AHP |
Belton & Gear (198310 BELTON V & GEAR T. 1983. On a short-coming of Saaty’s method of analytic hierarchies. Omega, 11(3): 228-230.) |
BG normalization procedure. |
|
Saaty & Vargas (1984a92 SAATY TL & VARGAS LG. 1984a. Inconsistency and rank preservation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 28(2): 205-214.) |
Evaluation of the deriving ratio estimates regarding inconsistency and preservation ranking. |
|
Saaty & Vargas (1984b93 SAATY TL & VARGAS LG. 1984b. The legitimacy of rank reversal. Omega , 12(5): 513-516.) |
Demonstration of ranking inconsistencies in Belton & Gear (198310 BELTON V & GEAR T. 1983. On a short-coming of Saaty’s method of analytic hierarchies. Omega, 11(3): 228-230.). |
|
Belton & Gear (198511 BELTON V & GEAR T. 1985. The legitimacy of rank reversal: A comment. Omega, 13(3): 143-144.) |
Explanation on BG normalization procedure. |
|
Saaty (198681 SAATY TL. 1986. Axiomatic Foundation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Management Science, 32(7): 841-855.) |
Structural dependence of the criteria may cause RRP. |
|
Saaty (1987a83 SAATY TL. 1987a. The analytic hierarchy process: what it is and how it is used. Mathematical Modelling, 9(3-5): 161-176.) |
Similar to Saaty (198681 SAATY TL. 1986. Axiomatic Foundation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Management Science, 32(7): 841-855.). |
|
Saaty (1987b84 SAATY TL. 1987b. Decision making, new information, ranking and structure. Mathematical Modelling, 8: 125-132.) |
RRP may be caused if the importance of the criteria depends both on the number of alternatives and on the strength of their ranking. |
|
Saaty (1987c85 SAATY TL. 1987c. Rank Generation, Preservation, and Reversal in the Analytic Hierarchy Decision Process. Decision Sciences, 18(2): 157-177.) |
Similar to Saaty (198681 SAATY TL. 1986. Axiomatic Foundation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Management Science, 32(7): 841-855.) and Saaty (1987a83 SAATY TL. 1987a. The analytic hierarchy process: what it is and how it is used. Mathematical Modelling, 9(3-5): 161-176.). |
|
Harker & Vargas (198739 HARKER PT & VARGAS LG. 1987. The Theory of Ratio Scale Estimation: Saaty’s Analytic Hierarchy Process. Management Science, 33(11): 1383-1403.) |
RRP is caused by misuse of the method. |
|
Saaty & Vargas (198794 SAATY TL & VARGAS LG. 1987. Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research , 32(1): 107-117.) |
RRP is caused by uncertainty of the decision-maker. |
|
Troutt (1988123 TROUTT M. 1988. Rank reversal and the dependence of priorities on the underlying MAV function. Omega , 16(4): 365-367.) |
RRP is caused by aggregation rule. |
|
Triantaphyllou & Mann (1989119 TRIANTAPHYLLOU E & MANN SH. 1989. An Examination of the Effectiveness of Multi-Dimentional Decision-Making Methods: A Decision-Making Paradox. International Journal of Decision Support Systems, 5: 303-312.) |
Analysis of four methods regarding rank reversal rate. |
|
Schoner & Wedley (1989104 SCHONER B & WEDLEY WC. 1989. Ambiguous Criteria Weights in AHP: Consequences and Solutions. Decision Sciences, 20(3): 462-475.) |
RRP is caused by incorrect criteria assessments. |
|
Barzilai & Golany (19908 BARZILAI J & GOLANY B. 1990. Deriving weights from pairwise comparison matrices: The additive case. Operations Research Letters, 9(6): 407-410.) |
Arithmetic mean is used to solve the RRP. |
|
Dyer (1990a25 DYER JS. 1990a. A Clarification of Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Management Science, 36(3): 274-275.) |
Rankings are arbitrary in the face of inappropriate criteria weights. |
|
Dyer (1990b26 DYER JS. 1990b. Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Management Science, 36(3): 249-258.) |
Similar to Dyer (1990a25 DYER JS. 1990a. A Clarification of Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Management Science, 36(3): 274-275.). |
|
Saaty (199086 SAATY TL. 1990. An Exposition of the AHP in Reply to the Paper “Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process”. Management Sciences, 36(3): 259-268.) |
Similar to Harker & Vargas (198739 HARKER PT & VARGAS LG. 1987. The Theory of Ratio Scale Estimation: Saaty’s Analytic Hierarchy Process. Management Science, 33(11): 1383-1403.). |
