Research ArticleOpen AccessGoogle Scholar indexed
Estimation of Sensitivity of the DS/AHP Method While Solving Foresight Problems with Incomplete Data
Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, National Technical University of Ukraine “Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”, Kyiv, Ukraine
Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, National Technical University of Ukraine “Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”, Kyiv, Ukraine
- 1 Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, National Technical University of Ukraine “Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”, Kyiv, Ukraine
- 2 Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, National Technical University of Ukraine “Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”, Kyiv, Ukraine
Intelligent Control and Automation·Volume 04 (2013)·Pages 80–86·Published 5 February 2013·DOI10.4236/ica.2013.41011
Copy link · social · email
Abstract
The paper provides mathematical analysis of sensitivity of different combination rules in the DS/AHP method when an alternative is added to the set of decision alternatives while solving foresight problems. Different cases of rank reversals are defined and two sets of conditions for these cases using the method DS/AHP are considered. Rank reversals are il lustrated when the DS/AHP method is used to solve practical problem of critical technologies of energy conservation and power efficiency evaluation in Ukraine. It is shown that the DS/AHP method is not sensitive to exclusion (or addi tion) of an irrelevant decision alternative from (or to) the set of decision alternatives.
KeywordsAnalytic Hierarchy ProcessDempster-Shafer TheoryIncomplete Expert InformationMultiple Criteria AnalysisCombination RulesRank ReversalForesight Problems
- M. Z. Zgurovsky and N. D. Pankratova, “System Analysis: Theory and Applications,” Springer, Berlin, 2007.
- T. L. Saaty, “The Analytic Hierarchy Process,” McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.
- T. L. Saaty, “Theory of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Part 2.1,” System Research & Information Technologies, No. 1, 2003, pp. 48-72.
- T. L. Saaty, “Theory of the Analytic Hierarchy and Analytic Network Processes—Examples, Part 2.2,” System Research & Information Technologies, No. 2, 2003, pp. 7-34.
- T. L. Saaty, “The Analytic Network Process, Examples, Part 2.3,” System Research & Information Technologies, No. 4, 2003, pp. 7-23.
- N. D. Pankratova and N. I. Nedashkovskaya, “Method for Processing Fuzzy Expert Information in Prediction Problems. Part I,” Journal of Automation and Information Sciences, Vol. 39, No. 3, 2007, pp. 22-36. doi:10.1615/JAutomatInfScien.v39.i4.30
- N. D. Pankratova and N. I. Nedashkovskaya, “Method for Processing Fuzzy Expert Information in Prediction Problems. Part II,” Journal of Automation and Information Sciences, Vol. 39, No. 6, 2007, pp. 30-44. doi:10.1615/JAutomatInfScien.v39.i6.20
- M. J. Beynon, B. Curry and P. H. Morgan, “The Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence: An Alternative Approach to Multicriteria Decision Modeling,” Omega, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2000, pp. 37-50. doi:10.1016/S0305-0483(99)00033-X
- M. J. Beynon, “DS/AHP Method: A Mathematical Analysis, Including an Understanding of Uncertainty,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 140, No. 1, 2002, pp. 148-164. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00230-2
- G. Shafer, “A Mathematical Theory of Evidence,” Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1976.
- J. Barzilai and F. A. Lootsma, “Power Relations and Group Aggregation in Multiplicative AHP and SMART,” Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on the AHP, Washington DC, 1994, pp.157-168.
- V. Belton and T. Gear, “On a Shortcoming of Saaty’s Method of Analytic Hierarchies,” Omega, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1983, pp. 228-230. doi:10.1016/0305-0483(83)90047-6
- J. S. Dyer, “Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process,” Management Science, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1990, pp. 249-258. doi:10.1287/mnsc.36.3.249
- E. Triantaphyllou, “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, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2001, pp. 11-25. doi:10.1002/mcda.284