IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v279y2019i2p502-510.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A study on the anonymity of pairwise comparisons in group decision making

Author

Listed:
  • Brunelli, Matteo

Abstract

Pairwise comparisons between criteria/alternatives are a well-established methodology for group decision making. Both in the literature and in real-world applications, it is common practice to average the opinions of various experts expressed as pairwise comparisons to find a compromise solution. This paper dwells on the inverse problem: given a decision maker who knows his own preferences and the aggregate ones, we introduce and study some optimization problems to help him estimate, in the form of intervals, the preferences of the other decision makers. Since the possibility of estimating the other participants’ preferences violates the requirement of anonymity, this paper also reports the results of some numerical simulations examining the relation between the number of participants in the decision process and their anonymity. In addition to numerical simulations with randomly generated data, this manuscript reports the results of experiments on a dataset of preferences collected in a real-world survey.

Suggested Citation

  • Brunelli, Matteo, 2019. "A study on the anonymity of pairwise comparisons in group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 279(2), pages 502-510.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:279:y:2019:i:2:p:502-510
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2019.06.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221719304813
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.06.006?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. 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.
    2. Sándor Bozóki & Linda Dezső & Attila Poesz & József Temesi, 2013. "Analysis of pairwise comparison matrices: an empirical research," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 211(1), pages 511-528, December.
    3. Christer Carlsson & Pirkko Walden, 1995. "AHP in Political Group Decisions: A Study in the Art of Possibilities," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 14-29, August.
    4. Kaushik Mukhopadhaya, 2003. "Jury Size and the Free Rider Problem," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 24-44, April.
    5. Nikou, Shahrokh & Mezei, József, 2013. "Evaluation of mobile services and substantial adoption factors with Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 915-929.
    6. Entani, Tomoe & Sugihara, Kazutomi, 2012. "Uncertainty index based interval assignment by Interval AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(2), pages 379-385.
    7. Bose, Utpal & Davey, Anne M. & Olson, David L., 1997. "Multi-attribute utility methods in group decision making: Past applications and potential for inclusion in GDSS," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 691-706, December.
    8. Xu, Z., 2000. "On consistency of the weighted geometric mean complex judgement matrix in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 126(3), pages 683-687, November.
    9. Islei, Gred & Lockett, Geoff, 1991. "Group decision making: Suppositions and practice," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 67-81.
    10. Aczel, J. & Alsina, C., 1986. "On synthesis of judgements," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 333-339.
    11. Wolfgang Ossadnik & Stefanie Schinke & Ralf H. Kaspar, 2016. "Group Aggregation Techniques for Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process: A Comparative Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 421-457, March.
    12. Michel Grabisch & Jean-Luc Marichal & Radko Mesiar & Endre Pap, 2009. "Aggregation functions," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00445120, HAL.
    13. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    14. Herrera-Viedma, E. & Herrera, F. & Chiclana, F. & Luque, M., 2004. "Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(1), pages 98-109, April.
    15. Mikhailov, L., 2004. "A fuzzy approach to deriving priorities from interval pairwise comparison judgements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(3), pages 687-704, December.
    16. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2008. "Multi-attribute preference modelling and regional land-use planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 325-335, April.
    17. Khorramshahgol, Reza & Moustakis, Vassilis S., 1988. "Delphic hierarchy process (DHP): A methodology for priority setting derived from the Delphi method and analytical hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 347-354, December.
    18. Salo, Ahti A. & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 1995. "Preference programming through approximate ratio comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 458-475, May.
    19. Norman Dalkey & Olaf Helmer, 1963. "An Experimental Application of the DELPHI Method to the Use of Experts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 458-467, April.
    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. Mausumi Bose & Rahul Mukerjee, 2021. "Shorter prediction intervals for anonymous individual assessments in group decision-making via pairwise comparisons," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 29(3), pages 833-857, October.
    2. Chao, Xiangrui & Kou, Gang & Peng, Yi & Viedma, Enrique Herrera, 2021. "Large-scale group decision-making with non-cooperative behaviors and heterogeneous preferences: An application in financial inclusion," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(1), pages 271-293.
    3. Xiao-kang Wang & Sheng-hui Wang & Hong-yu Zhang & Jian-qiang Wang & Lin Li, 2021. "The Recommendation Method for Hotel Selection Under Traveller Preference Characteristics: A Cloud-Based Multi-Criteria Group Decision Support Model," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(6), pages 1433-1469, December.
    4. Sasaki, Yasuo, 2023. "Strategic manipulation in group decisions with pairwise comparisons: A game theoretical perspective," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(3), pages 1133-1139.
    5. Betul Yagmahan & Hilal Yılmaz, 2023. "An integrated ranking approach based on group multi-criteria decision making and sensitivity analysis to evaluate charging stations under sustainability," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 96-121, January.