|
Harker & Vargas (199039 HARKER PT & VARGAS LG. 1987. The Theory of Ratio Scale Estimation: Saaty’s Analytic Hierarchy Process. Management Science, 33(11): 1383-1403.) |
Similar to Harker & Vargas (198739 HARKER PT & VARGAS LG. 1987. The Theory of Ratio Scale Estimation: Saaty’s Analytic Hierarchy Process. Management Science, 33(11): 1383-1403.) and Saaty (199086 SAATY TL. 1990. An Exposition of the AHP in Reply to the Paper “Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process”. Management Sciences, 36(3): 259-268.). |
|
Forman (199033 FORMAN EH. 1990. AHP Is Intended for More Than Expected Value Calculations. Decision Sciences, 21(3): 670-672.) |
Referenced AHP does not provide convincing arguments for its use. |
|
Troutt & Tadisina (1990124 TROUTT M & TADISINA S. 1990. Corrigendum and further results: Rank reversal and the dependence of priorities on the underlying MAV function. Omega , 18(6): 655-656.) |
RRP was avoided through the use of Multiattribute Value (MAV). |
|
Holder (199042 HOLDER RD. 1990. Some Comments on the Analytic Hierarchy Process. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 41(11): 1073-1076.) |
Reported inconsistencies in the method. |
|
Hämäläinen (1990) |
RRP is mentioned in a specific context of application context. |
|
Stewart (1992113 STEWART T. 1992. A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice. Omega , 20(5-6): 569-586.) |
RRP is mentioned. |
|
Schoner et al. (1992105 SCHONER B, WEDLEY WC & CHOO EU. 1992. A Rejoinder to Forman on AHP, with Emphasis on the Requirements of Composite Ratio Scales. Decision Sciences, 23(2): 509-517.) |
RRP may be caused by the process of normalizing local priorities. |
|
Forman (199334 FORMAN EH. 1993. Facts and fictions about the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 17(4-5): 19-26.) |
RRP may be caused by substitution effect. |
|
Lootsma (199360 LOOTSMA FA. 1993. Scale sensitivity in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 2(2): 87-110.) |
Multiplicative AHP method. |
|
Schoner et al. (1993106 SCHONER B, WEDLEY WC & CHOO EU. 1993. A unified approach to AHP with linking pins. European Journal of Operational Research , 64(3): 384-392.) |
RRP is mentioned. |
|
Saaty & Vargas (199395 SAATY TL & VARGAS LG. 1993. Experiments on rank preservation and reversal in relative measurement. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 17(4-5): 13-18.) |
Evaluation of inconsistencies and ranking preservation. |
|
Wedley et al. (1993139 WEDLEY WC, SCHONER B & CHOO EU. 1993. Clustering, dependence and ratio scales in AHP: Rank reversals and incorrect priorities with a single criterion. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis , 2(3): 145-158.) |
Axiom 3 causes the RRP. |
|
Saaty (1994a87 SAATY TL. 1994a. Highlights and critical points inthe theory and application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research , 74(3): 426-447.) |
Analysis of ranking procedures with implications to RRP. |
|
Saaty (1994b88 SAATY TL. 1994b. How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Interfaces, 24(6): 19-43.) |
Ideal mode of setting priorities may avoid RRP. |
|
Schenkerman (1994102 SCHENKERMAN S. 1994. Avoiding rank reversal in AHP decision-support models. European Journal of Operational Research , 74(3): 407-419.) |
Relative measurement is not a valid manner of measuring. |
|
Vargas (1994127 VARGAS LG. 1994. Reply to Schenkerman’savoiding rank reversal in AHP decision support models. European Journal of Operational Research , 74(3): 420-425.) |
RRP is an acceptable phenomenon. |
|
Triantaphyllou & Mann (1994120 TRIANTAPHYLLOU E & MANN SH. 1994. A computational evaluation of the original and revised Analytic hierarchy process. Computers & Industrial Engineering , 26(3): 609-618.) |
Occurrence of ranking irregularities in AHP or revised AHP. |
|
Lai (199554 LAI S-K. 1995. A preference-based interpretation of AHP. Omega, 23(4): 453-462.) |
AHP’- new scaling technique. |
|
Olson et al. (1995b69 OLSON DL, MOSHKOVICH HM, SCHELLENBERGER R & MECHITOV AI. 1995b. Consistency and Accuracy in Decision Aids: Experiments with Four Multiattribute Systems. Decision Sciences , 26(6): 723-747.) |
