, subjective factors of review experts or judges can be considered, and scientific and effective comprehensive evaluation results of comprehensive scoring sorting have important practical significance. Currently, the known methods have the following problems:
firstly, the existing evaluation method adopts a panel board or expert quantitative scoring mode, and aiming at alternative schemes with the same score, reasonable sequencing is difficult to make so as to assist evaluation decision;
secondly, sorting is carried out by voting, so that influence of subjective factors is large, and quantitative data support is lacked; meanwhile, when the votes obtained by the alternative schemes are consistent, the opinions are difficult to concentrate, the agreement is achieved, and the decision efficiency is low.
Disclosure of Invention
In order to solve the problems, the invention provides an autonomous optimization ordering method suitable for similar schemes, mainly solving the problems of low decision efficiency and the like caused by small difference between the advantages and the disadvantages of alternative schemes in the fields of multi-objective decision making and multi-attribute decision making, difficulty in ordering the advantages and the disadvantages under the conditions of the same quantitative scoring or voting scoring results of the alternative schemes and the like, and providing support for scientific and reasonable comprehensive evaluation and effectively improving the decision efficiency.
In order to achieve the purpose, the invention adopts the technical scheme that: an autonomous preference ranking method applicable to similar schemes, comprising the steps of:
step 1, inputting an alternative scheme set A to a preferred sequencing model;
step 2, in the preferred sequencing model, sequencing the alternative schemes A by adopting quantitative scoring, and listing scheme sets B with the same score;
step 3, sorting the scheme set B in a voting scoring mode, and listing a scheme set C with the same voting score;
step 4, the scheme set C is sorted in a way of meeting revision voting scoring, and a scheme set D is listed;
and 5, comprehensively scoring and sorting, namely sorting all the schemes in the scheme set A by comprehensively combining the scheme sorting results with different quantitative scores in the step 1, the scheme sorting results with different voting scores in the step 2 and the sorting results in the step 3, and preferably outputting a final sorting result by a sorting model.
Further, in the step 2, the alternatives a are sorted by quantitative scoring, and the scheme sets B with the same score are listed, including the steps of:
2.1. determining evaluation indexes of the alternative scheme quantitative scoring;
2.2. determining the weight of each evaluation index;
2.3. introducing a scoring rule of each evaluation index;
2.4. and sorting the alternative schemes according to the scores according to the weight and the scoring rule, and listing a scheme set B with the same score.
Further, the scoring rule for introducing each evaluation index includes: and determining a grade scoring mode or a percentage or a tenth value scoring mode for each single evaluation index.
Further, according to the weight and the scoring rule, the alternatives are sorted according to the scores, and the scheme set B with the same score is listed, and the method comprises the following steps:
firstly, carrying out quantitative processing on qualitative indexes in a grading result to obtain decision matrixes X of m alternative schemes;
standardizing the score result by adopting a linear scale transformation or range transformation index standardization method to obtain a decision matrix Y after standardization;
calculating a comprehensive quantization score result G of each alternative scheme by adopting a linear weighting method, a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation or analytic hierarchy process method or an analytic hierarchy process-fuzzy comprehensive evaluation combined evaluation method;
and sorting the alternatives according to the height of the comprehensive score, and listing the alternatives B with the same comprehensive score.
Further, in the step 3, the scheme sets B are sorted in a voting scoring manner, and the scheme sets C with the same voting score are listed, including the steps of:
3.1 sorting the alternatives with the same score by adopting a voting sorting mode;
3.2 calculating the voting score of the alternative under each expert voting sorting result;
3.3 list the scheme sets C with the same voting score.
Further, calculating the voting score of the alternative under each expert voting ranking result, comprising the steps of:
calculating the voting score of each scheme in the alternative scheme set B, obtaining a q score by voting the first alternative scheme, obtaining a q-1 score by the second alternative scheme, and sequentially decreasing to the last 1 score of the ranking to obtain a voting ranking score matrix O;
calculating the total voting ranking score of each scheme in the alternative scheme set B;
and determining a scheme set C with the same voting ranking score in the scheme set B.
