Pairwise comparison matrix in multiple criteria decision making

Technological and Economic Development of Economy

Volumn 22, Issue 5, 2016, Pages 738-765

  Kou, Gang ^a   Ergu, Daji ^b   Lin, Changsheng ^c   Chen, Yang ^a  

^a SOUTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY OF FINANCE AND ECONOMICS   (China)

^b SOUTHWEST UNIVERSITY FOR NATIONALITIES   (China)

^c YANGTZE NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP); Analytical Network Process (ANP); consistency; missing judgment estimation; multicriteria decision making (MCDM); pairwise comparison matrix (PCM); priority derivation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84984943382     PISSN: 20294913     EISSN: 20294921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3846/20294913.2016.1210694     Document Type: Review

References (97)

1. L.Abdullah, ; L.Najib, 2014. A new preference scale mcdm method based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets and the analytic hierarchy process, Soft Computing 20(2):511–523. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00500-014-1519-y
2. J.Benítez, ; L.Carrión, ; J.Izquierdo, ; R.Pérez-García, 2014. Characterization of consistent completion of reciprocal comparison matrices, Abstract and Applied Analysis 2014:1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/349729
3. J.Benítez, ; X.Delgado-Galván, ; J.Izquierdo, ; R.Pérez-García, 2011. Achieving matrix consistency in AHP through linearization, Applied Mathematical Modelling 35(9):4449–4457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2011.03.013
4. J.Benítez, ; X.Delgado-Galván, ; J.Izquierdo, ; R.Pérez-García, 2012. Improving consistency in AHP decision-making processes, Applied Mathematics and Computation 219(5):2432–2441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2012.08.079
5. M.Bernasconi, ; C.Choirat, ; R.Seri, 2010. The analytic hierarchy process and the theory of measurement, Management Science 56(4):699–711. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1090.1123
6. S.Bozóki, ; L.Dezső, ; A.Poesz, ; J.Temesi, 2013. Analysis of pairwise comparison matrices:an empirical research, Annals of Operations Research 211(1):511–528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10479-013-1328-1
7. S.Bozóki, ; J.Fülöp, ; W.W.Koczkodaj, 2011. An LP-based inconsistency monitoring of pairwise comparison matrices, Mathematical and Computer Modelling 54(1–2):789–793. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2011.03.026
8. S.Bozóki, ; J.Fülöp, ; A.Poesz, 2014. On reducing inconsistency of pairwise comparison matrices below an acceptance threshold, Central European Journal of Operations Research 23(4):849–866. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10100-014-0346-7
9. M.Brunelli, ; L.Canal, ; M.Fedrizzi, 2013a. Inconsistency indices for pairwise comparison matrices:a numerical study, Annals of Operations Research 211(1):493–509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10479-013-1329-0
10. M.Brunelli, A.Critch, ; M.Fedrizzi, 2013b. A note on the proportionality between some consistency indices in the AHP, Applied Mathematics and Computation 219(14):7901–7906. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2013.01.036
11. M.Brunelli, ; M.Fedrizzi, 2015a. Axiomatic properties of inconsistency indices for pairwise comparisons, Journal of the Operational Research 66(1):15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jors.2013.135
12. M.Brunelli, ; M.Fedrizzi, 2015b. Boundary properties of the inconsistency of pairwise comparisons in group decisions, European Journal of Operational Research 240(3):765–773. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.07.045
13. B.Cavallo, ; L.D’Apuzzo, 2010. Characterizations of consistent pairwise comparison matrices over abelian linearly ordered groups, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 25(10):1035–1059. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/int.20438
14. B.Cavallo, ; L.D’Apuzzo, 2011. Deriving weights from a pairwise comparison matrix over an alo-group, Soft Computing 16(2):353–366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00500-011-0746-8