Evaluation of four decision support systems regarding inconsistency and preservation ranking. |
|
Paulson & Zahir (199570 PAULSON D & ZAHIR S. 1995. Consequences of uncertainty in the analytic hierarchy process: A simulation approach. European Journal of Operational Research , 87(1): 45-56.) |
RRP and its probability of occurrence over a wide range of uncertainties. |
|
Pérez (199572 PÉREZ J. 1995. Some Comments on Saaty’s AHP. Management Science , 41(6): 1091-1095.) |
Relation between the criteria weights and the RRP. |
|
Dodd et al. (199524 DODD FJ, DONEGAN HA & MCMASTER TBM. 1995. Inverse inconsistency in analytic hierarchies. European Journal of Operational Research, 80(1): 86-93.) |
MAHP method. |
|
Triantaphyllou & Mann (1995121 TRIANTAPHYLLOU E & MANN SH. 1995. Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process For Decision Making in Engineering Applications: Some Challenges. Journal of Industrial Engineering: Applications and Practice, 2(1): 35-44.) |
RRP is mentioned. |
|
Vinod Kumar & Ganesh (1996132 VINOD KUMAR N & GANESH LS. 1996. An empirical analysis of the use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process for estimating membership values in a fuzzy set. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 82(1): 1-16.) |
Influence of the RRP for estimating membership values in a fuzzy set. |
|
Barzilai & Lootsma (19979 BARZILAI J & LOOTSMA FA. 1997. Power Relations and Group Aggregation in the Multiplicative AHP and SMART. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 6(3): 155-165.) |
Similar to Lootsma (199360 LOOTSMA FA. 1993. Scale sensitivity in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 2(2): 87-110.). |
|
Salo & Hämäläinen (199799 SALO AA & HÄMÄLÄINEN RP. 1997. On the measurement of preferences in the analytic Hierarchy process. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis , 6(6): 309-319.) |
Supermatrix technique does not eliminate the RRP. |
|
Belton & Gear (199712 BELTON V & GEAR T. 1997. On the meaning of relative importance. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 6(6): 335-338.) |
RRP is caused by the relative importance of the average performance on each criterion. |
|
Lootsma & Barzilai (199761 LOOTSMA FA & BARZILAI J. 1997. Responseto the Comments by Larichev, Korhonen and Vargason “Power Relations and Group Aggregation in the Multiplicative AHP and SMART”. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis , 6(3): 171-174.) |
Similar to Lootsma (199360 LOOTSMA FA. 1993. Scale sensitivity in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 2(2): 87-110.) and Barzilai & Lootsma (19979 BARZILAI J & LOOTSMA FA. 1997. Power Relations and Group Aggregation in the Multiplicative AHP and SMART. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 6(3): 155-165.). |
|
Barzilai (19977 BARZILAI J. 1997. Deriving Weights from Pairwise Comparison Matrices. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48(12): 1226-1232.) |
Similar to Lootsma (199360 LOOTSMA FA. 1993. Scale sensitivity in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 2(2): 87-110.), Barzilai & Lootsma (19979 BARZILAI J & LOOTSMA FA. 1997. Power Relations and Group Aggregation in the Multiplicative AHP and SMART. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 6(3): 155-165.) and Lootsma & Barzilai (199761 LOOTSMA FA & BARZILAI J. 1997. Responseto the Comments by Larichev, Korhonen and Vargason “Power Relations and Group Aggregation in the Multiplicative AHP and SMART”. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis , 6(3): 171-174.). |
|
Vargas (1997) |
Multiplicative AHP is invalid. |
|
Schoner et al. (1997103 SCHONER B, CHOO EU & WEDLEY WC. 1997. A Comment on Rank Disagreement: A Comparison of Multi-Criteria Methodologies. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis , 6(4): 197-200.) |
Describe the modified AHP techniques. |
|
Stam (1997110 STAM A. 1997. Short Note on “On the Measurement of Preferences in the Analytic Hierarchy Process” by SALO AA & HÄMÄLÄINEN RP. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis , 6(6): 338-339.) |
