IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/operea/v19y2019i3d10.1007_s12351-017-0307-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On extension of multiplicative consistency to interval fuzzy preference relations

Author

Listed:
  • Jana Krejčí

    (University of Trento
    University of Bayreuth)

Abstract

Various definitions of consistency for interval fuzzy preference relations have been proposed in the literature. The aim of this paper is to review the definitions of multiplicative consistency based on the extension of Tanino’s multiplicative-transitivity property and to point out their drawbacks. In particular, some of the definitions proposed in the literature are not invariant under permutation of objects in interval fuzzy preference relations and some of them violate reciprocity of the pairwise comparisons of objects, which is not acceptable. The weak form of multiplicative-consistency defined by Xu and Chen (Eur J Oper Res 184:266–280, 2008) is approved as the only one appropriate among all definitions examined in the paper. Further, a new definition of multiplicative consistency that is much stronger than the definition proposed by Xu and Chen (Eur J Oper Res 184:266–280, 2008) is introduced. Tools for verifying both the multiplicative consistency defined in this paper and the multiplicative weak consistency defined by Xu and Chen (Eur J Oper Res 184:266–280, 2008) are proposed, and some interesting properties of both multiplicatively consistent and multiplicatively weakly consistent interval fuzzy preference relations are demonstrated. Finally, numerical examples are provided in order to illustrate and compare both types of consistency.

Suggested Citation

  • Jana Krejčí, 2019. "On extension of multiplicative consistency to interval fuzzy preference relations," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 783-815, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:operea:v:19:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s12351-017-0307-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s12351-017-0307-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12351-017-0307-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12351-017-0307-8?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 & Michele Fedrizzi, 2015. "Axiomatic properties of inconsistency indices for pairwise comparisons," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 66(1), pages 1-15, January.
    2. Xu, Zeshui & Chen, Jian, 2008. "Some models for deriving the priority weights from interval fuzzy preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 266-280, January.
    3. Meimei Xia & Zeshui Xu, 2011. "Some Issues On Multiplicative Consistency Of Interval Reciprocal Relations," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 10(06), pages 1043-1065.
    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. Zeshui Xu & Xiaoqiang Cai, 2013. "On Consensus of Group Decision Making with Interval Utility Values and Interval Preference Orderings," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(6), pages 997-1019, November.
    2. Liu Fang & Peng Yanan & Zhang Weiguo & Pedrycz Witold, 2017. "On Consistency in AHP and Fuzzy AHP," Journal of Systems Science and Information, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 128-147, April.
    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. Meng, Fanyong & Tan, Chunqiao & Chen, Xiaohong, 2017. "Multiplicative consistency analysis for interval fuzzy preference relations: A comparative study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 17-38.
    5. Wang, Zhou-Jing & Li, Kevin W., 2015. "A multi-step goal programming approach for group decision making with incomplete interval additive reciprocal comparison matrices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(3), pages 890-900.
    6. Liang, Fuqi & Brunelli, Matteo & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    7. Qi Wei & Rui Wang & Chuan-Yang Ruan, 2024. "Similarity Measures of Probabilistic Interval Preference Ordering Sets and Their Applications in Decision-Making," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-26, October.
    8. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Stochastic preference analysis in numerical preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(2), pages 628-633.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Matteo Brunelli & Michele Fedrizzi, 2019. "A general formulation for some inconsistency indices of pairwise comparisons," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 274(1), pages 155-169, March.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Yibin Zhang & Kevin W. Li & Zhou-Jing Wang, 2017. "Prioritization and Aggregation of Intuitionistic Preference Relations: A Multiplicative-Transitivity-Based Transformation from Intuitionistic Judgment Data to Priority Weights," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 409-436, March.
    16. Michele Fedrizzi & Nino Civolani & Andrew Critch, 2020. "Inconsistency evaluation in pairwise comparison using norm-based distances," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 43(2), pages 657-672, December.
    17. Ting Kuo & Ming-Hui Chen, 2022. "On Indeterminacy of Interval Multiplicative Pairwise Comparison Matrix," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, February.
    18. Brunelli, Matteo & Fedrizzi, Michele, 2024. "Inconsistency indices for pairwise comparisons and the Pareto dominance principle," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 312(1), pages 273-282.
    19. Fang Liu & Mao-Jie Huang & Cai-Xia Huang & Witold Pedrycz, 2022. "Measuring consistency of interval-valued preference relations: comments and comparison," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 371-399, March.
    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:spr:operea:v:19:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s12351-017-0307-8. 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.