15. B.Cavallo, ; L.D’Apuzzo, 2015. Reciprocal transitive matrices over abelian linearly ordered groups:Characterizations and application to multi-criteria decision problems, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 266:33–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2014.07.005
16. K.Chen, ; G.Kou, ; J.Michael Tarn, ; Y.Song, 2015. Bridging the gap between missing and inconsistent values in eliciting preference from pairwise comparison matrices, Annals of Operations Research 235(1):155–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10479-015-1997-z
17. L.Chen, ; Z.Xu, 2015. A new fuzzy programming method to derive the priority vector from an interval reciprocal comparison matrix, Information Sciences 316:148–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2015.04.015
18. E.U.Choo, ; W.C.Wedley, 2010. Estimating ratio scale values when units are unspecified, Computers & Industrial Engineering 59(2):200–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2010.04.001
19. E.Conde, ; M.de la Paz Rivera Pérez, 2010. A linear optimization problem to derive relative weights using an interval judgement matrix, European Journal of Operational Research 201(2):537–544. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.03.029
20. T.K.Dijkstra, 2011. On the extraction of weights from pairwise comparison matrices, Central European Journal of Operations Research 21(1):103–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10100-011-0212-9
21. Y.Dong, ; X.Chen, ; C.Li, ; W.Hong, ; Y.Xu, 2014. Consistency issues of interval pairwise comparison matrices, Soft Computing 19(8):2321–2335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00500-014-1426-2
22. Y.C.Dong, ; E.Herrera-Viedma, 2015. Consistency-driven automatic methodology to set interval numerical scales of 2-tuple linguistic term sets and its use in the linguistic GDM with preference relation, IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics 45(4):780–792. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2014.2336808
23. Y.Dong, ; W.-C.Hong, ; Y.Xu, ; S.Yu, Sh. 2011. Selecting the individual numerical scale and prioritization method in the analytic hierarchy process:a 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic approach, IEEE Transactions On Fuzzy Systems 19(1):12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2010.2073713
24. Y.Dong, ; W.-C.Hong, ; Y.Xu, ; S.Yu, 2013. Numerical scales generated individually for analytic hierarchy process, European Journal of Operational Research 229(3):654–662. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.03.019
25. E.Dopazo, ; M.Ruiz-Tagle, 2011. A parametric GP model dealing with incomplete information for group decision-making, Applied Mathematics and Computation 218(2):514–519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2011.05.094
26. B.Dutta, ; D.Guha, 2015. Preference programming approach for solving intuitionistic fuzzy AHP, International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems 8(5):977–991. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/18756891.2015.1099904
27. D.Ergu, ; G.Kou, ; Y.Peng, ; Y.Shi, 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.03.014
28. D.Ergu, ; G.Kou, ; Y.Peng, ; X.Yang, 2014b. Simulation experiments for improving the consistency ratio of reciprocal matrices, International Journal Of Computers Communications & Control 9(4):11. http://dx.doi.org/10.15837/ijccc.2014.4.1165
29. D.Ergu, ; G.Kou, ; Y.Peng, ; M.Zhang, 2016. Estimating the missing values for the incomplete decision matrix and consistency optimization in emergency management, Applied Mathematical Modelling 40(1):254–267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2015.04.047
30. D.Ergu, ; G.Kou, ; Y.Shi, ; Y.Shi, 2014a. Analytic network process in risk assessment and decision analysis, Computers & Operations Research 42:58–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2011.03.005
31. T.Entani, ; K.Sugihara, 2012. Uncertainty index based interval assignment by Interval AHP, European Journal of Operational Research 219(2):379–385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.01.010