Multiplicative AHP method may avoid RRP. |
|
Stam & Silva (1997111 STAM A & SILVA APD. 1997. Stochastic Judgments in the AHP: The Measurement of Rank Reversal Probabilities. Decision Sciences, 28(3): 665-688.) |
Evaluation of the RRP in a stochastic context. |
|
Saaty (199789 SAATY TL. 1997. That is not the analytic Hierarchy process: what the AHP is and what it is not. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis , 6(6): 324-335.) |
Similar to Saaty (1994b88 SAATY TL. 1994b. How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Interfaces, 24(6): 19-43.). |
|
Yang & Lee (1997143 YANG J & LEE H. 1997. An AHP decision model for facility location selection. Facilities, 15(9-10): 241-254.) |
RRP is mentioned. |
|
Triantaphyllou & Sánchez (1997122 TRIANTAPHYLLOU E & SÁNCHEZ A. 1997. A Sensitivity Analysis Approach for Some Deterministic Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods. Decision Sciences, 28(1): 151-194.) |
Evaluation of three decision methods regarding to the RRP. |
|
Van Den Honert (1998126 VAN DEN HONERT RC. 1998. Stochastic pairwise comparative judgements and direct ratings of alternatives in the REMBRANDT system. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis , 7(2): 87-97.) |
RRP is caused by uncertainty in the decision-maker’s preference judgments. |
|
Farkas et al. (199929 FARKAS A, RÓZSA P & STUBNYA E. 1999. Transitive matrices and their applications. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 302-303: 423-433.) |
RRP is inherent in the AHP. |
|
Zahir (1999145 ZAHIR S. 1999. Geometry of decision making and the vector space formulation of the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research , 112(2): 373-396.) |
RRP is mentioned. |
|
Sarkis (1999101 SARKIS J. 1999. A methodological framework for evaluating environmentally conscious manufacturing programs. Computers & Industrial Engineering , 36(4): 793-810.) |
RRP is avoided through the use of ANP method. |
|
Millet & Saaty (200064 MILLET I & SAATY TL. 2000. On the relativity of relative measures: accommodating both rank preservation and rank reversals in the AHP. European Journal of Operational Research , 121(1): 205-212.) |
Similar to Saaty (1994b88 SAATY TL. 1994b. How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Interfaces, 24(6): 19-43.). |
|
Sinuany-Stern et al. (2000107 SINUANY-STERN Z, MEHREZ A & HADAD Y. 2000. An AHP/DEA methodology for ranking decision making units. International Transactions in Operational Research, 7(2): 109-124.) |
AHP/DEA method. |
|
Aguarón & Moreno-Jiménez (20002 AGUARÓN J & MORENO-JIMÉNEZ JM. 2000. Local stability intervals in the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 125(1): 113-132.) |
Illustration of the RRP regarding to the alteration of the best alternative and transitivity property. |
|
Davies (200120 DAVIES M. 2001. Adaptive AHP: a review of marketing applications with extensions. European Journal of Marketing, 35(7/8): 872-894.) |
RRP is mentioned. |
|
Leung & Cao (200156 LEUNG LC & CAO D. 2001. On the efficacy of modeling multi-attribute decision problems using AHP and Sinarchy. European Journal of Operational Research, 132(1): 39-49.) |
RRP is avoided through the use of Sinarchy, a particular form of ANP method. |
|
Triantaphyllou (2001118 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. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis , 10(1): 11-25.) |
RRP is caused by normalization step and use of additive function. |
|
Finan & Hurley (200232 FINAN JS & HURLEY WJ. 2002. The analytic Hierarchy process: can wash criteria be ignored? Computers & Operations Research, 29(8): 1025-1030.) |
RRP and non-discriminating criterion. |
|
Stam & Silva (2003112 STAM A & SILVA APD. 2003. On multiplicative priority rating methods for the AHP. European Journal of Operational Research , 145(1): 92-108.) |
Similar to Stam (1997110 STAM A. 1997. Short Note on “On the Measurement of Preferences in the Analytic Hierarchy Process” by SALO AA & HÄMÄLÄINEN RP. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis , 6(6): 338-339.). |
|
Liberatore & Nydick (200457 LIBERATORE MJ & NYDICK RL. 2004. Wash criteria and the analytic hierarchy process. Computers & Operations Research, 31(6): 889-892) |
