MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1497606539 · doi:10.3233/fi-2015-1184

Fast Convergence of Distance-based Inconsistency in Pairwise Comparisons

2015· article· en· W1497606539 on OpenAlexaff
Waldemar W. Koczkodaj, Marek Kosiek, Jacek Szybowski, Xu Ding

Bibliographic record

VenueFundamenta Informaticae · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPairwise comparisonConvergence (economics)MathematicsAlgorithmComputer scienceStatisticsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents theoretical proof and empirical evidence of the reduction algorithm convergence for the distance-based inconsistency in pairwise comparisons. Our empirical research shows that the convergence very quick. It usually takes less than 10 reductions to bring the inconsistency of the pairwise comparisons matrix below the assumed threshold of 1/3 (sufficient for most applications). We believe that this is the first Monte Carlo study demonstrating such results for the convergence speed of inconsistency reduction in pairwise comparisons.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.306
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.306
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.339
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.096 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFundamenta InformaticaeSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207