Abstract
Due to the immediacy of communications, the interconnection of different data sources and the large volume of information available in digital environments, rankings have become one of the most used tools in the decision making (DM) process. When choosing an option, the decision maker not only considers the positions of the different alternatives into the ranking, but also usually checks the intensity values associated with them. Therefore, it is very important that methods used to build rankings adequately represent the preferences of users. These issues, known as order and intensity preservation conditions, have been studied for the well-known multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) called analytical hierarchical process (AHP) and extended to reconstruction methods of AHP matrices by defining a measure that considers only the order preservation condition. In this article, a measure, complementary to the latter, that allows establishing the difference between the predominance of the alternatives between two rankings is defined. To do this, the relations of predominance between the alternatives for each ranking are analyzed, and then the comparison between these relations is made by defining a bounded supremacy-based measure called supremacy difference index \( sdi_{m} \). The \( sdi_{m} \) behavior is compared to conventional distance measures that are not bounded, and it is used to compare three reconstruction methods of AHP from the supremacy point of view and, finally, how the \( sdi_{m} \) usage can be extended for the evaluation of any ranking-based method is discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aczél J, Saaty TL (1983) Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgements. J Math Psychol 27:93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(83)90028-7
Aldamak A, Zolfaghari S (2017) Review of efficiency ranking methods in data envelopment analysis. Measurement 106:161–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MEASUREMENT.2017.04.028
Alyoubi BA (2015) Decision support system and knowledge-based strategic management. Procedia Comput Sci 65:278–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.09.079
Balakrishnan V, Sanghvi LD (1968) Distance between populations on the basis of attribute data. Biometrics 24:859. https://doi.org/10.2307/2528876
Bana e Costa CA, Vansnick J-C (2008) A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities in AHP. Eur J Oper Res 187:1422–1428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.09.022
Benitez J, Delgado-Galvan X, Izquierdo J, Perez-Garcia R (2015) Consistent completion of incomplete judgments in decision making using AHP. J Comput Appl Math 290:412–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2015.05.023
Bernal R, Karanik M, Peláez JI (2016) Fuzzy measure identification for criteria coalitions using linguistic information. Soft Comput 20:1315–1327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-015-1589-5
Bernroider EWN, Schmöllerl P (2013) A technological, organisational, and environmental analysis of decision making methodologies and satisfaction in the context of IT induced business transformations. Eur J Oper Res 224:141–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.07.025
Bhattacharyya A (1946) On a measure of divergence between two multinomial populations. Sankhyā Indian J Stat 7:401–406
Bogobowicz AD, Janicki R (2013) On pairwise comparisons based internal and external measures for software evaluation. In: 2013 Workshops on enabling technologies: infrastructure for collaborative enterprises. IEEE, pp 371–376
Bozóki S, Fülöp J, Rónyai L (2010) On optimal completion of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices. Math Comput Model 52:318–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2010.02.047
Brunelli M (2017) Studying a set of properties of inconsistency indices for pairwise comparisons. Ann Oper Res 248:143–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-016-2166-8
Brunelli M, Critch A, Fedrizzi M (2013) A note on the proportionality between some consistency indices in the AHP. Appl Math Comput 219:7901–7906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2013.01.036
Çakır O (2008) On the order of the preference intensities in fuzzy AHP. Comput Ind Eng 54:993–1005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2007.11.010
Capuano N, Chiclana F, Fujita H et al (2018) Fuzzy group decision making with incomplete information guided by social influence. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 26:1704–1718. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2017.2744605
Ceballos B, Lamata MT, Pelta DA (2016) A comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods. Prog Artif Intell 5:315–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13748-016-0093-1
Ciasullo MV, Fenza G, Loia V et al (2018) Business process outsourcing enhanced by fuzzy linguistic consensus model. Appl Soft Comput 64:436–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.12.020
