Contribution of individual judgments toward inconsistency in pairwise comparisons

European Journal of Operational Research

Volumn 242, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 557-567

  Siraj, Sajid ^a,b   Mikhailov, Ludmil ^c   Keane, John A ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

^b Department of Computer Science   (Pakistan)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Analytic hierarchy process; Decision support systems; Intuitionistic preference modeling; Multi criteria decision making; Pairwise comparison

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS; DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS;

CONSISTENCY RATIO; DECISION MAKERS; LITERATURE SURVEY; MULTI CRITERIA DECISION MAKING; PAIR-WISE COMPARISON; PREFERENCE MODELING;

MICROCOMPUTERS;

EID: 84920734838     PISSN: 03772217     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2014.10.024     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Aguaron, J., & Moreno-Jimenez, J. M. (2003). The geometric consistency index: Approximated thresholds. European Journal of Operational Research, 147(1), 137-145. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00255-2
2. Ali, I., Cook, W. D., & Kress, M. (1986). On the minimum violations ranking of a tournament. Management Science, 32(6), 660-672.
3. Belton, V., & Gear, T. (1983). On a short-coming of Saaty's method of analytic hierarchies. Omega, 11(3), 228-230.
4. Bozóki, S., Fülöp, J., & Poesz, A. (2014). On reducing inconsistency of pairwise comparison matrices below an acceptance threshold. Central European Journal of Operations Research, in press. doi:10.1007/s10100-014-0346-7
5. Bozóki, S., & Rapcsak, T. (2008). On Saaty's and Koczkodaj's inconsistencies of pairwise comparison matrices. Journal of Global Optimization, 42(2), 157-175.
6. Cao, D., Leung, L. C., & Law, J. S. (2008). Modifying inconsistent comparison matrix in analytic hierarchy process: A heuristic approach. Decision Support Systems, 44(4), 944-953.
7. Choo, E. U., & Wedley, W. C. (2004). A common framework for deriving preference values from pairwise comparisonmatrices. Computers & Operations Research, 31(6), 893-908.
8. Crawford, G. (1987). The geometricmean procedure for estimating the scale of a judgement matrix. Mathematical Modelling, 9(3-5), 327-334.
9. Dyer, J. S. (1990). Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science, 36(3), 249-258.
10. Ergu, D., Kou, G., Peng, Y., & Shi, Y. (2011). A simple method to improve the consistency ratio of the pair-wise comparison matrix in ANP. European Journal of Operational Research, 213(1), 246-259. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2011.03.014
11. Fedrizzi, M. (2012). Distance-based characterization of inconsistency in pairwise comparisons. Advances in Computational Intelligence: Communications in Computer and Information Science, 300, 30-36.
12. Fedrizzi, M., & Giove, S. (2007). Incomplete pairwise comparison and consistency optimization. European Journal of Operational Research, 183(1), 303-313.
13. Figueira, J., Greco, S., & Ehrgott, M. (2004). Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys. Springer.
14. Finan, J. S., & Hurley, W. J. (1999). Transitive calibration of the ahp verbal scale. European Journal of Operational Research, 112(2), 367-372.
15. Gass, S. I. (1998). Tournaments, transitivity and pairwise comparison matrices. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 49(6), 616-624.
16. Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., & Slowinski, R. (2010). Dominance-based rough set approach to preference learning from pairwise comparisons in case of decision under uncertainty. In E. Hallermeier, R. Kruse, & F. Hoffmann (Eds.), Computational intelligence for knowledge-based systems design, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 6178 (pp. 584-594). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14049-5-60
17. Harker, P., & Vargas, L. (1987). The theory of ratio scale estimation: Saaty's analytic hierarchy process. Management Science, 33(11), 1383-1403.
18. Harker, P. T. (1987). Incomplete pairwise comparisons in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical Modelling, 9(11), 837-848.
19. Hartvigsen, D. (2005). Representing the strengths and directions of pairwise comparisons. European Journal of Operational Research, 163(2), 357-369.
20. Herman, M., & Koczkodaj, W. (1996). A monte carlo study of pairwise comparison. Information Processing Letters, 57(1), 25-29.