Non-discriminating criterion a may not cause RRP. |
|
Farkas et al. (200428 FARKAS A, GYÖRGY A & RÓZSA P. 2004. On the spectrum of pairwise comparison matrices. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 385: 443-462.) |
Illustration of the RRP. |
|
Tavana (2004115 TAVANA M. 2004. A subjective assessment of alternative mission architectures for the human exploration of Mars at NASA using multicriteria decision making. Computers & Operations Research, 31(7): 1147-1164.) |
RRP is mentioned. |
|
Sundarraj (2004114 SUNDARRAJ RP. 2004. A Web-based AHP approach to standardize the process of managing service-contracts. Decision Support Systems, 37(3): 343-365.) |
RRP is mentioned. |
|
Srdjevic (2005109 SRDJEVIC B. 2005. Combining different prioritization methods in the analytic hierarchy process synthesis. Computers & Operations Research, 32(7): 1897-1919.) |
Multicriteria Preference Synthesis Procedure (MPS). |
|
Leskinen & Kangas (200555 LESKINEN P & KANGAS J. 2005. Rank Reversals in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis with Statistical Modelling of Ratio-Scale Pairwise Comparisons. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 56(7): 855-861.) |
RRP is avoided through the use of ratio-scale measurement. |
|
Kujawski (200553 KUJAWSKI E. 2005. A reference-dependent regret model for deterministic tradeoff studies. Systems Engineering, 8(2): 119-137.) |
Reference-Dependent Regret Model (RDRM). |
|
Raharjo & Endah (200675 RAHARJO H & ENDAH D. 2006. Evaluating Relationship of Consistency Ratio and Number of Alternatives on Rank Reversal in the AHP. Quality Engineering, 18(1): 39-46.) |
RRP is caused by consistency ratio and the number of alternatives. |
|
Pérez et al. (200673 PÉREZ J, JIMENO JL & MOKOTOFF E. 2006. Another potential shortcoming of AHP. Top, 14(1): 99-111.) |
RRP may be caused by adding indifferent criteria. |
|
Saaty (200690 SAATY TL. 2006. Rank from comparisons and from ratings in the Analytic hierarchy/network processes. European Journal of Operational Research , 168(2): 557-570.) |
Relative measurement, conditional independence or structural dependence plays an important role in influencing the RRP. |
|
Wang & Elhag (2006134 WANG Y-M & ELHAG TMS. 2006. An approach to avoiding rank reversal in AHP. Decision Support Systems, 42(3): 1474-1480.) |
RRP is caused by the change of local priorities before and after adding or removing alternatives. |
|
Totsenko (2006117 TOTSENKO VG. 2006. On Problem of Reversal of Alternatives Ranks while Multicriteria Estimating. Journal of Automation and Information Sciences, 38(6): 1-11.) |
Analytic Hierarchy Process Advanced (AHPA). |
|
Hochbaum & Levin (200641 HOCHBAUM DS & LEVIN A. 2006. Methodologies and Algorithms for Group-Rankings Decision. Management Science, 52(9): 1394-1408.) |
RRP is mentioned in a group decision context. |
|
Saaty & Vargas (200696 SAATY TL & VARGAS LG. 2006. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: wash criteria should not be ignored. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 7(2): 180-188.) |
Similar to Liberatore & Nydick (200457 LIBERATORE MJ & NYDICK RL. 2004. Wash criteria and the analytic hierarchy process. Computers & Operations Research, 31(6): 889-892). |
|
Ramanathan (200676 RAMANATHAN R. 2006. Data envelopment analysis for weight derivation and aggregation in the Analytic hierarchy process. Computers & Operations Research , 33(5): 1289-1307.) |
AHP/DEA method. |
|
Ishizaka & Lusti (200647 ISHIZAKA A & LUSTI M. 2006. How to derive priorities in AHP: a comparative study. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 14(4): 387-400.) |
Evaluation of four AHP ratio scaling methods: the right eigenvalue method, the left eigenvalue method, the geometric mean and the mean of normalized values. |
|
Farkas (200727 FARKAS A. 2007. The analysis of the principal eigenvector of pairwise comparison matrices. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 4(2): 99-115.) |
Similar to Farkas et al. (199929 FARKAS A, RÓZSA P & STUBNYA E. 1999. Transitive matrices and their applications. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 302-303: 423-433.). |
