A linear programming method for generating the most favorable weights from a pairwise comparison matrix

Computers and Operations Research

Volumn 35, Issue 12, 2008, Pages 3918-3930

  Wang, Ying Ming ^a   Parkan, Celik ^b   Luo, Ying ^c  

^a FUZHOU UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b LONG ISLAND UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c XIAMEN UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Analytic hierarchy process; Data envelopment analysis; Most favorable weights; Multicriteria decision analysis; Rank preservation

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS; DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS; MATRIX ALGEBRA; NUMERICAL METHODS;

MULTICRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS; RANK PRESERVATION;

LINEAR PROGRAMMING;

EID: 42949109605     PISSN: 03050548     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cor.2007.05.002     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Saaty T.L. Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process (2000), RWS Publications, Pittsburgh
2. Chu A.T.W., Kalaba R.E., and Spingarn K. A comparison of two methods for determining the weights of belonging to fuzzy sets. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 27 4 (1979) 531-538
3. Crawford G.B. The geometric mean procedure for estimating the scale of a judgment matrix. Mathematical Modelling 9 (1987) 327-334
4. Saaty T.L., and Vargas L.G. Comparison of eigenvalue, logarithmic least squares and least squares methods in estimating ratios. Mathematical Modelling 5 (1984) 309-324
5. Cogger K.O., and Yu P.L. Eigenweight vectors and least-distance approximation for revealed preference in pairwise weight ratios. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 46 (1985) 483-491
6. Islei G., and Lockett A.G. Judgemental modelling based on geometric least square. European Journal of Operational Research 36 (1988) 27-35
7. Bryson N. A goal programming method for generating priority vectors. Journal of the Operational Research Society 46 (1995) 641-648
8. Bryson N., and Joseph A. Generating consensus priority point vectors: a logarithmic goal programming approach. Computers & Operations Research 26 (1999) 637-643
9. Mikhailov L. A fuzzy programming method for deriving priorities in the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of the Operational Research Society 51 (2000) 341-349
10. Mikhailov L. Group prioritization in the AHP by fuzzy preference programming method. Computers & Operations Research 31 (2004) 293-301
11. Lipovetsky S., and Conklin W.M. Robust estimation of priorities in the AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 137 (2002) 110-122
12. Beynon M.J. Understanding local ignorance and non-specificity within the DS/AHP method of multi-criteria decision making. European Journal of Operational Research 163 (2005) 403-417
13. Beynon M. DS/AHP method: a mathematical analysis, including an understanding of uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research 140 (2002) 148-164
14. Beynon M., Curry B., and Morgan P. The Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence: an alternative approach to multicriteria decision modeling. Omega 28 (2000) 37-50
15. Shafer G. A mathematical theory of evidence (1976), Princeton University Press, Princeton
16. Gass S.I., and Rapcsák T. Singular value decomposition in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 154 (2004) 573-584
17. Laininen P., and Hämäläinen R.P. Analyzing AHP-matrices by regression. European Journal of Operational Research 148 (2003) 514-524
18. Stam A., and Silva A.P.D. On multiplicative priority rating methods for the AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 145 (2003) 92-108
19. Sugihara K., Ishii H., and Tanaka H. Interval priorities in AHP by interval regression analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 158 (2004) 745-754
20. Chandran B., Golden B., and Wasil E. Linear programming models for estimating weights in the analytic hierarchy process. Computers & Operations Research 32 (2005) 2235-2254
21. Srdjevic B. Combining different prioritization methods in the analytic hierarchy process synthesis. Computers & Operations Research 32 (2005) 1897-1919
22. Wang YM, Parkan C, Luo Y. Priority estimation in the AHP through maximization of correlation coefficient. Applied Mathematical Modelling, in press.
23. Wang Y.M. An overview of priority methods of comparison matrix. Journal of Decision Making and Decision Support Systems 5 3 (1995) 101-114 [in Chinese]
24. Vaidya O.S., and Kumar S. Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research 169 (2006) 1-29
25. Ramanathan R. Data envelopment analysis for weight derivation and aggregation in the analytic hierarchy process. Computers & Operations Research 33 (2006) 1289-1307
26. Yang T., and Kuo C. A hierarchical AHP/DEA methodology for the facilities layout design problem. European Journal of Operational Research 147 (2003) 128-136
27. Ertay T., Ruan D., and Tuzkaya U.R. Integrating data envelopment analysis and analytic hierarchy for the facility layout design in manufacturing systems. Information Sciences 176 (2006) 237-262
28. Sinuany-Stern Z., Mehrez A., and Hadad Y. An AHP/DEA methodology for ranking decision making units. International Transactions in Operational Research 7 (2000) 109-124
29. Barzilai J., and Golany B. AHP rank reversal, normalization and aggregation rules. INFOR 32 2 (1994) 57-63
30. Belton V., and Gear T. On a shortcoming of Saaty's method of analytic hierarchies. Omega 11 3 (1983) 228-230
31. Belton V., and Gear T. The legitimacy of rank reversal-a comment. Omega 13 3 (1985) 143-144
32. Dyer J.S. Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science 36 (1990) 249-258
33. Saaty T.L., and Vargas L.G. The legitimacy of rank reversal. Omega 12 5 (1984) 513-516
34. Wang Y.M., and Taha E.M.S. An approach to avoiding rank reversal in AHP. Decision Support Systems 42 3 (2006) 1474-1480