A Novel Scale for Inconsistency Reduction in the Pair-Wise Comparison Matrices

被引:0
作者
Malyadavommi, Amukta [1 ]
Vommi, Vijaya babu [2 ]
机构
[1] Jawaharlal Nehru Technol Univ, ECE Dept, Kakinada 533005, AP, India
[2] Andhra Univ, Dept Mech Engn, Visakhapatnam 530003, Andhra Pradesh, India
关键词
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP); Pairwise comparison; Consistency Ratio (CR); Relative Percentage Supremacy (RPS); DECISION-MAKING; AHP; SELECTION; TOPSIS;
D O I
10.2478/fcds-2025-0004
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
Linguistic pairwise comparison of the attributes forms the basis for prioritization of the attributes and also aids in calculating the weights for each attribute for final decision making in the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). This process may sometimes lead to inconsistencies in the pairwise comparison matrix, and the acceptability of the method is checked with respect to a measure known as Consistency Ratio (CR), whose upper limit is fixed as 0.1. The present work attempts to develop a new methodology in which the pairwise attribute comparison matrix is formed in such a manner that the decision maker can safely eliminate the process of consistency check. In this endeavor, a new scale called as 'Relative Percentage Supremacy' (RPS) scale with three variations namely, High, Moderate and Low is introduced and employed. The proposed methodology is successfully applied to Saaty's 'Distance', 'Optics', 'National Wealth' and 'Weights Estimation' problems for which the actual weights are available. Also, the method has been applied on Saaty's 'Buying a House' problem and a comparison of the results with the results of already existing scales is done. The Relative Percentage Supremacy scale with Moderate value is found to yield results close to the Saaty's actual values in the majority of the time and the applicability of the other variations are also discussed.
引用
收藏
页码:87 / 114
页数:28
相关论文
共 29 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2017, Decis. Sci. Lett, DOI DOI 10.5267/J.DSL.2016.8.001
[2]   HOW TO SELECT AND HOW TO RANK PROJECTS - THE PROMETHEE METHOD [J].
BRANS, JP ;
VINCKE, P ;
MARESCHAL, B .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 1986, 24 (02) :228-238
[3]  
Cagno E., 2001, International Journal of Project Management, V19, P313, DOI 10.1016/S0263-7863(00)00020-X
[4]   Supplier selection in electronic marketplaces using satisficing and fuzzy AHP [J].
Chamodrakas, I. ;
Batis, D. ;
Martakos, D. .
EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS, 2010, 37 (01) :490-498
[5]   Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment [J].
Dagdeviren, Metin ;
Yavuz, Serkan ;
Kilinc, Nevzat .
EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS, 2009, 36 (04) :8143-8151
[6]  
DODD FJ, 1995, J OPER RES SOC, V46, P492, DOI 10.1038/sj/jors/0460407
[7]   A NOTE ON SAATY RANDOM INDEXES [J].
DONEGAN, HA ;
DODD, FJ .
MATHEMATICAL AND COMPUTER MODELLING, 1991, 15 (10) :135-137
[8]   A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP [J].
Dong, Yucheng ;
Xu, Yinfeng ;
Li, Hongyi ;
Dai, Min .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 2008, 186 (01) :229-242
[9]   Judgment scales and consistency measure in AHP [J].
Franek, Jiri ;
Kresta, Ales .
17TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ENTERPRISE AND COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT 2014, 2014, 12 :164-173
[10]  
French S., 1988, Decision Theory: An Introduction to the Mathematics of Rationality