A Differential Evolution-Based Consistency Improvement Method in AHP With an Optimal Allocation of Information Granularity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), the reciprocal matrix is generated based on the pairwise comparisons completed among all the alternatives or attributes under consideration. To ensure reliability and validity of the decision solution, a certain modification of entries of the matrix is usually needed to improve the consistency of the reciprocal matrix. This study aims to present a consistency improvement method by admitting some level of information granularity in the evaluation process. This gives rise to a granular rather than numeric matrix of pairwise comparisons. First, with a given average level of information granularity, we present an optimal granularity model that is characterized by maximal consistency. One can maximize the consistency degree by invoking a process of allocation of information granularity across the corresponding modifications of the reciprocal matrix. Based on the optimal granularity model, an interactive consistency improvement process is presented with the involvement of the decision maker. Then, an adaptive differential evolution algorithm is applied to optimize entries of the modified reciprocal matrix. Detailed experiments along with a thorough comparative analysis are completed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".