IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v220y2012i2p461-471.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preference elicitation from inconsistent judgments using multi-objective optimization

Author

Listed:
  • Siraj, S.
  • Mikhailov, L.
  • Keane, J.A.

Abstract

Several decision-making techniques involve pairwise comparisons to elicit the preferences of a decision maker (DM). This paper proposes a new approach for prioritization from pairwise comparisons using the concept of indirect judgments. No method exists that simultaneously minimizes deviations from both direct and indirect judgments. In order to estimate preferences, it is sensible to consider both the acquired judgments and the other judgments latent in the DM’s mind. Hence, a technique is developed here to minimize the deviations from both types of judgments.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:220:y:2012:i:2:p:461-471
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2012.01.049
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221712000872
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.01.049?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. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(4), pages 700-710, April.
    2. Van Ittersum, Koert & Pennings, Joost M.E. & Wansink, Brian & van Trijp, Hans C.M., 2007. "The validity of attribute-importance measurement: A review," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(11), pages 1177-1190, November.
    3. Golany, B. & Kress, M., 1993. "A multicriteria evaluation of methods for obtaining weights from ratio-scale matrices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 210-220, September.
    4. 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.
    5. Lin, Chang-Chun, 2007. "A revised framework for deriving preference values from pairwise comparison matrices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 176(2), pages 1145-1150, January.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Hartvigsen, David, 2005. "Representing the strengths and directions of pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 163(2), pages 357-369, June.
    9. 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.
    10. Carmone, Frank J. & Kara, Ali & Zanakis, Stelios H., 1997. "A Monte Carlo investigation of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 102(3), pages 538-553, November.
    11. Salvatore Greco & Benedetto Matarazzo & Roman Słowiński, 2010. "Dominance-based Rough Set Approach to decision under uncertainty and time preference," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 41-75, April.
    12. Patrick T. Harker & Luis G. Vargas, 1987. "The Theory of Ratio Scale Estimation: Saaty's Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(11), pages 1383-1403, November.
    13. Brugha, Cathal M., 2000. "Relative measurement and the power function," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(3), pages 627-640, March.
    14. 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.
    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. Bottomley, Paul A. & Doyle, John R., 2013. "Comparing the validity of numerical judgements elicited by direct rating and point allocation: Insights from objectively verifiable perceptual tasks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(1), pages 148-157.
    2. Bozóki, Sándor & Fülöp, János, 2018. "Efficient weight vectors from pairwise comparison matrices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 419-427.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    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, 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    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. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Mikhailov, L., 2004. "A fuzzy approach to deriving priorities from interval pairwise comparison judgements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(3), pages 687-704, December.
    14. Liang, Fuqi & Brunelli, Matteo & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    15. Hartvigsen, David, 2005. "Representing the strengths and directions of pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 163(2), pages 357-369, June.
    16. Wade D. Cook & Tal Raviv & Alan J. Richardson, 2010. "Aggregating Incomplete Lists of Journal Rankings: An Application to Academic Accounting Journals," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 217-235, September.
    17. 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.
    18. Sándor Bozóki, 2008. "Solution of the least squares method problem of pairwise comparison matrices," 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. 16(4), pages 345-358, December.
    19. József Temesi, 2011. "Pairwise comparison matrices and the error-free property of the decision maker," 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. 19(2), pages 239-249, June.
    20. Faramondi, Luca & Oliva, Gabriele & Setola, Roberto & Bozóki, Sándor, 2023. "Robustness to rank reversal in pairwise comparison matrices based on uncertainty bounds," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(2), pages 676-688.

    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:220:y:2012:i:2:p:461-471. 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.