arXiv subjects

Helder Gomes Costa

Publications and source records attributed to Helder Gomes Costa.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

TOPSIS-RAD: Ranking According to Desires

Traditional TOPSIS derives its reference points -- the Positive Ideal Solution ($PIS$) and Negative Ideal Solution ($NIS$) -- from the observed alternative set, making rankings susceptible to misalignment with decision-maker (DM) requirements, sensitivity to outlier performances, and rank reversal. This paper proposes TOPSIS-RAD, which addresses these issues by incorporating two arrays of DM-defined reference levels. Vetoed Performance Levels ($VPL$) exclude non-viable alternatives before normalisation, preventing them from distorting the ranking frontiers. Desired Performance Levels ($DPL$) cap performances at the DM's desired level before normalisation, anchoring the $PIS$ in explicit aspirations rather than dataset extremes. Three toy examples demonstrate each mechanism: $VPL$ reshapes normalisation boundaries by removing a non-viable alternative; fixed $DPL$ frontiers stabilise rankings by limiting the influence of performances well above the desired level. The method preserves the familiar distance-based structure of TOPSIS while grounding the ranking in stable, DM-specified boundaries. Limitations and future research directions are also discussed.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

A totally non-compensatory multi-criteria method for evaluating and improving level of satisfaction (LoS): proposal and application on Airport Terminal of Passengers

To evaluate and assign a service according customer's level of satisfaction (LoS) is a relevant issue in operations management. This is a typical situation in which the evaluators, have passed by heterogeneous experiences along their life which implies they could consider different variables when evaluating a product. Despite it, the models for measuring Los usually consider a homogeneous set of criteria when facing LoS evaluation. This study applies a totally non-compensatory modeling that allows each customer to select the criteria, from a whole set of aspects, the customer wants to use for evaluating LoS. The proposal was tested in evaluating LoS regarding the services provided by Airport Terminal of Passengers (ATPs) in Brazil, with data collected in a survey involving 19,240 passengers, interviewed at 15 Brazilian international airports. The data collected was imputed into ELECTRE TRI ME algorithm to obtain the a credibility degree of sorting the instances. The values of credibility degree were them used to obtain groups of ATPs. Finally, the statistical modes of the evaluations in each group were analyzed and compared. The proposal allowed a full non-compensatory approach to obtain the credibility degree even when considering perceptions from several evaluators that could use different criteria. As a result, it was identified, for each cluster of ATP, the criteria sets to be improved and even those to be prioritized. The pioneer modeling proposed in this article for evaluating LoS plus its instancing in ATPs terminals represents an original advance in the establishment of a multi-criteria decision aid (MCDA) model to assess the quality of services and fills a relevant gap for a full non-compensatory approach able to classify the LoS in the airport context, considering perceptions of multiple evaluators even if they use different criteria in their evaluations.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2024

Discovering the critical number of respondents to validate an item in a questionnaire: The Binomial Cut-level Content Validity proposal

The question that drives this research is: "How to discover the number of respondents that are necessary to validate items of a questionnaire as actually essential to reach the questionnaire's proposal?" Among the efforts in this subject, \cite{Lawshe1975, Wilson2012, Ayre_CVR_2014} approached this issue by proposing and refining the Content Validation Ratio (CVR) that looks to identify items that are actually essentials. Despite their contribution, these studies do not check if an item validated as "essential" should be also validated as "not essential" by the same sample, which should be a paradox. Another issue is the assignment a probability equal a 50\% to a item be randomly checked by a respondent as essential, despite an evaluator has three options to choose. Our proposal faces these issues, making it possible to verify if a paradoxical situation occurs, and being more precise in recommending whether an item should either be retained or discarded from a questionnaire.

stat.ME↗