- -

Constrained consistency enforcement in AHP

RiuNet: Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia

Compartir/Enviar a

Citas

Estadísticas

  • Estadisticas de Uso

Constrained consistency enforcement in AHP

Mostrar el registro completo del ítem

Benítez López, J.; Carpitella, S.; Certa, A.; Izquierdo Sebastián, J. (2020). Constrained consistency enforcement in AHP. Applied Mathematics and Computation. 380:1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2020.125273

Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar este ítem: http://hdl.handle.net/10251/160840

Ficheros en el ítem

Thumbnail
Nombre: Benítez;Carpitell ...
Tamaño: 255.1Kb
Formato: PDF
Descripción: Versión del Autor.
Abrir/Preview
[Cerrado]
Nombre: Constrained consi ...
Tamaño: 3.022Mb
Formato: PDF
Descripción: Versión editorial
Solicitar una copia al autor

Metadatos del ítem

Título: Constrained consistency enforcement in AHP
Autor: Benítez López, Julio Carpitella, Silvia Certa, Antonella Izquierdo Sebastián, Joaquín
Entidad UPV: Universitat Politècnica de València. Departamento de Matemática Aplicada - Departament de Matemàtica Aplicada
Fecha difusión:
Resumen:
[EN] Decision-making in the presence of intangible elements must be based on a robust, but subtle, balance between expert know-how and judgment consistency when eliciting that know-how. This balance is frequently achieved ...[+]
Palabras clave: Decision-making , Expert judgment , Consistency , Consensus , AHP
Derechos de uso: Reconocimiento - No comercial - Sin obra derivada (by-nc-nd)
Fuente:
Applied Mathematics and Computation. (issn: 0096-3003 )
DOI: 10.1016/j.amc.2020.125273
Editorial:
Elsevier
Versión del editor: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2020.125273
Tipo: Artículo

References

Safarzadeh, S., Khansefid, S., & Rasti-Barzoki, M. (2018). A group multi-criteria decision-making based on best-worst method. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 126, 111-121. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2018.09.011

Ishizaka, A., & Siraj, S. (2018). Are multi-criteria decision-making tools useful? An experimental comparative study of three methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 264(2), 462-471. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2017.05.041

Yu, X., Zhang, S., Liao, X., & Qi, X. (2018). ELECTRE methods in prioritized MCDM environment. Information Sciences, 424, 301-316. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2017.09.061 [+]
Safarzadeh, S., Khansefid, S., & Rasti-Barzoki, M. (2018). A group multi-criteria decision-making based on best-worst method. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 126, 111-121. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2018.09.011

Ishizaka, A., & Siraj, S. (2018). Are multi-criteria decision-making tools useful? An experimental comparative study of three methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 264(2), 462-471. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2017.05.041

Yu, X., Zhang, S., Liao, X., & Qi, X. (2018). ELECTRE methods in prioritized MCDM environment. Information Sciences, 424, 301-316. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2017.09.061

Zareie, A., Sheikhahmadi, A., & Khamforoosh, K. (2018). Influence maximization in social networks based on TOPSIS. Expert Systems with Applications, 108, 96-107. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2018.05.001

Carpitella, S., Ocaña-Levario, S. J., Benítez, J., Certa, A., & Izquierdo, J. (2018). A hybrid multi-criteria approach to GPR image mining applied to water supply system maintenance. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 159, 754-764. doi:10.1016/j.jappgeo.2018.10.021

Phudphad, K., Watanapa, B., Krathu, W., & Funilkul, S. (2017). Rankings of the security factors of human resources information system (HRIS) influencing the open climate of work: using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Procedia Computer Science, 111, 287-293. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2017.06.065

Bertolin, C., & Loli, A. (2018). Sustainable interventions in historic buildings: A developing decision making tool. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 34, 291-302. doi:10.1016/j.culher.2018.08.010

Carli, R., Dotoli, M., & Pellegrino, R. (2018). A decision-making tool for energy efficiency optimization of street lighting. Computers & Operations Research, 96, 223-235. doi:10.1016/j.cor.2017.11.016

