PDF(203 KB)
On Consistency in AHP and Fuzzy AHP
Fang LIU, Yanan PENG, Weiguo ZHANG, Witold PEDRYCZ
Journal of Systems Science and Information ›› 2017, Vol. 5 ›› Issue (2) : 128-147.
PDF(203 KB)
PDF(203 KB)
On Consistency in AHP and Fuzzy AHP
The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is used widely for analyzing decisions made in various real-world applications. Its basic idea is to construct a hierarchy of concepts encountered in a given decision problem and to choose the best alternative according to pairwise comparison matrices given by the decision maker. Under the assumption of fully rational economics, a reasonable decision should be consistent. It becomes an important issue on how to analyze and ensure the consistency of comparison matrices together with the judgments of the decision maker. The main objectives of the present paper are threefold. First, we review the basic idea and methods used to define the consistency and the transitivity of multiplicative reciprocal matrices, additive reciprocal matrices and comparison matrices with fuzzy interval and triangular fuzzy numbers. The existing controversy behind the applications of fuzzy set theory to the AHP in the literature is presented. Second, the consistency of the collective comparison matrices in group decision making based on AHP and fuzzy AHP is further analyzed. We point out that the weak consistency of preference relations with fuzzy numbers in fuzzy AHP and group decision making should be investigated comprehensively. Third, under the consideration of the vagueness in the process of evaluating the judgements, a new concept of fuzzy consistency of comparison matrices in the AHP is given.
decision analysis / AHP / fuzzy set theory / fuzzy consistency / group decision-making {{custom_keyword}} /
[1] Saaty T L. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1977, 15(3): 234-281.
[2] Saaty T L. The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.
[3] Xu Z S, Wei C P. A consistency improving method in the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 1999, 116(2): 443-449.
[4] Bellman R E, Zadeh L A. Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Management Science, 1970, 17(4): B-141-B-164.
[5] Zadeh L A. Fuzzy sets. Information Control, 1965, 8(3): 338-353.
[6] Pedrycz W. Why triangular membership functions? Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1994, 64(1): 21-30.
[7] Van Laarhoven P J M, Pedrycz W. A fuzzy extension of Saaty's priority theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1983, 11(1-3): 229-241.
[8] Saaty T L, Vargas L G. Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 1987, 32(1): 107-117.
[9] Buckley J J. Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1985, 17(3): 233-247.
[10] Saaty T L. Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science, 1986, 32(7): 841-855.
[11] Black D. On the rationale of group decision-making. Journal of Political Economy, 1948, 56(1): 23-34.
[12] Crawford G. The geometric mean procedure for estimating the scale of a judgment matrix. Mathematical Modelling, 1989, 9(3-5): 327-334.
[13] Peláaez J I, Lamata M T. A new measure of consistency for positive reciprocal matrices. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 2003, 46(12): 1839-1845.
[14] Stein W E, Mizzi P J. The harmonic consistency index for the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 2007, 177(1): 488-497.
[15] Brunelli M, Canal L, Fedrizzi M. Inconsistency indices for pairwise comparison matrices: A numerical study. Annals of Operations Research, 2013, 211(1): 493-509.
[16] Brunelli M, Fedrizzi M. Axiomatic properties of inconsistency indices for pairwise comparisons. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 2015, 66(1): 1-15.
[17] Brunelli M. Studying a set of properties of inconsistency indices for pairwise comparisons. Annals of Operations Research, 2017, 248(1): 143-161.
[18] Basile L, Dapuzzo L. Weak consistency and quasi-linear means imply the actual ranking. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 2002, 10(3): 227-239.
[19] Basile L, Dapuzzo L. Transitive matrices, strict preference order and ordinal evaluation operators. Soft Computing, 2006, 10(8): 933-940.
[20] Zimmermann H J. Fuzzy sets, decision making, and expert system. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1987.
[21] Saaty T L, Vargas L G. Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process (Second Edition). Springer Science+Business Media, New York, 2012.
[22] Orlovsky S A. Decision making with a fuzzy preference relation. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1978, 1(3): 155-167.
[23] Tanino T. Fuzzy preferene orderings in group decision making. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1984, 12(2): 117-131.
[24] Liu F, Zhang W G, Zhang L H. A group decision making model based on ageneralized ordered weighted geometric average operator with interval preference matrices. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2014, 246(7): 1-18.
[25] Herrera-Viedma F, Herrera F, Chiclana F, et al. Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations. European Journal of Operational Research, 2004, 154(1): 98-109.
[26] Xu Z S. A survey of preference relations. International Journal of General Systems, 2007, 36(2): 179-203.
[27] Brunelli M. Introduction to the analytic hierarchy process. Springer, New York, 2015.
[28] Wang Y M, Yang J B, Xu D L. A two-stage logarithmic goal programming method for generating weights from interval comparison matrices. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2005, 152(3): 475-498.
[29] Dubois D. The role of fuzzy sets in decision sciences: Old techniques and new directions. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2011, 184(1): 3-28.
[30] Dubois D, Prade H. Fuzzy sets and systems: Theory and applications. Academic Press INC, NewYork, 1980.
[31] Liu F. Acceptable consistency analysis of interval reciprocal comparison matrices. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2009, 160(18): 2686-2700.
