A comprehensive literature review of the rank reversal phenomenon in the analytic hierarchy process

Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

Volumn 20, Issue 3-4, 2013, Pages 141-155

  Maleki, Hamed ^a   Zahir, Sajjad ^b  

^a ISLAMIC AZAD UNIVERSITY   (Iran)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LETHBRIDGE   (Canada)

Author keywords

Aggregation; Analytic hierarchy process; Analytic network process; Classification; Literature review; Normalization; Rank reversal

Indexed keywords

EID: 84886285610     PISSN: 10579214     EISSN: 10991360     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/mcda.1479     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Barzilai J, Golany B. 1990. Deriving weights from pairwise comparison matrices: the additive case. Operations Research Letters 9(6): 407-410.
2. Barzilai J, Golany B. 1994. AHP rank reversal, normalization and aggregation rules. INFOR 32(2): 57-63.
3. Barzilai B, Lootsma FA. 1997. Power relations and group aggregation in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6: 155-165.
4. Belton V. 1986. A comparison of the analytic hierarchy process and a simple multi-attribute value function. European Journal of Operational Research 26: 7-21.
5. Belton V, Gear T. 1983. On a short-coming of Saaty's method of analytic hierarchies. Omega 11: 228-230.
6. Belton V, Gear T. 1985. The legitimacy of rank reversal-a comment. Omega 13(3): 143-144.
7. Belton V, Gear T. 1997. On the meaning of relative importance (discussion paper). Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6: 335-337.
8. Buede DM. 1992. Software review. Three packages for AHP: Criterium, Expert Choice and HIPRE 3+. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 1: 119-121.
9. Buede DM, Maxwell DT. 1995. Rank disagreement: a comparison of multi-criteria methodologies. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 4: 1-21.
10. Dyer JS. 1990a. Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science 36: 249-258.
11. Dyer JS. 1990b. A clarification of 'Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process'. Management Sciences 36: 274-275.
12. Dyer JS, Ravinder HV. 1983. Irrelevant alternatives and the analytic hierarchy process. Technical Report, Department of Management, The University of Texas at Austin.
13. Dyer JS, Wendell RE. 1985. A critique of the analytic hierarchy process. Technical Report 84/85-4-24, Department of Management, The University of Texas at Austin.
14. Expert Choice. 1985. Decision Support Software, Inc.: McLean, VA.
15. Farkas A, Gyorgy A, Rozsa P. 2004. On the spectrum of pairwise comparison matrices. Linear Algebra and its Applications 385: 443-462.
16. Finan JS, Hurley WJ. 2002. The analytic hierarchy process: can wash criteria be ignored. Computers and Operation Research 29(8): 1025-1030.
17. Forman EH. 1990. AHP is intended for more than expected value calculations. Decision Sciences 36: 671-673.
18. Forman EH. 1993. Facts and fictions about the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 17(4-5): 19-26.
19. Hämäläinen RP, Seppäläinen TO. 1986. The analytic network process in energy planning. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 20: 399-405.
20. Harker PT, Vargas LG. 1987. The theory of ratio scale estimation: Saaty's analytic hierarchy process. Management Science 33(11): 1383-1403.
21. Harker PT, Vargas LG. 1990. Reply to 'Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process'. Management Science 36: 269-273.
22. Honert RC. 1998. Stochastic pairwise comparative judgments and direct ratings of alternatives in the REMBRANDT system. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 7: 87-97.
23. Kamenetzky RD. 1982. The relationship between the analytic hierarchy process and the additive value function. Decision Sciences 13(4): 702-713.
24. Keeney RL, Raiffa H. 1976. Decision with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. John Wiley & Sons: New York.
25. Leskinen P, Kangas J. 2005. Rank reversals in multi-criteria decision analysis with statistical modeling of ratio-scale pairwise comparisons. Journal of the Operational Research Society 56(7): 855-861.
26. Leung LC, Cao D. 2001. On the efficacy of modeling multi-attribute decision problems using AHP and Sinarchy. European Journal of Operational Research 132: 39-49.
27. Liberatore MJ, Nydick RL. 2004. Wash criteria and the analytic hierarchy process. Computers & Operations Research 31: 889-892.
