Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
139 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
46 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Detection of decision-making manipulation in the pairwise comparisons method (2405.16693v1)

Published 26 May 2024 in cs.AI and cs.DM

Abstract: Most decision-making models, including the pairwise comparison method, assume the decision-makers honesty. However, it is easy to imagine a situation where a decision-maker tries to manipulate the ranking results. This paper presents three simple manipulation methods in the pairwise comparison method. We then try to detect these methods using appropriately constructed neural networks. Experimental results accompany the proposed solutions on the generated data, showing a considerable manipulation detection level.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (41)
  1. J. Aguarón and J. M. Moreno-Jiménez. The geometric consistency index: Approximated thresholds. European Journal of Operational Research, 147(1):137 – 145, 2003.
  2. Mehmet Bac. Corruption, connections and transparency: Does a better screen imply a better scene? Public Choice, 107(1):87–96, Apr 2001.
  3. Advanced Lectures on Machine Learning. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2004.
  4. S. Bozóki and T. Rapcsák. On Saaty’s and Koczkodaj’s inconsistencies of pairwise comparison matrices. Journal of Global Optimization, 42(2):157–175, 2008.
  5. Handbook of Computational Social Choice. Cambridge University Press, March 2016.
  6. M. Brunelli. A survey of inconsistency indices for pairwise comparisons. International Journal of General Systems, 47(8):751–771, September 2018.
  7. M. Brunelli and B. Cavallo. Distance-based measures of incoherence for pairwise comparisons. Knowledge-Based Systems, 187(xxxx), 2020. Publisher: Elsevier B.V.
  8. M. Brunelli and M. Fedrizzi. Axiomatic properties of inconsistency indices for pairwise comparisons. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 66(1):1–15, Jan 2015.
  9. A common framework for deriving preference values from pairwise comparison matrices. Computers and Operations Research, 31(6):893 – 908, 2004.
  10. R. Crawford and C. Williams. A note on the analysis of subjective judgement matrices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 29:387 – 405, 1985.
  11. L. Csató. Axiomatizations of inconsistency indices for triads. Annals of Operations Research, 280(1):99–110, September 2019.
  12. L. Csató and D. G. Petróczy. On the monotonicity of the eigenvector method. European Journal of Operational Research, 2020.
  13. Li Deng. The mnist database of handwritten digit images for machine learning research [best of the web]. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 29(6):141–142, November 2012.
  14. Consensus Reaching and Strategic Manipulation in Group Decision Making With Trust Relationships. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 51(10):6304–6318, October 2021.
  15. Llull and Copeland Voting Computationally Resist Bribery and Constructive Control. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR), 35:275–341, 2009.
  16. Group decision making in a corruption experiment: China and germany compared. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, 235(2):207–227, 2015.
  17. Tadayoshi Fushiki. Estimation of prediction error by using k-fold cross-validation. Statistics and Computing, 21(2):137–146, October 2009.
  18. A. Geron. Hands-on machine learning with scikit-learn, keras, and TensorFlow. O’Reilly Media, Sebastopol, CA, 2 edition, October 2019.
  19. Corruption in organizations: Ethical climate and individual motives, 2018.
  20. P. T. Harker. Alternative modes of questioning in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical Modelling, 9(3):353 – 360, 1987.
  21. A stochastic multi-criteria divisive hierarchical clustering algorithm. Omega, 103:102370, Sep 2021.
  22. P. T. Kazibudzki. On estimation of priority vectors derived from inconsistent pairwise comparison matrices. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computational Mechanics, 21(4):52–59, 2022.
  23. How to reduce the number of rating scale items without predictability loss? Scientometrics, 111(2):581–593, 2017.
  24. W. W. Koczkodaj and M. Orlowski. An orthogonal basis for computing a consistent approximation to a pairwise comparisons matrix. Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 34(10):41–47, 1997.
  25. W. W. Koczkodaj and R. Urban. Axiomatization of inconsistency indicators for pairwise comparisons. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 94:18–29, March 2018.
  26. K. Kontek and H. Sosnowska. Specific tastes or cliques of jurors? how to reduce the level of manipulation in group decisions? Group Decision and Negotiation, 29(6):1057–1084, Dec 2020.
  27. G. Kou and C. Lin. A cosine maximization method for the priority vector derivation in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 235(1):225–232, May 2014.
  28. K. Kułakowski. On the properties of the priority deriving procedure in the pairwise comparisons method. Fundamenta Informaticae, 139(4):403 – 419, July 2015.
  29. K. Kułakowski. On the geometric mean method for incomplete pairwise comparisons. Mathematics, 8(11):1–12, October 2020.
  30. K. Kułakowski. Understanding the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Chapman and Hall / CRC Press, 2020.
  31. Heuristic rating estimation: geometric approach. Journal of Global Optimization, 62(3):529–543, 2015.
  32. Resilient heuristic aggregation of judgments in the pairwise comparisons method. Information Sciences, 657:119979, 2024.
  33. Towards quantification of incompleteness in the pairwise comparisons methods. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 115:221–234, October 2019.
  34. New approximations for coalitional manipulation in general scoring rules. JAIR, 64:109–145, 2019.
  35. Analyzing the robustness of decision strategies in multiagent decision making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 23(6):1403–1416, Nov 2014.
  36. Artificial intelligence: A Modern Approach. Pearson Education Inc., 4th edition, 2020.
  37. T. L. Saaty. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3):234 – 281, 1977.
  38. T. L. Saaty. Decision making — the Analytic Hierarchy and Network Processes (AHP/ANP). Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 13(1):1–35, 2004.
  39. A. L. Samuel. Some studies in machine learning using the game of checkers. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 3(3):210–229, July 1959.
  40. M. Strada and K. Kułakowski. Manipulation of individual judgments in the quantitative pairwise comparisons method. 2022.
  41. Almost optimal manipulation of pairwise comparisons of alternatives. Journal of Global Optimization, 2024.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now