21. Holsztynski, W., & Koczkodaj, W. W. (1996). Convergence of inconsistency algorithms for the pairwise comparisons. Information Processing Letters, 59(4), 197-202.
22. Ishizaka, A., Balkenborg, D., & Kaplan, T. (2011). Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62, 700-710. doi:10.1057/jors.2010.23
23. Ishizaka, A., & Lusti, M. (2006). How to derive priorities in AHP: A comparative study. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 14(4), 387-400.
24. Jensen, R. E., & Hicks, T. E. (1993). Ordinal data AHP analysis: A proposed coefficient of consistency and a nonparametric test. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 17(4-5), 135-150.
25. Kendall, M. G. (1955). Further contributions to the theory of paired comparisons. Biometrics, 11(1), 43-62.
26. Kendall, M. G., & Smith, B. B. (1940). On the method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 31(3/4), 324-345.
27. Koczkodaj, W. (1998). Testing the accuracy enhancement of pairwise comparisons by a Monte Carlo experiment. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 69(1), 21-31.
28. Koczkodaj, W. W. (1993). A new definition of consistency of pairwise comparisons. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 18(7), 79-84.
29. Koczkodaj, W. W., & Szarek, S. J. (2010). On distance-based inconsistency reduction algorithms for pairwise comparisons. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 18(6), 859-869. doi:10.1093/jigpal/jzp062.
30. Krantz, D. H. (1972). Measurement structures and psychological laws. Science, 175(4029), 1427-1435.
31. Lipovetsky, S., & Conklin, W. M. (2002). Robust estimation of priorities in the AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 137(1), 110-122.
32. Lootsma, F. A. (1993). Scale sensitivity in the multiplicative ahp and smart. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 2(2), 87-110.
33. Monsuur, H. (1997). An intrinsic consistency threshold for reciprocal matrices. European Journal of Operational Research, 96(2), 387-391.
34. Murphy, C. K. (1993). Limits on the analytic hierarchy process from its consistency index. European Journal of Operational Research, 65(1), 138-139.
35. Saaty, T. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process, planning, priority Setting, resource allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
36. Saaty, T. (1994). Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the AHP. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.
37. Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234-281.
38. Saaty, T. L. (2008). Relative measurement and its generalization in decision making. Why pairwise comparisons are central in mathematics for the measurement of intangible factors - The analytic hierarchy/network process. RACSAM-Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales. Serie A. Matematicas, 102(2), 251-318.
39. Salo, A. A., & Hamalainen, R. P. (1997). On the measurement of preferences in the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 6(6), 309-319.
40. Seaman, M. A., Levin, J. R., & Serlin, R. C. (1991). New developments in pairwise multiple comparisons: Some powerful and practicable procedures, Vol. 110. Psychological Bulletin.
41. Siraj, S., Mikhailov, L., & Keane, J. A. (2012). A heuristic method to rectify intransitive judgments in pairwise comparison matrices. European Journal of Operational Research, 216(2), 420-428. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2011.07.034
42. Siskos, Y., Grigoroudis, E., & Matsatsinis, N. (2005). Uta methods. In Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys, Vol. 78 International Series in Operations Research & Management Science (pp. 297-334). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/0-387-23081-5-8
43. Stein, W. E., & Mizzi, P. J. (2007). The harmonic consistency index for the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(1), 488-497.
44. Stevens, S. (1961). Toward a resolution of the fechner-thurstone legacy. Psychometrika, 26(1), 35-47.
45. Sugden, R. (1985). Why be consistent? A critical analysis of consistency requirements in choice theory. Economica, 52(206), 167-183.
46. Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34(4), 273.
47. Vaidya, O., & Agarwal, S. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 169(1), 1-29.
48. Vargas, L. (1990). An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 2-8.
49. Zeshui, X., & Cuiping, W. (1999). A consistency improving method in the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 116(2), 443-449.