28. Lin JS, Chou S, Chouhuang WT, Hsu CP. 2008. Note on "Wash criterion in analytic hierarchy process". European Journal of Operational Research 185: 444-447.
29. Lootsma FA. 1991. Scale sensitivity and rank preservation in a multiplicative variant of the AHP and SMART. Report 91-67, Faculty of Technical Mathematics and Informatics, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
30. Lootsma FA. 1993. Scale sensitivity in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 2: 87-110.
31. Lootsma FA, Barzilai J. 1997. Response to the comments by Larichev, Korhonen and Vargas on 'Power relations and group aggregation in the multiplicative AHP and SMART'. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6: 171-174.
32. Millet I, Saaty TL. 2000. On the relativity of relative measures accommodating both rank preservation and rank reversals in the AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 121: 205-212.
33. Perez J. 1995. Some comments on Saaty's AHP. Management Science 41(6): 1091-1095.
34. Perez J, Jimeno JL, Mokotoff E. 2006. Another potential shortcoming of AHP. TOP 14(1): 99-111.
35. Raharjo H, Endah D. 2005. Evaluating relationship of consistency ratio and number of alternatives on rank reversal in the AHP. Quality Engineering 18(1): 39-46.
36. Ramanathan R. 2006. Data envelopment analysis for weight derivation and aggregation in the analytic hierarchy process. Computers and Operations Research 33: 1289-1307.
37. Ramanathan U, Ramanathan R. 2011. An investigation into rank reversal properties of the multiplicative AHP. International Journal of Operational Research 11(1): 54-77.
38. Saaty TL. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill International: New York.
39. Saaty TL. 1986. Axiomatic foundations of the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science 32: 841-855.
40. Saaty TL. 1987a. Rank generation, preservation, and reversal in the analytic hierarchy process. Decision Science 18: 157-177.
41. Saaty TL. 1987b. Decision making, new information, ranking and structure. Mathematical Modelling 8: 125-132.
42. Saaty TL. 1987c. The analytic hierarchy process: what it is and how it is used. Mathematical Modelling 9: 161-176.
43. Saaty TL. 1990. An exposition of the AHP in reply to the paper 'Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process'. Management Science 36: 259-268.
44. Saaty TL. 1991. Rank and the controversy about the axioms of utility theory-a comparison of AHP and MAUT. The 2nd International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Pittsburgh, PA.
45. Saaty TL. 1994a. Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 74: 426-447.
46. Saaty TL. 1994b. Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the AHP. RWS Publications: Pittsburgh, PA.
47. Saaty TL. 1997. That is not the analytic hierarchy process: what the AHP is and what it is not. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6: 320-339.
48. Saaty TL. 2001. Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, USA.
49. Saaty TL. 2006. Rank from comparisons and from ratings in the analytic hierarchy/network processes. European Journal of Operational Research 168: 557-570.
50. Saaty TL. 2010. Principia Mathematica Decenendi. RWS Publications: Pittsburgh, PA.
51. Saaty TL, Sagir M. 2009. An essay on rank preservation and reversal. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 49: 1230-1243.
52. Saaty TL, Vargas LG. 1984a. The legitimacy of rank reversal. Omega 12(5): 513-516.
53. Saaty TL, Vargas LG. 1984b. Inconsistency and rank preservation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 28: 205-214.
54. Saaty TL, Vargas LG. 1987. Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 32(13): 107-117.
55. Saaty TL, Vargas LG. 1993. Experiments on rank preservation and reversal in relative measurement. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 17(4-5): 13-18.
56. Saaty TL, Vargas LG. 2006. The analytic hierarchy process: wash criteria should not be ignored. International Journal of Management and Decision Making 7: 180-188.
57. Salo AA, Hämäläinen RP. 1997. On measurement of preferences in the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6(6): 309-319.
58. Schenkerman S. 1994. Avoiding rank reversal in AHP decision-support models. European Journal of Operational Research 74: 407-419.
