PriEsT: An interactive decision support tool to estimate priorities from pairwise comparison judgments

International Transactions in Operational Research

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 217-235

  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

Analysis of algorithms; Decision support systems; Multiple criteria decision analysis; Multiple objective programming; Software

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SOFTWARE; DECISION MAKING; DECISION THEORY; GENETIC ALGORITHMS; MULTIOBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION; OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE; OPERATIONS RESEARCH; PARETO PRINCIPLE;

ANALYSIS OF ALGORITHMS; CONSISTENCY MEASURES; DECISION SUPPORT TOOLS; MULTIPLE CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS; MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE PROGRAMMING; NONDOMINATED SOLUTIONS; PARETO OPTIMAL SOLUTIONS; TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURES;

DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS;

EID: 84922151096     PISSN: 09696016     EISSN: 14753995     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/itor.12054     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Choo, E., Wedley, W.C., 2004. A common framework for deriving preference values from pairwise comparison matrices. Computers & Operations Research 31, 6, 893-908.
2. Chu, A., Kalaba, R., Spingarn, K., 1979. A comparison of two methods for determining the weights of belonging to fuzzy sets. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 27, 4, 531-538.
3. Crawford, G.B., 1987. The geometric mean procedure for estimating the scale of a judgement matrix. Mathematical Modelling 9, 3-5, 327-334.
4. Crawford, G.B., Williams, C., 1985. A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 29, 4, 387-405.
5. Forman, E., Saaty, T., Selly, M., Waldron, R., 1983. Expert Choice. Decision Support Software, McLean, VA.
6. Gasiea, Y., 2010. An Analytic Decision Approach to Rural Telecommunication Infrastructure Selection. PhD thesis, Manchester School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
7. Hämäläinen, R.P., Lauri, H., 1995. HIPRE 3+ User's Guide. Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland.
8. Koczkodaj, W., 1993. A new definition of consistency of pairwise comparisons. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 18, 7, 79-84.
9. Laininen, P., Hämäläinen, R.P., 2003. Analyzing AHP-matrices by regression. European Journal of Operational Research 148, 3, 514-524.
10. Lin, C., 2007. A revised framework for deriving preference values from pairwise comparison matrices. European Journal of Operational Research 176, 2, 1145-1150.
11. Mikhailov, L., 2000. A fuzzy programming method for deriving priorities in the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of the Operational Research Society 51, 3, 341-349.
12. Mikhailov, L., 2006. Multiobjective prioritisation in the analytic hierarchy process using evolutionary computing. In Tiwari, A., Knowles, J., Avineri, E., Dahal, K., Roy, R. (eds) Applications of Soft Computing: Recent Trends. Springer, New York, pp. 123-132.
13. Mikhailov, L., Knowles, J., 2010. Priority elicitation in the AHP by a Pareto envelope-based selection algorithm. In Ehrgott, M., Naujoks, B., Stewart, T., Wallenius, J. (eds) Multiple Criteria Decision Making for Sustainable Energy and Transportation Systems, Vol. 36. Springer, pp. 249-257.
14. Ngai, E., Chan, E., 2005. Evaluation of knowledge management tools using AHP. Expert Systems with Applications 29, 4, 889-899.
15. Ramanathan, R., Ramanathan, U., 2009. A qualitative perspective to deriving weights from pairwise comparison matrices. Omega 38, 3-4, 228-232.
16. Saaty, T.L., 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15, 3, 234-281.
17. Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Planning, Piority Setting, Resource Allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York.
18. 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. Real Academia de Ciencias, Espa na 102, 2, 251-318.
19. Siraj, S., 2011. Preference Elicitation from Pairwise Comparisons in Multi-criteria Decision Making. PhD, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
20. Siraj, S., Mikhailov, L., Keane, J., 2012a. Enumerating all spanning trees for pairwise comparisons. Computers & Operations Research 39, 2, 191-199.
21. Siraj, S., Mikhailov, L., Keane, J., 2012b. A heuristic method to rectify intransitive judgments in pairwise comparison matrices. European Journal of Operational Research 216, 2, 420-428.
22. Siraj, S., Mikhailov, L., Keane, J.A., 2012c. Preference elicitation from inconsistent judgments using multi-objective optimization. European Journal of Operational Research 220, 461-471.
23. Sugden, R., 1985. Why be consistent? A critical analysis of consistency requirements in choice theory. Economica 52, 206, 167-183.
24. Vaidya, O., Agarwal, S., 2006. Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research 169, 1, 1-29.
25. Wallenius, J., Dyer, J.S., Fishburn, P.C., Steuer, R.E., Zionts, S., Deb, K., 2008. Multiple criteria decision making, multiattribute utility theory: recent accomplishments and what lies ahead. Management Science 54, 7, 1336-1349.