×

A common framework for deriving preference values from pairwise comparison matrices. (English) Zbl 1043.62063

Summary: Pairwise comparison is commonly used to estimate preference values of finite alternatives with respect to a given criterion. We discuss 18 estimating methods for deriving preference values from pairwise judgment matrices under a common framework of effectiveness: distance minimization and correctness in error free cases. We point out the importance of commensurate scales when aggregating all the columns of a judgment matrix and the desirability of weighting the columns according to the preference values. The common framework is useful in differentiating the strength and weakness of the estimated methods. Some comparison results of these 18 methods on two sets of judgment matrices with small and large errors are presented. We also give insight regarding the underlying mathematical structure of some of the methods.

MSC:

62J15 Paired and multiple comparisons; multiple testing
PDF BibTeX XML Cite
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] Barzilai, J., Deriving weights from pairwise comparison matrices, Journal of operational research society, 48, 1226-1232, (1997) · Zbl 0895.90004
[2] Salo, A.; Haimalainen, R., On the measurement of preferences in the analytic hierarchy process, Journal of multi-criteria decision analysis, 6, 309-319, (1997)
[3] Saaty, T.L., The analytic hierarchy process, (1980), McGraw-Hill New York · Zbl 1176.90315
[4] Basak, I., Comparison of statistical procedures in analytic hierarchy process using a ranking test, Mathematical and computer modeling, 28, 105-118, (1998) · Zbl 1104.62308
[5] Budescu, D.V.; Zwick, R.; Rapoport, A., A comparison of the eigenvalue method and the geometric Mean procedure for ratio scaling, Applied psychological measurement, 10, 69-78, (1986)
[6] Buede, D., Second overview of the MCDM software market, Journal of multi-criteria decision analysis, 5, 312-316, (1996)
[7] Carmone, F.J.; Kara, A.; Zanakis, S.H., A Monte Carlo investigation of incomplete pairwise comparisons matrices in AHP, European journal of operational research, 102, 538-553, (1997) · Zbl 0955.90042
[8] Carriere, J.F.; Finster, M., Statistical theory for the ratio model of pairwise comparisons, Journal of mathematical psychology, 36, 450-460, (1992) · Zbl 0763.62041
[9] Choo, E.U.; Schoner, B.; Wedley, W.C., Interpretations of criteria weights in multicriteria decision making, Computers and industrial engineering, 37, 527-541, (1999)
[10] Cook, W.D.; Kress, M., Deriving weights from pairwise comparison ratio matricesan axiomatic approach, European journal of operational research, 37, 355-362, (1988) · Zbl 0652.90002
[11] Fichtner, J., On deriving priority vectors from matrices of pairwise comparisons, Socio-economic planning sciences, 20, 341-345, (1986)
[12] Genest, C.; Rivest, L.P., A statistical look at Saaty’s method of estimating pairwise preferences expressed on a ratios scale, Journal of mathematical psychology, 38, 477-496, (1994) · Zbl 0816.90008
[13] Herman, H.W.; Koczkodaj, W.W., A Monte Carlo study of pairwise comparison, Information processing letters, 57, 25-29, (1996) · Zbl 1004.68550
[14] Krovak, J., Ranking alternatives—comparison of different methods based on binary comparison matrices, European journal of operational research, 32, 86-95, (1987) · Zbl 0632.90034
[15] Ra, J.W., Chainwise paired comparisons, Decision sciences, 30, 581-599, (1999)
[16] Zahedi, F., A simulation study of estimation methods in the analytic hierarchy process, Socio-economic planning sciences, 20, 347-354, (1986)
[17] Golany, B.; Kress, M., A multicriteria evaluation of methods for obtaining weights from ratio-scale matrices, European journal of operational research, 69, 210-220, (1993) · Zbl 0800.90007
[18] Jensen, R.E., An alternative scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures, Journal of mathematical psychology, 28, 317-332, (1984)
[19] Saaty, T.L.; Vargas, L.G., Comparison of eigenvalue, logarithmic least squares and least squares methods in estimating ratios, Mathematical and computer modeling, 5, 309-324, (1984) · Zbl 0584.62102
[20] Chu, A.T.W.; Kalaba, R.E.; Spingarn, K., A comparison of two methods for determining the weights of belonging to fuzzy sets, Journal of optimization theory and applications, 27, 531-538, (1979) · Zbl 0377.94002
[21] Stueur, R.E.; Choo, E.U., An interactive weighted Tchebycheff procedure for multiple objective programming, Mathematical programming, 26, 326-344, (1983) · Zbl 0506.90075
[22] Blankmeyer, E., Approaches to consistency adjustment, Journal of optimization theory and applications, 54, 479-488, (1987) · Zbl 0597.90049
[23] Moy, J.W.; Lam, K.F.; Choo, E.U., Deriving the partial values in MCDM by goal programming, Annals of operations research, 74, 277-288, (1997) · Zbl 0887.90007
[24] Mikhailov, L., A fuzzy programming method for deriving priorities in the analytic hierarchy process, Journal of operational research society, 51, 341-349, (2000) · Zbl 1055.90560
[25] Crawford, G.; Williams, C., A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices, Journal of mathematical psychology, 29, 387-405, (1985) · Zbl 0585.62183
[26] Lootsma, F.A., Model for the relative importance of the criteria in the multiplicative AHP and SMART, European journal of operational research, 94, 467-476, (1996) · Zbl 0947.90598
[27] Bryson, N., A goal programming method for generating priority vector, Journal of operational research society, 46, 641-648, (1995) · Zbl 0830.90001
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.