[32] Wang Z J. A note on “A goal programming model for incomplete interval multiplicative preference relations and its application in group decision-making”. European Journal of Operational Research, 2015, 247(3): 867-871.
[33] Xia M M, Chen J. Studies on interval multiplicative preference relations and their application to group decision making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2015, 24(1): 115-144.
[34] Xu Z S, Chen J. Some models for deriving the priority weights from interval fuzzy preference relations. European Journal of Operational Research, 2008, 184(1): 266-280.
[35] Liu F, Zhang W G, Fu J H. A new method of obtaining the priority weights from an interval fuzzy preference relation. Information Science, 2012, 185(1): 32-42.
[36] Wang Z J, Li K W. Goal programming approaches to deriving interval weights based on interval fuzzy preference relations. Information Science, 2012, 193(6): 180-198.
[37] Wang Z J, Li K W. A multi-step goal programming approach for group decision making with incomplete interval additive reciprocal comparison matrices. European Journal of Operational Research, 2015, 242(3): 890-900.
[38] Wang T C, Chen Y H. Applying fuzzy linguistic preference relations to the improvement of consistency of fuzzy AHP. Information Science, 2008, 178(19): 3755-3765.
[39] Rezaei J, Ortt R, Scholten V. An improved fuzzy preference programming to evaluate entrepreneurship orientation. Applied Soft Computing, 2013, 13(5): 2749-2758.
[40] Liu F, Zhang W G, Zhang L H. Consistency analysis of triangular fuzzy reciprocal preference relations. European Journal of Operational Research, 2014, 235(3): 718-726.
[41] Wang Z J. Consistency analysis and priority derivation of triangular fuzzy preference relations based on modal value and geometric mean. Information Science, 2015, 314(9): 169-183.
[42] Xu Z S, Da Q L. An overview of operators for aggregating information. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 2003, 18(9): 953-969.
[43] Saaty T L. Group decision making and the AHP. In The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Springer, Berlin, 1989: 59-67.
[44] Liu F, Zhang WG,Wang Z X. A goal programming model for incomplete interval multiplicative preference relations and its application in group decision-making. European Journal of Operational Research, 2012, 218(3): 747-754.
[45] Xu Z S. On consistency of the weighted geometric mean complex judgement matrix in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 2000, 126(3): 683-687.
[46] Lin R, Lin J S J, Chang J. et al. Note on group consistency in analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 2008, 190(3): 672-678.
[47] Yager R R. Families of OWA operators. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1993, 59(2): 125-148.
[48] Yager R R, Kacprzyk J. The ordered weighted averaging operators: Theory and Applications. Springer Science+Business Media, New York, 1997.
[49] Yager R R. On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operations in multicriteria decision making. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, Cybernetics — Part B: Cybernatics, 1988, 18(1): 183-190.
[50] Liu X W. Some properties of the weighted OWA operator. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, Cybernetics — Part B: Cybernatics, 2006 36(1): 118-127.
[51] Yager R R, Filev D P. Induced ordered weighted averaging operators. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, Cybernetics — Part B: Cybernatics, 1999, 29(2): 141-150.
[52] Chiclana F, Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E. Integrating three representation models in fuzzy multipurpose decision making based on fuzzy preference relations. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1998, 97(1): 33-48.
[53] Chiclana F, Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F, et al. Some induced ordered weighted averaging operators and their use for solving group decision-making problems based on fuzzy preference relations. European Journal of Operational Research, 2007, 182(1): 383-399.
[54] Liu F, Zhang W G. TOPSIS-based consensus model for group decision-making with incomplete interval fuzzy preference relations. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 2014, 44(8): 1283-1294.
[55] Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Chiclana F. Multiperson decision-making based on multiplicative preference relations. European Journal of Operational Research, 2001, 129(2): 372-385.
[56] Xu Z S, Da Q L. The ordered weighted geometric averaging operators. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 2002, 17(7): 709-716.
[57] Chiclana F, Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F, et al. Induced ordered weighted geometric operators and their use in the aggregation of multiplicative preference relations. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 2004, 19(3): 233-255.
[58] Liu F, Zhang W G, Shang Y F. A group decision-making model with interval multiplicative reciprocal matrices based on the geometric consistency index. Computers & Industerial Engineering, 2016, 101(11): 184-193.
[59] Saaty T L, Tran L T. On the invalidity of fuzzifying numerical judgments in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 2007, 46(7-8): 962-975.
[60] Ramík J, Korviny P. Inconsistency of pair-wise comparison matrix with fuzzy elements based on geometric mean. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2010, 161(11): 1604-1613.
[61] Liu F, PedryczW, ZhangWG. Limited rationality and its quantification through the interval number judgments with permutations. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 2016, doi: 10.1109/TCYB.2016.2594491.
[62] Liu F, Pedrycz W, Wang Z X, et al. An axiomatic approach to approximation-consistency of triangular fuzzy reciprocal preference relations. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.fss.2017.02.004.
Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71201037, 71232014, 71571054), China Postdoctoral Science Foundation Funded Project (2014M560794), 2014 Shaanxi Postdoctoral Science Foundation Funded Project, Guangxi Natural Science Foundation (2014GXNSFAA118013), Guangxi Natural Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars (2016GXNSFFA380004) and Science Foundation of Guangxi University for Young Ph.D. (XBZ160257)
PDF(203 KB)
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