    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. Sasaki, Yasuo, 2023. "Strategic manipulation in group decisions with pairwise comparisons: A game theoretical perspective," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(3), pages 1133-1139.
    2. 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.
    3. Matteo Brunelli, 2017. "Studying a set of properties of inconsistency indices for pairwise comparisons," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 248(1), pages 143-161, January.
    4. 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.
    5. Bernasconi, Michele & Choirat, Christine & Seri, Raffaello, 2014. "Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: Theory and evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 584-592.
    6. Amelia Bilbao-Terol & Mariano Jiménez & Mar Arenas-Parra, 2016. "A group decision making model based on goal programming with fuzzy hierarchy: an application to regional forest planning," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 137-162, October.
    7. Yeh, Chung-Hsing & Chang, Yu-Hern, 2009. "Modeling subjective evaluation for fuzzy group multicriteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(2), pages 464-473, April.
    8. Petra Grošelj & Špela Pezdevšek Malovrh & Lidija Zadnik Stirn, 2011. "Methods based on data envelopment analysis for deriving group priorities in analytic hierarchy process," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 19(3), pages 267-284, September.
    9. Wang, Ying-Ming & Elhag, Taha M.S., 2007. "A goal programming method for obtaining interval weights from an interval comparison matrix," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(1), pages 458-471, February.
    10. Andreas Schiessl & Richard Müller & Rebekka Volk & Konrad Zimmer & Patrick Breun & Frank Schultmann, 2020. "Integrating site-specific environmental impact assessment in supplier selection: exemplary application to steel procurement," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 90(9), pages 1409-1457, November.
    11. Salo, Ahti A., 1995. "Interactive decision aiding for group decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 134-149, July.
    12. Liu Fang & Peng Yanan & Zhang Weiguo & Pedrycz Witold, 2017. "On Consistency in AHP and Fuzzy AHP," Journal of Systems Science and Information, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 128-147, April.
    13. Gerda Ana Melnik-Leroy & Gintautas Dzemyda, 2021. "How to Influence the Results of MCDM?—Evidence of the Impact of Cognitive Biases," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-25, January.
    14. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    15. 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.
    16. Juan Aguarón & María Teresa Escobar & José María Moreno-Jiménez, 2016. "The precise consistency consensus matrix in a local AHP-group decision making context," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 245-259, October.
    17. 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.
    18. Contreras, Francisco & Hanaki, Keisuke & Aramaki, Toshiya & Connors, Stephen, 2008. "Application of analytical hierarchy process to analyze stakeholders preferences for municipal solid waste management plans, Boston, USA," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 52(7), pages 979-991.
    19. Betul Yagmahan & Hilal Yılmaz, 2023. "An integrated ranking approach based on group multi-criteria decision making and sensitivity analysis to evaluate charging stations under sustainability," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 96-121, January.
    20. Haddad, Brahim & Díaz-Cuevas, Pilar & Ferreira, Paula & Djebli, Ahmed & Pérez, Juan Pedro, 2021. "Mapping concentrated solar power site suitability in Algeria," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 838-853.

    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:279:y:2019:i:2:p:502-510. 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.