Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the stability of three ranking-dependent pair-wise comparison methods within the Analytic Hierarchy Process: the Best-worst method, the Best-Second Best method, and the maximum difference method. By analyzing conditions for stability against expert errors and conducting simulation experiments, the authors identify the most reliable incomplete method that minimizes the number of comparisons needed without compromising the credibility of results. The findings enhance decision support systems by improving the efficiency and accuracy of expert evaluations in uncertain environments.
Incomplete ranking methods can significantly reduce expert comparison workload while maintaining result credibility, revealing a new path for efficient decision-making in complex scenarios.
The paper addresses several ranking-dependent decision support methods. Ordinal information on compared objects can be used to improve the quality of expert data during estimation and help reduce the number of comparisons that the experts need to perform. In the paper we compare three incomplete ranking-dependent pair-wise comparison patterns which can be used in the Analytic Hierarchy Process - Best-worst method, Best-Second Best (Top 2) method, and the original maximum difference method. The first two comparison patterns (and respective methods) are incomplete, while the third can be a complete one. We determine conditions under which these three methods can be compared in terms of stability to expert errors. We also present the results of a simulation-type experiment, in which the three methods are compared. The research allows us to define the most stable incomplete ranking-dependent pair-wise comparison pattern and reduce the number of comparisons without loss of credibility of expert session results. The research contributes to algorithmic, cognitive, and applied aspects of decision support in uncertain environments.
