IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jglopt/v62y2015i3p529-543.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Heuristic rating estimation: geometric approach

Author

Listed:
  • Konrad Kułakowski
  • Katarzyna Grobler-Dębska
  • Jarosław Wąs

Abstract

Heuristic rating estimation is a newly proposed method that supports decisions analysis based on the use of pairwise comparisons. It allows the ranking values of some alternatives (herein referred to as concepts) to be initially known, whilst ranks for other concepts have yet to be estimated. To calculate the missing ranks it is assumed that the priority of every single concept can be determined as the weighted arithmetic mean of the priorities of all the other concepts. It has been shown that the problem has an admissible solution if the inconsistency of the pairwise comparisons is not too high. The proposed approach adopts heuristics according to which a weighted geometric mean is used to determine the missing priorities. In this approach, despite increased complexity, a solution always exists and its existence does not depend on the inconsistency or reciprocity of the input matrix. Thus, the presented approach might be appropriate for a larger number of problems than previous methods. Moreover, it turns out that the geometric approach, as proposed in the article, can be optimal. The optimality condition is presented in the form of a corresponding theorem. A formal definition of the proposed geometric heuristics is accompanied by two numerical examples. Copyright The Author(s) 2015

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jglopt:v:62:y:2015:i:3:p:529-543
    DOI: 10.1007/s10898-014-0253-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10898-014-0253-4
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10898-014-0253-4?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. Matteo Brunelli & Luisa Canal & Michele Fedrizzi, 2013. "Inconsistency indices for pairwise comparison matrices: a numerical study," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 211(1), pages 493-509, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Josep Colomer, 2013. "Ramon Llull: from ‘Ars electionis’ to social choice theory," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(2), pages 317-328, February.
    4. 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.
    5. Thomas L. Saaty, 2005. "The Analytic Hierarchy and Analytic Network Processes for the Measurement of Intangible Criteria and for Decision-Making," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, chapter 0, pages 345-405, Springer.
    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. Kułakowski, Konrad, 2018. "Inconsistency in the ordinal pairwise comparisons method with and without ties," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 270(1), pages 314-327.
    2. Kułakowski, Konrad & Mazurek, Jiří & Ramík, Jaroslav & Soltys, Michael, 2019. "When is the condition of order preservation met?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(1), pages 248-254.

    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. Jiří Mazurek & Konrad Kulakowski, 2020. "Information gap in value propositions of business models of language schools," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 30(2), pages 77-89.
    2. Kułakowski, Konrad, 2015. "Notes on order preservation and consistency in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 245(1), pages 333-337.
    3. Jiří Mazurek, 2018. "Some notes on the properties of inconsistency indices in pairwise comparisons," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 28(1), pages 27-42.
    4. C. Acuña-Soto & V. Liern & B. Pérez-Gladish, 2021. "Normalization in TOPSIS-based approaches with data of different nature: application to the ranking of mathematical videos," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 296(1), pages 541-569, January.
    5. Pietro Amenta & Alessio Ishizaka & Antonio Lucadamo & Gabriella Marcarelli & Vijay Vyas, 2020. "Computing a common preference vector in a complex multi-actor and multi-group decision system in Analytic Hierarchy Process context," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 284(1), pages 33-62, January.
    6. Dimitra G. Vagiona, 2021. "Comparative Multicriteria Analysis Methods for Ranking Sites for Solar Farm Deployment: A Case Study in Greece," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-23, December.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Kun Chen & Gang Kou & J. Michael Tarn & Yan Song, 2015. "Bridging the gap between missing and inconsistent values in eliciting preference from pairwise comparison matrices," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 235(1), pages 155-175, December.
    11. Lucie Lidinska & Josef Jablonsky, 2018. "AHP model for performance evaluation of employees in a Czech management consulting company," 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. 26(1), pages 239-258, March.
    12. Carayannis, Elias G. & Goletsis, Yorgos & Grigoroudis, Evangelos, 2018. "Composite innovation metrics: MCDA and the Quadruple Innovation Helix framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 4-17.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Sangeeta Pant & Anuj Kumar & Mangey Ram & Yury Klochkov & Hitesh Kumar Sharma, 2022. "Consistency Indices in Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Review," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-15, April.
    16. Lianmeng Jiao & Quan Pan & Yan Liang & Xiaoxue Feng & Feng Yang, 2016. "Combining sources of evidence with reliability and importance for decision making," 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. 24(1), pages 87-106, March.
    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. Styliani Karamountzou & Dimitra G. Vagiona, 2023. "Suitability and Sustainability Assessment of Existing Onshore Wind Farms in Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-21, January.
    19. Paul Thaddeus Kazibudzki, 2016. "An examination of performance relations among selected consistency measures for simulated pairwise judgments," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 244(2), pages 525-544, September.
    20. 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.

    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:jglopt:v:62:y:2015:i:3:p:529-543. 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.