59. Schoner B, Wedley WC. 1989. Ambiguous criteria weights in AHP: consequences and solutions. Decision Sciences 20: 462-475.
60. Schoner B, Wedley WC, Choo EU. 1992. A rejoinder to Forman on AHP, with emphasis on the requirements of composite ratio scales. Decision Sciences 23: 509-517.
61. Schoner B, Wedley WC, Choo EU. 1993. A unified approach to AHP with linking pins. European Journal of Operational Research 64: 384-392.
62. Schoner B, Choo EU, Wedley WC. 1997. A comment on 'Rank disagreement: a comparison of multi-criteria methodologies'. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6: 197-200.
63. Sinuany-Stern Z, Mehrez A, Hadad Y. 2000. An AHP/DEA methodology for ranking decision making units. International Transactions in Operational Research 7: 109-124.
64. Stam A. 1997. Short note on 'On the measurement of preference in the analytic hierarchy process' by Salo AA, and Hämäläinen RP. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6(6): 320-339.
65. Stam A, Silva APD. 1997. Stochastic judgments in the AHP: the measurement of rank reversal probabilities. Decision Sciences 28(3): 655-688.
66. Stam A, Silva APD. 2003. On multiplicative priority methods for the AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 145(1): 92-108.
67. Triantaphyllou E. 2001. Two new cases of rank reversals when the AHP and some of its additive variants are used that do not occur with the multiplicative AHP. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 10: 11-25.
68. Triantaphyllou E, Mann SH. 1989. An examination of the effectiveness of four multi-dimensional decision-making methods: a decision-making paradox. International Journal of Decision Support Systems 5: 303-312.
69. Triantaphyllou E, Mann SH. 1994a. Some critical issues in making decisions with pairwise comparisons. In Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on the AHP, Forman EH (ed.). George Washington University: Washington, DC; 225-235.
70. Triantaphyllou E, Mann SH. 1994b. An evaluation of the AHP and the revised AHP when the eigenvalue method is used under a continuity assumption. Computers and Industrial Engineering 26: 609-618.
71. Triantaphyllou E, Mann SH. 1995. Using the analytic hierarchy process for decision making in engineering applications: some challenges. International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Applications and Practice 2(1): 35-44.
72. Trout M, Tadisina S. 1990. Corrigendum and further results: rank reversal and the dependence of priorities on the underlying MAV function. Omega 18(6): 655-658.
73. Troutt M. 1988. Rank reversal and the dependence of priorities on the underlying MAV function. Omega 16: 365-367.
74. Tversky A, Slovic P, Kahneman D. 1990. The causes of preference reversal. The American Economic Review 80(1): 204-215.
75. Vargas LG. 1994. Reply to Schenkerman's avoiding rank reversal in AHP decision support models. European Journal of Operational Research 74: 420-425.
76. Vargas LG. 1997. Why the multiplicative AHP is invalid: a practical example. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6(3): 169-170.
77. Wang Y, Elhag TMS. 2006. An approach to avoiding rank reversal in AHP. Decision Support Systems 42(3): 1474-1480.
78. Wang Y, Luo Y. 2009. On rank reversal in decision analysis. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 49: 1221-1229.
79. Watson SR, Freeling ANS. 1982. Assessing attribute weights. Omega 10(6): 582-583.
80. Wedley WC, Schoner B, Choo EU. 1993. Clustering dependence and ratio scales in AHP: rank reversals and incorrect priorities with a single criterion. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 2(3): 145-158.
81. Wiecek MM, Ehrgott M, Fadel G, Figueira JR. 2008. Editorial: multiple criteria decision making for engineering. Omega 36: 337-339.
82. Wijnmalen DJD, Wedley WC. 2009a. Correcting illegitimate rank reversals: proper adjustment of criteria weights prevent alleged AHP intransitivity. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision 15: 135-141.
83. Wijnmalen DJD, Wedley WC. 2009b. Non-discriminating criteria in the AHP: removal and rank reversal. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision 15: 143-149.
84. Winkler RL. 1990. Decision modeling and rational choice: AHP and utility theory. Management Science 36: 247-248.
85. Zahir S. 2009. Normalisation and rank reversals in the additive analytic hierarchy process: a new analysis. International Journal of Operational Research 4(4): 446-467.