Published Apr 11, 2018
Sahika Koyun Y?lmaz Vildan Ozkir


Pairwise comparison (PC) is a widely used scientific technique to compare criteria or alternatives in pairs in order to express the decision maker’s judgments without the need for a unique common measurement unit between criteria. The method constructs a PC matrix by requesting the assessments of the decision maker(s) in the judgment acquisition phase and calculates an inconsistency measure to determine whether the judgments are adequately consistent with each other before subsequent phases. Although the method requires the decision maker to make all judgments in a PC matrix, it does not force him/her to make a judgment for each element of the matrix. If any judgment in a PC matrix is absent, for this reason, the judgment acquisition phase yields an incomplete PC matrix rather than a complete one. Missing judgments are calculated by multiplication of the judgments made by the decision maker. If the judgements of the decision maker are transitive and well-proportioned, missing judgments will not disturb the consistency of the resulting PC matrix. In other words, consistency of a PC matrix relies on the judgments made by the decision maker. Since the current consistency analysis procedure is designed for complete PC matrices, the suitability for evaluating the inconsistency of incomplete PC matrices is questionable. Probability density functions of random PC matrices with altering numbers of missing judgments show distinct features, indicating an incomplete PC matrix and a complete PC matrix do not come from the same probability function, and their mean consistency index (RI) is different. Consequently, we propose an extended consistency analysis procedure to evaluate the consistency of incomplete PC matrices.


Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 597 | PDF Downloads 45



Consistency Analysis, Decision Support Systems, Pairwise Comparison, Random index

Aguarón, J., & Moreno-Jiménez, J. M. M. (2003). The geometric consistency index: Approximated thresholds. European Journal of Operational Research, 147(1), 137–145. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00255-2

Benítez, J., Delgado-Galván, X., Izquierdo, J., & Pérez-García, R. (2011). Achieving matrix consistency in AHP through linearization. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 35(9), 4449–4457. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2011.03.013

Bozóki, S., & Rapcsák, T. (2008). On Saaty’s and Koczkodaj’s inconsistencies of pairwise comparison matrices. Journal of Global Optimization, 42(2), 157–175. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10898-007-9236-z

Chu, A. T. W., Kalaba, R. E., & Spingarn, K. (1979). A comparison of two methods for determining the weights of belonging to fuzzy sets. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 27(4), 531–538. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00933438

Crawford, G., & Williams, C. (1985). A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 29(4), 387–405. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(85)90002-1

Dadkhah, K. M., & Zahedi, F. (1993). A mathematical treatment of inconsistency in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 17(4–5), 111–122. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-7177(93)90180-7

Dede, G., Kamalakis, T., & Sphicopoulos, T. (2016). Theoretical estimation of the probability of weight rank reversal in pairwise comparisons. European Journal of Operational Research, 252(2), 587–600. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.01.059

Elliott, M. A. (2010). Selecting numerical scales for pairwise comparisons. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 95(7), 750–763. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2010.02.013

Franek, J., & Kresta, A. (2014). Judgment scales and consistency measure in AHP. Procedia Economics and Finance, 12, 164–173. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00332-3

Gass, S. I., & Rapcsák, T. (2004). Singular value decomposition in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 154(3), 573–584. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00755-5

Gomez-Ruiz, J. A., Karanik, M., & Peláez, J. I. (2009). Improving the consistency of AHP matrices using a multi-layer perceptron-based mode. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 5517 LNCS(PART 1), 41–48. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02478-8_6

Harker, P. T. (1987a). Alternative modes of questioning in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical Modelling, 9(3–5), 353–360. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-0255(87)90492-1

Harker, P. T. (1987b). Incomplete pairwise comparisons in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical Modelling, 9(11), 837–848. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-0255(87)90503-3

Ishizaka, A., & Lusti, M. (n.d.). An expert module to improve the consistency of AHP matrices. Retrieved from http://www.ishizaka-dev.myweb.port.ac.uk/ITOR.pdf

Jensen, R. (1983). Comparison of eigenvector, Least squares, Chi square and Logarithmic least square methods of scaling a reciprocal matrix. Retrieved from https://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar.bib?q=info:BB3LRd5maOkJ:scholar.google.com/&output=citation&scisig=AAGBfm0AAAAAWXdVkq5u779Tdq1ABrGuPB7CuoZwcF61&scisf=4&ct=citation&cd=-1&hl=tr&scfhb=1

Koczkodaj, W. W. (1993). A new definition of consistency of pairwise comparisons. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 18(7), 79–84. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-7177(93)90059-8

Koczkodaj, W. W., Herman, M. W., & Or?owski, M. (1997). Using consistency-driven pairwise comparisons in knowledge-based systems. In Proceedings of the sixth international conference on Information and knowledge management - CIKM ’97 (pp. 91–96). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/266714.266867

Kwiesielewicz, M., & van Uden, E. (2004). Inconsistent and contradictory judgements in pairwise comparison method in the AHP. Computers & Operations Research, 31(5), 713–719. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0548(03)00022-4

Rahmami, M., & Navidi, H. (2009). A new approach to improve inconsistency in the analytical hierarchy process. Applications and Applied Mathematics: An International Journal, 4(1), 40–51.

Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Siraj, S., Mikhailov, L., & Keane, J. A. (2015). Contribution of individual judgments toward inconsistency in pairwise comparisons. European Journal of Operational Research, 242(2), 557–567. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.10.024

Thurstone, L. L. (1994). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 101(2), 266–270. Retrieved from https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/Thurstone/Thurstone_1927f.html

Wedley, W. C., Schoner, B., & Tang, T. S. (1993). Starting rules for incomplete comparisons in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 17(4–5), 93–100. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-7177(93)90178-2