IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v13y2025i16p2578-d1722905.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis of Thurstone-Motivated Models in the Case of Non-Evaluable Data: Methods for Extracting Information

Author

Listed:
  • Bence Kovács

    (Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Information Technology, University of Pannonia, Egyetem u. 10., H-8200 Veszprém, Hungary
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Éva Orbán-Mihálykó

    (Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Information Technology, University of Pannonia, Egyetem u. 10., H-8200 Veszprém, Hungary
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Csaba Mihálykó

    (Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Information Technology, University of Pannonia, Egyetem u. 10., H-8200 Veszprém, Hungary
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

Abstract

We study Thurstone-motivated paired comparison models from the perspective of data evaluability, focusing on cases where datasets cannot be directly evaluated. Despite this limitation, such datasets may still contain extractable information. Three main strategies are known in the literature: increasing the number of options, inserting artificial data through perturbation methods, and requesting new real comparisons. We propose a new approach closely related to the latter two. We analyze the structure of the data and introduce the concept of the optimal limit point, related to the supremum of the log-likelihood function. We prove a theorem for determining optimal limit points based on the data structure, which characterizes the information content of the available dataset. We also prove a theorem linking optimal limit points to the limiting behavior of evaluation results obtained via perturbations, thereby explaining why different perturbation methods may yield different outcomes. In addition, we propose a new perturbation method that adds the minimum possible amount of artificial data. Furthermore, the method identifies the most informative object pairs for new real comparisons, enabling a full evaluation of the dataset.

Suggested Citation

  • Bence Kovács & Éva Orbán-Mihálykó & Csaba Mihálykó, 2025. "Analysis of Thurstone-Motivated Models in the Case of Non-Evaluable Data: Methods for Extracting Information," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-33, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:13:y:2025:i:16:p:2578-:d:1722905
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/13/16/2578/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/13/16/2578/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Ting Yan, 2016. "Ranking in the generalized Bradley–Terry models when the strong connection condition fails," Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(2), pages 340-353, January.
    3. Brian Francis & Regina Dittrich & Reinhold Hatzinger & Roger Penn, 2002. "Analysing partial ranks by using smoothed paired comparison methods: an investigation of value orientation in Europe," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 51(3), pages 319-336, July.
    4. Aguarón, Juan & Escobar, María Teresa & Moreno-Jiménez, José María, 2021. "Reducing inconsistency measured by the geometric consistency index in the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(2), pages 576-583.
    5. Xiaokai Meng & Ghulam Muhammad Shaikh, 2023. "Evaluating Environmental, Social, and Governance Criteria and Green Finance Investment Strategies Using Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy WASPAS," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-19, April.
    6. Mimica R. Milošević & Dušan M. Milošević & Ana D. Stanojević & Dragan M. Stević & Dušan J. Simjanović, 2021. "Fuzzy and Interval AHP Approaches in Sustainable Management for the Architectural Heritage in Smart Cities," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-29, February.
    7. Brandt, Felix & Lederer, Patrick & Suksompong, Warut, 2023. "Incentives in social decision schemes with pairwise comparison preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 266-291.
    8. Alan Agresti, 1992. "Analysis of Ordinal Paired Comparison Data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 41(2), pages 287-297, June.
    9. Pawel Tadeusz Kazibudzki & Tomasz Witold Trojanowski, 2024. "Quantitative Evaluation of Sustainable Marketing Effectiveness: A Polish Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-22, May.
    10. Stern, Hal, 1992. "Are all linear paired comparison models empirically equivalent?," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 103-117, February.
    11. 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.
    12. Bozóki, Sándor & Csató, László & Temesi, József, 2016. "An application of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices for ranking top tennis players," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(1), pages 211-218.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Anna Tóth-Merényi & Csaba Mihálykó & Éva Orbán-Mihálykó & László Gyarmati, 2025. "Exploring Consistency in the Three-Option Davidson Model: Bridging Pairwise Comparison Matrices and Stochastic Methods," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-22, April.
    2. Éva Orbán-Mihálykó & Csaba Mihálykó & László Gyarmati, 2024. "Evaluating the capacity of paired comparison methods to aggregate rankings of separate groups," 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. 32(1), pages 109-129, March.
    3. Éva Orbán-Mihálykó & Csaba Mihálykó & László Koltay, 2019. "Incomplete paired comparisons in case of multiple choice and general log-concave probability density functions," 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. 27(2), pages 515-532, June.
    4. Nermin Kişi, 2019. "A Strategic Approach to Sustainable Tourism Development Using the A’WOT Hybrid Method: A Case Study of Zonguldak, Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-19, February.
    5. 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.
    6. Baghersad, Milad & Zobel, Christopher W., 2015. "Economic impact of production bottlenecks caused by disasters impacting interdependent industry sectors," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 71-80.
    7. Aniruddh Nain & Deepika Jain & Shivam Gupta & Ashwani Kumar, 2023. "Improving First Responders' Effectiveness in Post-Disaster Scenarios Through a Hybrid Framework for Damage Assessment and Prioritization," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 24(3), pages 409-437, September.
    8. 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.
    9. AlSabbagh, Maha & Siu, Yim Ling & Guehnemann, Astrid & Barrett, John, 2017. "Integrated approach to the assessment of CO2e-mitigation measures for the road passenger transport sector in Bahrain," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 203-215.
    10. Wen‐Hsien Tsai & Yu‐Wei Chou & Kuen‐Chang Lee & Wan‐Rung Lin & Elliott T.Y. Hwang, 2013. "Combining Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory with Analytic Network Process to Perform an Investigation of Information Technology Auditing and Risk Control in an Enterprise Resource Planni," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 176-193, March.
    11. Klaus D. Goepel, 2019. "Comparison of Judgment Scales of the Analytical Hierarchy Process — A New Approach," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(02), pages 445-463, March.
    12. 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.
    13. Jiancheng Tu & Zhibin Wu, 2025. "Analytic hierarchy process rank reversals: causes and solutions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 346(2), pages 1785-1809, March.
    14. Kang Xu & Jiuping Xu, 2020. "A direct consistency test and improvement method for the analytic hierarchy process," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 359-388, September.
    15. Ediz Atmaca & Esra Aktaş & Hafsa Nur Öztürk, 2023. "Evaluated Post-Disaster and Emergency Assembly Areas Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Techniques: A Case Study of Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-26, May.
    16. Ting Kuo & Ming-Hui Chen, 2022. "On Indeterminacy of Interval Multiplicative Pairwise Comparison Matrix," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, February.
    17. Höfer, Tim & Sunak, Yasin & Siddique, Hafiz & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Wind farm siting using a spatial Analytic Hierarchy Process approach: A case study of the Städteregion Aachen," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 222-243.
    18. Dittrich, Regina & Francis, Brian & Hatzinger, Reinhold & Katzenbeisser, Walter, 2006. "Modelling dependency in multivariate paired comparisons: A log-linear approach," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 197-209, September.
    19. 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.
    20. Manolan Kandy, D. & Mörtberg, U. & Wretling, V. & Kuhlefelt, A. & Byström, G. & Polatidis, H. & Barney, A. & Balfors, B., 2024. "Spatial multicriteria framework for sustainable wind-farm planning – Accounting for conflicts," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 189(PA).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:13:y:2025:i:16:p:2578-:d:1722905. 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.