32. M.Fedrizzi, ; M.Brunelli, 2010. On the priority vector associated with a reciprocal relation and a pairwise comparison matrix, Soft Computing 14(6):639–645. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00500-009-0432-2
33. M.Fedrizzi, ; S.Giove, 2013. Optimal sequencing in incomplete pairwise comparisons for large-dimensional problems, International Journal of General Systems 42(4):366–375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03081079.2012.755523
34. J.Fülöp, ; W.W.Koczkodaj, ; S.J.Szarek, 2010. A different perspective on a scale for pairwise comparisons, in I.N.T.Nguyen, R.Kowalczyk. Transactions on computational collective intelligence. Berlin, Heidelberg:Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 71–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15034-0_5
35. A.S.Girsang, ; C.-W.Tsai, ; C.-S.Yang, 2014. Ant algorithm for modifying an inconsistent pairwise weighting matrix in an analytic hierarchy process, Neural Computing and Applications 26(2):313–327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00521-014-1630-0
36. J.A.Gomez-Ruiz, ; M.Karanik, ; J.I.Peláez, 2010. Estimation of missing judgments in AHP pairwise matrices using a neural network-based model, Applied Mathematics and Computation 216(10):2959–2975. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2010.04.009
37. A.Z.Grzybowski, 2016. New results on inconsistency indices and their relationship with the quality of priority vector estimation, Expert Systems with Applications 43:197–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.08.049
38. F.Hou, 2011. A Semiring-based study of judgment matrices:properties and models, Information Sciences 181(11):2166–2176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2011.01.020
39. S.-C.Hsu, ; T.-C.Wang, 2011. Solving multi-criteria decision making with incomplete linguistic preference relations, Expert Systems with Applications 38(9):10882–10888. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.02.123
40. L.-A.Huo, ; J.Lan, ; Z.Wang, 2011. New parametric prioritization methods for an analytical hierarchy process based on a pairwise comparison matrix, Mathematical and Computer Modelling 54(11–12):2736–2749. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2011.06.062
41. M.Izadikhah, 2013. Deriving fuzzy weights of criteria from inconsistent fuzzy comparison matrices by using goal programming method, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 25(1):69–80.
42. A.Ishizaka, ; D.Balkenborg, ; T.Kaplan, 2010. Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP, Journal of the Operational Research Society 62:700–710. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jors.2010.23
43. A.Ishizaka, ; A.Labib, 2011. Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process, Expert Systems with Applications 38(11):14336–14345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.143
44. J.Jablonsky, 2015. Analysis of selected prioritization methods in the analytic hierarchy process, Journal of Physics:Conference Series 622:012033. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/622/1/012033
45. E.R.Jalao, ; T.Wu, ; D.Shunk, 2014a. An intelligent decomposition of pairwise comparison matrices for large-scale decisions, European Journal of Operational Research 238(1):270–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.03.032
46. E.R.Jalao, ; T.Wu, ; D.Shunk, 2014b. A stochastic AHP decision making methodology for imprecise preferences, Information Sciences 270:192–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2014.02.077
47. G.Kéri, 2010. On qualitatively consistent, transitive and contradictory judgment matrices emerging from multiattribute decision procedures, Central European Journal of Operations Research 19(2):215–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10100-010-0138-7
48. J.-B.Kim, ; Y.-G.Cho, ; C.Yong-Gon, ; K.Yun-Bae, ; C.Keun-Tae, 2010. New criteria for the consistency in reasonable pairwise comparison matrices, Journal of the Korean Institute of Industrial Engineers 36(1):6.
49. W.W.Koczkodaj, ; M.Kosiek, ; J.Szybowski, ; D.Xu, 2015. Fast convergence of distance-based inconsistency in pairwise comparisons, Fundamenta Informaticae 137(3):12.