Ding J, Han D, Dezert J, Yang Y (2018a) A new hierarchical ranking aggregation method. Inf Sci 453:168–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INS.2018.04.041
Ding J, Han D, Yang Y (2018b) Iterative ranking aggregation using quality improvement of subgroup ranking. Eur J Oper Res 268:596–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJOR.2018.01.031
Dong Y, Chen X, Li C-C et al (2015) Consistency issues of interval pairwise comparison matrices. Soft Comput 19:2321–2335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-014-1426-2
Edwards AWF (1971) Distances between populations on the basis of gene frequencies. Biometrics 27:873. https://doi.org/10.2307/2528824
Ekel PY, Martini JSC, Palhares RM (2008) Multicriteria analysis in decision making under information uncertainty. Appl Math Comput 200:501–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2007.11.024
El Allaki F, Christensen J, Vallières A (2019) A modified TOPSIS (technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution) applied to choosing appropriate selection methods in ongoing surveillance for Avian Influenza in Canada. Prev Vet Med 165:36–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2019.02.006
Fedrizzi M, Giove S (2007) Incomplete pairwise comparison and consistency optimization. Eur J Oper Res 183:303–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.09.065
Gastelum Chavira DA, Leyva Lopez JC, Solano Noriega JJ et al (2017) A credit ranking model for a parafinancial company based on the ELECTRE-III method and a multiobjective evolutionary algorithm. Appl Soft Comput 60:190–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ASOC.2017.06.021
Gomez-Ruiz JA, Karanik M, Peláez JI (2010) Estimation of missing judgments in AHP pairwise matrices using a neural network-based model. Appl Math Comput 216:2959–2975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2010.04.009
Greco S, Ehrgott M, Figueira JR (eds) (2016) Multiple criteria decision analysis. Springer, New York
Han J, Kamber M, Pei J et al (2012) 2 – getting to know your data. In: Data mining, pp 39–82
Harker PT (1987a) Alternative modes of questioning in the analytic hierarchy process. Math Model 9:353–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-0255(87)90492-1
Harker PT (1987b) Incomplete pairwise comparisons in the analytic hierarchy process. Math Model 9:837–848. https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-0255(87)90503-3
Haykin S (1999) Neural networks a comprehensive introduction. Prentice Hall, New Jersey
Hazen GB (1986) Partial information, dominance, and potential optimality in multiattribute utility theory. Oper Res 34:296–310. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.34.2.296
Hu Y-C, Tsai J-F (2006) Backpropagation multi-layer perceptron for incomplete pairwise comparison matrices in analytic hierarchy process. Appl Math Comput 180:53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2005.11.132
Jaccard J, Becker MA, Wood G (1984) Pairwise multiple comparison procedures: a review. Psychol Bull 96:589–596. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.96.3.589
Jiang Y, Xu Z, Gao M (2015) Methods for ranking intuitionistic multiplicative numbers by distance measures in decision making. Comput Ind Eng 88:100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CIE.2015.06.015
Karanik M, Wanderer L, Gomez-Ruiz JA, Pelaez JI (2016) Reconstruction methods for AHP pairwise matrices: How reliable are they? Appl Math Comput 279:103–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2016.01.008
Karanik M, Bernal R, Peláez JI, Gomez-Ruiz JA (2017) Combining user preferences and expert opinions: a criteria synergy-based model for decision making on the Web. Soft Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-017-2863-5
Kazibudzki PT (2016) An examination of performance relations among selected consistency measures for simulated pairwise judgments. Ann Oper Res 244:525–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-016-2131-6
Koczkodaj WW, Szybowski J (2015) Pairwise comparisons simplified. Appl Math Comput 253:387–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2014.12.069
Kułakowski K (2015) Notes on order preservation and consistency in AHP. Eur J Oper Res 245:333–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.03.010
Li G, Law R, Vu HQ, Rong J (2013) Discovering the hotel selection preferences of Hong Kong inbound travelers using the Choquet Integral. Tour Manag 36:321–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.10.017
Linares P, Lumbreras S, Santamaría A, Veiga A (2016) How relevant is the lack of reciprocity in pairwise comparisons? An experiment with AHP. Ann Oper Res 245:227–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-014-1767-3
Liu B (2011) Web data mining: exploring hyperlinks, contents, and usage data. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Maliene V, Dixon-Gough R, Malys N (2018) Dispersion of relative importance values contributes to the ranking uncertainty: sensitivity analysis of multiple criteria decision-making methods. Appl Soft Comput 67:286–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ASOC.2018.03.003
