Probabilistic judgments specified partially in the Analytic Hierarchy Process

European Journal of Operational Research

Volumn 108, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 153-164

  Basak, Indrani ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bayesian methods; Combining opinions; Dirichlet distribution; Expert opinion; Mixture of beta distributions; Quantiles

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MATRIX ALGEBRA; PROBABILITY; STATISTICAL METHODS;

ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS; BAYESIAN METHOD; DIRICHLET DISTRIBUTION; QUANTILES;

DECISION THEORY;

EID: 0032122904     PISSN: 03772217     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00140-9     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Basak, I., 1988. When to combine group judgments and when not to in the Analytic Hierarchy Process: a new method. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 10, 395-404.
2. Basak, I., 1989. Estimation of multi-criteria worths of alternatives in Saaty's hierarchical structure of comparisons. Communications in Statistics. Theory and Methods A18, 3719-3738.
3. Basak, I., 1990. Testing the rank order of the priorities of the alternatives in Saaty's ratio-scale method. European Journal of Operational Research 48, 148-152.
4. Basak, I., 1991. Inference in pairwise comparison experiments based on ratio scales. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 35, 80-91.
5. Basak, I., 1993. Incorporating within-pair order effects in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 17, 83-92.
6. Basak, I., Saaty, T.L., 1993. Group decision making using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 17, 101-109.
7. Dejong, P. 1984. A statistical approach to Saaty's scaling method of priorities. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 28, 467-478.
8. Dunn, O.J., 1964. Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics 6, 241-252.
9. Gelfand, A.E., Mallick, B.K., Dey, D.K., 1995. Modeling expert opinion arising as a partial probabilistic specification. Journal of the American Statistical Association 90, 598-604.
10. Hettmansperger, T.P., 1991. Statistical Inference Based on Ranks. Krieger, New York.
11. Kok, M., Lootsma, F.A., 1984. Pairwise comparison methods in multi-objective programming, with applications in a long-term energy-planning model. Technical Report No. 84-19, Delft University of Technology.
12. Kruskal, W.H., Wallis, W.A., 1952. Use of ranks in one criterion variance analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association 57, 583-621.
13. Lindley, D.V., 1983. Reconciliation of probability distributions. Operations Research 31, 866-880.
14. Lindley, D.V., 1985. Reconciliation of discrete probability distributions. In: Bernardo, J.M., et al. (Eds.), Bayesian Statistics, vol. 2. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 375-390.
15. Rosenbloom, E.S., 1995. A probabilistic approach to the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Submitted to European Journal of Operational Research.
16. Saaty, T.L., 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 5, 234-281.
17. Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York.
18. Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G., 1984. Comparison of eigenvalue, logarithmic least squares and least squares methods in estimating ratios. Mathematical Modeling 5, 309-324.
19. Vargas, L.G., 1982. Reciprocal matrices with random coefficients. Mathematical Modeling 3, 69-81.
20. West, M., 1988. Combining expert opinion. In: Bernardo, J.M., et al. (Eds.), Bayesian Statistics, vol. 3. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 493-508.