|
Wang, Parkan & Luo (2007137 WANG Y-M, PARKAN C & LUO Y. 2007. A linear programming method for generating the most favorable weights from a pairwise comparison matrix. Computers & Operations Research, 35(12): 3918-3930.) |
DEAHP suffers from RRP. |
|
Lin et al. (200859 LIN J S-J, CHOU S-Y, CHOUHUANG WT & HSU CP. 2008. Note on “Wash criterion in analytic Hierarchy process”. European Journal of Operational Research, 185(1): 444-447.) |
RRP is not caused by non-discriminating criterion. |
|
Bana e Costa & Vansnick (20086 BANA E COSTA CA & VANSNICK J-C. 2008. A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 187: 1422-1428.) |
RRP is mentioned. |
|
Saaty & Sagir (200991 SAATY TL & SAGIR M. 2009. An essay on rank preservation and reversal. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 49: 1230-1243.) |
Preserve rank in all situations may be wrong. |
|
Wijnmalen & Wedley (2009a140 WIJNMALEN DJD & WEDLEY WC. 2009a. Correcting illegitimate rank reversals: proper adjustment of criteria weights prevent alleged AHP intransitivity. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis , 15(5-6): 135-141.) |
RRP is caused by the independence axiom. |
|
Wijnmalen & Wedley (2009b141 WIJNMALEN DJD & WEDLEY WC. 2009b. Nondiscriminating criteria in the AHP: removal and rank reversal. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis , 15(5-6): 143-149.) |
Similar to Liberatore & Nydick (200457 LIBERATORE MJ & NYDICK RL. 2004. Wash criteria and the analytic hierarchy process. Computers & Operations Research, 31(6): 889-892) and Saaty & Vargas (200696 SAATY TL & VARGAS LG. 2006. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: wash criteria should not be ignored. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 7(2): 180-188.). |
|
Zahir (2009146 ZAHIR S. 2009. Normalisation and rank reversals in the additive analytic hierarchy process: a new analysis. International Journal of Operational Research, 4(4): 446-467.) |
RRP is caused by the aggregation rule. |
|
Jung et al. (200949 JUNG S-T, WOU Y-W, LI S-P & JULIAN P. 2009. A revisit to wash criteria in analytic Hierarchy Process. Far East Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 34(1): 31-36.) |
How avoid RRP from non-discriminating criterion criteria. |
|
Troutt, Tadisina & Pendharkar (2009125 TROUTT MD, TADISINA SK & PENDHARKAR PC. 2009. Value functions and trade-offs associated with the analytic hierarchy process composition law. International Journal of Mathematics in Operational Research, 1(1-2): 97-120.) |
The number of alternatives being compared in the AHP is the main cause of rank reversal. |
|
Ramanathan & Ramanathan (201177 RAMANATHAN U & RAMANATHAN R. 2011. An investigation into rank reversal properties of the multiplicative AHP. International Journal of Operational Research, 11(1): 54-77.) |
Relation between the Multiplicative AHP and the RRP. |
|
Ishizaka & Labib (201146 ISHIZAKA A & LABIB A. 2011. Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(11): 14336-14345.) |
RRP is mentioned. |
|
Jan et al. (201148 JAN KH, TUNG C-T & DENG P. 2011. Rank reversal problem related to wash criterion in Analytic hierarchy process (AHP). African Journal of Business Management, 5(20): 8301-8306.) |
Relation between the non-discriminating criterion and the RRP. |
|
Mirhedayatian & Farzipoor Saen (201165 MIRHEDAYATIAN SM & FARZIPOOR SAEN R. 2011. A new approach for weight derivation using data envelopment analysis in the analytic hierarchy process. The Journal of the Operational Research Society , 62(8): 1585-1595.) |
Revised DEAHP does not suffer from RRP. |
|
Wang & Luo (2012136 WANG Y-M & LUO Y. 2012. A note on “A new approach for weight derivation using data envelopment analysis in the analytic hierarchy process”. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 56(3-4): 49-55.) |
Revised DEAHP suffers from RRP. |
|
Maleki & Zahir (201363 MALEKI H & ZAHIR S. 2013. A Comprehensive Literature Review of the Rank Reversal Phenomenon in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis , 20(3-4): 141-155.) |
RRP literature review on AHP method. |
|
