Analysis of pairwise comparison matrices: An empirical research

Annals of Operations Research

Volumn 211, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 511-528

  Bozóki, Sándor ^a,b   Dezső, Linda ^c   Poesz, Attila ^b   Temesi, József ^b  

^a INSTITUTE FOR COMPUTER SCIENCE AND CONTROL   (Hungary)

^b Institute of Data Analytics and Information Systems   (Hungary)

^c UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

Author keywords

Experimental techniques in decision making; Incomplete pairwise comparison matrix; Inconsistency; Multi attribute decision making; Pairwise comparisons

Indexed keywords

EID: 84890128348     PISSN: 02545330     EISSN: 15729338     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10479-013-1328-1     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Aguarón, J., & Moreno-Jiménez, J. M. (2003). The geometric consistency index: approximated thresholds. European Journal of Operational Research, 147, 137-145.
2. Bana e Costa, C. A., & Vansnick, J.-C. (2008). A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 187, 1422-1428.
3. Bozóki, S., Fülöp, J., & Koczkodaj, W. W. (2011a). An LP-based inconsistency monitoring of pairwise comparison matrices. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 54(1-2), 789-793.
4. Bozóki, S., Fülöp, J., & Poesz, A. (2011b). On pairwise comparison matrices that can be made consistent by the modification of a few elements. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 19(2), 157-175.
5. Bozóki, S., Fülöp, J., & Rónyai, L. (2010). On optimal completions of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 52, 318-333.
6. Bozóki, S., & Rapcsák, T. (2008). On Saaty's and Koczkodaj's inconsistencies of pairwise comparison matrices. Journal of Global Optimization, 42(2), 157-175.
7. Brunelli, M., & Fedrizzi, M. (2011). Characterizing properties for inconsistency indices in the AHP. In Proceedings of the international symposium on the analytic hierarchy process (ISAHP), 15-18 Sorrento (Naples), Italy.
8. Choo, E. U., & Wedley, W. C. (2004). A common framework for deriving preference values from pairwise comparison matrices. Computers & Operations Research, 31, 893-908.
9. Gass, S. (1998). Tournaments, transitivity and pairwise comparison matrices. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 49, 616-624.
10. Gass, S. I., & Rapcsák, T. (2004). Singular value decomposition in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 154, 573-584.
11. Gass, S. I., & Standard, S. M. (2002). Characteristics of positive reciprocal matrices in the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 53(12), 1385-1389.
12. Harker, P. T. (1987). Incomplete pairwise comparisons in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical Modelling, 9(11), 837-848.
13. Kendall, M. G., & Smith, B. B. (1940). On the method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 31(3-4), 324-345.
14. Kéri, G. (2011). On qualitatively consistent, transitive and contradictory judgment matrices emerging from multiattribute decision procedures. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 19, 215-224.
15. Koczkodaj, W. W. (1993). A new definition of inconsistency of pairwise comparisons. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 8, 79-84.
16. Koczkodaj, W. W., Herman, M. W., & Orlowski, M. (1997). Using consistency-driven pairwise comparisons in knowledge-based systems. In Proceedings of the sixth international conference on information and knowledge management (pp. 91-96). New York: ACM.
17. Linares, P. (2009). Are inconsistent decisions better? An experiment with pairwise comparisons. European Journal of Operational Research, 193, 492-498.
18. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
19. Murphy, C. K. (1993). Limits on the analytic hierarchy process from its inconsistency index. European Journal of Operational Research, 65, 138-139.
20. Peláez, J. I., & Lamata, M. T. (2003). A new measure of consistency for positive reciprocal matrices. Computers & Mathematics With Applications, 46, 1839-1845.
21. Poesz, A. (2008). Inconsistency analysis of empirical pairwise comparison matrices. Master's thesis, Corvinus University of Budapest (in Hungarian).
22. Ross, R. T. (1934). Optimum orders for the presentation of pairs in the method of paired comparison. Journal of Educational Psychology, 25, 375-382.
23. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
24. Saaty, T. L., & Ozdemir, M. S. (2003). Why the magic number seven plus or minus two. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 38(3-4), 233-244. doi: 10. 1016/S0895-7177(03)90083-5.
25. Saaty, T. L. (2005). The analytic hierarchy and analytic network processes for the measurement of intangible criteria and for decision-making. In J. Figueira, S. Greco, & M. Ehrgott (Eds.), Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys (pp. 345-407). New York: Springer.
26. Temesi, J. (2006). Consistency of the decision-maker in pairwise comparisons. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 7(2-3), 267-274.
27. Temesi, J. (2011). Pairwise comparison matrices and the error-free property of the decision maker. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 19(2), 239-249.