A two-stage ranking method to minimize ordinal violation for pairwise comparisons

Abstract Pairwise comparison is a powerful tool in intelligent decision making systems. Items are compared using numerical judgments that estimate the item weight ratios, which are provided by decision makers or transformed by objective data. The reliable assignment of numerical judgments is important, because judgment variety leads to significantly different results. However, it is difficult to provide exact ratios for decision makers owing to the limitations of knowledge. Although objective data provides an estimation of the ratios, a series of artificially defined rules is required to transform data into numerical judgments; however, these rules are subjective and arbitrary. Conversely, the dominance relationships between the items are obvious and reliable. Therefore, this study proposes a two-stage ranking method to minimize the ordinal violation that indicates the degree of conflict between the ranking result and the dominance. First, a 0-1 integer programming is designed and solved. Then, the second stage focuses on the topological sorting of nodes in a graph constructed using the optimal solution. To validate the effectiveness of the proposed method, we perform two experiments: a numerical example provided by participants and a real-world application involving ranking top tennis players. The results show that the proposed method not only avoids subjectivity in judgments, but also obtains the ranking that has the minimum ordinal violation among the compared methods.

[1]  Yejun Xu,et al.  Fuzzy best-worst method and its application in initial water rights allocation , 2020, Appl. Soft Comput..

[2]  Enrique Herrera-Viedma,et al.  Are incomplete and self-confident preference relations better in multicriteria decision making? A simulation-based investigation , 2019, Inf. Sci..

[3]  H. A. Donegan,et al.  A New Approach to Ahp Decision‐Making , 1992 .

[4]  H. A. Donegan,et al.  Scale horizons in analytic hierarchies , 1995 .

[5]  Shanlin Yang,et al.  Distribution linguistic preference relations with incomplete symbolic proportions for group decision making , 2020, Appl. Soft Comput..

[6]  Devavrat Shah,et al.  Rank Centrality: Ranking from Pairwise Comparisons , 2012, Oper. Res..

[7]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  The Modern Science of Multicriteria Decision Making and Its Practical Applications: The AHP/ANP Approach , 2013, Oper. Res..

[8]  László Csató,et al.  An application of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices for ranking top tennis players , 2014, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[9]  Masoud Rahiminezhad Galankashi,et al.  Portfolio selection: a fuzzy-ANP approach , 2020, Financial Innovation.

[10]  Enrique Herrera-Viedma,et al.  Large-scale group decision-making with non-cooperative behaviors and heterogeneous preferences: An application in financial inclusion , 2021, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[11]  Ludmil Mikhailov,et al.  A fuzzy programming method for deriving priorities in the analytic hierarchy process , 2000, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[12]  Yi Peng,et al.  An Iterative Algorithm to Derive Priority From Large-Scale Sparse Pairwise Comparison Matrix , 2022, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems.

[13]  Bruce L. Golden,et al.  Linear programming models for estimating weights in the analytic hierarchy process , 2005, Comput. Oper. Res..

[14]  Matteo Brunelli,et al.  A study on the anonymity of pairwise comparisons in group decision making , 2019, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[15]  Yin-Feng Xu,et al.  A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP , 2008, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

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

[17]  Danielle Costa Morais,et al.  A group decision model for credit granting in the financial market , 2019, Financial Innovation.

[18]  Yejun Xu,et al.  Methods to improve the ordinal and multiplicative consistency for reciprocal preference relations , 2018, Appl. Soft Comput..

[19]  Yejun Xu,et al.  Consensus model for large-scale group decision making based on fuzzy preference relation with self-confidence: Detecting and managing overconfidence behaviors , 2019, Inf. Fusion.

[20]  Amin Mahmoudi,et al.  Ordinal Priority Approach (OPA) in Multiple Attribute Decision-Making , 2020, Appl. Soft Comput..

[21]  Yi Peng,et al.  A New Consistency Test Index for the Data in the AHP/ANP , 2013 .

[22]  Yang Chen,et al.  Pairwise comparison matrix in multiple criteria decision making , 2016 .

[23]  Sylvain Kubler,et al.  Measuring inconsistency and deriving priorities from fuzzy pairwise comparison matrices using the knowledge-based consistency index , 2018, Knowl. Based Syst..

[24]  László Csató,et al.  Ranking by pairwise comparisons for Swiss-system tournaments , 2012, Central European Journal of Operations Research.

[25]  Paul H. J. Kelly,et al.  A Dynamic Algorithm for Topologically Sorting Directed Acyclic Graphs , 2004, WEA.

[26]  Fawaz E. Alsaadi,et al.  Aggregation of the nearest consistency matrices with the acceptable consensus in AHP-GDM , 2020, Annals of Operations Research.

[27]  Yu Zhang,et al.  Estimating priorities from relative deviations in pairwise comparison matrices , 2021, Inf. Sci..

[28]  Yi Peng,et al.  Soft consensus cost models for group decision making and economic interpretations , 2019, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[29]  Bojan Srdjevic,et al.  Combining different prioritization methods in the analytic hierarchy process synthesis , 2005, Comput. Oper. Res..

[30]  R. Hämäläinen,et al.  On the measurement of preferences in the analytic hierarchy process , 1997 .

[31]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Network Process , 2008 .

[32]  P. Harker Alternative modes of questioning in the analytic hierarchy process , 1987 .

[33]  Yong Hu,et al.  A DEMATEL-based completion method for incomplete pairwise comparison matrix in AHP , 2016, Ann. Oper. Res..

[34]  F. Lootsma SCALE SENSITIVITY IN THE MULTIPLICATIVE AHP AND SMART , 1993 .

[35]  M. Bohanec,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 2004 .

[36]  Yi Peng,et al.  Jie Ke versus AlphaGo: A ranking approach using decision making method for large-scale data with incomplete information , 2018, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[37]  Jei-Zheng Wu,et al.  A validation scheme for intelligent and effective multiple criteria decision-making , 2017, Appl. Soft Comput..

[38]  Yejun Xu,et al.  A consensus model for hesitant fuzzy preference relations and its application in water allocation management , 2017, Appl. Soft Comput..

[39]  Gabriele Oliva,et al.  Incomplete analytic hierarchy process with minimum weighted ordinal violations , 2020, Int. J. Gen. Syst..

[40]  G. Crawford,et al.  A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices , 1985 .

[41]  F. Lootsma Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis via Ratio and Difference Judgement , 1999 .

[42]  Yin-Feng Xu,et al.  Selecting the Individual Numerical Scale and Prioritization Method in the Analytic Hierarchy Process: A 2-Tuple Fuzzy Linguistic Approach , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems.

[43]  Gang Kou,et al.  A linear programming model to reduce rank violations while eliciting preference from pairwise comparison matrix , 2018, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[44]  Amin Mahmoudi,et al.  Sustainable Supplier Selection in Megaprojects: Grey Ordinal Priority Approach , 2020 .

[45]  José Rui Figueira,et al.  Pairwise comparison tables within the deck of cards method in multiple criteria decision aiding , 2020, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[46]  Yi Peng,et al.  Evaluation of Classification Algorithms Using MCDM and Rank Correlation , 2012, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak..

[47]  Ali Nazaritehrani,et al.  Development of E-banking channels and market share in developing countries , 2020 .

[48]  Enrique Herrera-Viedma,et al.  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 , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics.

[49]  Yin-Feng Xu,et al.  Numerical scales generated individually for analytic hierarchy process , 2013, Eur. J. Oper. Res..