Further, step 4, the scheme set C is sorted by adopting a conference revision voting scoring mode, and a scheme set D is listed, and the method comprises the following steps:
4.1 setting the defined conditions of the meeting decision;
4.2 the voting order in the qualified conditional revision scheme set C according to the meeting decision;
4.3 recalculating the vote score in the scheme set C according to the revised vote ranking.
The beneficial effects of the technical scheme are as follows:
the method adopts an expert comprehensive quantitative scoring mode to quantitatively score the alternative schemes A, carries out first-step sequencing according to the score, and lists an alternative scheme set B with equal comprehensive scores; sorting the second step by adopting a voting scoring mode aiming at the alternative schemes B with equal scores, and simultaneously finding out a scheme set C with the same voting score; and (4) adopting a centralized conference manner to clarify the conditions for the scheme sets C with the same voting scores, and carrying out collective research to obtain a final sequencing conclusion. The autonomous optimal sorting method applicable to similar schemes, provided by the invention, fully honors the result of the democratic scoring of each judge in scoring sorting, simultaneously performs conference discussion under the conditions of equal scores, equal ticket numbers and the like, fully exerts the advantage of centralized scoring, ensures that relatively accurate data support and most subjective opinions can be reasonably considered in the fields of multi-attribute decision-making, multi-objective decision-making and the like of judges, enables the judges to quickly reach a consistent opinion in the sorting of alternative schemes, and improves the efficiency of comprehensive scoring sorting.
Drawings
FIG. 1 is a flow chart of an autonomous preferred ranking method applicable to a similar scheme according to the present invention.
Detailed Description
In order to make the objects, technical solutions and advantages of the present invention more apparent, the present invention is further described with reference to the accompanying drawings.
In this embodiment, referring to fig. 1, the present invention provides an autonomous preferred ranking method suitable for similar schemes, including the steps of:
step 1, inputting an alternative scheme set A to a preferred sequencing model;
step 2, in the preferred sequencing model, sequencing the alternative schemes A by adopting quantitative scoring, and listing scheme sets B with the same score;
step 3, sorting the scheme set B in a voting scoring mode, and listing a scheme set C with the same voting score;
step 4, the scheme set C is sorted in a way of meeting revision voting scoring, and a scheme set D is listed;
and 5, comprehensively scoring and sorting, namely, comprehensively sorting all the schemes in the scheme set A by using the sorting results of the schemes with different quantitative scores in the step 1, the sorting results of the schemes with different voting scores in the step 2 and the sorting results in the step 3, and preferably, outputting a final sorting result by using a sorting model.
As an optimization scheme of the above embodiment:
for m alternative sets a ═ a 1 ,a 2 ,...,a m E, a panel of judges E ═ E 1 ,e 2 ,...,e p And (5) scoring m alternative schemes by p judges, and finally, integrating opinions of all the judges to sort the alternative schemes.
1. And quantitatively scoring each scheme in the alternative scheme set A, and sorting according to the score.
1.1 determining comprehensive evaluation index V of the alternative scheme:
V＝{v 1 ,v 2 ,...,v n }，v i is a single index.
1.2 determining the weight or degree of importance of each index in V:
determining the weight W of the evaluation index by using subjective weighting methods such as a concatenated ratio method, a relative comparison method, an analytic hierarchy process and an expert consultation method, or objective weighting methods such as an entropy value method and an improved ideal solution method, or combined weighting methods such as an analytic hierarchy process and an entropy value method{ω 1 ,ω 2 ,...,ω m }。ω i For each individual evaluation index v i The weight of (c).
1.3 determining the scoring rules of various comprehensive evaluation indexes:
for each individual evaluation index c i And determining scoring modes (such as excellent, good, passing, failing and the like) or scoring modes such as percentage or ten-point values.
1.4 calculating the comprehensive scores of all the alternative schemes, and sequencing the alternative schemes according to the scores
1.4.1 firstly, the qualitative indexes in the grading result are quantized to obtain decision matrixes X of m alternative schemes.
In the formula, x ij Is the ith alternative a i In the evaluation index v j The original score of.
1.4.2, standardizing the score result by adopting index standardization methods such as linear scale transformation, range transformation and the like to obtain a decision matrix Y after standardization.
