Heuristic rating estimation: geometric approach

Journal of Global Optimization

Volumn 62, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 529-543

  Kułakowski, Konrad ^a   Grobler Dębska, Katarzyna ^a   Wąs, Jarosław ^a  

^a AGH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Poland)

Author keywords

AHP; Logarithmic least square method; Multicriteria analysis; Pairwise comparisons; Ranking theory

Indexed keywords

GEOMETRY; HEURISTIC METHODS; LEAST SQUARES APPROXIMATIONS;

AHP; LOGARITHMIC LEAST SQUARE METHODS; MULTI CRITERIA ANALYSIS; PAIR-WISE COMPARISON; RANKING THEORY;

OPTIMIZATION;

EID: 84930477172     PISSN: 09255001     EISSN: 15732916     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10898-014-0253-4     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Bozóki, S., Fülöp, J., Rónyai, L.: On optimal completion of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices. Math. Comput. Model. 52(1–2), 318–333 (2010). doi:10.1016/j.mcm.2010.02.047
2. Bozóki, S., Rapcsak, T.: On Saaty’s and Koczkodaj’s inconsistencies of pairwise comparison matrices. J. Glob. Optim. 42(2), 157–175 (2008)
3. Brunelli, M., Canal, L., Fedrizzi, M.: Inconsistency indices for pairwise comparison matrices: a numerical study. Ann. Oper. Res. 211, 493–509 (2013). doi:10.1007/s10479-013-1329-0
4. Brunelli, M., Fedrizzi, M.: Axiomatic properties of inconsistency indices. J. Oper. Res. Soc. (2013). doi:10.1057/jors.2013.135
5. Colomer, J.M.: Ramon Llull: from ‘Ars electionis’ to social choice theory. Soc. Choice Welf. 40(2), 317–328 (2011)
6. Crawford, G.B.: The geometric mean procedure for estimating the scale of a judgement matrix. Math. Model. 9(3–5), 327–334 (1987). doi:10.1016/0270-0255(87)90489-1
7. Faliszewski, P., Hemaspaandra, E., Hemaspaandra, L.A., Rothe, J.: Llull and Copeland voting computationally resist bribery and constructive control. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 35, 275–341 (2009)
8. Fülöp, J., Koczkodaj, W.W., Szarek, S.J.: A different perspective on a scale for pairwise comparisons. Trans. Comput. Collect. Intell. 1, 71–84 (2010)
9. Ishizaka, A., Labib, A.: Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Syst. Appl. 38(11), 14,336–14,345 (2011)
10. Ishizaka, A., Lusti, M.: How to derive priorities in AHP: a comparative study. Cent. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 14(4), 387–400 (2006). http://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/cejnor/v14y2006i4p387-400.html
11. Janicki, R., Zhai, Y.: On a pairwise comparison-based consistent non-numerical ranking. Log. J. IGPL 20(4), 667–676 (2012)
12. Kacprzyk, J., Zadrozny, S., Fedrizzi, M., Nurmi, H.: On group decision making, consensus reaching, voting and voting paradoxes under fuzzy preferences and a fuzzy majority: a survey and some perspectives. In: Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, vol. 220, pp. 263–295. Springer, Berlin (2008)
13. Koczkodaj, W., Kułakowski, K., Ligęza, A.: On the quality evaluation of scientific entities in Poland supported by consistency-driven pairwise comparisons method. Scientometrics 99(3), 911–926 (2014). doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1258-y
14. Koczkodaj, W.W.: A new definition of consistency of pairwise comparisons. Math. Comput. Model. 18(7), 79–84 (1993). doi:10.1016/0895-7177(93)90059-8
15. Koczkodaj, W.W., Orłowski, M.: Computing a consistent approximation to a generalized pairwise comparisons matrix. Comput. Math. Appl. 37(3), 79–85 (1999)
16. Kułakowski, K.: A heuristic rating estimation algorithm for the pairwise comparisons method. Cent. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1–17 (2013). doi:10.1007/s10100-013-0311-x
17. Kułakowski, K.: Heuristic rating estimation approach to the pairwise comparisons nethod. Fundam. Inform. (to be appeared) 133, 367–386 (2014). doi:10.3233/FI-2014-1081
18. Kułakowski, K.: Notes on the existence of solutions in the pairwise comparisons method using the heuristic rating estimation approach. CoRR abs/1402.4064 (2014)
19. Lotfi, F.H., Fallahnejad, R., Navidi, N.: Ranking efficient units in DEA by using TOPSIS method. Appl. Math. Sci. (2011)
20. Mikhailov, L.: Deriving priorities from fuzzy pairwise comparison judgements. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 134(3), 365–385 (2003)
21. Nelder, J.A., Mead, R.: A simplex-method for function minimization. Comput. J. 7(4), 308–313 (1965)
22. Peterson, G.L., Brown, T.C.: Economic valuation by the method of paired comparison, with emphasis on evaluation of the transitivity axiom. Land Econ. 240–261 (1998)
23. Plemmons, R.J.: M-matrix characterizations. I—nonsingular M-matrices. Linear Algebra Appl. 18(2), 175–188 (1976)
24. Quarteroni, A., Sacco, R., Saleri, F.: Numerical Mathematics. Springer, Berlin (2000)
25. Saaty, T.L.: A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math. Psychol. 15(3), 234–281 (1977). doi:10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5
26. Saaty, T.L.: The analytic hierarchy and analytic network processes for the measurement of intangible criteria and for decision-making. In: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, vol. 78, pp. 345–405. Springer, New York (2005). doi:10.1007/0-387-23081-5_9
27. Saaty, T.L.: On the measurement of intangibles. A principal eigenvector approach to relative measurement derived from paired comparisons. Not. Am. Math. Soc. 60(02), 192 (2013)
28. Thurstone, L.L.: A law of comparative judgment, reprint of an original work published in 1927. Psychol. Rev. 101, 266–270 (1994)