IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/cejnor/v23y2015i1p187-203.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A heuristic rating estimation algorithm for the pairwise comparisons method

Author

Listed:
  • Konrad Kułakowski

Abstract

The pairwise comparisons method is a powerful tool used for establishing the relative order between different concepts in situations in which it is difficult (or sometimes even impossible) to provide explicit rating. Appropriate ratings are determined by solving eigenvalue problem for the pairwise comparisons matrix. This study presents a new iterative heuristic rating estimation algorithm that tries to deal with the situation when exact estimations for some concepts (stimulus) $$C_{K}$$ C K are a priori known and fixed, whilst the estimates for the others (unknown concepts $$C_{U}$$ C U ) need to be computed. The relationship between the local estimation error, understood as the average absolute error $$E(c)$$ E ( c ) over all direct estimates for the concept $$c\in C_{U}$$ c ∈ C U and the pairwise comparisons matrix inconsistency index is shown. The problem of convergence of subsequent intermediate results is discussed and the convergence conditions are given. Copyright The Author(s) 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Konrad Kułakowski, 2015. "A heuristic rating estimation algorithm for the pairwise comparisons method," 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. 23(1), pages 187-203, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:cejnor:v:23:y:2015:i:1:p:187-203
    DOI: 10.1007/s10100-013-0311-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10100-013-0311-x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10100-013-0311-x?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. George L. Peterson & Thomas C. Brown, 1998. "Economic Valuation by the Method of Paired Comparison, with Emphasis on Evaluation of the Transitivity Axiom," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 240-261.
    2. Jozsef Temesi, 2006. "Consistency of the decision-maker in pair-wise comparisons," International Journal of Management and Decision Making, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 7(2/3), pages 267-274.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kannika Thampanishvong, 2013. "Determinants of Flash Flood Evacuation Choices and Assessment of Preferences for Flash Flood Warning Channels: The Case of Thailand," EEPSEA Research Report rr2013034, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Mar 2013.
    2. Arvin B. Vista & Randall S. Rosenberger & Alan R. Collins, 2009. "If You Provide It, Will They Read It? Response Time Effects in a Choice Experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 57(3), pages 365-377, September.
    3. Chilton, Susan M. & Burgess, Diane & Hutchinson, W. George, 2006. "The relative value of farm animal welfare," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 353-363, September.
    4. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Peterson, George L. & Clarke, Andrea & Brown, Thomas C., 2003. "Measuring dispositions for lexicographic preferences of environmental goods: integrating economics, psychology and ethics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 63-76, February.
    5. Jean-Paul Doignon & Aleksandar Pekeč & Michel Regenwetter, 2004. "The repeated insertion model for rankings: Missing link between two subset choice models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 69(1), pages 33-54, March.
    6. Aric P. Shafran, 2014. "Equivalent Option Price With Supply Uncertainty," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(S1), pages 1-16, December.
    7. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Peterson, George L. & Loomis, John B., 2002. "Applying A Method Of Paired Comparisons To Measure Economic Values For Multiple Goods Sets," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 34(1), pages 1-15, April.
    8. Kjartan Sælensminde, 2001. "Inconsistent choices in Stated Choice data;Use of the logit scaling approach to handle resulting variance increases," Transportation, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 269-296, August.
    9. Sándor Bozóki & Linda Dezső & Attila Poesz & József Temesi, 2013. "Analysis of pairwise comparison matrices: an empirical research," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 211(1), pages 511-528, December.
    10. Konrad Kułakowski & Katarzyna Grobler-Dębska & Jarosław Wąs, 2015. "Heuristic rating estimation: geometric approach," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 62(3), pages 529-543, July.
    11. Robert W. Kling & Charles F. Revier & Karin Sable, 2004. "Estimating the Public Good Value of Preserving a Local Historic Landmark: The Role of Non-substitutability and Citizen Information," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 41(10), pages 2025-2041, September.
    12. Strager, Michael P. & Rosenberger, Randall S., 2006. "Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: Weights and measures in spatial MCA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 627-639, June.
    13. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    14. Euston Quah & Edward Choa & K. C. Tan, 2006. "Use of damage schedules in environmental valuation: The case of urban Singapore," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(13), pages 1501-1512.
    15. Brown, Thomas C. & Kingsley, David & Peterson, George L. & Flores, Nicholas E. & Clarke, Andrea & Birjulin, Andrej, 2008. "Reliability of individual valuations of public and private goods: Choice consistency, response time, and preference refinement," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(7), pages 1595-1606, July.
    16. Carol Mansfield & George L. Van Houtven & Joel Huber, 2002. "Compensating for Public Harms: Why Public Goods Are Preferred to Money," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(3), pages 368-389.
    17. Gregory, Robin & Wellman, Katharine, 2001. "Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy choices: a community-based estuary case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 37-52, October.
    18. Joseph Luomba & Ratana Chuenpagdee & Andrew M. Song, 2016. "A Bottom-Up Understanding of Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing in Lake Victoria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-14, October.
    19. Pradiptyo, Rimawan & Sahadewo, Gumilang Aryo, 2012. "On The Complexity of Eliminating Fuel Subsidy in Indonesia; A Behavioral Approach," MPRA Paper 40045, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Schlapfer, Felix, 2006. "Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 415-429, May.

    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:spr:cejnor:v:23:y:2015:i:1:p:187-203. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.