Kulakowski (201552 KULAKOWSKI K. 2015. Notes on order preservation and consistency in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 245(1): 333-337.) |
Order preservation and consistency in AHP method. |
|
Yaraghi et al. (2015144 YARAGHI N, TABESH P, GUAN P & ZHUANG J. 2015. Comparison of AHP and Monte Carlo AHP Under Different Levels of Uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 62(1): 122-132.) |
RRP is mentioned. |
TOPSIS |
Ren et al. (200778 REN L, ZHANG Y, WANG Y & SUN Z. 2007. Comparative Analysis of a Novel M-TOPSIS Method and TOPSIS. Applied Mathematics Research eXpress.) |
M-TOPSIS method. |
|
Kong (201151 KONG F. 2011. Rank Reversal and Rank Preservation in TOPSIS. Advanced Materials Research, 204-210: 36-41.) |
New normalization procedure, new PIS/NIS obtaining method. |
|
García-Cascales & Lamata (201236 GARCÍA-CASCALES MS & LAMATA MT. 2012. On rank reversal and TOPSIS method. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 56: 123-132.) |
Presentation of a new normalization and a new PIS/NIS calculation procedure for the TOPSIS. |
ELECTRE |
Wang & Triantaphyllou (2008133 WANG X & TRIANTAPHYLLOU E. 2008. Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods. Omega , 36(1): 45-63.) |
Evaluation of ELECTRE II e ELECTRE III regarding to the RRP. |
|
Figueira & Roy (200931 FIGUEIRA JR & ROY B. 2009. A note on the paper, “Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods”, by Wang and Triantaphyllou. Omega, 37(3): 731-733.) |
Relation between the RRP and ELECTRE methods. |
|
Figueira et al. (201330 FIGUEIRA JR, GRECO S, ROY B & SLOWINSKI R. 2013. An Overview of ELECTRE Methods and their Recent Extensions. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 20(1-2): 61-85.) |
Similar to Figueira & Roy (200931 FIGUEIRA JR & ROY B. 2009. A note on the paper, “Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods”, by Wang and Triantaphyllou. Omega, 37(3): 731-733.). |
PROMETHEE |
De Keyser & Peeters (199622 DE KEYSER W & PEETERS P. 1996. A note on the use of PROMETHEE multicriteria methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 89(3): 457-461.) |
RRP is mentioned. |
|
Vetschera & Almeida (2012130 VETSCHERA R & ALMEIDA AT. 2012. A PROMETHEE-based approach to portfolio selection problems. Computers & Operations Research, 39(5): 1010-1020) |
RRP is mentioned. |
|
Verly & De Smet (2013129 VERLY C & DE SMET Y. 2013. Some results about rank reversal instances in the PROMETHEE methods. International Journal of Multicriteria Decision Making , 3(4): 325-345.) |
Evaluation of PROMETHEE I and PROMETHEE II regarding to the RRP. |
|
Brans (201515 BRANS J-P. 2015. The PROMETHEE adventure. International Journal of Multicriteria Decision Making, 5(4): 297-308.) |
RRP is mentioned. |
OTHERS |
Gomes (199037 GOMES LFAM. 1990. Eliminating rank reversal in multicriteria analysis of urban transportation system alternatives. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 24(2): 181-184.) |
Relation between the RRP and TODIM method. |
|
Olson et al. (1995a68 OLSON DL, FLIEDNER G & CURRIE K. 1995a. Comparison of the REMBRANDT system with Analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research , 82(3): 522-539.) |
RRP is avoided through the use of REMBRANDT method. |
|
Maleki & Saadat (201362 MALEKI H & SAADAT Y. 2013. Comparison of failure mode and effects analysis by using AHP vs. REMBRANDT system. International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering , 14(1): 5-19.) |
Similar to Olson et al. (1995a68 OLSON DL, FLIEDNER G & CURRIE K. 1995a. Comparison of the REMBRANDT system with Analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research , 82(3): 522-539.). |
|
Salo & Punkka (2011100 SALO A & PUNKKA A. 2011. Ranking Intervals and Dominance Relations for Ratio-Based Efficiency Analysis. Management Science, 57(1): 200-214.) |
RRP is mentioned in DEA. |
|
Soltanifar & Shahghobadi (2014108 SOLTANIFAR M & SHAHGHOBADI S. 2014. Survey on rank preservation and rank reversal in data envelopment analysis. Knowledge-Based Systems, 60: 10-19.) |
RRP in DEA methods. |
|
Rodríguez et al. (201379 RODRÍGUEZ A, ORTEGA F & CONCEPCIÓN R. 2013. A method for the selection of customized equipment suppliers. Expert Systems with Applications , 40(4): 1170-1176.) |
RRP in FUZZY-AHP-TOPSIS. |
|
Lima Junior et al. (201458 LIMA JUNIOR FR, OSIRO L & CARPINETTI LCR. 2014. A comparison between Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS methods to supplier selection. Applied Soft Computing, 21: 194-209.) |
Exploration of the FUZZY-AHP and FUZZY-TOPSIS regarding to the RRP in a specific context. |
|
Bulut, Duru & Koçak (201518 BULUT E, DURU O & KOÇAK G. 2015. Rotational priority investigation in fuzzy analytic hierarchy process design: An empirical study on the marine engine selection problem. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 39(2): 913-923.) |
RRP is mentioned in FUZZY-AHP. |
|
Bottero & Ferretti (201114 BOTTERO M & FERRETTI V. 2011. An analytic network process-based approach for location problems: the case of a new waste incinerator plant in the Province of Torino (Italy). Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 17(3-4): 63-84.) |
Propose the ANP?BOCR method. |
|
Hou (201243 HOU F. 2012. Rank Preserved Aggregation Rules and Application to Reliability Allocation. Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods, 41(21): 3831-3845.) |
FRP-AHP method. |
|
Pankratova & Nedashkovskay (201471 PANKRATOVA ND & NEDASHKOVSKAY NI. 2014. Hybrid Method of Multicriteria Evaluation of Decision Alternatives. Cybernetics and Systems Analysis, 50(5): 701-711.) |
Propose the MEDM method. |
|
Salabun (201597 SALABUN W. 2015. The Characteristic Objects Method: A New Distance-based Approach to Multicriteria Decision-making Problems. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis , 22(1-2): 37-50.) |
Propose the COMET method. |
|
Bairagi et al. (20155 BAIRAGI B, DEY B, SARKAR B & SANYAL SK. 2015. A De Novo multi-approaches multicriteria decision making technique with an application in performance evaluation of material handling device. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 87: 267-282.) |
Propose the TPOP method. |
|
Iç (201445 IÇ YT. 2014. A TOPSIS based design of experiment approach to assess company ranking. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 227: 630-647.) |
Propose the DOE-TOPSIS method. |
|
Morton (201566 MORTON A. 2015. Measurement issues in the evaluation of projects in a project portfolio. European Journal of Operational Research , 245(3): 789-796.) |
Criticizes of the way of using value functions in the evaluation of portfolio project’s by showing it can lead to a rank reversal. |
|
Tomashevskii (2015116 TOMASHEVSKII IL. 2015. Eigenvector ranking method as a measuring tool: Formulas for errors. European Journal of Operational Research , 240(3): 774-780.) |
RRP is caused by the inaccuracy of the measurement scale and by the inconsistent judgements of experts. |
|
Dede et al. (201523 DEDE G, KAMALAKIS T & SPHICOPOULOS T. 2015. Convergence properties and practical estimation of the probability of rank reversal in pairwise comparisons for multicriteria decision making problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 241(2): 458-468.) |
Evaluation of probability ocorrence of the RRP in the context of pairwise comparisons. |
|
Buede & Maxwell (199517 BUEDE DM & MAXWELL DT. 1995. Rank disagreement: A comparison of multi-criteria methodologies. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 4(1): 1-21.) |
Examination of the frequency and magnitude of the RRP in four different methods. |
|
Zanakis et al. (1998147 ZANAKIS SH, SOLOMON A, WISHART N & DUBLISH S. 1998. Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods. European Journal of Operational Research , 107(3): 507-529.) |
Evaluation of eight methods regarding to the RRP. |
|
Wang & Luo (2009135 WANG Y-M & LUO Y. 2009. On rank reversal in decision analysis. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 49(5-6): 1221-1229.) |
Demonstration of the RRP in four different methods. |
|
Cinelli et al. (201419 CINELLI M, COLES SR & KIRWAN K. 2014. Analysis of the potentials of multi criteria decision analysis methods to conduct sustainability assessment. Ecological Indicators, 4: 138-148.) |
Occurrence of the RRP in five different methods in a context of conduct sustainability assessment. |