IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v220y2012i2p461-471.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preference elicitation from inconsistent judgments using multi-objective optimization

Author

Listed:
  • Siraj, S.
  • Mikhailov, L.
  • Keane, J.A.

Abstract

Several decision-making techniques involve pairwise comparisons to elicit the preferences of a decision maker (DM). This paper proposes a new approach for prioritization from pairwise comparisons using the concept of indirect judgments. No method exists that simultaneously minimizes deviations from both direct and indirect judgments. In order to estimate preferences, it is sensible to consider both the acquired judgments and the other judgments latent in the DM’s mind. Hence, a technique is developed here to minimize the deviations from both types of judgments.

Suggested Citation

  • Siraj, S. & Mikhailov, L. & Keane, J.A., 2012. "Preference elicitation from inconsistent judgments using multi-objective optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 220(2), pages 461-471.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:220:y:2012:i:2:p:461-471
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2012.01.049
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221712000872
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. 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.
    2. Carmone, Frank J. & Kara, Ali & Zanakis, Stelios H., 1997. "A Monte Carlo investigation of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 102(3), pages 538-553, November.
    3. Van Ittersum, Koert & Pennings, Joost M.E. & Wansink, Brian & van Trijp, Hans C.M., 2007. "The validity of attribute-importance measurement: A review," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(11), pages 1177-1190, November.
    4. Golany, B. & Kress, M., 1993. "A multicriteria evaluation of methods for obtaining weights from ratio-scale matrices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 210-220, September.
    5. Iqbal Ali & Wade D. Cook & Moshe Kress, 1986. "On the Minimum Violations Ranking of a Tournament," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(6), pages 660-672, June.
    6. Alessio Ishizaka & Dieter Balkenborg & Todd Kaplan, 2005. "Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP," Discussion Papers 0506, University of Exeter, Department of Economics.
    7. Lin, Chang-Chun, 2007. "A revised framework for deriving preference values from pairwise comparison matrices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 176(2), pages 1145-1150, January.
    8. Patrick T. Harker & Luis G. Vargas, 1987. "The Theory of Ratio Scale Estimation: Saaty's Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(11), pages 1383-1403, November.
    9. Ergu, Daji & Kou, Gang & Peng, Yi & Shi, Yong, 2011. "A simple method to improve the consistency ratio of the pair-wise comparison matrix in ANP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 213(1), pages 246-259, August.
    10. Brugha, Cathal M., 2000. "Relative measurement and the power function," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(3), pages 627-640, March.
    11. Hartvigsen, David, 2005. "Representing the strengths and directions of pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 163(2), pages 357-369, June.
    12. Cook, Wade D. & Kress, Moshe, 1988. "Deriving weights from pairwise comparison ratio matrices: An axiomatic approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 355-362, December.
    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. Bottomley, Paul A. & Doyle, John R., 2013. "Comparing the validity of numerical judgements elicited by direct rating and point allocation: Insights from objectively verifiable perceptual tasks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(1), pages 148-157.
    2. Bozóki, Sándor & Fülöp, János, 2018. "Efficient weight vectors from pairwise comparison matrices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 419-427.
    3. Li, Kevin W. & Wang, Zhou-Jing & Tong, Xiayu, 2016. "Acceptability analysis and priority weight elicitation for interval multiplicative comparison matrices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(2), pages 628-638.
    4. Dong, Yucheng & Hong, Wei-Chiang & Xu, Yinfeng & Yu, Shui, 2013. "Numerical scales generated individually for analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 229(3), pages 654-662.
    5. Lundy, Michele & Siraj, Sajid & Greco, Salvatore, 2017. "The mathematical equivalence of the “spanning tree” and row geometric mean preference vectors and its implications for preference analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(1), pages 197-208.

    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:220:y:2012:i:2:p:461-471. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.