Axiomatic properties of inconsistency indices for pairwise comparisons

Journal of the Operational Research Society

Volumn 66, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 1-15

  Brunelli, Matteo ^a   Fedrizzi, Michele ^b  

^a AALTO UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TRENTO   (Italy)

Author keywords

Analytic hierarchy process; Axiomatic properties; Inconsistency indices; Pairwise comparisons

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS; OPERATIONS RESEARCH; RESEARCH;

AXIOMATIC PROPERTIES; DECISION MAKERS; DECISION MAKING PROCESS; DECISION OUTCOME; INCONSISTENCY INDEX; LEVEL OF CONSISTENCIES; PAIR-WISE COMPARISON;

DECISION MAKING;

EID: 84924370087     PISSN: 01605682     EISSN: 14769360     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1057/jors.2013.135     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. Aczel J (1966). Lectures on Functional Equations and Their Applications. Academic Press: New York.
2. Aguarón J and Moreno-Jiménez JM (2003). The Geometric Consistency Index: Approximated threshold. European Journal of Operational Research 147(1): 137-145.
3. Aupetit B and Genest C (1993). On some useful properties of the Perron eigenvalue of a positive reciprocal matrix in the context of the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 70(2): 263-268.
4. Barzilai J (1998). Consistency measures for pairwise comparison matrices. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 7(3): 123-132.
5. Bozóki S and Rapcsák T (2008). On Saaty's and Koczkodaj's inconsistencies of pairwise comparison matrices. Journal of Global Optimization 42(2): 157-175.
6. Bozóki S, Fülöp J and Rónyai L (2010). On optimal completion of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 52(1-2): 318-333.
7. Brunelli M (2011). A note on the article 'Inconsistency of pair-wise comparison matrix with fuzzy elements based on geometric mean'. [Fuzzy Sets and Systems 161 (2010) 1604-1613]. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 176(1): 76-78.
8. Brunelli M, Canal L and Fedrizzi M (2013a). Inconsistency indices for pairwise comparison matrices: A numerical study. Annals of Operations Research, published online 27 February, doi: 10.1007/s10479-013-1329-0.
9. Brunelli M, Critch A and Fedrizzi M (2013b). A note on the proportionality between some consistency indices in the AHP. Applied Mathematics and Computation 219(14): 7901-7906.
10. Bryson N (1995). A goal programming method for generating priority vectors. Journal of the Operational Research Society 46(5): 641-648.
11. Cavallo B and DApuzzo L (2009). A general unified framework for pairwise comparison matrices in multicriterial methods. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 24(4): 377-398.
12. Choo EU and Wedley WC (2004). A common framework for deriving preference values from pairwise comparison matrices. Computers & Operations Research 31(6): 893-908.
13. Cook WD and Kress M (1988). Deriving weights from pairwise comparison ratio matrices: An axiomatic approach. European Journal of Operational Research 37(3): 355-362.
14. Crawford G and Williams C (1985). A note on the analysis of subjective judgement matrices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 29(4): 25-40.
15. Dong YC, Hong WC and Xu YF (2013). Measuring consistency of linguistic preference relations: A 2-tuple linguistic approach. Soft Computing 17(11): 2117-2130.
16. Duszak Z and Koczkodaj WW (1994). Generalization of a new definition of consistency for pairwise comparisons. Information Processing Letters 52(5): 273-276.
17. Fedrizzi M and Brunelli M (2009). Fair consistency evaluation for reciprocal relations and in group decision making. New Mathematics and Natural Computation 5(2): 407-420.
18. Genest C, Lapointe F and Drury SW (1993). On a proposal of Jensen for the analysis of ordinal pairwise preferences using Saaty's eigenvector scaling method. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 37(4): 575-610.
19. Golden BL and Wang Q (1989). An alternate measure of consistency. In: Golden BL., Wasil EA and Harker PT (eds). The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Applications and Studies. Springer-Verlag: Berlin-Heidelberg, pp 68-81.
20. Harker PT (1987). Incomplete pairwise comparisons in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical Modelling 9(11): 837-848.
21. Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F, Chiclana F and Luque M (2004). Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations. European Journal of Operational Research 154(1): 98-109.
22. Horn RA and Johnson CR (1985). Matrix Analysis. Cambridge University Press: New York.
23. Irwin FW (1958). An analysis of the concepts of discrimination and preference. The American Journal of Psychology 71(1): 152-163.
24. Ishizaka A and Labib A (2011). Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications 38(11): 14336-14345.
25. Ishizaka A, Balkenborg D and Kaplan T (2011). Does AHP help us make a choice? An experimental evaluation. Journal of the Operational Research Society 62(10): 1801-1812.
26. Kemeny JG and Snell JL (1962). Mathematical Models in the Social Sciences. Blaisdell: New York.
27. Kingman JFC (1961). A convexity property of positive matrices. The Quarterly Journal of Mathematics. Oxford Second Series 12(1): 283-284.
28. Koczkodaj WW (1993). A new definition of consistency of pairwise comparisons. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 18(7): 79-84.
29. Lamata MT and Peláez JI (2002). A method for improving the consistency of judgments. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 10(6): 677-686.
30. Osei-Bryson N (2006). An action learning approach for assessing the consistency of pairwise comparison data. European Journal of Operational Research 174(1): 234-244.
31. Peláez JI and Lamata MT (2003). A new measure of consistency for positive reciprocal matrices. Computer and Mathematics with Applications 46(12): 1839-1845.
32. Ramík J and Korviny P (2010). Inconsistency of pair-wise comparison matrix with fuzzy elements based on geometric mean. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 161(11): 1604-1613.
33. Saaty TL (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15(3): 234-281.
34. Saaty TL (1993). What is relative measurement? The ratio scale phantom. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 17(4-5): 1-12.
35. Saaty TL (1994). Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 74(3): 426-447.
36. Salo AA (1993). Inconsistency analysis by approximately specified priorities. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 17(4-5): 123-133.
37. Shiraishi S, Obata T and Daigo M (1998). Properties of a positive reciprocal matrix and their application to AHP. Journal of the Operations Research Society of Japan 41(3): 404-414.
38. Shiraishi S, Obata T, Daigo M and Nakajima N (1999). Assessment for an incomplete matrix and improvement of the inconsistent comparison: Computational experiments. Proceedings of ISAHP 1999, Kobe, Japan.
39. Stein WE and Mizzi PJ (2007). The harmonic consistency index for the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 177(1): 488-497.
40. Xu Z and Cuiping W (1999). A consistency improving method in the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 116(2): 443-449.
41. Xu Z and Xia M (2013). Iterative algorithms for improving consistency of intuitionistic preference relations. Journal of the Operational Research Society, advance online publication, 10 April, doi: 10.1057/jors.2012.178.