In the formula, y ij Is the ith alternative a i In the evaluation index v j Normalized values.
If linear scaling is adopted:
if the range conversion is adopted:
1.4.3, calculating a comprehensive quantitative score result G of each alternative scheme by adopting methods such as a linear weighting method, a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method, an analytic hierarchy process and the like or a combined evaluation method such as the analytic hierarchy process-fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method and the like.
G＝{g 1 ,g 2 ,...,g m }。
1.4.4 ordering alternatives by composite score.
R＝RANK(a 1 ,a 2 ,...,a m )。
1.4.5 list alternatives B with the same composite score:
set of alternatives B ═ B for q score equalizations 1 ,b 2 ,...,b q }，
2. And sorting the alternatives in the set B by adopting a voting scoring mode.
2.1 vote ranking for alternative B with the same score:
the appraiser set E ═ { E ═ E 1 ,e 2 ,...,e p Among them, p judges need to give B ═ B 1 ,b 2 ,...,b q And q schemes with equal scores in the sequence are sorted.
2.2 calculating the voting scores of the schemes in the set B under the voting sorting result of each comment.
2.2.1 calculating the voting score of each scheme in the alternative scheme set B, obtaining a q score by voting the first alternative scheme, obtaining a q-1 score by the second alternative scheme, and sequentially decreasing to the last 1 score of the ranking to obtain a voting ranking score matrix O.
In the formula o ij Is the ith expert e i For scheme b j The voting ranking score is 1 to o ij Q is less than or equal to q, p is the total number of judges, and q is the number of schemes in the voting sorting.
2.2.2 calculate the total voting ranking score for each solution in the alternative set B.
In the formula, Q j Is the case B in the case set B j Voting ranking total score of o ij For the ith comment party e i For scheme b j The votes are ranked and scored.
2.2.3 determine the solution set with the same voting ranking score in the solution set B. C ═ C 1 ,c 2 ,...}。
3. Ranking the alternative set C with the same voting ranking score
3.1 determining qualifying conditions
The explicit alternative set C is agreed upon as not being the first-ranked scheme or not being the second-ranked scheme or not being the last scheme.
3.2 modifying the voting ordering of the schemes in the set C according to the defined conditions determined by the meeting
3.3 ordering the alternatives with the same voting score.
4. Comprehensive scoring and sorting
And (4) integrating the sequencing conclusions of the step 1, the step 2 and the step 3 to sequence all the schemes in the scheme set A.
As a specific embodiment of the above examples:
the main ideas of the invention are elaborated by taking the comprehensive ability evaluation of students as an example:
for 5 alternative sets a ═ { a ═ a 1 ,a 2 ,a 3 ,a 4 ,a 5 E, review expert set E ═ E 1 ,e 2 ,e 3 And 5, scoring the 5 alternative solutions by 3 experts, and finally, integrating all expert opinions to sort the alternative solutions.
Step 1, sequencing the alternative schemes in a quantitative scoring mode
1.1 comprehensive evaluation index V
Comprehensive evaluationThe price indices include ideological and moral diathesis (v) 1 ) Professional diathesis (v) 2 ) Physical and mental conditions (v) 3 ) Human diathesis (v) 4 ) Ability and quality (v) 5 ) Defining a set of synthetic indexes V ═ V 1 ,v 2 ,...,v 5 }。
1.2 determining the weight or degree of importance of each index in V
Determining weight omega of evaluation index by adopting analytic hierarchy process 1 ＝0.178，ω 2 ＝0.365，ω 3 ＝0.132，ω 4 ＝0.079，ω 5 ＝0.247。
| V | v 1 | v 2 | v 3 | v 4 | v 5 | Weight of |
| v 1 | 1 | 1/3 | 2 | 3 | 1/2 | 0.178 |
| v 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 0.365 |
| v 3 | 1/2 | 1/2 | 1 | 2 | 1/2 | 0.132 |
| v 4 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1 | 1/3 | 0.079 |
| v 5 | 2 | 1/2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0.247 |
1.3 determination of the Scoring rules for various comprehensive evaluation indexes
Five evaluation indexes are graded, and the thought moral quality adopts a four-grade grading mode of excellence, good passing and failing; the professional quality is measured by the average score (percent system) of all courses of the learned professions; physical and mental quality is measured according to average (percentile) scores of physical classes and psychological courses; the human quality participates in the performance of the literature and art activities, and the score is made by 10 points; and the competence quality is quantified to obtain scientific research scores according to activities such as published papers, applied patents, participating in scientific research projects and the like.
