Pairwise comparison matrices and the error-free property of the decision maker

  • József TemesiEmail author
Original Paper


Pairwise comparison is a popular assessment method either for deriving criteria-weights or for evaluating alternatives according to a given criterion. In real-world applications consistency of the comparisons rarely happens: intransitivity can occur. The aim of the paper is to discuss the relationship between the consistency of the decision maker—described with the error-free property—and the consistency of the pairwise comparison matrix (PCM). The concept of error-free matrix is used to demonstrate that consistency of the PCM is not a sufficient condition of the error-free property of the decision maker. Informed and uninformed decision makers are defined. In the first stage of an assessment method a consistent or near-consistent matrix should be achieved: detecting, measuring and improving consistency are part of any procedure with both types of decision makers. In the second stage additional information are needed to reveal the decision maker’s real preferences. Interactive questioning procedures are recommended to reach that goal.


Decision making Pairwise comparisons Consistency Error-free matrices 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aguarón J, Moreno-Jiménez JM (2003) The geometric consistency index: approximated thresholds. Eur J Oper Res 147: 137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bana e Costa CA, Vansnick J-C (2008) A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities in AHP. Eur J Oper Res 187: 1422–1428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bozóki S, Rapcsák T (2008) On Saaty’s and Koczkodaj’s inconsistencies of pairwise comparison matrices. J Glob Optim 42(2): 157–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bozóki S, Fülöp J, Poesz A (2010) On pairwise comparison matrices that can be made consistent by the modification of a few elements. Cent Eur J Oper Res. doi: 10.1007/s10100-010-0136-9
  5. Choo EU, Wedley WC (2004) A common framework for deriving preference values from pairwise comparison matrices. Comput Oper Res 31: 893–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cogger KO, Yu PL (1985) “Eigenweight vectors and least distance approximation for revealed preference in pairwise weight ratios”. J Optim Theor Appl 46: 483–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crawford G, Williams C (1985) A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices. J Math Psychol 29: 387–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fichtner J (1986) On deriving priority vectors from matrices of pairwise comparisons. Socioecon Plann Sci 20: 341–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gass SI, Rapcsák T (2004) “Singular value decomposition in AHP”. Eur J Oper Res 154: 573–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Golany B, Kress M (1993) “A multicriteria evaluation of methods for obtaining weights from ratio-scale matrices”. Eur J Oper Res 69: 210–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Koczkodaj WW (1993) A new definition of consistency of pairwise comparisons. Math Comput Model 18(7): 79–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lin C-C (2007) A revised framework for deriving preference values from pairwise comparison matrices. Eur J Oper Res 176: 1145–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Peláez JI, Lamata MT (2003) A new measure of consistency for positive reciprocal matrices. Comput Math Appl 46: 1839–1845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarch process. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Saaty TL (2005) The analytic hierarchy and analytic network processes for the measurement of intangible criteria and for decision-making. In: Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, New York, pp 345–407Google Scholar
  16. Shirland LE, Jesse RR, Thompson RL, Iacavou CL (2003) Determining attribute weights using mathematical programming. Omega 31: 423–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Srdjevic B (2005) Combining different prioritization methods in the analytic hierarchy process synthesis. Comput Oper Res 32: 1897–1919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Stein WE, Mizzi PJ (2007) The harmonic consistency index for the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 177: 488–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Temesi J (2006) Consistency of the decision maker in pairwise comparisons. Int J Manage Decis Mak 7: 267–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tsoukias A (2008) From decision theory to decision aiding methodology. Eur J Oper Res 187: 138–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wedley WC (2008) From no thing to some things—deriving ratio preferences. 19th International Conference on MCDM, Auckland, pp 32–33Google Scholar
  22. Xu Z, Wei C (1999) A consistency improving method in the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 116: 443–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Corvinus University of BudapestBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations