IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v216y2012i2p420-428.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A heuristic method to rectify intransitive judgments in pairwise comparison matrices

Author

Listed:
  • Siraj, Sajid
  • Mikhailov, Ludmil
  • Keane, John

Abstract

This paper investigates the effects of intransitive judgments on the consistency of pairwise comparison matrices. Statistical evidence regarding the occurrence of intransitive judgements in pairwise matrices of acceptable consistency is gathered by using a Monte–Carlo simulation, which confirms that relatively high percentage of comparison matrices, satisfying Saaty’s CR criterion are ordinally inconsistent. It is also shown that ordinal inconsistency does not necessarily decrease in the group aggregation process, in contrast with cardinal inconsistency. A heuristic algorithm is proposed to improve ordinal consistency by identifying and eliminating intransitivities in pairwise comparison matrices. The proposed algorithm generates near-optimal solutions and outperforms other tested approaches with respect to computation time.

Suggested Citation

  • Siraj, Sajid & Mikhailov, Ludmil & Keane, John, 2012. "A heuristic method to rectify intransitive judgments in pairwise comparison matrices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 216(2), pages 420-428.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:216:y:2012:i:2:p:420-428
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2011.07.034
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221711006667
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.07.034?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alessio Ishizaka & Markus Lusti, 2006. "How to derive priorities in AHP: a comparative study," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 14(4), pages 387-400, December.
    2. Panos M. Pardalos & Tianbing Qian & Mauricio G.C. Resende, 1998. "A Greedy Randomized Adaptive Search Procedure for the Feedback Vertex Set Problem," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 2(4), pages 399-412, December.
    3. Iqbal Ali & Wade D. Cook & Moshe Kress, 1986. "On the Minimum Violations Ranking of a Tournament," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(6), pages 660-672, June.
    4. Escobar, M. T. & Aguaron, J. & Moreno-Jimenez, J. M., 2004. "A note on AHP group consistency for the row geometric mean priorization procedure," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(2), pages 318-322, March.
    5. Ergu, Daji & Kou, Gang & Peng, Yi & Shi, Yong, 2011. "A simple method to improve the consistency ratio of the pair-wise comparison matrix in ANP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 213(1), pages 246-259, August.
    6. Ludmil Mikhailov & Joshua Knowles, 2010. "Priority Elicitation in the AHP by a Pareto Envelope-Based Selection Algorithm," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, in: Matthias Ehrgott & Boris Naujoks & Theodor J. Stewart & Jyrki Wallenius (ed.), Multiple Criteria Decision Making for Sustainable Energy and Transportation Systems, pages 249-257, Springer.
    7. Hartvigsen, David, 2005. "Representing the strengths and directions of pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 163(2), pages 357-369, June.
    8. Cook, Wade D. & Kress, Moshe, 1988. "Deriving weights from pairwise comparison ratio matrices: An axiomatic approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 355-362, December.
    9. Stephen T. Goddard, 1983. "Ranking in Tournaments and Group Decisionmaking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(12), pages 1384-1392, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Atiq-ur Rehman & Mustanser Hussain & Adeel Farooq & Muhammad Akram, 2019. "Consensus-Based Multi-Person Decision Making with Incomplete Fuzzy Preference Relations Using Product Transitivity," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-13, February.
    2. Ishizaka, Alessio & Siraj, Sajid & Nemery, Philippe, 2016. "Which energy mix for the UK (United Kingdom)? An evolutive descriptive mapping with the integrated GAIA (graphical analysis for interactive aid)–AHP (analytic hierarchy process) visualization tool," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 602-611.
    3. Liu, Fang & Zhang, Wei-Guo & Wang, Zhong-Xing, 2012. "A goal programming model for incomplete interval multiplicative preference relations and its application in group decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 218(3), pages 747-754.
    4. Min-Sung Kim & Eul-Bum Lee & In-Hye Jung & Douglas Alleman, 2018. "Risk Assessment and Mitigation Model for Overseas Steel-Plant Project Investment with Analytic Hierarchy Process—Fuzzy Inference System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-17, December.
    5. József Temesi, 2019. "An interactive approach to determine the elements of a pairwise comparison matrix," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 27(2), pages 533-549, June.
    6. Liang, Fuqi & Brunelli, Matteo & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    7. Valdecy Pereira & Helder Costa, 2015. "Nonlinear programming applied to the reduction of inconsistency in the AHP method," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 229(1), pages 635-655, June.
    8. Cooper, Orrin & Yavuz, Idil, 2016. "Linking validation: A search for coherency within the Supermatrix," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 252(1), pages 232-245.
    9. Liu, Fang & Zhang, Wei-Guo & Zhang, Li-Hua, 2014. "Consistency analysis of triangular fuzzy reciprocal preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(3), pages 718-726.
    10. Zhibin Wu & Rong Yuan & Jiancheng Tu, 2021. "Group Decision Making with Transitive Preferences Under Ordinal and Cardinal Consistencies: An Optimization Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 221-250, February.
    11. Kou, Gang & Lin, Changsheng, 2014. "A cosine maximization method for the priority vector derivation in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(1), pages 225-232.
