Bi-criteria evolution strategy in estimating weights from the AHP ratio-scale matrices

Abstract The problem of deriving weights from ratio-scale matrices in an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is addressed by researchers worldwide. There are various ways to solve the problem that are generally grouped into simple matrix and optimization methods. All methods have received criticism regarding the accuracy of derived weights, and different criteria are in use to compare the weights obtained from different methods. Because the set of Pareto non-dominated solutions (weights) is unknown and for inconsistent matrices is indefinite, a bi-criterion optimization approach is proposed for manipulating such matrices. The problem-specific evolution strategy algorithm (ESA) is implemented for a robust stochastic search over a feasible indefinite solution space. The fitness function is defined as a scalar vector function composed of the common error measure, i.e. the Euclidean distance and a minimum violation error that accounts for no violation of the rank ordering. The encoding scheme and other components of the search engine are adjusted to preserve the imposed constraints related to the required normalized values of the weights. The solutions generated by the proposed approach are compared with solutions obtained by five well-known prioritization techniques for three judgment matrices taken from the literature. In these and other test applications, the prioritization method that uses the entitled weights estimation by evolution strategy algorithm (WEESA) appears to be superior to other methods if only two, the most commonly used methods, are applied: the Euclidean distance and minimum violation exclusion criteria.

[1]  Ahmet M. Kondoz,et al.  Rate controlling in off line 3D video coding using evolution strategy , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics.

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

[3]  M. Singh,et al.  Comparison analysis of methods for deriving priorities in the analytic hierarchy process , 1999, IEEE SMC'99 Conference Proceedings. 1999 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (Cat. No.99CH37028).

[4]  Ying-Ming Wang,et al.  Priority estimation in the AHP through maximization of correlation coefficient , 2007 .

[5]  Kwai-Sang Chin,et al.  A new data envelopment analysis method for priority determination and group decision making in the analytic hierarchy process , 2009, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[6]  Ramakrishnan Ramanathan,et al.  Data envelopment analysis for weight derivation and aggregation in the analytic hierarchy process , 2006, Comput. Oper. Res..

[7]  James W. Kolari,et al.  Deriving weights from general pairwise comparison matrices , 2008, Math. Soc. Sci..

[8]  Daniela Zaharie,et al.  Influence of crossover on the behavior of Differential Evolution Algorithms , 2009, Appl. Soft Comput..

[9]  Sushil Kumar,et al.  Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications , 2006, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

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

[11]  B. Golany,et al.  A multicriteria evaluation of methods for obtaining weights from ratio-scale matrices , 1993 .

[12]  Cheng Cheng,et al.  Finding pre-images via evolution strategies , 2011, Appl. Soft Comput..

[13]  T. Saaty Analytic Hierarchy Process , 2005 .

[14]  Ivanoe De Falco,et al.  Automatic Classification of Handsegmented Image Parts with Differential Evolution , 2006, EvoWorkshops.

[15]  Liang Gao,et al.  A differential evolution algorithm with self-adapting strategy and control parameters , 2011, Comput. Oper. Res..

[16]  Mehmet Fatih Tasgetiren,et al.  Differential evolution algorithm with ensemble of parameters and mutation strategies , 2011, Appl. Soft Comput..

[17]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  Evolutionary Algorithms in Theory and Practice , 1996 .

[18]  Ramakrishnan Ramanathan,et al.  A qualitative perspective to deriving weights from pairwise comparison matrices , 2010 .

[19]  Sandra Paterlini,et al.  Differential evolution and particle swarm optimisation in partitional clustering , 2006, Comput. Stat. Data Anal..

[20]  Andreas C. Nearchou,et al.  Differential evolution for sequencing and scheduling optimization , 2006, J. Heuristics.

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

[22]  O. Hasançebi,et al.  Adaptive evolution strategies in structural optimization: Enhancing their computational performance with applications to large-scale structures , 2008 .

[23]  Noel Bryson,et al.  A Goal Programming Method for Generating Priority Vectors , 1995 .

[24]  R. Kalaba,et al.  A comparison of two methods for determining the weights of belonging to fuzzy sets , 1979 .

[25]  Kevin Kam Fung Yuen,et al.  Analytic hierarchy prioritization process in the AHP application development: A prioritization operator selection approach , 2010, Appl. Soft Comput..

[26]  Kweku-Muata Osei-Bryson,et al.  Generating consensus priority point vectors: a logarithmic goal programming approach , 1999, Comput. Oper. Res..

[27]  Goldberg,et al.  Genetic algorithms , 1993, Robust Control Systems with Genetic Algorithms.

[28]  Ying-Ming Wang,et al.  A linear programming method for generating the most favorable weights from a pairwise comparison matrix , 2008, Comput. Oper. Res..

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

[30]  Dirk V. Arnold,et al.  Weighted multirecombination evolution strategies , 2006, Theor. Comput. Sci..