Eigenvector ranking method as a measuring tool: Formulas for errors

European Journal of Operational Research

Volumn 240, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 774-780

  Tomashevskii, L ^a  

^a NORTHERN ARCTIC FEDERAL UNIVERSITY NAMED AFTER M V LOMONOSOV   (Russian Federation)

Author keywords

Analytic Hierarchy Process; Decision analysis; Eigenvector method; Pairwise comparisons; Rank reversal

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS; DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; DECISION THEORY; ERRORS; MATRIX ALGEBRA; MEASUREMENT THEORY; NUMERICAL METHODS; PARTIAL DISCHARGES;

DECISION MAKING PROCESS; EIGENVECTOR METHODS; INTENSITY OF PREFERENCE; MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE ERRORS; PAIR-WISE COMPARISON; PAIR-WISE COMPARISON MATRIXES; PAIRWISE COMPARISON MATRICES; RANK REVERSALS;

EIGENVALUES AND EIGENFUNCTIONS;

EID: 84985042310     PISSN: 03772217     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2014.07.050     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Bana e Costa, C.A., Vansnick, J.-C., A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 187 (2008), 1422–1428.
2. Barzilai, J., Deriving weights from pairwise comparison matrices. Journal of the Operational Research Society 48 (1997), 1226–1232.
3. Belton, V., Grear, T., The Legitimacy of Rank Reversal - A Comment. Omega 13 (1985), 143–144.
4. Bózoki, S., Rapcsák, T., On Saaty's and Koczkodaj's inconsistencies of pairwise comparison matrices. Journal of Global Optimization 42 (2008), 157–175.
5. Choo, E.U., Wedley, W.C., A common framework for deriving preference values from pairwise comparison matrices. Computers & Operations Research 31 (2004), 893–908.
6. Cook, W.D., Kress, M.K., Deriving weights from pairwise comparison ratio matrices: an axiomatic approach. European Journal of Operational Research 37 (1988), 355–362.
7. Deturck, D.M., The approach to consistency in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Mathematical modelling 9 (1987), 345–352.
8. Dodd, F.J., Donegan, H.A., McMaster, T.B.M., Inverse inconsistency in analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 80 (1995), 86–93.
9. Dyer, J.S., Remark on the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Management Science 36 (1990), 249–258.
10. Gantmacher, F., Theory of matrices. 1959, AMS Chelsea publishing.
11. Hochbaum, D.S., Levin, A., Methodologies for the group rankings decision. Management Science 52 (2006), 1394–1408.
12. Hovanov, N., Kolari, J., Sokolov, M., Deriving weights from general pairwise comparisons matrices. Mathematical Social Sciences 55 (2008), 205–220.
13. Ishizaka, A., Labib, A., Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011), 14336–14345.
14. Johnson, C., Beine, W., Wang, T., Right-Left Asymmetry in an Eigenvector Ranking Procedure. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 19 (1979), 61–64.
15. Jones, D.F., Mardle, S.J., A distance-metric methodology for the derivation of weights from a pairwise comparison matrix. Journal of the Operational Research Society 55 (2004), 869–875.
16. Karapetrovic, S., Rosenbloom, E., A Quality Control Approach to Consistency Paradoxes in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 119 (1999), 704–718.
17. Kou, G., Lin, C., A cosine maximization method for the priority vector derivation in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research., 2013.
18. Kwiesielewicz, M., van Uden, E., Inconsistent and Contradictory Judgements in Pairwise Comparison Method in AHP. Computers and Operations Research 31 (2004), 713–719.
19. Maleki, H., Zahir, S., A Comprehensive Literature Review of the Rank Reversal Phenomenon in the Analytic Hierarhy Process. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 20 (2013), 141–155.
20. Monsuur, H., An intrinsic consistency threshold for reciprocal matrices. European Journal of Operational Research 96 (1997), 387–391.
21. Raharjo, H., Endah, D., Evaluating relationship of consistency ratio and number of alternatives on rank reversal in the AHP. Quality Engineering 18 (2005), 39–46.
22. Saaty, T.L., A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15 (1977), 234–281.
23. Saaty, T.L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process. 1980, McGraw Hill, New York.
24. Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G., Comparison of eigenvalue, logarithmic least squares and least squares methods in estimating ratios. Mathematical Modelling 5 (1984), 309–324.
25. Saaty, T.L., Rank Generation, Preservation, and Reversal in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Decision Sciences 18 (1987), 157–177.
26. Saaty, T.L., Fundamentals of Decision Making. 1994, RSW Publications.
27. Taylor, J.R., An Introduction to Error Analysis: The Study of Uncertainties in Physical Measurements. 1997, University Science Books, Sausalito, California.
28. Thurstone, L., A law of comparative judgments. Psychological Review 34 (1927), 273–286.
29. Vaidya, O., Agarwal, S., Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research 169 (2006), 1–29.
30. Yokoyama, M., The Nature of the affective judgment in the method of paired comparison. The American Journal of Psychology 32 (1921), 357–369.
31. Wang, Y.-M., Chin, K.-S., Luo, Y., Aggregation of direct and indirect judgments in pairwise comparison matrices with a re-examination of the criticisms by Bana e Costa and Vansnick. Information sciences 179 (2009), 329–337.