Soft Computing

, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 1933–1943 | Cite as

Analyzing Saaty’s consistency test in pairwise comparison method: a perspective based on linguistic and numerical scale

  • Hengjie Zhang
  • Xin Chen
  • Yucheng Dong
  • Weijun Xu
  • Shihua Wang
Methodologies and Application
  • 386 Downloads

Abstract

The consistency test is a vital basis of the pairwise comparison method, which is performed to ensure that the decision maker is being logical in his/her pairwise comparisons. In the analytic hierarchy process, the pairwise comparison method with a fixed numerical scale has been employed. In this study, we provide a systematic review analysis regarding the inconsistency causes in the pairwise comparison method with a fixed numerical scale, and propose the paradoxes on Saaty’s consistency test in this pairwise comparison method. Meanwhile, based on the use of the consistency-driven linguistic methodology, we propose a novel approach from a perspective of the linguistic and numerical scale to deal with the inconsistency in the pairwise comparison method.

Keywords

Multiple attribute decision making Pairwise comparison matrix Consistency Numerical scale The 2-tuple linguistic representation model Consistency-driven linguistic methodology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the grants (Nos. 71571124, 71171160, 71471065) from NSF of China, the grant (No. skqy201606) from Sichuan University, the grant (No. 2015GD05) from South China University of Technology, the grant (No. GDUPTLAB201602) from the Open Fund of Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Petrochemical Equipment Fault Diagnosis and the grant (No. 2015B090903084) from Guangdong Provincial Science and Technology Cooperation Project.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Human and animal studies

This paper does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Alonso S, Cabrerizo FJ, Chiclana F, Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E (2009) Group decision-making with incomplete fuzzy linguistic preference relations. Int J Intell Syst 24:201–222CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Alonso S, Chiclana F, Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Alcal-Fdez J, Porcel C (2008) A consistency-based procedure to estimate missing pairwise preference values. Int J Intell Syst 23:155–175CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Alonso S, Herrera-Viedma E, Chiclana F, Herrera F (2010) A web based consensus support system for group decision making problems and incomplete preferences. Inf Sci 180:4477–4495MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alonso JA, Lamata MT (2006) Consistency in the analytic hierarchy process: a new approach. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 14:445–459CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Cabrerizo FJ, Al-Hmouz R, Morfeq A, Balamash AS, Martínez MA, Herrera-Viedma E (2015a) Soft consensus measures in group decision making using unbalanced fuzzy linguistic information. Soft Comput. doi: 10.1007/s00500-015-1989-6
  6. Cabrerizo FJ, Chiclana F, Al-Hmouz R, Morfeq A, Balamash AS, Herrera-Viedma E (2015b) Fuzzy decision making and consensus: challenges. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 29:1109–1118Google Scholar
  7. Cabrerizo FJ, Herrera-Viedma E, Pedrycz W (2013) A method based on PSO and granular computing of linguistic information to solve group decision making problems defined in heterogeneous contexts. Eur J Oper Res 230:624–633MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Cabrerizo FJ, Moreno JM, Pérez IJ, Herrera-Viedma E (2010) Analyzing consensus approaches in fuzzy group decision making: advantages and drawbacks. Soft Comput 14:451–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen X, Zhang HJ, Dong YC (2015) The fusion process with heterogeneous preference structures in group decision making: a survey. Inf Fusion 24:72–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chiclana F, Herrera-Viedma E, Alonso S, Herrera F (2009) Cardinal consistency of reciprocal preference relations: an characterization of multiplicative transitivity. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 17:14–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chiclana F, Mata F, Martínez L, Herrera-Viedma E, Alonso S (2008) Integration of a consistency control module within a consensus model. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 16:35–53MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dong YC, Fan ZP, Yu S (2015) Consensus building in a local context for the AHP-GDM with the individual numerical scale and prioritization method. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 23:354–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dong YC, Herrera-Viedma E (2015) Consistency-driven automatic methodology to set interval numerical scales of 2-tuple linguistic term sets and its use in the linguistic GDM with preference relation. IEEE Trans Cybern 45:780–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dong YC, Hong WC, Xu YF, Yu S (2013) Numerical scales generated individually for analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 229:654–662MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Dong YC, Li CC, Chiclana F, Herrera-Viedma E (2016) Average-case consistency measurement and analysis of interval-valued reciprocal preference relations. Knowl Based Syst 114:108–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dong YC, Li CC, Herrera F (2015) An optimization-based approach to adjusting unbalanced linguistic preference relations to obtain a required consistency level. Inf Sci 292:27–38MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Dong YC, Li CC, Xu YF, Gu X (2015) Consensus-based group decision making under multi-granular unbalanced 2-tuple linguistic preference relations. Group Decis Negot 24:217–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dong YC, Xu YF, Li HY, Dai M (2008) A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP. Eur J Oper Res 186:229–242MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Dong YC, Zhang HJ (2014) Multiperson decision making with different preference representation structures: a direct consensus framework and its properties. Knowl Based Syst 58:45–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dong YC, Zhang HJ, Herrera-Viedma E (2016) Consensus reaching model in the complex and dynamic MAGDM problem. Knowl Based Syst 106:206–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dong YC, Zhang HJ, Herrera-Viedma E (2016) Integrating experts’ weights generated dynamically into the consensus reaching process and its applications in managing non-cooperative behaviors. Decis Support Syst 84:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dong YC, Zhang GQ, Hong WC (2013) Linguistic computational model based on 2-tuples and intervals. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 21:1006–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Finan JS, Hurley WJ (1999) Transitive calibration of the AHP verbal scale. Eur J Oper Res 122:367–372CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Golden BL, Wang Q (1990) An alternative measure of consistency. In: Golden BL, Wasil EA, Harker PT (eds) Analytic hierarchy process: applications and studies. Springer, New York, pp 68–81Google Scholar
  25. Gomez-Ruiz JA, Karanik M, Peláez JI (2010) Estimation of missing judgments in AHP pairwise matrices using a neural network-based model. Appl Math Comput 216:2959–2975MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Harke PT, Vargas LG (1987) The theory of ratio scale estimation: Saaty’s analytic hierarchy process. Manag Sci 33:1383–1403MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Herrera-Viedma E, Chiclana F, Herrera F, Alonso S (2007) Group decision-making model with incomplete fuzzy preference relations based on additive consistency. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B Cybern 37:176–189CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F, Chiclana F, Luque M (2004) Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations. Eur J Oper Res 154:98–109MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E (2000) Linguistic decision analysis: steps for solving decision problems under linguistic information. Fuzzy Sets Syst 115:67–82MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Herrera F, Martínez L (2000) A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 8:746–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ji P, Jiang R (2003) Scale transitivity in the AHP. J Oper Res Soc 54:896–905CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Karanik M, Wanderer L, Gomez-Ruiz JA, Peláez JI (2016) Reconstruction methods for AHP pairwise matrices: how reliable are they? Appl Math Comput 279:103–124MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. Karapetrovic S, Rosenbloom ES (1999) A quality control approach to consistency paradoxes in AHP. Eur J Oper Res 119:704–718CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Koczkodaj W, Kułakowski K, Ligeza A (2014) On the quality evaluation of scientific entities in Poland supported by consistency-driven pairwise comparisons method. Scientometrics 99:911–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Koczkodaj WW (1993) A new definition of consistency of pairwise comparisons. Math Comput Model 18:79–84CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Lane EF, Verdini WA (1989) A consistency test for AHP decision makers. Decis Sci 20:575–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Li CC, Dong YC, Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Martínez L (2017) Personalized individual semantics in computing with words for supporting linguistic group decision making. An application on consensus reaching. Inf Fusion 33:29–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ma D, Zheng X (1991) 9/9-9/1 Scale method of AHP. In: Proceedings of the second international symposium on the AHP. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, pp 197–202Google Scholar
  39. Morente-Molinera JA, Pérez IJ, Ureña MR, Herrera-Viedma E (2015) Building and managing fuzzy ontologies with heterogeneous linguistic information. Knowl Based Syst 88:154–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Peláez JI, Lamata MT (2003) A new measure of consistency for positive reciprocal matrices. Comput Math Appl 46:1839–1845MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. Pérez IJ, Cabrerizo FJ, Alonso S, Herrera-Viedma E (2014) A new consensus model for group decision making problems with non-homogeneous experts. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 44:494–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pérez IJ, Cabrerizo FJ, Herrera-Viedma E (2010) A mobile decision support system for dynamic group decision-making problems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 40:1244–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. Saaty TL, Vargas LG (1987) Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 32:107–117MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. Salo AA, Hämäläinen RP (1997) On the measurement of preferences in the analytic hierarchy process. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 6:309–319CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. Thurstone LL (1927) A law of comparative judgements. Psychol Rev 34:273–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ureña MR, Cabrerizo FJ, Morente-Molinera JA, Herrera-Viedma E (2016) GDM-R: a new framework in R to support fuzzy group decision making processes. Inf Sci 357:161–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ureña MR, Chiclana F, Morente-Molinera JA, Herrera-Viedma E (2015) Managing incomplete preference relations in decision making: a review and future trends. Inf Sci 302:14–32MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. Wang JQ, Wang DD, Zhang HY, Chen XH (2015) Multi-criteria group decision making method based on interval 2-tuple linguistic information and Choquet integral aggregation operators. Soft Comput 19:389–405CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. Wang SH, Yang JM, Dong YC (2014) Note on consistency adjustment for pairwise comparison matrices. Mathe Pract Theory 44:271–277MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  51. Wang YM, Yang JB, Xu DL (2005) Interval weight generation approaches based on consistency test and interval comparison matrices. Appl Math Comput 167:252–273MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. Xu WJ, Dong YC, Xiao WL (2008) Is it reasonable for Saatys Consistency Test in the pairwise comparison method? In: 2008 ISECS international colloquium on computing, communication, control, and management, pp 294–298Google Scholar
  53. Zadeh LA (1975) The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning-III. Inf Sci 9:43–80MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  54. Zhang GQ, Dong YC, Xu YF (2014) Consistency and consensus measures for linguistic preference relations based on distribution assessments. Inf Fusion 17:46–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hengjie Zhang
    • 1
  • Xin Chen
    • 2
  • Yucheng Dong
    • 1
  • Weijun Xu
    • 3
  • Shihua Wang
    • 4
  1. 1.Business SchoolSichuan UniversityChengduPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.School of ScienceBeijing Forestry UniversityBeijingPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.School of Business AdministrationSouth China University of TechnologyGuangzhouPeople’s Republic of China
  4. 4.Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Petrochemical Equipment Fault DiagnosisGuangdong University of Petrochemical TechnologyMaomingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations