The aim of the sparse analytic hierarchy process (SAHP) problem is to rank a set of alternatives based on their utility/importance; this task is accomplished by asking human decision-makers to compare selected pairs of alternatives and to specify relative preference information, in the form of ratios of utilities. However, such an information is often affected by subjective biases or inconsistencies. Moreover, there is no general consent on the best approach to accomplish this task, and in the literature several techniques have been proposed. Finally, when more than one decision-maker is involved in the process, there is a need to provide adequate methodologies to aggregate the available information. In this view, the contribution of this paper to the SAHP body of knowledge is twofold. From one side, it develops a novel methodology to aggregate sparse data given by multiple sources of information. From another side, the paper undertakes an experimental validation of the most popular techniques to solve the SAHP problem, discussing the strength points and shortcomings of the different methodology with respect to a real case study.
Analytic hierarchy process Sparse information Decision-making
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Achlioptas D, Molloy M, Moore C, Van Bussel F (2005) Rapid mixing for lattice colourings with fewer colours. J Stat Mech Theory Exp 2005(10):P10012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bessi A, Coletto M, Davidescu GA, Scala A, Caldarelli G, Quattrociocchi W (2015) Science vs conspiracy: collective narratives in the age of misinformation. PLoS ONE 10(2):e0118093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bozóki S, Tsyganok V (2017) The logarithmic least squares optimality of the geometric mean of weight vectors calculated from all spanning trees for (in) complete pairwise comparison matrices. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.04265
Carmone FJ, Kara A, Zanakis SH (1997) A monte carlo investigation of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices in AHP. Eur J Oper Res 102(3):538–553CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
Chen C-T (2000) Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 114(1):1–9CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
Chen S-J, Hwang C-L, Hwang FP (2011) Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making (methods and applications). Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systemsGoogle Scholar
Crawford GB (1987) The geometric mean procedure for estimating the scale of a judgement matrix. Math Model 9(3–5):327–334CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar