This article investigates the aggregation of rankings based on component importance measures to provide the decision maker with a guidance for design or maintenance decisions. In particular, ranking aggregation algorithms of the literature are considered, a procedure for ensuring that the aggregated ranking is compliant with the Condorcet criterion of majority principle is presented and two original ranking aggregation approaches are proposed. Comparisons are made on a case study of an auxiliary feed-water system of a nuclear pressurized water reactor.
ZioE. An introduction to the basics of reliability and risk analysis. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, 2007.
2.
ZioE. Computational methods for reliability and risk analysis. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, 2009.
3.
KuoWZhuX. Some recent advances on importance measures in reliability. IEEE T Reliab2012; 61(2): 344–360.
4.
BirnbaumZW. On the importance of different components in a multi component system. University of Washington. Technical Report no. 54, 20 May 1968.
5.
KuoWZhuX. Relations and generalizations of importance measures in reliability. IEEE T Reliab2012; 61(3): 659–674.
6.
KuoWZhuX. Importance measures in reliability, risk, and optimization: principles and applications. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2012.
7.
YoungbloodRW. Risk significance and safety significance. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2001; 73(2): 121–136.
8.
VeselyWEBelhadjMRezosJT. PRA importance measures for maintenance prioritization applications. Reliab Eng Syst Safe1994; 43(3): 307–318.
9.
CheokMCParryGWSherryRR. Use of importance measures in risk-informed regulatory applications. Reliab Eng Syst Safe1998; 60(3): 213–226.
10.
PengHCoitDWFengQ. Component reliability criticality or importance measures for systems with degrading components. IEEE T Reliab202; 61(1): 4–12.
11.
BeesonSAndrewsJD. Importance measures for non-coherent-system analysis. IEEE T Reliab2003; 42(3): 301–310.
12.
BorgonovoEApostolakisGE. A new importance measure for risk-informed decision making. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2001; 72(2): 193–212.
13.
ModarresM. Risk analysis in engineering: techniques, tools and trends. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2006.
14.
CheokMCParryGWSherryRR. Use of importance measures in risk informed applications. Reliab Eng Syst Safe1998; 60: 213–226.
15.
De CondorcetN. Essai sur l’application de l’analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la probabilité des voix. Paris: De l’imprimerie royale, 1785.
16.
BordaJC. Mémoire sur les elections au scrutin. Histoire de l’Académie Royal des Sciences, 16June1784.
17.
RousseauJJ. The social contract. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1962.
18.
BolandPJ. Majority systems and the Condorcet jury problem. Statistician1989; 30(3): 181–189.
19.
PesarinFLagoA. Nonparametric combination of dependent rankings with application to the quality assessment of industrial products. Metron2000; LVIII: 39–52.
EkenelHKSankurB. Feature selection in the independent component subspace for face recognition. Pattern Recogn Lett2004; 25(12): 1377–1388.
22.
GuyonIElisseeffA. An introduction to variable and feature selection. J Mach Learn Res2003; 3: 1157–1182.
23.
PihurVDattaSDattaS. Weighted rank aggregation of cluster validation measures: a Monte Carlo cross-entropy approach. Bioinformatics2007; 23(13): 1607–1615.
24.
DeCondeRHawleySFalconS. Combining results of microarray experiments: a rank aggregation approach. Stat Appl Genet Mo B2006; 5: 15.
25.
PihurVDattaSDattaS. Finding cancer genes through meta-analysis of microarray experiments: rank aggregation via the cross entropy algorithm. Genomics2008; 92: 400–403.
26.
BrinSPageL. The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine. Comput Netw1998; 30(1–7): 107–117.
27.
FaginR. Combining fuzzy information from multiple systems. J Comput Syst Sci1999; 58(1): 83–99.
28.
BorgersC.Mathematics of social choice: voting, compensation, and division. Philadelphia: SIAM, 2010.
29.
Di MaioFBandiniAZioE. Bootstrapped ensemble-based Sensitivity Analysis of a TRACE thermal-hydraulic model based on a limited number of PWR large break loca simulations. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2016; 153: 122–134.
30.
Ravi RavindranAWarsingDPJr. Supply chain engineering: models and applications. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
31.
DebKAgrawalSPratapA. A fast elitist non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm for multi-objective optimization: NSGA-II. IEEE T Evolut Comput2002; 6(2): 182–197.
32.
DworkCKumarRNaorM. Rank aggregation methods for the web. In: Proceedings of the tenth international world wide web conference, Hong Kong, 1–5 May 2001, pp.613–622. New York: ACM.
33.
DiaconisPGrahamR. Spearman’s footrule as a measure of disarray. J Roy Stat Soc B Met1977; 39(2): 262–268.
34.
PapoulisAPillaiSU. Probability, random variables and stochastic processes. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002.
35.
KemenyJ. Mathematics without numbers. Daedalus1959; 88: 571–591.
36.
TruchonM.An extension of the Condorcet criterion and Kemeny orders. cahier 98-15 du Centre de Recherche en Economie et Finance Appliquees, 1998.
37.
MunkresJ. Algorithms for the assignment and transportation problems. J Soc Ind Appl Math1957; 5(1): 32–38.
YoungHP. Condorcet’s theory of voting. Am Polit Sci Rev1988; 82: 1231–1244.
40.
BaraldiPCompareMZioE. Component ranking by Birnbaum importance in presence of epistemic uncertainty in failure event probabilities. IEEE T Reliab2013; 62(1): 37–48.
41.
BaraldiPZioECompareM. A method for ranking components importance in presence of epistemic uncertainties. J Loss Prevent Proc2009; 22(5): 582–592.
42.
ToppilaASaloA. A computational framework for prioritization of events in fault tree analysis under interval-valued probabilities. IEEE T Reliab2013; 62(3): 583–595.
43.
BorgonovoE. Measuring uncertainty importance: investigation and comparison of alternative approaches. Risk Anal2006; 26(5): 1349–1361.
44.
BorgonovoEApostolakisGETarantolaS. Comparison of global sensitivity analysis techniques and importance measures in PSA. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2003; 79(2): 175–186.
45.
AvenTNoklandTE. On the use of uncertainty importance measures in reliability and risk analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2010; 95(2): 127–133.