50. W.W.Koczkodaj, ; J.Szybowski, ; E.Wajch, 2016. Inconsistency indicator maps on groups for pairwise comparisons, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 69:81–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2015.11.007
51. G.Kou, ; D.Ergu, ; J.Shang, 2014a. Enhancing data consistency in decision matrix:adapting Hadamard model to mitigate judgment contradiction, European Journal of Operational Research 236(1):261–271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.11.035
52. G.Kou, ; C.Lin, 2014. A cosine maximization method for the priority vector derivation in AHP, European Journal of Operational Research 235(1):225–232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.10.019
53. G.Kou, ; Y.Peng, ; G.Wang, 2014b. Evaluation of clustering algorithms for financial risk analysis using MCDM methods, Information Science 275:1012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2014.02.137
54. K.Kułakowski, 2015a. A heuristic rating estimation algorithm for the pairwise comparisons method, Central European Journal of Operations Research 23(1):187–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10100-013-0311-x
55. K.Kułakowski, 2015b. On the properties of the priority deriving procedure in the pairwise comparisons method, Fundamenta Informaticae 139(4):7. http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/FI-2015-1240
56. K.Kułakowski, ; R.Juszczyk, ; S.Ernst, 2015. A concurrent inconsistency reduction algorithm for the pairwise comparisons method, Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing 9120:214–222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19369-4_20
57. F.Lootsma, 1989. Conflict resolution via pairwise comparison of concessions, European Journal of Operational Research 40:109–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(89)90278-6
58. K.W.Li, ; Z.-J.Wang, ; X.Tong, 2016. Acceptability analysis and priority weight elicitation for interval multiplicative comparison matrices, European Journal of Operational Research 250(2):628–638. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.09.010
59. C.Lin, ; G.Kou, 2015. Bayesian revision of the individual pair-wise comparison matrices under consensus in AHP–GDM, Applied Soft Computing 35:802–811. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.02.041
60. C.Lin, ; G.Kou, ; D.Ergu, 2013a. A heuristic approach for deriving the priority vector in AHP, Applied Mathematical Modelling 37(8):5828–5836. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2012.11.023
61. C.Lin, ; G.Kou, ; D.Ergu, 2013b. An improved statistical approach for consistency test in AHP, Annals of Operations Research 211(1):289–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10479-013-1413-5
62. C.Lin, ; G.Kou, ; D.Ergu, 2014. A statistical approach to measure the consistency level of the pairwise comparison matrix, Journal of the Operational Research Society 65(9):1380–1386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jors.2013.92
63. J.Lin, ; J.Lan, ; Y.Jiang, 2013. Some models for generating and ranking multiplicative weights, Computers & Industrial Engineering 65(4):586–593. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2013.05.006
64. Y.Liu, ; Z.-P.Fan, ; Y.Zhang, 2011. A method for stochastic multiple criteria decision making based on dominance degrees, Information Sciences 181(19):4139–4153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2011.05.013
65. F.Liu, ; W.-G.Zhang, ; Z.-X.Wang, 2012. A goal programming model for incomplete interval multiplicative preference relations and its application in group decision-making, European Journal of Operational Research 218(3):747–754. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.11.042
66. F.Meng, ; X.Chen, 2015. An approach to incomplete multiplicative preference relations and its application in group decision making, Information Sciences 309:119–137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2015.03.020
67. F.Meng, ; X.Chen, ; M.Zhu, ; J.Lin, 2015. Two new methods for deriving the priority vector from interval multiplicative preference relations, Information Fusion 26:122–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2014.12.002
68. M.Mirhedayatian, ; M.J.Jelodar, ; S.Adnani, ; M.Akbarnejad, ; R.F.Saen, 2013. A new approach for prioritization in fuzzy AHP with an application for selecting the best tunnel ventilation system, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 68(9–12):2589–2599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-013-4856-6
69. A.Mohtashami, 2014. A novel meta-heuristic based method for deriving priorities from fuzzy pairwise comparison judgments, Applied Soft Computing 23:530–545. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.05.030
70. W.Pedrycz, ; M.Song, 2011. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in group decision making and its optimization with an allocation of information granularity, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 19(3):12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2011.2116029
71. V.Pereira, ; H.G.Costa, 2014. Nonlinear programming applied to the reduction of inconsistency in the AHP method, Annals of Operations Research 229(1):635–655. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10479-014-1750-z
72. J.Ramík, 2014. Incomplete fuzzy preference matrix and its application to ranking of alternatives, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 29(8):787–806. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/int.21663
73. J.Ramík, 2015. Pairwise comparison matrix with fuzzy elements on alo-group, Information Sciences 297:236–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2014.11.010