    12. Li, Kevin W. & Wang, Zhou-Jing & Tong, Xiayu, 2016. "Acceptability analysis and priority weight elicitation for interval multiplicative comparison matrices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(2), pages 628-638.
    13. Abel, Edward & Mikhailov, Ludmil & Keane, John, 2018. "Inconsistency reduction in decision making via multi-objective optimisation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 267(1), pages 212-226.
    14. Mejías, Ana M. & Bellas, Roberto & Pardo, Juan E. & Paz, Enrique, 2019. "Traceability management systems and capacity building as new approaches for improving sustainability in the fashion multi-tier supply chain," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 217(C), pages 143-158.
    15. Kou, Gang & Ergu, Daji & Shang, Jennifer, 2014. "Enhancing data consistency in decision matrix: Adapting Hadamard model to mitigate judgment contradiction," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 236(1), pages 261-271.
    16. Dong, Yucheng & Hong, Wei-Chiang & Xu, Yinfeng & Yu, Shui, 2013. "Numerical scales generated individually for analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 229(3), pages 654-662.
    17. Siraj, Sajid & Mikhailov, Ludmil & Keane, John A., 2015. "Contribution of individual judgments toward inconsistency in pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(2), pages 557-567.
    18. Alessio Ishizaka & Sajid Siraj, 2020. "Interactive consistency correction in the analytic hierarchy process to preserve ranks," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 43(2), pages 443-464, December.
    19. Siraj, S. & Mikhailov, L. & Keane, J.A., 2012. "Preference elicitation from inconsistent judgments using multi-objective optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 220(2), pages 461-471.
    20. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Stochastic preference analysis in numerical preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(2), pages 628-633.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Siraj, S. & Mikhailov, L. & Keane, J.A., 2012. "Preference elicitation from inconsistent judgments using multi-objective optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 220(2), pages 461-471.
    2. Siraj, Sajid & Mikhailov, Ludmil & Keane, John A., 2015. "Contribution of individual judgments toward inconsistency in pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(2), pages 557-567.
    3. Kou, Gang & Ergu, Daji & Shang, Jennifer, 2014. "Enhancing data consistency in decision matrix: Adapting Hadamard model to mitigate judgment contradiction," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 236(1), pages 261-271.
    4. Matteo Brunelli, 2017. "Studying a set of properties of inconsistency indices for pairwise comparisons," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 248(1), pages 143-161, January.
    5. Cooper, Orrin & Yavuz, Idil, 2016. "Linking validation: A search for coherency within the Supermatrix," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 252(1), pages 232-245.
    6. Bice Cavallo, 2019. "Coherent weights for pairwise comparison matrices and a mixed-integer linear programming problem," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 75(1), pages 143-161, September.
    7. Lundy, Michele & Siraj, Sajid & Greco, Salvatore, 2017. "The mathematical equivalence of the “spanning tree” and row geometric mean preference vectors and its implications for preference analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(1), pages 197-208.
    8. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui & Zhang, Ren & Hong, Mei, 2015. "Generalized analytic network process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 244(1), pages 277-288.
    9. Brozos-Vázquez, Miguel & Campo-Cabana, Marco Antonio & Díaz-Ramos, José Carlos & González-Díaz, Julio, 2008. "Ranking participants in tournaments by means of rating functions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(11), pages 1246-1256, December.
    10. B. Jay Coleman, 2005. "Minimizing Game Score Violations in College Football Rankings," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 35(6), pages 483-496, December.
    11. Hovanov, Nikolai V. & Kolari, James W. & Sokolov, Mikhail V., 2008. "Deriving weights from general pairwise comparison matrices," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 205-220, March.
    12. C. Richard Cassady & Lisa M. Maillart & Sinan Salman, 2005. "Ranking Sports Teams: A Customizable Quadratic Assignment Approach," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 35(6), pages 497-510, December.
    13. Mass A. & Bezembinder, T. & Wakker, P., 1996. "On solving intansitivities in repeated pairwise choices," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 53-53, February.
    14. Cook, Wade D., 2006. "Distance-based and ad hoc consensus models in ordinal preference ranking," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(2), pages 369-385, July.
    15. Zhang, L.P. & Zhou, P., 2018. "A non-compensatory composite indicator approach to assessing low-carbon performance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 270(1), pages 352-361.
    16. Dong, Zhi-Long & Ribeiro, Celso C. & Xu, Fengmin & Zamora, Ailec & Ma, Yujie & Jing, Kui, 2023. "Dynamic scheduling of e-sports tournaments," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    17. Brunelli, Matteo & Fedrizzi, Michele, 2015. "Boundary properties of the inconsistency of pairwise comparisons in group decisions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(3), pages 765-773.
    18. Yi Peng, 2015. "Regional earthquake vulnerability assessment using a combination of MCDM methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 234(1), pages 95-110, November.
    19. Concepcion Roman & Juan Carlos Martin & Raquel Espino, 2011. "Using Stated Preferences (Sp) To Analyze The Service Quality Of Public Transport," ERSA conference papers ersa11p86, European Regional Science Association.
    20. Liang, Fuqi & Brunelli, Matteo & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:216:y:2012:i:2:p:420-428. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.