Paper detail

Inconsistency thresholds for incomplete pairwise comparison matrices

Pairwise comparison matrices are increasingly used in settings where some pairs are missing. However, there exist few inconsistency indices for similar incomplete data sets and no reasonable measure has an associated threshold. This paper generalises the famous rule of thumb for the acceptable level of inconsistency, proposed by Saaty, to incomplete pairwise comparison matrices. The extension is based on choosing the missing elements such that the maximal eigenvalue of the incomplete matrix is minimised. Consequently, the well-established values of the random index cannot be adopted: the inconsistency of random matrices is found to be the function of matrix size and the number of missing elements, with a nearly linear dependence in the case of the latter variable. Our results can be directly built into decision-making software and used by practitioners as a statistical criterion for accepting or rejecting an incomplete pairwise comparison matrix.

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.