Huang, J., Boland, J., Liu, W., Xu, C., & Zang, H. (2018). A decision-making tool for determination of storage capacity in grid-connected PV systems. Renewable Energy, 128, 299-304. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2018.05.083

Erdogan, S. A., Šaparauskas, J., & Turskis, Z. (2017). Decision Making in Construction Management: AHP and Expert Choice Approach. Procedia Engineering, 172, 270-276. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.02.111

Sheng, L., Zhu, Y., & Wang, K. (2018). Uncertain dynamical system-based decision making with application to production-inventory problems. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 56, 275-288. doi:10.1016/j.apm.2017.12.006

Yager, R. R. (2017). Bidirectional possibilistic dominance in uncertain decision making. Knowledge-Based Systems, 133, 269-277. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2017.06.029

Kozierkiewicz-Hetmańska, A. (2017). The analysis of expert opinions’ consensus quality. Information Fusion, 34, 80-86. doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2016.06.005

Dror, I. E., Kukucka, J., Kassin, S. M., & Zapf, P. A. (2018). When Expert Decision Making Goes Wrong: Consensus, Bias, the Role of Experts, and Accuracy. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7(1), 162-163. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.01.007

V, S. R., & Muccini, H. (2018). Group decision-making in software architecture: A study on industrial practices. Information and Software Technology, 101, 51-63. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2018.04.009

Tian, Z., Nie, R., Wang, J., & Zhang, H. (2018). A two-fold feedback mechanism to support consensus-reaching in social network group decision-making. Knowledge-Based Systems, 162, 74-91. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2018.09.030

Pérez, I. J., Cabrerizo, F. J., Alonso, S., Dong, Y. C., Chiclana, F., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2018). On dynamic consensus processes in group decision making problems. Information Sciences, 459, 20-35. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2018.05.017

Unutmaz Durmuşoğlu, Z. D. (2018). Assessment of techno-entrepreneurship projects by using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). Technology in Society, 54, 41-46. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.02.001

Ozdemir, S., & Sahin, G. (2018). Multi-criteria decision-making in the location selection for a solar PV power plant using AHP. Measurement, 129, 218-226. doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2018.07.020

Russo, R. de F. S. M., & Camanho, R. (2015). Criteria in AHP: A Systematic Review of Literature. Procedia Computer Science, 55, 1123-1132. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2015.07.081

Franek, J., & Kresta, A. (2014). Judgment Scales and Consistency Measure in AHP. Procedia Economics and Finance, 12, 164-173. doi:10.1016/s2212-5671(14)00332-3

Saaty, T. L. (2003). Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary. European Journal of Operational Research, 145(1), 85-91. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(02)00227-8

Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234-281. doi:10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5

Bozóki, S., & Fülöp, J. (2018). Efficient weight vectors from pairwise comparison matrices. European Journal of Operational Research, 264(2), 419-427. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2017.06.033

Szybowski, J. (2018). The improvement of data in pairwise comparison matrices. Procedia Computer Science, 126, 1006-1013. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2018.08.036

Benítez, J., Carpitella, S., Certa, A., Ilaya-Ayza, A. E., & Izquierdo, J. (2018). Consistent clustering of entries in large pairwise comparison matrices. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 343, 98-112. doi:10.1016/j.cam.2018.04.041

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:10.1016/j.apm.2011.03.013

Benítez, J., Delgado-Galván, X., Gutiérrez, J. A., & Izquierdo, J. (2011). Balancing consistency and expert judgment in AHP. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 54(7-8), 1785-1790. doi:10.1016/j.mcm.2010.12.023

Benítez, J., Izquierdo, J., Pérez-García, R., & Ramos-Martínez, E. (2014). A simple formula to find the closest consistent matrix to a reciprocal matrix. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 38(15-16), 3968-3974. doi:10.1016/j.apm.2014.01.007

[-]

recommendations

 

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro completo del ítem