74. T.Saaty, 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15:234–281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5
75. S.Siraj, ; L.Mikhailov, ; J.Keane, 2012a. A heuristic method to rectify intransitive judgments in pairwise comparison matrices, European Journal of Operational Research 216(2):420–428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.07.034
76. S.Siraj, ; L.Mikhailov, ; J.A.Keane, 2012b. Enumerating all spanning trees for pairwise comparisons, Computers & Operations Research 39(2):191–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2011.03.010
77. S.Siraj, ; L.Mikhailov, ; J.A.Keane, 2015. Contribution of individual judgments toward inconsistency in pairwise comparisons, European Journal of Operational Research 242(2):557–567. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.10.024
78. J.Temesi, 2010. Pairwise comparison matrices and the error-free property of the decision maker, Central European Journal of Operations Research 19(2):239–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10100-010-0145-8
79. I.L.Tomashevskii, 2015. Eigenvector ranking method as a measuring tool:formulas for errors, European Journal of Operational Research 240(3):774–780. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.07.050
80. S.A.Torabi, ; H.Rafiei, 2012. An optimization framework towards prioritization in fuzzy comparison matrices, Expert Systems with Applications 39(1):638–646. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.07.055
81. V.Tsyganok, 2010. Investigation of the aggregation effectiveness of expert estimates obtained by the pairwise comparison method, Mathematical and Computer Modelling 52(3–4):538–544. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2010.03.052
82. Z.-J.Wang, 2015a. Consistency analysis and priority derivation of triangular fuzzy preference relations based on modal value and geometric mean, Information Sciences 314:169–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2015.03.074
83. Z.-J.Wang, 2015b. Uncertainty index based consistency measurement and priority generation with interval probabilities in the analytic hierarchy process, Computers & Industrial Engineering 83:252–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2015.02.013
84. Z.-J.Wang, ; Y.-G.Chen, 2014. Logarithmic least squares prioritization and completion methods for interval fuzzy preference relations based on geometric transitivity, Information Sciences 289:59–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2014.08.009
85. M.Xia, ; J.Chen, 2015a. Multi-criteria group decision making based on bilateral agreements, European Journal of Operational Research 240(3):756–764. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.07.035
86. M.Xia, ; J.Chen, 2015b. Consistency and consensus improving methods for pairwise comparison matrices based on Abelian linearly ordered group, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 266:1–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2014.07.019
87. M.Xia, ; J.Chen, ; J.Zhang, 2015. Multi-criteria decision making based on relative measures, Annals of Operations Research 229(1):791–811. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10479-015-1847-z
88. Z.Xu, ; X.Cai, 2012. Deriving weights from interval multiplicative preference relations in group decision making, Group Decision and Negotiation 23(4):695–713. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10726-012-9315-5
89. Y.Xu, ; R.Patnayakuni, ; F.Tao, ; H.Wang, 2014. Incomplete interval fuzzy preference relations for supplier selection in supply chain management, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 21(3):379–404. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2013.876688
90. N.Yaraghi, ; P.Tabesh, ; P.Guan, ; J.Zhuang, 2015. Comparison of AHP and Monte Carlo AHP under different levels of uncertainty, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 62(1):10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2014.2360082
91. K.K.F.Yuen, 2010. Analytic hierarchy prioritization process in the AHP application development:a prioritization operator selection approach, Applied Soft Computing 10(4):975–989. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2009.08.041
92. H.Zhang, 2016. Group decision making based on multiplicative consistent reciprocal preference relations, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 282:31–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2015.04.009
93. Y.Zhang, ; Z.-P.Fan, ; Y.Liu, 2010. A method based on stochastic dominance degrees for stochastic multiple criteria decision making, Computers & Industrial Engineering 58(4):544–552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2009.12.001
94. F.Zhang, ; J.Ignatius, ; C.P.Lim, ; Y.Zhao, 2014. A new method for deriving priority weights by extracting consistent numerical-valued matrices from interval-valued fuzzy judgement matrix, Information Sciences 279:280–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2014.03.120
95. H.Zhang, ; A.Sekhari, ; Y.Ouzrout, ; A.Bouras, 2014. Optimal inconsistency repairing of pairwise comparison matrices using integrated linear programming and eigenvector methods, Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2014:1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/140140
96. Z.Zhang, ; C.Wang, ; X.Tian, 2015. Multi-criteria group decision making with incomplete hesitant fuzzy preference relations, Applied Soft Computing 36:1–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.06.047
97. B.Zhu, ; Z.Xu, 2014. Stochastic preference analysis in numerical preference relations, European Journal of Operational Research 237(2):628–633. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.01.068