Skip to main content

Rank Reversal in the AHP with Consistent Judgements: A Numerical Study in Single and Group Decision Making

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing ((STUDFUZZ,volume 357))

Abstract

In this paper we study, by means of numerical simulations, the influence of some relevant factors on the Rank Reversal phenomenon in the Analytic Hierarchy Process, AHP. We consider both the case of a single decision maker and the case of group decision making. The idea is to focus on a condition which preserves Rank Reversal, RR in the following, and progressively relax it. First, we study how the estimated probability of RR depends on the distribution of the criteria weights and, more precisely, on the entropy of this distribution. In fact, it is known that RR does’nt occur if all the weights are concentrated in a single criterion, i.e. the zero entropy case. We derive an interesting increasing behavior of the RR estimated probability as a function of weights entropy. Second, we focus on the aggregation method of the local weight vectors. Barzilay and Golany proved that the weighted geometric mean preserves from RR. By using the usual weighted arithmetic mean suggested in AHP, on the contrary, RR may occur. Therefore, we use the more general aggregation rule based on the weighted power mean, where the weighted geometric mean and the weighted arithmetic mean are particular cases obtained for the values \(p \rightarrow 0\) and \(p=1\) of the power parameter p respectively. By studying the RR probability as a function of parameter p, we again obtain a monotonic behavior. Finally, we repeat our study in the case of a group decision making problem and we observe that the estimated probability of RR decreases by aggregating the DMs’ preferences. This fact suggests an inverse relationship between consensus and rank reversal. Note that we assume that all judgements are totally consistent, so that the effect of inconsistency is avoided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Aczél J, Saaty TL (1983) Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgments. J Math Psychol 27:93–102

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Aguaròn J, Moreno-Jimènez JM (2003) The geometric consistency index: approximated threshold. Eur J Oper Res 147:137–145

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. 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

    Google Scholar 

  4. Barzilai J (2010) Preference function modelling: the mathematical foundations of decision theory. In: Ehrgott M, Figueira JR, Greco S (eds) Trends in multiple criteria decision analysis. Springer

    Google Scholar 

  5. Barzilai J, Golany B (1994) AHP rank reversal, normalization and aggregation rules. INFOR: Inf Syst Oper Res 32(2):57–64

    Google Scholar 

  6. Belton V, Gear AE (1983) On a short-coming of Saaty’s method of analytic hierarchies. Omega 11:228–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Belton V, Stewart T (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Springer

    Google Scholar 

  8. Choo EU, Wedley WC (2004) A common framework for deriving preference values from pairwise comparison matrices. Comput Oper Res 31:893–908

    Google Scholar 

  9. Crawford G, Williams C (1985) A note on the analysis of subjective judgement matrices. J Math Psychol 29:25–40

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Dede G, Kamalakis T, Sphicopoulos T (2015) Convergence properties and practical estimation of the probability of rank reversal in pairwise comparisons for multi-criteria decision making problems. Eur J Oper Res 241:458–468

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Forman E, Peniwati K (1998) Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 108:165–169

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Forman EH, Gass SI (2001) The analytic hierarchy process-an exposition. Oper Res 49:469–486

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Maleki H, Zahir S (2013) A comprehensive literature review of the rank reversal phenomenon in the analytic hierarchy process. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 20:141–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ossadnik W, Schinke S, Kaspar RH (2016) Group aggregation techniques for analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: a comparative analysis. Group Decis Negot 25(2):421–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Raharjo H, Endah D (2006) Evaluating relationship of consistency ratio and number of alternatives on rank reversal in the AHP. Qual Eng 18(1):39–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15:234–281

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Saaty TL, Vargas LG (1984) The legitimacy of rank reversal. Omega 12:513–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Saaty TL (1994) Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 74:426–447

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Smith JE, von Winterfeldt D (2004) Decision analysis in management science. Manage Sci 50:561–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Triantaphyllou E (2001) Two new cases of rank reversals when the AHP and some of its additive variants are used that do not occur with the multiplicative AHP. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 10:11–25

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Van Den Honert RC, Lootsma FA (1996) Group preference aggregation in the multiplicative AHP The model of the group decision process and Pareto optimality. Eur J Oper Res 96:363–370

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michele Fedrizzi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fedrizzi, M., Giove, S., Predella, N. (2018). Rank Reversal in the AHP with Consistent Judgements: A Numerical Study in Single and Group Decision Making. In: Collan, M., Kacprzyk, J. (eds) Soft Computing Applications for Group Decision-making and Consensus Modeling. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, vol 357. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60207-3_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60207-3_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-60206-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-60207-3

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics