Reformulating Arrow’s Conditions in Terms of Cardinal Pairwise Comparison Matrices Defined Over a General Framework

In the paper, we deal with cardinal preferences of experts when these are expressed by means of Pairwise Comparison Matrices (PCMs). In order to obtain general results, suitable for several kinds of PCMs proposed in literature, we focus on PCMs defined over a general unifying framework, that is an Abelian linearly ordered group. In this framework, firstly, we aggregate several PCMs and we analyse how the aggregated PCM preserves some coherence levels, such as transitivity, weak consistency and consistency. Then, we reformulate Arrow’s conditions in terms of PCMs, and we provide two preference aggregation procedures for representing group preferences that give a social PCM and a social cardinal ranking, respectively. Finally, we analyse how these preference aggregation procedures satisfy reformulated Arrow’s conditions.

[1]  S. French.  Decision Theory: An Introduction to the Mathematics of Rationality , 1986 .

[2]  Zeshui Xu,et al.  On Compatibility of Interval Fuzzy Preference Relations , 2004, Fuzzy Optim. Decis. Mak..

[3]  Jonathan Barzilai,et al.  POWER RELATIONS AND GROUP AGGREGATION IN THE MULTIPLICATIVE AHP AND SMART , 1997 .

[4]  L. D'Apuzzo,et al.  A general unified framework for pairwise comparison matrices in multicriterial methods , 2009 .

[5]  Huimin Zhang,et al.  Group decision making based on multiplicative consistent reciprocal preference relations , 2016, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[6]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[7]  Ralf H. Kaspar,et al.  Group Aggregation Techniques for Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process: A Comparative Analysis , 2016 .

[8]  T. L. Saaty.  A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures , 1977 .

[9]  Bice Cavallo,et al.  Characterizations of consistent pairwise comparison matrices over abelian linearly ordered groups , 2010 .

[10]  José María Moreno-Jiménez,et al.  The geometric consistency index: Approximated thresholds , 2003, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[11]  Tetsuzo Tanino,et al.  Fuzzy Preference Relations in Group Decision Making , 1988 .

[12]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[13]  Massimo Squillante,et al.  About a consistency index for pairwise comparison matrices over a divisible alo‐group , 2012, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

[14]  Bice Cavallo,et al.  Ensuring reliability of the weighting vector: Weak consistent pairwise comparison matrices , 2016, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[15]  Ryszard Janicki,et al.  On a pairwise comparison-based consistent non-numerical ranking , 2012, Log. J. IGPL.

[16]  Ryszard Janicki,et al.  A weak order approach to group ranking , 1996 .

[17]  Livia D'Apuzzo,et al.  Weak Consistency and Quasi-Linear Means Imply the Actual Ranking , 2002, Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowl. Based Syst..

[18]  Jaroslav Ramík,et al.  Isomorphisms between fuzzy pairwise comparison matrices , 2015, Fuzzy Optim. Decis. Mak..

[19]  Jian Chen,et al.  Consistency and consensus improving methods for pairwise comparison matrices based on Abelian linearly ordered group , 2015, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[20]  Bice Cavallo,et al.  Deriving weights from a pairwise comparison matrix over an alo-group , 2011, Soft Computing.

[21]  Waldemar W. Koczkodaj,et al.  Generalization of a New Definition of Consistency for Pairwise Comparisons , 1994, Inf. Process. Lett..

[22]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  The possibility of group choice: pairwise comparisons and merging functions , 2011, Social Choice and Welfare.

[23]  Fujun Hou,et al.  A Multiplicative Alo-group Based Hierarchical Decision Model and Application , 2016, Commun. Stat. Simul. Comput..

[24]  F. Roberts.  Measurement Theory with Applications to Decisionmaking, Utility, and the Social Sciences: Measurement Theory , 1984 .

[25]  W. W. Koczkodaj.  A new definition of consistency of pairwise comparisons , 1993 .

[26]  Theodor J. Stewart,et al.  Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis , 2001 .

[27]  Bice Cavallo,et al.  Weak Consistency for Ensuring Priority Vectors Reliability , 2016 .

[28]  Zhibin Wu,et al.  A consistency and consensus based decision support model for group decision making with multiplicative preference relations , 2012, Decis. Support Syst..

[29]  Bice Cavallo,et al.  Reciprocal transitive matrices over abelian linearly ordered groups: Characterizations and application to multi-criteria decision problems , 2015, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[30]  Bice Cavallo,et al.  A further discussion of "A Semiring-based study of judgment matrices: properties and models" [Information Sciences 181 (2011) 2166-2176] , 2014, Inf. Sci..

[31]  J. Barzilai.  Consistency Measures for Pairwise Comparison Matrices , 1998 .

[32]  M. T. Lamata,et al.  A new measure of consistency for positive reciprocal matrices , 2003 .

[33]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Cardinal Consistency of Reciprocal Preference Relations: A Characterization of Multiplicative Transitivity , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems.

[34]  T. Tanino.  Fuzzy preference orderings in group decision making , 1984 .

[35]  Gang Kou,et al.  A cosine maximization method for the priority vector derivation in AHP , 2014, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[36]  L. A. Goodman,et al.  Social Choice and Individual Values , 1951 .