Bridging the gap between missing and inconsistent values in eliciting preference from pairwise comparison matrices

Annals of Operations Research

Volumn 235, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 155-175

  Chen, Kun ^a   Kou, Gang ^b   Michael Tarn, J ^c   Song, Yan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ELECTRONIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF CHINA   (China)

^b SOUTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY OF FINANCE AND ECONOMICS   (China)

^c WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

AHP; Connecting path method; Improved consistency; Missing values; Pairwise comparison matrix

Indexed keywords

EID: 84948582819     PISSN: 02545330     EISSN: 15729338     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10479-015-1997-z     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Aczel, J., & Saaty, T. L. (1983). Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgments. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 27(1), 93–102.
2. Aznar, J., Guijarro, F., & Moreno-Jiménez, J. M. (2011). Mixed valuation methods: A combined AHP-GP procedure for individual and group multicriteria agricultural evaluation. Annals of Operations Research, 190(1), 221–238.
3. Barzilai, J. (1997). Deriving weights from pairwise comparison matrices. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48(12), 1226–1232.
4. Barzilai, J., & Golany, B. (1990). Deriving weights from pairwise comparison matrices: The additive case. Operations Research Letters, 9(6), 407–410.
5. Bozóki, S., Dezs, L., Poesz, A., & Temesi, J. (2013). Analysis of pairwise comparison matrices: An empirical research. Annals of Operations Research, 211(1), 511–528.
6. Bozóki, S., Fülöp, J., & Rónyai, L. (2010). On optimal completion of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 52(1–2), 318–333.
7. Brunelli, M., Canal, L., & Fedrizzi, M. (2013). Inconsistency indices for pairwise comparison matrices: A numerical study. Annals of Operations Research, 211(1), 493–509.
8. Bryson, N. (1995). A goal programming method for generating priority vectors. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 46(5), 641–648.
9. 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.
10. Chen, K., Kou, G., & Shang, J. (2014). An analytic decision making framework to evaluate multiple marketing channels. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(8), 1420–1434.
11. Chen, K., Kou, G., Shang, J., & Chen, Y. (2015). Visualizing market structure through online product reviews: Integrate topic modeling, TOPSIS, and multi-dimensional scaling approaches [J]. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 14(1), 58–74.
12. Crawford, G. B. (1987). The geometric mean procedure for estimating the scale of a judgment matrix. Mathematical Modelling, 9(3–5), 327–334.
13. Crawford, G. B., & Williams, C. (1985). A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 29(5), 387–405.
14. Dyer, J. S. (1990). Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science, 36(3), 249–258.
15. Ergu, D., & Kou, G. (2012). Questionnaire design improvement and missing item scores estimation for rapid and efficient decision making. Annals of Operations Research, 197(1), 5–23.
16. 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.
17. Farkas, A., & Rózsa, P. (2001). Data perturbations of matrices of pairwise comparisons. Annals of Operations Research, 101(1–4), 401–425.
18. Ghazanfari, M., & Nojavan, M. (2004). Reducing inconsistency in fuzzy AHP by mathematical programming models. Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research, 21(3), 379–391.
19. Gomez-Ruiz, J. A., Karanik, M., & Pelaez, J. I. (2010). Estimation of missing judgments in AHP pairwise matrices using a neural network-based model. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 216(10), 2959–2975.
20. González-Pachón, J., & Romero, C. (2007). Inferring consensus weights from pairwise comparison matrices without suitable properties. Annals of Operations Research, 154(1), 123–132.
21. Grushka-Cockayne, Y., Reyck, B. D., & Degraeve, Z. (2008). An integrated decision-making approach for improving European air traffic management. Management Science, 54(8), 1395–1409.
22. Harker, P. T. (1987a). Alternative modes of questioning in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical Modelling, 9(3–5), 353–360.
23. Harker, P. T. (1987b). Incomplete pairwise comparisons in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical Modelling, 9(11), 837–848.
24. Hesu, T.-H., Hung, L.-C., & Tang, J.-W. (2012). An analytic model for building brand equity in hospitality firms. Annals of Operations Research, 195(1), 355–378.
25. Kou, G., Ergu, D., & Shang, J. (2014). Enhancing data consistency in decision matrix: Adapting Hadamard model to mitigate judgment contradiction. European Journal of Operational Research, 236(1), 261–271.
26. Kou, G., & Lin, C. (2014). A cosine maximization method for the priority vector derivation in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 235(1), 225–232.
27. Kou, G., Lu, Y., Peng, Y., & Shi, Y. (2012). Evaluation of classification algorithms using MCDM and rank correlation. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 11(1), 197–225.
28. Kou, G., Peng, Y., & Wang, G. (2014c). Evaluation of clustering algorithms for financial risk analysis using MCDM methods. Information Sciences, 27, 1–12.
29. Kwiesielewicz, M., & Uden, E. (2002). Problem of inconsistent and contradictory judgments in pairwise comparison method in sense of AHP. In P. M. A. Sloot, et al. (Eds.), Computational science-ICCS 2002: Lecture notes in computer science 2329 (pp. 468–473). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
30. Li, H.-L., & Ma, L. C. (2007). Detecting and adjusting ordinal and cardinal inconsistencies through a graphical and optimal approach in AHP models. Computers & Operations Research, 34(3), 780–798.
31. Lin, C., Kou, G., & Ergu, D. (2013). An improved statistical approach for consistency test in AHP. Annals of Operations Research, 211(1), 289–299.
32. Mikhailov, L. (2003). Deriving priorities from fuzzy pairwise comparison judgments. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 134(3), 365–385.
33. Netzer, O., & Srinivasan, V. (2011). Adaptive self-explication of multiattribute preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(1), 140–156.
34. Peng, Y., & Shi, Y. (2012). Editorial: Multiple criteria decision making and operations research. Annals of Operations Research, 197(1), 1–4.
35. Pereira, V., & Costa, H. G. (2015). Nonlinear programming applied to the reduction of inconsistency in the AHP method. Annals of Operations Research, 229(1), 635–655.
36. Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234–281.
37. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. NY: McGraw Hill.
38. Saaty, T. L. (2003). Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary. European Journal of Operational Research, 145(1), 85–91.
39. Salgado, E. G., Salomon, V. A. P., & Mello, C. H. P. (2012). Analytic hierarchy prioritization of new product development activities for electronics manufacturing. International Journal of Product Research, 50(17), 4860–4866.
40. Scholz, S. W., Martin, M., & Reinhold, D. (2010). Measuring consumer preferences for complex products: A compositional approach based on paired comparisons. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(4), 685–698.
41. Xu, Z., & Wei, C. (1999). A consistency improving method in the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 116(2), 443–449.