IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v237y2014i2p628-633.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stochastic preference analysis in numerical preference relations

Author

Listed:
  • Zhu, Bin
  • Xu, Zeshui

Abstract

Numerical preference relations (NPRs) consisting of numerical judgments can be considered as a general form of the existing preference relations, such as multiplicative preference relations (MPRs), fuzzy preference relations (FPRs), interval MPRs (IV-MPRs) and interval FPRs (IV-FPRs). On the basis of NPRs, we develop a stochastic preference analysis (SPA) method to aid the decision makers (DMs) in decision making. The numerical judgments in NPRs can also be characterized by different probability distributions in accordance with practice. By exploring the judgment space of NPRs, SPA produces several outcomes including the rank acceptability index, the expected priority vector, the expected rank and the confidence factor. The outcomes are obtained by Monte Carlo simulation with at least 95% confidence degree. Based on the outcomes, the DMs can choose some of them which they find most useful to make reliable decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Stochastic preference analysis in numerical preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(2), pages 628-633.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:237:y:2014:i:2:p:628-633
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2014.01.068
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221714001155
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.01.068?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Levary, Reuven R. & Wan, Ke, 1999. "An analytic hierarchy process based simulation model for entry mode decision regarding foreign direct investment," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 661-677, December.
    2. Tervonen, Tommi & Lahdelma, Risto, 2007. "Implementing stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(2), pages 500-513, April.
    3. Lahdelma, Risto & Hokkanen, Joonas & Salminen, Pekka, 1998. "SMAA - Stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 137-143, April.
    4. Wang, Ying-Ming & Fan, Zhi-Ping & Hua, Zhongsheng, 2007. "A chi-square method for obtaining a priority vector from multiplicative and fuzzy preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 182(1), pages 356-366, October.
    5. Hauser, David & Tadikamalla, Pandu, 1996. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process in an uncertain environment: A simulation approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 27-37, May.
    6. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    7. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    8. Xu, Zeshui & Da, Qingli, 2005. "A least deviation method to obtain a priority vector of a fuzzy preference relation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 164(1), pages 206-216, July.
    9. Lahdelma, Risto & Miettinen, Kaisa & Salminen, Pekka, 2003. "Ordinal criteria in stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA)," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 117-127, May.
    10. Siraj, Sajid & Mikhailov, Ludmil & Keane, John, 2012. "A heuristic method to rectify intransitive judgments in pairwise comparison matrices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 216(2), pages 420-428.
    11. Rosenbloom, E. S., 1997. "A probabilistic interpretation of the final rankings in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 371-378, January.
    12. Risto Lahdelma & Pekka Salminen, 2001. "SMAA-2: Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis for Group Decision Making," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(3), pages 444-454, June.
    13. Xu, Zeshui & Chen, Jian, 2008. "Some models for deriving the priority weights from interval fuzzy preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 266-280, January.
    14. Ho, William & Xu, Xiaowei & Dey, Prasanta K., 2010. "Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 202(1), pages 16-24, April.
    15. Grošelj, Petra & Zadnik Stirn, Lidija, 2012. "Acceptable consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(2), pages 417-420.
    16. Aull-Hyde, Rhonda & Erdogan, Sevgi & Duke, Joshua M., 2006. "An experiment on the consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 171(1), pages 290-295, May.
    17. Saaty, Thomas L. & Vargas, Luis G., 1987. "Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 107-117, October.
    18. Levary, Reuven R. & Wan, Ke, 1998. "A simulation approach for handling uncertainty in the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 116-122, April.
    19. Fan, Zhi-Ping & Ma, Jian & Jiang, Yan-Ping & Sun, Yong-Hong & Ma, Louis, 2006. "A goal programming approach to group decision making based on multiplicative preference relations and fuzzy preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(1), pages 311-321, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui & Zhang, Ren & Hong, Mei, 2015. "Generalized analytic network process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 244(1), pages 277-288.
    2. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    3. Xia, Meimei & Chen, Jian, 2015. "Multi-criteria group decision making based on bilateral agreements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(3), pages 756-764.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Durbach, Ian & Lahdelma, Risto & Salminen, Pekka, 2014. "The analytic hierarchy process with stochastic judgements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 238(2), pages 552-559.
    2. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui & Zhang, Ren & Hong, Mei, 2015. "Generalized analytic network process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 244(1), pages 277-288.
    3. Fatih Tüysüz, 2018. "Simulated Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Term Sets-Based Approach for Modeling Uncertainty in AHP Method," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(03), pages 801-817, May.
    4. Ian Durbach, 2019. "Scenario planning in the analytic hierarchy process," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(2), June.
    5. Fan, Zhi-Ping & Liu, Yang & Feng, Bo, 2010. "A method for stochastic multiple criteria decision making based on pairwise comparisons of alternatives with random evaluations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(2), pages 906-915, December.
    6. García Cáceres, Rafael Guillermo & Aráoz Durand, Julián Arturo & Gómez, Fernando Palacios, 2009. "Integral analysis method - IAM," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 192(3), pages 891-903, February.
    7. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    8. Hocine, Amine & Kouaissah, Noureddine, 2020. "XOR analytic hierarchy process and its application in the renewable energy sector," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    9. Liu, Fang & Zhang, Wei-Guo & Zhang, Li-Hua, 2014. "Consistency analysis of triangular fuzzy reciprocal preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(3), pages 718-726.
    10. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui & Zhang, Ren & Hong, Mei, 2016. "Hesitant analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(2), pages 602-614.
    11. Jessop, Alan, 2014. "IMP: A decision aid for multiattribute evaluation using imprecise weight estimates," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 18-29.
    12. Corrente, Salvatore & Figueira, José Rui & Greco, Salvatore, 2014. "The SMAA-PROMETHEE method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(2), pages 514-522.
    13. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2018. "σ-µ efficiency analysis: A new methodology for evaluating units through composite indices," MPRA Paper 83569, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Haichao Wang & Wenling Jiao & Risto Lahdelma & Chuanzhi Zhu & Pinghua Zou, 2014. "Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis for Evaluation of Combined Heat and Power Units," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-20, December.
    15. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2019. "Sigma-Mu efficiency analysis: A methodology for evaluating units through composite indicators," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 278(3), pages 942-960.
    16. Jiménez, Antonio & Mateos, Alfonso & Sabio, Pilar, 2013. "Dominance intensity measure within fuzzy weight oriented MAUT: An application," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 397-405.
    17. Abdellah Menou & Risto Lahdelma & Pekka Salminen, 2022. "Multicriteria Decision Aiding for Planning Renewable Power Production at Moroccan Airports," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-20, July.
    18. Silvia Angilella & Maria Rosaria Pappalardo, 2022. "Performance assessment of energy companies employing Hierarchy Stochastic Multi-Attribute Acceptability Analysis," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 299-370, March.
    19. De Matteis, Domenico & Ishizaka, Alessio & Resce, Giuliano, 2019. "The ‘postcode lottery’ of the Italian public health bill analysed with the hierarchy Stochastic Multiobjective Acceptability Analysis," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    20. Wang, Guangchao & Jia, Ning & Ma, Shoufeng & Qi, Hang, 2014. "A rank-dependent bi-criterion equilibrium model for stochastic transportation environment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(3), pages 511-529.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:237:y:2014:i:2:p:628-633. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.