IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/opsear/v60y2023i2d10.1007_s12597-023-00641-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deriving priority vector from pairwise comparisons matrix with fuzzy elements by solving optimization problem

Author

Listed:
  • Jaroslav Ramík

    (Silesian University)

Abstract

Pairwise comparisons matrix with fuzzy elements (FPCM) are appropriate for the decision makers who are uncertain about the relative importance of elements. We can primarily find them in Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process, PROMETHEE, TOPSIS methods, and many exact and heuristic algorithms. They are also useful in aggregating pairwise comparisons, particularly in consensus group decision making problems and they form the basis for many decision-making models as intuitionistic fuzzy relations, pythagorean, q-rung orthopair fuzzy preference relations, hesitant or interval fuzzy sets, and also stochastic judgments. Here, the decision model is formulated by investigating pairwise comparisons matrices (PCMs) with elements from abelian linearly ordered group (alo-group), which enables unifying multiplicative, additive and fuzzy PCMs. Then we define a novel concept of consistency, coherence and intensity of FPCMs, and propose a number of optimization methods for finding a consistent vector, coherent vector and intensity vector of a FPCM satisfying the desirable properties. Finally, two illustrating examples are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Jaroslav Ramík, 2023. "Deriving priority vector from pairwise comparisons matrix with fuzzy elements by solving optimization problem," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 60(2), pages 1045-1062, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:opsear:v:60:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s12597-023-00641-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s12597-023-00641-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12597-023-00641-4
    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/s12597-023-00641-4?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. 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.
    2. Durbach, Ian & Lahdelma, Risto & Salminen, Pekka, 2014. "The analytic hierarchy process with stochastic judgements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 238(2), pages 552-559.
    3. Wang, Ying-Ming & Elhag, Taha M.S., 2007. "A goal programming method for obtaining interval weights from an interval comparison matrix," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(1), pages 458-471, February.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    7. Jaroslav Ramík, 2020. "Pairwise Comparisons Method," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, Springer, number 978-3-030-39891-0, July.
    8. Wang, Zhou-Jing, 2015. "A note on “A goal programming model for incomplete interval multiplicative preference relations and its application in group decision-making”," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 247(3), pages 867-871.
    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. 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.
    2. Amelia Bilbao-Terol & Mar Arenas-Parra & Raquel Quiroga-García & Celia Bilbao-Terol, 2022. "An extended best–worst multiple reference point method: application in the assessment of non-life insurance companies," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 5323-5362, November.
    3. 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.
    4. Hocine, Amine & Kouaissah, Noureddine, 2020. "XOR analytic hierarchy process and its application in the renewable energy sector," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    5. 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.
    6. M. Gabriela Sava & Luis G. Vargas & Jerrold H. May & James G. Dolan, 2022. "Multi-dimensional stability analysis for Analytic Network Process models," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 316(2), pages 1401-1424, September.
    7. Ahn, Byeong Seok, 2017. "The analytic hierarchy process with interval preference statements," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 177-185.
    8. Guo, Peijun & Tanaka, Hideo, 2010. "Decision making with interval probabilities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 203(2), pages 444-454, June.
    9. Jinpei Liu & Jingmiao Song & Qin Xu & Zhifu Tao & Huayou Chen, 2019. "Group decision making based on DEA cross-efficiency with intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 345-370, September.
    10. Ian Durbach, 2019. "Scenario planning in the analytic hierarchy process," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(2), June.
    11. Qingxian An & Fanyong Meng & Beibei Xiong, 2018. "Interval cross efficiency for fully ranking decision making units using DEA/AHP approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 271(2), pages 297-317, December.
    12. Liu, Fang & Chen, Ya-Ru & Zhou, Da-Hai, 2023. "A two-dimensional approach to flexibility degree of XOR numbers with application to group decision making," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 207(C), pages 267-287.
    13. Chin-Yi Chen & Jih-Jeng Huang, 2022. "Deriving Fuzzy Weights from the Consistent Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(19), pages 1-12, September.
    14. 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.
    15. Karasakal, Esra & Aker, Pınar, 2017. "A multicriteria sorting approach based on data envelopment analysis for R&D project selection problem," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 79-92.
    16. 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.
    17. Zhibin Wu & Jie Xiao & Ivan Palomares, 2019. "Direct Iterative Procedures for Consensus Building with Additive Preference Relations Based on the Discrete Assessment Scale," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(6), pages 1167-1191, December.
    18. Cinelli, Marco & Kadziński, Miłosz & Miebs, Grzegorz & Gonzalez, Michael & Słowiński, Roman, 2022. "Recommending multiple criteria decision analysis methods with a new taxonomy-based decision support system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(2), pages 633-651.
    19. Ewa Roszkowska, 2020. "The extention rank ordering criteria weighting methods in fuzzy enviroment," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 30(2), pages 91-114.
    20. Jih-Jeng Huang & Chin-Yi Chen, 2024. "A Generalized Method for Deriving Steady-State Behavior of Consistent Fuzzy Priority for Interdependent Criteria," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-16, 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:opsear:v:60:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s12597-023-00641-4. 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.