IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v10y2022i4p592-d749384.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On Indeterminacy of Interval Multiplicative Pairwise Comparison Matrix

Author

Listed:
  • Ting Kuo

    (Department of Marketing Management, Takming University of Science and Technology, Taipei 11451, Taiwan)

  • Ming-Hui Chen

    (Department of Marketing Management, Takming University of Science and Technology, Taipei 11451, Taiwan)

Abstract

The interval multiplicative pairwise comparison matrix (IMPCM) is widely used to model human judgments affected by uncertainty and/or ambiguity. To improve the quality of an IMPCM, consistency is not sufficient. The indeterminacy should also be within an acceptable threshold because a consistent IMPCM may be deemed unacceptable due to high indeterminacy. Regarding indeterminacy, two metrics have been proposed in the literature: the indeterminacy ratio and the indeterminacy index . The former is from a local view, and the latter is from a global view. We have proposed an acceptable IMPCM model, which guarantees that an inconsistent IMPCM can be transformed into a consistent IMPCM, and the maximal indeterminacy ratio can be reduced. However, there is still a research gap. That is, a concomitant question naturally arises: can the indeterminacy index be reduced as well? In this paper, we further prove that the indeterminacy index of an originally inconsistent IMPCM can be reduced under the proposed model. Three numerical examples are presented to illustrate the feasibility and superiority of the proposed model. We also flowcharted the proposed model from a pragmatic view such that we can judiciously reduce the indeterminacy index of the IMPCM to a certain satisfactory level. That is, by applying the proposed model once, the original inconsistent IMPCM can be transformed into a consistent IMPCM that will possess less indeterminacy than the original one has. Consequently, by successively applying the proposed model, we can reduce or even eventually eliminate the indeterminacy of the IMPCM. In other words, we can/may obtain an MPCM rather than an IMPCM. In addition to mathematical proofs, we present experimental results of computer simulations to corroborate our argument. In summary, this model is not only effective but also efficient because it only requires arithmetic operations without solving complex optimization problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Ting Kuo & Ming-Hui Chen, 2022. "On Indeterminacy of Interval Multiplicative Pairwise Comparison Matrix," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:10:y:2022:i:4:p:592-:d:749384
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/4/592/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/4/592/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dong, Yucheng & Xu, Yinfeng & Li, Hongyi & Dai, Min, 2008. "A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 229-242, April.
    2. A. Charnes & W. W. Cooper & R. O. Ferguson, 1955. "Optimal Estimation of Executive Compensation by Linear Programming," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(2), pages 138-151, January.
    3. Matteo Brunelli & Luisa Canal & Michele Fedrizzi, 2013. "Inconsistency indices for pairwise comparison matrices: a numerical study," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 211(1), pages 493-509, December.
    4. Borgonovo, Emanuele & Marinacci, Massimo, 2015. "Decision analysis under ambiguity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 244(3), pages 823-836.
    5. Eugene Levner & Alexander Ptuskin, 2015. "An entropy-based approach to identifying vulnerable components in a supply chain," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(22), pages 6888-6902, November.
    6. Amenta, Pietro & Lucadamo, Antonio & Marcarelli, Gabriella, 2021. "On the choice of weights for aggregating judgments in non-negotiable AHP group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(1), pages 294-301.
    7. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    8. C. West Churchman & Russell L. Ackoff, 1954. "An Approximate Measure of Value," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(2), pages 172-187, May.
    9. 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.
    10. Meimei Xia & Zeshui Xu, 2011. "Some Issues On Multiplicative Consistency Of Interval Reciprocal Relations," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 10(06), pages 1043-1065.
    11. Meimei Xia & Jian Chen, 2015. "Studies on Interval Multiplicative Preference Relations and Their Application to Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 115-144, January.
    12. Thomas L. Saaty, 2016. "The Analytic Hierarchy and Analytic Network Processes for the Measurement of Intangible Criteria and for Decision-Making," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrgott & José Rui Figueira (ed.), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 363-419, Springer.
    13. Saaty, Thomas L., 2003. "Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 85-91, February.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans & Philippe Vincke, 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: the Prométhée method," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9307, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    17. Brans, J. P. & Vincke, Ph. & Mareschal, B., 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: The method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 228-238, February.
    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. Chuanhao Fan & Yan Chen & Yan Zhu & Long Zhang & Wenjuan Wu & Bin Ling & Sijie Tang, 2022. "Using Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation to Assess the Competency of Full-Time Water Conservancy Emergency Rescue Teams," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-25, June.

