IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v326y2023i2d10.1007_s10479-022-04819-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incomplete pairwise comparison matrices based on graphs with average degree approximately 3

Author

Listed:
  • Zsombor Szádoczki

    (Research Group of Operations Research and Decision Systems, Research Laboratory on Engineering & Management Intelligence, Institute for Computer Science and Control (SZTAKI), Eötvös Loránd Research Network (ELKH)
    Corvinus University of Budapest)

  • Sándor Bozóki

    (Research Group of Operations Research and Decision Systems, Research Laboratory on Engineering & Management Intelligence, Institute for Computer Science and Control (SZTAKI), Eötvös Loránd Research Network (ELKH)
    Corvinus University of Budapest)

  • Patrik Juhász

    (Corvinus University of Budapest)

  • Sergii V. Kadenko

    (Institute for Information Recording of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
    National Academy of Statistics, Accounting, and Audit)

  • Vitaliy Tsyganok

    (Institute for Information Recording of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
    Faculty of Information Technology, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv)

Abstract

A crucial, both from theoretical and practical points of view, problem in preference modelling is the number of questions to ask from the decision maker. We focus on incomplete pairwise comparison matrices based on graphs whose average degree is approximately 3 (or a bit more), i.e., each item is compared to three others in average. In the range of matrix sizes we considered, $$n=5,6,7,8,9,10$$ n = 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , this requires from 1.4n to 1.8n edges, resulting in completion ratios between 33% ( $$n=10$$ n = 10 ) and 80% ( $$n=5$$ n = 5 ). We analyze several types of union of two spanning trees (three of them building on additional ordinal information on the ranking), 2-edge-connected random graphs and 3-(quasi-)regular graphs with minimal diameter (the length of the maximal shortest path between any two vertices). The weight vectors are calculated from the natural extensions, to the incomplete case, of the two most popular weighting methods, the eigenvector method and the logarithmic least squares. These weight vectors are compared to the ones calculated from the complete matrix, and their distances (Euclidean, Chebyshev and Manhattan), rank correlations (Kendall and Spearman) and similarity (Garuti, cosine and dice indices) are computed in order to have cardinal, ordinal and proximity views during the comparisons. Surprisingly enough, only the union of two star graphs centered at the best and the second best items perform well among the graphs using additional ordinal information on the ranking. The union of two edge-disjoint spanning trees is almost always the best among the analyzed graphs.

