Search

Non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) efficiently reduces high dimensionality for many-objective ranking problems. In multi-objective optimization, as long as only three or four conflicting viewpoints are present, an optimal solution can be determined by finding the Pareto front. When the number of the objectives increases, the multi-objective problem evolves into a many-objective optimization task, where the Pareto front becomes oversaturated. The key idea is that NMF aggregates the objectives so that the Pareto front can be applied, while the Sum of Ranking Differences (SRD) method selects the objectives that have a detrimental effect on the aggregation, and validates the findings. The applicability of the method is illustrated by the ranking of 1176 universities based on 46 variables of the CWTS Leiden Ranking 2020 database. The performance of NMF is compared to principal component analysis (PCA) and sparse non-negative matrix factorization-based solutions. The results illustrate that PCA incorporates negatively correlated objectives into the same principal component. On the contrary, NMF only allows non-negative correlations, which enable the proper use of the Pareto front. With the combination of NMF and SRD, a non-biased ranking of the universities based on 46 criteria is established, where Harvard, Rockefeller and Stanford Universities are determined as the first three. To evaluate the ranking capabilities of the methods, measures based on Relative Entropy (RE) and Hypervolume (HV) are proposed. The results confirm that the sparse NMF method provides the most informative ranking. The results highlight that academic excellence can be improved by decreasing the proportion of unknown open-access publications and short distance collaborations. The proportion of gender indicators barely correlate with scientific impact. More authors, long-distance collaborations, publications that have more scientific impact and citations on average highly influence the university ranking in a positive direction.

Non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) efficiently reduces high dimensionality for many-objective ranking problems. In multi-objective optimization, as long as only three or four conflicting viewpoints are present, an optimal solution can be determined by finding the Pareto front. When the number of the objectives increases, the multi-objective problem evolves into a many-objective optimization task, where the Pareto front becomes oversaturated. The key idea is that NMF aggregates the objectives so that the Pareto front can be applied, while the Sum of Ranking Differences (SRD) method selects the objectives that have a detrimental effect on the aggregation, and validates the findings. The applicability of the method is illustrated by the ranking of 1176 universities based on 46 variables of the CWTS Leiden Ranking 2020 database. The performance of NMF is compared to principal component analysis (PCA) and sparse non-negative matrix factorization-based solutions. The results illustrate that PCA incorporates negatively correlated objectives into the same principal component. On the contrary, NMF only allows non-negative correlations, which enable the proper use of the Pareto front. With the combination of NMF and SRD, a non-biased ranking of the universities based on 46 criteria is established, where Harvard, Rockefeller and Stanford Universities are determined as the first three. To evaluate the ranking capabilities of the methods, measures based on Relative Entropy (RE) and Hypervolume (HV) are proposed. The results confirm that the sparse NMF method provides the most informative ranking. The results highlight that academic excellence can be improved by decreasing the proportion of unknown open-access publications and short distance collaborations. The proportion of gender indicators barely correlate with scientific impact. More authors, long-distance collaborations, publications that have more scientific impact and citations on average highly influence the university ranking in a positive direction.