Marttunen M, Lienert J, Belton V (2017) Structuring problems for multi-criteria decision analysis in practice: a literature review of method combinations. Eur J Oper Res 263:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.04.041
Mendenhall WM, Sincich TL (2016) Statistics for engineering and the sciences. CRC Pres, Boca Raton
Nayagam VLG, Jeevaraj S, Dhanasekaran P (2017) An intuitionistic fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method based on non-hesitance score for interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Soft Comput 21:7077–7082. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-016-2249-0
Nikravesh M, Azvine B (2002) Fuzzy queries, search, and decision support system. Soft Comput 6:373–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-002-0191-9
Nour MA, Yen D (1992) Group decision support systems: towards a conceptual foundation. Inf Manag 23:55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-7206(92)90008-4
Pelaez JI, Martinez EA, Vargas LG (2018) Consistency in positive reciprocal matrices: an improvement in measurement methods. IEEE Access. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2829024
Pérez IJ, Cabrerizo FJ, Alonso S et al (2018) On dynamic consensus processes in group decision making problems. Inf Sci 459:20–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2018.05.017
Pervan GP (1998) A review of research in group support systems: leaders, approaches and directions. Decis Support Syst 23:149–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(98)00041-4
Reimann C, Filzmoser P, Garrett RG, Dutter R (2008) Correlation. Statistical data analysis explained. Wiley, Chichester, pp 181–191
Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York
Saaty TL (1986) Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process. Manag Sci 32:841–855. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.7.841
Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48:9–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I
Saaty TL (2003) Decision-making with the AHP: why is the principal eigenvector necessary. Eur J Oper Res 145:85–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00227-8
Saaty TL (2004) Fundamentals of the analytic network process. J Syst Sci Syst Eng 13:129–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-006-0158-y
Shim JP, Warkentin M, Courtney JF et al (2002) Past, present, and future of decision support technology. Decis Support Syst 33:111–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(01)00139-7
Song P, Liang J, Qian Y et al (2018) A cautious ranking methodology with its application for stock screening. Appl Soft Comput 71:835–848. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ASOC.2018.07.004
Tian X, Xu Z, Gu J, Herrera-Viedma E (2018) How to select a promising enterprise for venture capitalists with prospect theory under intuitionistic fuzzy circumstance? Appl Soft Comput 67:756–763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.04.027
Triantaphyllou E (2000) Multi-criteria decision making methods: a comparative study. Springer, Boston
Ureña R, Chiclana F, Morente-Molinera JA, Herrera-Viedma E (2015) Managing incomplete preference relations in decision making: a review and future trends. Inf Sci 302:14–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2014.12.061
Yakowitz DS, Lane LJ, Szidarovszky F (1993) Multi-attribute decision making: dominance with respect to an importance order of the attributes. Appl Math Comput 54:167–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/0096-3003(93)90057-L
Yan H-B, Ma T (2015) A group decision-making approach to uncertain quality function deployment based on fuzzy preference relation and fuzzy majority. Eur J Oper Res 241:815–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.09.017
Zhang H, Chen X, Dong Y et al (2018a) Analyzing Saaty’s consistency test in pairwise comparison method: a perspective based on linguistic and numerical scale. Soft Comput 22:1933–1943. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-016-2454-x
Zhang H, Dong Y, Herrera-Viedma E (2018b) Consensus building for the heterogeneous large-scale GDM with the individual concerns and satisfactions. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 26:884–898. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2017.2697403
Acknowledgements
This work has been supported by the Project SIUTIRE5276TC of National Technological University (Argentina) and the Fellowship for Short Term Postdoctoral Stays at University of Malaga—International Campus of Excellence Andalucía Tech (Spain, period 2016–2017). In addition, the authors thank the referees for their valuable comments and suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Communicated by V. Loia.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Karanik, M., Gomez-Ruiz, J.A., Peláez, J.I. et al. Reliability of ranking-based decision methods: a new perspective from the alternatives’ supremacy. Soft Comput 24, 11769–11790 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04637-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04637-5