##
**Deriving weights from pairwise comparison ratio matrices: An axiomatic approach.**
*(English)*
Zbl 0652.90002

This paper examines the problem of extracting object or attribute weights from a pairwise comparision ratio matrix. This problem is approached from the point of view of a distance measure on the space of all such matrices. A set of axioms is presented which such a distance measure should satisfy, and the uniqueness of the measure is proven. The problem of weight derivation is then shown to be equivalent to that of finding a totally transitive matrix which is a minimum distance from the given matrix. This problem reduces to a goal programming model. Finally, it is shown that the problem of weight derivation is related to that of ranking players in a round robin tournament. The space of all binary tournament matrices is proven to be isometric to a subset of the space of ratio matrices.

### MSC:

91B06 | Decision theory |

### Keywords:

pairwise comparision ratio matrix; set of axioms; distance measure; weight derivation; goal programming; round robin tournament
PDFBibTeX
XMLCite

\textit{W. D. Cook} and \textit{M. Kress}, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 37, No. 3, 355--362 (1988; Zbl 0652.90002)

Full Text:
DOI

### References:

[1] | Ali, I.; Cook, W. D.; Kress, M., On the minimum violations ranking of a tournament, Management Science, 32, 660-672 (1986) · Zbl 0601.90003 |

[2] | Barzilai, J.; Cook, W. D.; Golany, B., Consistent weights for judgement matrices of the relative importance of alternatives, Operations Research Letters, 6, 131-134 (1987) · Zbl 0622.90004 |

[3] | Bradley, R. A., Science, statistics and paired comparisons, Biometrics, 32, 213-232 (1976) · Zbl 0365.62072 |

[4] | Brunk, H. D., Mathematical models for ranking from paired comparisons, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 55, 503-520 (1960) · Zbl 0101.11902 |

[5] | Chu, A. T.W.; Kalaba, R. E.; Spingarn, K., A comparison of two methods for determining the weights of belonging to fuzzy sets, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 27, 531-538 (1979) · Zbl 0377.94002 |

[6] | Cogger, K. O.; Yu, P. L., Eigenweight vectors and least-distance approximation for revealed preference in pairwise weight ratios, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 46, 483-491 (1985) · Zbl 0552.90050 |

[7] | Cook, Wade D.; Kress, Moshe, Ordinal ranking with intensity of preference, Management Science, 31, 26-32 (1985) · Zbl 0608.90003 |

[8] | Cook, Wade D.; Seiford, L. M., Priority ranking and consensus formation, Management Science, 24, 1721-1732 (1978) · Zbl 0491.90006 |

[9] | Crawford, G.; Williams, C., A note on the analysis of subjective judgement matrices, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 29, 387-405 (1985) · Zbl 0585.62183 |

[10] | Daniels, H. E., Round-robin tournament scores, Biometrika, 56, 295-299 (1969) |

[11] | David, H. A., Ranking the players in a round robin tournament, Review of the International Statistical Institute, 39, 137-147 (1971) · Zbl 0224.90080 |

[12] | deCani, J. S., A branch and bound algorithm for maximum likelihood paired comparison ranking, Biometrika, 59, 131-135 (1972) · Zbl 0245.62037 |

[13] | Jeck, T., The ranking of incomplete tournaments: A mathematician’s guide to popular sports, American Mathematical Monthly, 90, 246-266 (1983) · Zbl 0519.05034 |

[14] | Kemeny, J. G.; Snell, L. J., Preference ranking: An axiomatic approach, (Mathematical Models in the Social Sciences (1962), Ginn: Ginn New York), 9-23 |

[15] | Saaty, T. L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process (1980), McGraw-Hill: McGraw-Hill New York · Zbl 1176.90315 |

[16] | Stob, M., A supplement to “A mathematician”s guide to popular sports”, American Mathematical Monthly, 91, 277-282 (1984) · Zbl 0538.62064 |

This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.