1.4 calculating the comprehensive scores of all the alternative schemes, and sequencing the alternative schemes according to the scores
1.4.1 firstly, the qualitative indexes in the grading result are quantized to obtain decision matrixes X of 5 alternative solutions.
And converting the scoring result into a decision matrix X.
1.4.2 adopting index standardization methods such as range transform and the like to carry out standardization processing on the X to obtain a standardization decision matrix Y.
1.4.3 the result G of the comprehensive quantization score of each alternative scheme is calculated by adopting a linear weighting method, and the total score of 5 schemes is respectively 0.6,1.6,1.6,1.6 and 0.9.
G＝{0.6,1.6,1.6,1.6,0.9}。
1.4.4, 5 schemes in the alternative scheme set A are sorted according to the height of the comprehensive score.
The sequencing result is as follows: the first name is as follows: a is 2 ,a 3 ,a 4 (ii) a The second name is as follows: a is 5 And the third name is: a is 1 。
1.4.5 list alternatives B with the same composite score
Due to the appearance of a in quantitative scoring 2 ,a 3 ,a 4 When the scores of the three schemes are the same, the three schemes cannot be sorted according to the height of the scores, and an alternative scheme set B with the same score in the quantitative scoring is defined as { a ═ 2 ,a 3 ,a 4 }, the next step requires 3Ministry of evaluation e 1 ,e 2 ,e 3 Through voting rules to three schemes a in B 2 ,a 3 ,a 4 And (6) sorting.
2. Calculating voting scores for equally scored alternatives in the quantitative score
2.1 alternative B ═ a for the same score 2 ,a 3 ,a 4 Sorting by adopting a voting sorting mode.
2.2 calculating the voting scores of the alternatives in the set B under each comment voting sorting result.
2.2.1 calculating the voting ranking scores of the 3 schemes in the alternative scheme set B, wherein the alternative scheme with the first voting ranking obtains 3 scores, the alternative scheme with the first voting ranking obtains 2 scores in the ranking, and the alternative scheme with the second voting ranking obtains 1 score in the ranking, so as to obtain a voting ranking score matrix O.
2.2.2 computing alternative set B ═ { a ═ a 2 ,a 3 ,a 4 Total vote ranking score for each of the schemes.
Scheme a 2 Total score of voting ranking:
scheme a 3 Total score of voting ranking:
scheme a 4 Total score of voting ranking:
2.2.3 determine the scheme set C with the same voting ranking score in the scheme set B.
Alternative set B ═ a 2 ,a 3 ,a 4 The voting ranking scores of the three schemes are the same, so the scheme set C ═ a with the same voting ranking score 2 ,a 3 ,a 4 Which means that a cannot be accurately given by means of voting scoring 2 ,a 3 ,a 4 And (4) sequencing results of the three schemes, and sequencing the three schemes in the step C in a way of meeting research.
3. Ranking the alternative set C with the same voting ranking score
3.1 determining the constraints of a meeting decision
Three judges agreed upon: scheme a 3 In the ideological and moral diathesis (v) 1 ) Human diathesis (v) 4 ) Are all at the end of the alternatives, thus scheme a 3 Can not be ranked in the first name, will a 3 The first ranked judge e 2 The voting sorting result needs to be changed, and the voting sorting result shown in the table is adjusted to obtain a new sorting result.
3.2 order of votes in the qualified conditional revision scheme set C according to the meeting decision.
3.3 recalculating the vote score in the solution set C based on the revised vote ranking
And recalculating the scores of the voting sorting of the three schemes according to the voting sorting result:
scheme a 2 Total score of voting ranking:
scheme a 3 Total score of voting ranking:
scheme a 4 Total score of voting ranking:
3.4, the scheme in the C is sorted according to the voting sorting score:
the scoring results are apparently sorted according to vote, a 4 ＞a 2 ＞a 3 。
4. Comprehensive scoring and sorting
Integrating the sorting results of step 1, step 2 and step 3 to set the candidate scheme A ═ a 1 ,a 2 ,a 3 ,a 4 ,a 5 The 5 schemes in the tree are sorted.
a 4 ＞a 2 ＞a 3 ＞a 5 ＞a 1
The sequencing conclusion is as follows: first, a 4 (ii) a Second, a 2 (ii) a Third, a 3 (ii) a Fourth, a 2 (ii) a Fifth, a 1 。
The foregoing shows and describes the general principles and broad features of the present invention and advantages thereof. It will be understood by those skilled in the art that the present invention is not limited to the embodiments described above, which are described in the specification and illustrated only to illustrate the principle of the present invention, but that various changes and modifications may be made therein without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention, which fall within the scope of the invention as claimed. The scope of the invention is defined by the appended claims and equivalents thereof.
Claims (7)
1. An autonomous preference ranking method applicable to similar schemes, comprising the steps of:
step 1, inputting an alternative scheme set A to a preferred sequencing model;
step 2, in the preferred sequencing model, sequencing the alternative schemes A by adopting quantitative scoring, and listing scheme sets B with the same score;
step 3, sorting the scheme set B in a voting scoring mode, and listing a scheme set C with the same voting score;
step 4, the scheme set C is sorted in a way of meeting revision voting scoring, and a scheme set D is listed;
and 5, comprehensively scoring and sorting, namely sorting all the schemes in the scheme set A by comprehensively combining the scheme sorting results with different quantitative scores in the step 1, the scheme sorting results with different voting scores in the step 2 and the sorting results in the step 3, and preferably outputting a final sorting result by a sorting model.
2. The autonomous preferred ranking method for similar solutions according to claim 1, wherein in step 2, ranking the solution A with quantitative scores, listing the solution sets B with the same score, comprising the steps of:
2.1. determining evaluation indexes of the alternative scheme quantitative scoring;
2.2. determining the weight of each evaluation index;
2.3. introducing a scoring rule of each evaluation index;
2.4. and according to the weight and a scoring rule, sorting the alternative schemes according to the scores, and listing a scheme set B with the same score.
3. The method according to claim 2, wherein the scoring rules for each evaluation index are introduced as follows: and determining a grade scoring mode or a percentage or a tenth value scoring mode for each single evaluation index.
4. The autonomous preferred ranking method for similar solutions according to claim 2, wherein the alternatives are ranked according to the scores according to the weights and the scoring rules, and the solution sets B with the same scores are listed, comprising the steps of:
firstly, carrying out quantitative processing on qualitative indexes in a grading result to obtain decision matrixes X of m alternative schemes;
standardizing the score result by adopting a linear scale transformation or range transformation index standardization method to obtain a decision matrix Y after standardization;
calculating a comprehensive quantization score result G of each alternative scheme by adopting a linear weighting method, a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation or analytic hierarchy process method or an analytic hierarchy process-fuzzy comprehensive evaluation combined evaluation method;
and sorting the alternatives according to the height of the comprehensive score, and listing the alternatives B with the same comprehensive score.
5. The autonomous preferred ranking method for similar schemes according to claim 1, wherein in step 3, the scheme set B is ranked in a voting scoring manner, and the scheme set C with the same voting score is listed, including the steps of:
3.1 sorting the alternatives with the same score by adopting a voting sorting mode;
3.2 calculating the voting score of the alternative under each expert voting sorting result;
3.3 list the scheme sets C with the same voting score.
6. The autonomous preferred ranking method for similarity schemes of claim 5 wherein the voting score of the alternative scheme under each expert voting ranking result is calculated, comprising the steps of:
calculating the voting score of each scheme in the alternative scheme set B, obtaining a q score by voting the first alternative scheme, obtaining a q-1 score by the second alternative scheme, and sequentially decreasing to the last 1 score of the ranking to obtain a voting ranking score matrix O;
calculating the total voting ranking score of each scheme in the alternative scheme set B;
and determining a scheme set C with the same voting ranking score in the scheme set B.