    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. Scholz, Michael & Pfeiffer, Jella & Rothlauf, Franz, 2017. "Using PageRank for non-personalized default rankings in dynamic markets," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(1), pages 388-401.
    2. Ziyue Zeng & Guoqiang Tang & Di Long & Chao Zeng & Meihong Ma & Yang Hong & Hui Xu & Jing Xu, 2016. "A cascading flash flood guidance system: development and application in Yunnan Province, China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 84(3), pages 2071-2093, December.
    3. Schneider, Frank, 2008. "Multiple criteria decision making in application layer networks," Bayreuth Reports on Information Systems Management 36, University of Bayreuth, Chair of Information Systems Management.
    4. 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.
    5. Milad Bagheri & Zelina Zaiton Ibrahim & Mohd Fadzil Akhir & Wan Izatul Asma Wan Talaat & Bahareh Oryani & Shahabaldin Rezania & Isabelle D. Wolf & Amin Beiranvand Pour, 2021. "Developing a Climate Change Vulnerability Index for Coastal City Sustainability, Mitigation, and Adaptation: A Case Study of Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-27, November.
    6. Kokaraki, Nikoleta & Hopfe, Christina J. & Robinson, Elaine & Nikolaidou, Elli, 2019. "Testing the reliability of deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods using building performance simulation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 991-1007.
    7. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    8. Laila Oubahman & Szabolcs Duleba, 2022. "A Comparative Analysis of Homogenous Groups’ Preferences by Using AIP and AIJ Group AHP-PROMETHEE Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, May.
    9. Marco Rogna, 2019. "A First-Phase Screening Device for Site Selection of Large-Scale Solar Plants with an Application to Italy," BEMPS - Bozen Economics & Management Paper Series BEMPS57, Faculty of Economics and Management at the Free University of Bozen.
    10. Ioannis Sitaridis & Fotis Kitsios, 2020. "Competitiveness analysis and evaluation of entrepreneurial ecosystems: a multi-criteria approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 294(1), pages 377-399, November.
    11. Manuel Casal-Guisande & Alberto Comesaña-Campos & Alejandro Pereira & José-Benito Bouza-Rodríguez & Jorge Cerqueiro-Pequeño, 2022. "A Decision-Making Methodology Based on Expert Systems Applied to Machining Tools Condition Monitoring," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-30, February.
    12. 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.
    13. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    14. Yasir Ahmed Solangi & Qingmei Tan & Muhammad Waris Ali Khan & Nayyar Hussain Mirjat & Ifzal Ahmed, 2018. "The Selection of Wind Power Project Location in the Southeastern Corridor of Pakistan: A Factor Analysis, AHP, and Fuzzy-TOPSIS Application," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-26, July.
    15. Martina Kuncova & Jana Seknickova, 2022. "Two-stage weighted PROMETHEE II with results’ visualization," 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. 30(2), pages 547-571, June.
    16. Paul Thaddeus Kazibudzki, 2016. "An examination of performance relations among selected consistency measures for simulated pairwise judgments," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 244(2), pages 525-544, September.
    17. R. Pelissari & M. C. Oliveira & S. Ben Amor & A. Kandakoglu & A. L. Helleno, 2020. "SMAA methods and their applications: a literature review and future research directions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 293(2), pages 433-493, October.
    18. Huimin Zhang & Meng Li & Wen Chen, 2023. "Assessing Competitiveness in New Energy Vehicle Enterprises: A Group Decision Model with Interval Multiplicative Preference Relations," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-21, December.
    19. Willem Brauers, 2013. "Multi-objective seaport planning by MOORA decision making," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 206(1), pages 39-58, July.
    20. 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.

    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:gam:jmathe:v:10:y:2022:i:4:p:592-:d:749384. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.