Suggested Citation

  • Zsombor Szádoczki & Sándor Bozóki & Patrik Juhász & Sergii V. Kadenko & Vitaliy Tsyganok, 2023. "Incomplete pairwise comparison matrices based on graphs with average degree approximately 3," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 783-807, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:326:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s10479-022-04819-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10479-022-04819-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10479-022-04819-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10479-022-04819-9?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. 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.
    2. Ágoston, Kolos Csaba & Csató, László, 2022. "Inconsistency thresholds for incomplete pairwise comparison matrices," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    3. Szádoczki, Zsombor & Bozóki, Sándor & Tekile, Hailemariam Abebe, 2022. "Filling in pattern designs for incomplete pairwise comparison matrices: (Quasi-)regular graphs with minimal diameter," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    4. Szybowski, Jacek & Kułakowski, Konrad & Prusak, Anna, 2020. "New inconsistency indicators for incomplete pairwise comparisons matrices," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 138-145.
    5. 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.
    6. Fedrizzi, Michele & Giove, Silvio, 2007. "Incomplete pairwise comparison and consistency optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 183(1), pages 303-313, November.
    7. 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.
    8. Xinyi Zhou & Yong Hu & Yong Deng & Felix T. S. Chan & Alessio Ishizaka, 2018. "A DEMATEL-based completion method for incomplete pairwise comparison matrix in AHP," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 271(2), pages 1045-1066, December.
    9. Liang, Fuqi & Brunelli, Matteo & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    10. 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.
    11. Kou, Gang & Lin, Changsheng, 2014. "A cosine maximization method for the priority vector derivation in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(1), pages 225-232.
    12. Elisabeth Deutskens & Ko de Ruyter & Martin Wetzels & Paul Oosterveld, 2004. "Response Rate and Response Quality of Internet-Based Surveys: An Experimental Study," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 21-36, February.
    13. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    14. László Csató, 2017. "On the ranking of a Swiss system chess team tournament," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 254(1), pages 17-36, July.
    15. 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.
    16. Mohammadi, Majid & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Bayesian best-worst method: A probabilistic group decision making model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    17. Mi, Xiaomei & Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang & Shen, Wenjing & Lev, Benjamin, 2019. "The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: Why, what, what for and what's next?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 205-225.
    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. Ágoston, Kolos Csaba & Csató, László, 2022. "Inconsistency thresholds for incomplete pairwise comparison matrices," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    2. Liang, Fuqi & Brunelli, Matteo & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    3. Tekile, Hailemariam Abebe & Brunelli, Matteo & Fedrizzi, Michele, 2023. "A numerical comparative study of completion methods for pairwise comparison matrices," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 10(C).
    4. Kun Chen & Gang Kou & J. Michael Tarn & Yan Song, 2015. "Bridging the gap between missing and inconsistent values in eliciting preference from pairwise comparison matrices," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 235(1), pages 155-175, December.
    5. Csató, László & Tóth, Csaba, 2020. "University rankings from the revealed preferences of the applicants," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(1), pages 309-320.
    6. 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.
    7. Sangeeta Pant & Anuj Kumar & Mangey Ram & Yury Klochkov & Hitesh Kumar Sharma, 2022. "Consistency Indices in Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Review," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-15, April.
    8. Murad, C.A. & Bellinello, M.M. & Silva, A.J. & Netto, A. Caminada & de Souza, G.F.M. & Nabeta, S.I., 2022. "A novel methodology employed for ranking and consolidating performance indicators in holding companies with multiple power plants based on multi-criteria decision-making method," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 9(C).
    9. Szádoczki, Zsombor & Bozóki, Sándor & Tekile, Hailemariam Abebe, 2022. "Filling in pattern designs for incomplete pairwise comparison matrices: (Quasi-)regular graphs with minimal diameter," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    10. Kheybari, Siamak & Javdanmehr, Mahsa & Rezaie, Fariba Mahdi & Rezaei, Jafar, 2021. "Corn cultivation location selection for bioethanol production: An application of BWM and extended PROMETHEE II," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    11. Brunelli, Matteo & Fedrizzi, Michele, 2024. "Inconsistency indices for pairwise comparisons and the Pareto dominance principle," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 312(1), pages 273-282.
    12. Bai, Chunguang & Zhu, Qingyun & Sarkis, Joseph, 2021. "Joint blockchain service vendor-platform selection using social network relationships: A multi-provider multi-user decision perspective," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 238(C).
    13. Md. Raquibuzzaman Khan & Nazia Tabassum & Niaz Ahmed Khan & Mohammad Jahangir Alam, 2022. "Procurement challenges in public-sector agricultural development projects in Bangladesh," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.
    14. Chao, Xiangrui & Kou, Gang & Li, Tie & Peng, Yi, 2018. "Jie Ke versus AlphaGo: A ranking approach using decision making method for large-scale data with incomplete information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(1), pages 239-247.
    15. Gao, Fei & Wang, Weixiang & Bi, Chencan & Bi, Wenhao & Zhang, An, 2023. "Prioritization of used aircraft acquisition criteria: A fuzzy best–worst method (BWM)-based approach," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    16. Danish Farooq & Sarbast Moslem & Arshad Jamal & Farhan Muhammad Butt & Yahya Almarhabi & Rana Faisal Tufail & Meshal Almoshaogeh, 2021. "Assessment of Significant Factors Affecting Frequent Lane-Changing Related to Road Safety: An Integrated Approach of the AHP–BWM Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-17, October.
    17. Ecer, Fatih & Pamucar, Dragan, 2022. "A novel LOPCOW‐DOBI multi‐criteria sustainability performance assessment methodology: An application in developing country banking sector," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    18. Maghsoud Amiri & Mohammad Hashemi-Tabatabaei & Mohammad Ghahremanloo & Mehdi Keshavarz-Ghorabaee & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Arturas Kaklauskas, 2021. "Evaluating Life Cycle of Buildings Using an Integrated Approach Based on Quantitative-Qualitative and Simplified Best-Worst Methods (QQM-SBWM)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-28, April.
    19. Bice Cavallo & Alessio Ishizaka, 2023. "Evaluating scales for pairwise comparisons," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 951-965, June.
    20. Burak Can Altay & Abdullah Erdem Boztas & Abdullah Okumuş & Muhammet Gul & Erkan Çelik, 2023. "How Will Autonomous Vehicles Decide in Case of an Accident? An Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Best–Worst Method for Weighting the Criteria from Moral Values Point of View," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-20, June.

    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:spr:annopr:v:326:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s10479-022-04819-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.