7. An autonomous preferred ranking method applicable to similar schemes according to claim 1, characterized by step 4. ranking the scheme set C using a protocol revision voting scoring method, listing the scheme set D, comprising the steps of:
4.1 setting the defined conditions of the meeting decision;
4.2 the voting order in the qualified conditional revision scheme set C according to the meeting decision;
4.3 recalculating the vote score in the scheme set C according to the revised vote ranking.
Priority Applications (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202210725609.XA CN115115212A (en) | 2022-06-23 | 2022-06-23 | Autonomous optimization sorting method suitable for similar schemes |
Applications Claiming Priority (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202210725609.XA CN115115212A (en) | 2022-06-23 | 2022-06-23 | Autonomous optimization sorting method suitable for similar schemes |
Publications (1)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| CN115115212A true CN115115212A (en) | 2022-09-27 |
Family
ID=83328531
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202210725609.XA Pending CN115115212A (en) | 2022-06-23 | 2022-06-23 | Autonomous optimization sorting method suitable for similar schemes |
Country Status (1)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| CN (1) | CN115115212A (en) |
Cited By (1)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN117973698A (en) * | 2024-03-28 | 2024-05-03 | 中国汽车技术研究中心有限公司 | Decision optimization system and method based on machine learning |
-
2022
- 2022-06-23 CN CN202210725609.XA patent/CN115115212A/en active Pending
Cited By (1)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN117973698A (en) * | 2024-03-28 | 2024-05-03 | 中国汽车技术研究中心有限公司 | Decision optimization system and method based on machine learning |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| CN110751355A (en) | Scientific and technological achievement assessment method and device | |
| CN107067182A (en) | Towards the product design scheme appraisal procedure of multidimensional image | |
| CN110532429B (en) | Online user group classification method and device based on clustering and association rules | |
| CN111311110A (en) | Cluster decision method based on dual hesitation fuzzy MULTIMORA and multi-granularity probability rough cluster | |
| CN110659213A (en) | Software quality evaluation method based on intuition fuzziness | |
| CN111784109A (en) | Supplier selection method based on Bidagolas fuzzy set and VIKOR | |
| CN111523768A (en) | Entropy weight-TOPSIS-based generalized demand side resource quality evaluation method | |
| CN115115212A (en) | Autonomous optimization sorting method suitable for similar schemes | |
| Emrouznejad et al. | Selecting the most preferable alternatives in a group decision making problem using DEA | |
| CN110968651A (en) | Data processing method and system based on grey fuzzy clustering | |
| CN114862144A (en) | Weight determination method suitable for performance evaluation | |
| CN114330716A (en) | University student employment prediction method based on CART decision tree | |
| CN108509588B (en) | Lawyer evaluation method and recommendation method based on big data | |
| CN107093005A (en) | The method that tax handling service hall's automatic classification is realized based on big data mining algorithm | |
| CN113435713A (en) | Risk map compiling method and system based on GIS technology and two-model fusion | |
| CN109992592B (en) | College poverty and poverty identification method based on flow data of campus consumption card | |
| CN113159535A (en) | Software service performance evaluation method based on entropy weight method | |
| Wang et al. | A vague set based decision support approach for evaluating research funding programs | |
| CN116307381A (en) | Method and system for evaluating green product design scheme based on multi-attribute decision | |
| Li et al. | Grey-incidence clustering decision-making method with three-parameter interval grey number based on regret theory | |
| CN114048977A (en) | Engineer classification method and device and terminal equipment | |
| Feng et al. | Job Recommendation System Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process and K-means Clustering | |
| CN112488438A (en) | Industrial enterprise comprehensive benefit evaluation method and system combining credit information | |
| Hayuningtyas et al. | Performance Evaluation of 198 Village Governments using Fuzzy TOPSIS and Intuitionistic Fuzzy TOPSIS | |
| CN112200474A (en) | Teaching quality evaluation method, terminal device and computer readable storage medium |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination |