An indirect weak transitivity standard for inconsistent multiplicative reciprocal preference relations

Abstract

It is of much interest to derive the priority vector from a multiplicative reciprocal preference relation (MRPR) originating from the analytic hierarchy process. There exists a conflict between the prioritization methods and the transitivity property of the entries in inconsistent MRPRs. In this paper, we attempt to weaken the conflict and enhance the effectiveness of the prioritization methods. The main contribution is to introduce the concept of indirect weak transitivity standard of MRPRs. When an MRPR possesses indirect weak transitivity about an alternative, a consistent MRPR is constructed as a proxy of inconsistent ones. When an MRPR does not possess indirect weak transitivity about any alternative, an adjustment algorithm is proposed to produce a new MRPR with indirect weak transitivity about an alternative. Numerical results are reported to show the procedure of eliciting priorities from an MRPR with indirect weak transitivity. The observation reveals that the proposed indirect weak transitivity standard could be used to assist the decision-maker in determining the outcome with more rationality.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Data availability statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no data sets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

  1. Abastante F, Corrente S, Greco S, Ishizaka A, Lami IM (2019) A new parsimonious AHP methodology: assigning priorities to many objects by comparing pairwise few reference objects. Expert Syst Appl 127:109–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bana e Costa CA, Vansnick JC (2008) A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities in AHP. Eur J Oper Res 187:1422–1428

  3. Barzilai J (1997) Deriving weights from pairwise comparison matrices. J Oper Res Soc 48:1226–1232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bryson N (1995) A goal programming method for generating priority vectors. J Oper Res Soc 46(5):641–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cavallo B, D’Apuzzo L (2015) Reciprocal transitive matrices over abelian linearly ordered groups: characterizations and application to multi-criteria decision problems. Fuzzy Sets Syst 266:33–46

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cavallo B, D’Apuzzo L, Basile L (2016) Weak consistency for ensuring priority vectors reliability. J Multi-Crit Decis Anal 23(3–4):126–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Crawford GB, Williams C (1985) A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices. J Math Psychol 29:387–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cogger KO, Yu PL (1985) Eigenweight vectors and least-distance approximation for revealed preference in pairwise weight ratios. J Opt Theory Appl 46(4):483–491

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Huo LA (2011) New parametric prioritization methods for an analytical hierarchy process based on a pairwise comparison matrix. Math Comput Model 54:2736–2749

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jensen RE (1984) An alternative scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 28:317–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kavurmací M, Karakuş CB (2020) Evaluation of irrigation water quality by data envelopment analysis and analytic hierarchy process-based water quality indices: the case of Aksaray City, Turkey. Water Air Soil Pollut 231:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Liu F, Zhang JW, Zhang WG, Pedrycz W (2020a) Decision making with a sequential modeling of pairwise comparison process. Knowl Based Syst 195:105642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Liu F, Zou SC, Li Q (2020b) Deriving priorities from pairwise comparison matrices with a novel consistency index. Appl Math Comput 374:125059

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mastrocinque E, Ramírez FJ, Honrubia-Escribano A, Pham DT (2020) An AHP-based multi-criteria model for sustainable supply chain development in the renewable energy sector. Expert Syst Appl 150:113321

  15. Meng FY, Chen SM, Tang J (2020a) Group decision making based on acceptable multiplicative consistency of hesitant fuzzy preference relations. Inf Sci 524:77–96

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Meng FY, Chen SM, Zhang SL (2020b) Group decision making based on acceptable consistency analysis of interval linguistic hesitant fuzzy preference relations. Inf Sci 530:66–84

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Meng FY, Chen SM, Yuan RP (2020c) Group decision making with heterogeneous intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations. Inf Sci 523:197–219

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mirkin BG, Fishburn PC (1979) Group Choice. Arnold, Washington D.C

  19. Ozdemir MS (2005) Validity and inconsistency in the analytic hierarchy process. Appl Math Comput 161:707–720

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15:234–281

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGrawCHill, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Saaty TL (2013) The modern science of multicriteria decision making and its practical applications: The AHP/ANP approach. Oper Res 61(5):1101–1118

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Saaty TL, Vargas LG (1984a) Comparison of eigenvalue, logarithmic least squares and least squares methods in estimating ratios. Math Model 5(5):309–324

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Saaty TL, Vargas LG (1984b) Inconsistency and rank preservation. J Math Psychol 28(2):205–214

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Saaty TL, Vargas LG (2012a) Models, methods, concepts and applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Springer Science+Business Media, New York

  26. Saaty TL, Vargas LG (2012b) The possibility of group choice: pairwise comparisons and merging functions. Social Choice Welf 38:481–496

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sinuanystern Z (1984) A network optimization model for budget allocation in a multi-campus university. J Oper Res Soc 35(8):749–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Tang J, Chen SM, Meng FY (2019a) Group decision making with multiplicative interval linguistic hesitant fuzzy preference relations. Inf Sci 495:215–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Tang J, Chen SM, Meng FY (2019b) Heterogeneous group decision making in the setting of incomplete preference relations. Inf Sci 483:396–418

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Vargas LG (1990) An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications. Eur J Oper Res 48:2–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1953) Theory of games and economic behaviour, 3rd edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Wajch E (2019) From pairwise comparisons to consistency with respect to a group operation and Koczkodaj’s metric. Int J Approx Reason 106:51–62

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Xu ZS (2004) Uncertain multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Tsinghua University Press, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  34. Zahedi F (1991) The analysis hierarchy process: a survey the method and its applications. J Appl Anal 16:206–216

    Google Scholar 

  35. Zhang ZM, Chen SM (2019) A consistency and consensus-based method for group decision making with hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations. Inf Sci 501:317–336

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Zhang ZM, Chen SM (2020a) Group decision making based on acceptable multiplicative consistency and consensus of hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations. Inf Sci 541:531–550

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Zhang ZM, Chen SM (2020b) Group decision making with hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations. Inf Sci 514:354–368

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Zhang ZM, Chen SM, Wang C (2020a) Group decision making based on multiplicative consistency and consensus of fuzzy linguistic preference relations. Inf Sci 509:71–86

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Zhang ZM, Chen SM, Wang C (2020b) Group decision making with incomplete intuitionistic multiplicative preference relations. Inf Sci 516:560–571

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for the valuable suggestions improving the quality of the paper. The work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 71871072, 71761001, 71761002), the Guangxi Natural Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars (No. 2016GXNSFFA380004), 2017 Guangxi high school innovation team and outstanding scholars plan, and the Guangxi Colleges and Universities Key Laboratory of Mathematics and its Applications.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fang Liu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lan, J., Chen, Z. & Liu, F. An indirect weak transitivity standard for inconsistent multiplicative reciprocal preference relations. Granul. Comput. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41066-021-00266-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
  • Multiplicative reciprocal preference relation (MRPR)
  • Indirect weak transitivity
  • Prioritization method