Noisy Nonreciprocal Pairwise Comparisons: Scale Variation, Noise Calibration, and Admissible Ranking Regions

Jean-Pierre Magnot

arxiv: 2604.04588 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-06 · 📊 stat.ML · cs.IT· cs.LG· math.IT· math.OC· math.ST· stat.TH

Noisy Nonreciprocal Pairwise Comparisons: Scale Variation, Noise Calibration, and Admissible Ranking Regions

Jean-Pierre Magnot This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 19:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📊 stat.ML cs.ITcs.LGmath.ITmath.OCmath.STstat.TH

keywords pairwise comparisonsnonreciprocityscale variationnoise estimationranking regionsconsistent matricesGaussian perturbationdecision analysis

0 comments

The pith

Nonreciprocal pairwise comparisons can be decomposed into a consistent base matrix with reciprocal ranking information plus symmetric scale variation, then surrounded by Gaussian noise to estimate error levels and rank probabilities.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Pairwise comparison matrices in decision problems frequently violate reciprocity, where one judgment does not match the inverse of the other. The paper treats this violation as the sum of genuine scale differences in how alternatives are evaluated and random perturbations. It builds an additive model around a consistent but non-reciprocal underlying matrix, separating the reciprocal component that determines global order from the symmetric component that captures scale shifts. Gaussian noise is then superimposed, enabling explicit estimators for the noise magnitude, a check on whether scale variation stays moderate, and probability assignments over regions of admissible strict rankings. The method is contrasted with immediate projection onto reciprocal matrices, which erases the symmetric scale information entirely.

Core claim

The central claim is that an unknown comparison matrix that is consistent yet non-reciprocal can be written as the sum of its reciprocal part (encoding the global ranking) and its symmetric part (encoding scale variation), with observed entries obtained by adding Gaussian random perturbations; under this structure, the noise level can be estimated, the moderation of scale variation can be assessed, and probabilities can be assigned to the admissible ranking regions defined by strict pairwise orderings.

What carries the argument

Additive decomposition of the underlying consistent matrix into reciprocal (ranking) and symmetric (scale-variation) components, followed by Gaussian perturbation around the result.

If this is right

Explicit estimators for the noise level follow directly from the Gaussian assumption.
A quantitative assessment determines whether the symmetric scale-variation component remains moderate.
Probabilities are obtained for each admissible region of strict rankings consistent with the observed noisy matrix.
The decomposition retains scale information that is lost when matrices are projected onto reciprocal forms.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same decomposition could be applied to repeated judgment collections to track how scale variation evolves over time or across groups.
If the Gaussian assumption is relaxed to other symmetric distributions with known moments, similar calibration procedures might still be derived.
The admissible ranking regions could serve as inputs to downstream optimization routines that select decisions robust to the remaining uncertainty.

Load-bearing premise

The true underlying comparison values form a consistent matrix that admits a decomposition into reciprocal and symmetric parts.

What would settle it

Repeated experiments in which the residuals after fitting the reciprocal-plus-symmetric model show systematic non-Gaussian patterns or in which the estimated symmetric component grows without bound relative to the reciprocal component would indicate the model does not capture the data.

read the original abstract

Pairwise comparisons are widely used in decision analysis, preference modeling, and evaluation problems. In many practical situations, the observed comparison matrix is not reciprocal. This lack of reciprocity is often treated as a defect to be corrected immediately. In this article, we adopt a different point of view: part of the nonreciprocity may reflect a genuine variation in the evaluation scale, while another part is due to random perturbations. We introduce an additive model in which the unknown underlying comparison matrix is consistent but not necessarily reciprocal. The reciprocal component carries the global ranking information, whereas the symmetric component describes possible scale variation. Around this structured matrix, we add a random perturbation and show how to estimate the noise level, assess whether the scale variation remains moderate, and assign probabilities to admissible ranking regions in the sense of strict ranking by pairwise comparisons. We also compare this approach with the brutal projection onto reciprocal matrices, which suppresses all symmetric information at once. The Gaussian perturbation model is used here not because human decisions are exactly Gaussian, but because observed judgment errors often result from the accumulation of many small effects. In such a context, the central limit principle provides a natural heuristic justification for Gaussian noise. This makes it possible to derive explicit estimators and probability assessments while keeping the model interpretable for decision problems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper decomposes nonreciprocal pairwise matrices into a reciprocal ranking part, a symmetric scale-variation part, and Gaussian noise, then derives noise estimators and probabilities over admissible strict rankings.

read the letter

The main point is that this work treats nonreciprocity in pairwise comparisons as partly informative instead of something to erase right away. It assumes an underlying consistent matrix that splits into a reciprocal component carrying the global ranking and a symmetric component for scale differences, then adds Gaussian noise. From this structure it gives explicit estimators for the noise level, a way to check if scale variation stays moderate, and probabilities assigned to different admissible ranking regions. It also contrasts the approach with simple projection onto reciprocal matrices, which discards the symmetric information outright. The Gaussian choice is presented as a central-limit heuristic rather than a claim about human judgment being exactly normal. What is new here is the explicit additive decomposition together with the derived probability assessments over ranking regions; standard reciprocal-projection methods do not separate the components this way or produce those probabilities. The model stays interpretable for decision-analysis settings, which is a practical strength. The derivations are claimed to be closed-form, which would make the estimators usable without heavy computation. The soft spots are that the abstract gives no derivation steps, error analysis, or any validation data or simulations, so the reliability of the noise estimator and region probabilities cannot be checked from what is shown. The Gaussian assumption rests on a heuristic without reported tests against real judgment data, and the claim that the underlying matrix is consistent but non-reciprocal is taken as given rather than tested. This is a niche paper for researchers in preference modeling and multi-criteria decision analysis who routinely handle nonreciprocal data and want an alternative to forced reciprocity. Readers working on ranking from pairwise comparisons will see a concrete framework with math behind it. The work has enough structure and novelty to deserve a serious referee, though it will probably need added empirical checks and full derivations in review.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an additive decomposition for nonreciprocal pairwise comparison matrices: an underlying consistent (but non-reciprocal) matrix is split into a reciprocal component that encodes global ranking information and a symmetric component that captures scale variation; Gaussian noise is then added. From this structure the authors derive explicit estimators for the noise level, a diagnostic for whether scale variation remains moderate, and probabilities over admissible strict-ranking regions (defined via pairwise comparisons). The approach is contrasted with the conventional projection onto reciprocal matrices, which discards all symmetric information.

Significance. If the derivations hold, the framework supplies a statistically interpretable way to treat nonreciprocity as a mixture of genuine scale variation and random error rather than as a defect to be removed. The closed-form estimators and region probabilities could improve ranking reliability in decision-analysis and preference-modeling applications where observed matrices are routinely nonreciprocal. The Gaussian modeling choice is explicitly justified by a central-limit heuristic, which keeps the results tractable.

minor comments (3)

The abstract states that explicit estimators and probability assessments are derived, yet the main text would benefit from a short roadmap (one paragraph) immediately after the model definition that lists the key equations and the section in which each is obtained.
Notation for the reciprocal and symmetric components (e.g., how the decomposition is written) should be introduced once and used consistently; occasional re-use of the same symbols for the observed noisy matrix creates minor ambiguity.
The comparison with brutal projection onto reciprocal matrices is conceptually clear, but a small numerical example (even a 3×3 matrix) illustrating the difference in the resulting ranking probabilities would make the practical distinction more concrete.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive summary of our manuscript and the recommendation for minor revision. The referee accurately captures the additive decomposition separating reciprocal ranking information from symmetric scale variation, the derivation of noise estimators, the diagnostic for moderate scale variation, and the probabilities over admissible ranking regions, as well as the contrast with projection onto reciprocal matrices and the central-limit justification for Gaussian noise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivations are model-driven and self-contained

full rationale

The paper defines an additive model decomposing a consistent non-reciprocal matrix into reciprocal (ranking) and symmetric (scale) parts, then superimposes Gaussian noise. From this structure it derives explicit estimators for noise level, a scale-variation check, and probabilities over admissible ranking regions. These steps follow standard statistical derivations from the stated model assumptions and do not reduce to self-definition, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. The central claims remain independent of the target outputs and are externally falsifiable via the Gaussian model. No circular reduction is exhibited by the paper's own equations or citations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model rests on an additive decomposition whose components are postulated rather than derived from first principles; Gaussian noise is justified heuristically by central-limit accumulation of small effects.

free parameters (1)

noise variance
Estimated from data but treated as unknown parameter in the model; its value directly affects the probability assignments to ranking regions.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Underlying comparison matrix is consistent (transitive) but not necessarily reciprocal.
Invoked to separate ranking information into the reciprocal component.
domain assumption Perturbation is additive Gaussian.
Justified by central-limit heuristic for accumulated small judgment errors.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5546 in / 1312 out tokens · 31422 ms · 2026-05-10T19:34:28.404077+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

[1]

A., & Lamata, M

Alonso, J. A., & Lamata, M. T. (2005). A statistical criterion of consistency in the analytic hierarchy process. InModeling Decisions for Artificial Intelligence(Lecture Notes in Com- puter Science, Vol. 3558, pp. 67–76). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.https://doi.org/10. 1007/11526018_8 Bozóki, S., Dezső, L., Poesz, A., & Temesi, J. (2013). Analysis of pai...

work page doi:10.1007/s10479-013-1328-1 2005
[2]

A., & Terry, M

Bradley, R. A., & Terry, M. E. (1952). Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. The method of paired comparisons.Biometrika, 39(3–4), 324–345.https://doi.org/10.1093/ biomet/39.3-4.324

work page 1952
[3]

Brunelli, M. (2018). A survey of inconsistency indices for pairwise comparisons.International Journal of General Systems, 47(8), 751–771.https://doi.org/10.1080/03081079.2018. 1523156

work page doi:10.1080/03081079.2018 2018
[4]

Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis.Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3), 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(85)90090-9

work page doi:10.1016/0165-0114(85)90090-9 1985
[5]

N., Lahdelma, R., & Salminen, P

Durbach, I. N., Lahdelma, R., & Salminen, P. (2014). The analytic hierarchy process with stochastic judgements.European Journal of Operational Research, 238(2), 552–559.https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.03.045

work page doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2014.03.045 2014
[6]

Ellingsen, A., Lundholm, D., & Magnot, J.-P. (2024). The six blind men and the elephant: An interdisciplinary selection of measurement features. In P. Kielanowski, D. Beltiţă, A. Dobrogowska, & T. Goliński (Eds.),Geometric Methods in Physics XL: Workshop, Bi- ałowieża, Poland, 2023(pp. 275–307). Birkhäuser, Cham.https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-031-62407-0_...

work page 2024
[7]

Fan, Z.-P., Liu, Y., & Feng, B. (2010). A method for stochastic multiple criteria decision making based on pairwise comparisons of alternatives with random evaluations.European Journal of Operational Research, 207(2), 906–915.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor. 2010.05.032

work page doi:10.1016/j.ejor 2010
[8]

Farkas, A., &Rózsa, P.(2001).Dataperturbationsofmatricesofpairwisecomparisons.Annals of Operations Research, 101, 401–425.https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010986321720

work page doi:10.1023/a:1010986321720 2001
[9]

Forman, E. H. (1990). Random indices for incomplete pairwise comparison matrices.Eu- ropean Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 153–155.https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0377-2217(90)90072-J

work page 1990
[10]

Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Chiclana, F. (2001). Multiperson decision-making based on multiplicative preference relations.European Journal of Operational Research, 129(2), 372–385.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00197-6

work page doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(99)00197-6 2001
[11]

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00725-7

Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F., Chiclana, F., &Luque, M.(2004).Someissuesonconsistency of fuzzy preference relations.European Journal of Operational Research, 154(1), 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00725-7

work page doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(02)00725-7 2004
[12]

Herrera-Viedma, E., Chiclana, F., Herrera, F., & Alonso, S. (2007). Group decision-making model with incomplete fuzzy preference relations based on additive consistency.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics, 37(1), 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCB.2006.875872

work page doi:10.1109/tsmcb.2006.875872 2007
[13]

Hu, Y.-K., Liu, F., & Cai, Y.-R. (2024). Algebraic analysis of pairwise comparisons with non-reciprocal property.Information Sciences, 682, Article 121272.https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ins.2024.121272

work page arXiv 2024
[14]

Hughes, W. R. (2009). A statistical framework for strategic decision making with AHP: Prob- ability assessment and Bayesian revision.Omega, 37(2), 463–470.https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.omega.2007.07.002

work page 2009
[15]

Ishizaka, A., & Labib, A. (2011). Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process.Expert Systems with Applications, 38(11), 14336–14345.https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.eswa.2011.04.143

work page 2011
[16]

Masset, R

Jalao, E. R., Wu, T., & Shunk, D. (2014). A stochastic AHP decision making methodology for imprecise preferences.Information Sciences, 270, 192–203.https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ins.2014.02.077

work page doi:10.1016/j 2014
[17]

Koczkodaj, W. W. (1993). A new definition of consistency of pairwise comparisons.Mathemat- ical and Computer Modelling, 18(7), 79–84.https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-7177(93) 90059-8

work page doi:10.1016/0895-7177(93 1993
[18]

Linares, P., Lumbreras, S., Santamaría, A., & Veiga, A. (2016). How relevant is the lack of reciprocity in pairwise comparisons? An experiment with AHP.Annals of Operations Research, 245, 227–244.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-014-1767-3

work page doi:10.1007/s10479-014-1767-3 2016
[19]

Liu, F., Liu, T., & Hu, Y.-K. (2023). Reaching consensus in group decision making with non-reciprocal pairwise comparison matrices.Applied Intelligence, 53(10), 12888–12907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-022-04136-5

work page doi:10.1007/s10489-022-04136-5 2023
[20]

Liu, F., Qiu, M.-Y., & Zhang, W.-G. (2021). An uncertainty-induced axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process and its implication.Expert Systems with Applications, 183, Article 115427.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115427

work page doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115427 2021
[21]

Luce, R. D. (1959).Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. Wiley, New York. NON RECIPROCAL PCS WITH NOISE 35

work page 1959
[22]

Magnot, J.-P. (2019). On mathematical structures on pairwise comparisons matrices with coefficients in an abstract group arising from quantum gravity.Heliyon, 5(6), e01821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01821

work page doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01821 2019
[23]

Magnot, J.-P. (2024). On random pairwise comparisons matrices and their geometry.Journal of Applied Analysis, 30(2), 345–361.https://doi.org/10.1515/jaa-2023-0057

work page doi:10.1515/jaa-2023-0057 2024
[24]

Mazurek, J., & Linares, P. (2024). Some notes on non-reciprocal matrices in the multiplicative pairwise comparisons framework.Journal of the Operational Research Society, 75(5), 955– 966.https://doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2023.2223229

work page doi:10.1080/01605682.2023.2223229 2024
[25]

Nishizawa, K. (2019). Non-reciprocal pairwise comparisons and solution method in AHP. InIntelligent Decision Technologies 2018(Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, Vol. 97, pp. 158–165). Springer, Cham.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92028-3_ 16

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-92028-3_ 2019
[26]

Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures.Journal of Math- ematical Psychology, 15(3), 234–281.https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5

work page doi:10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5 1977
[27]

Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process.European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9–26.https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I

work page doi:10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-i 1990
[28]

Stam, A., & Duarte Silva, A. P. (1997). Stochastic judgments in the AHP: The measurement of rank reversal probabilities.Decision Sciences, 28(3), 655–688.https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01326.x

work page arXiv 1997
[29]

Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment.Psychological Review, 34(4), 273– 286.https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070288

work page doi:10.1037/h0070288 1927
[30]

Triantaphyllou, E., & Yanase, J. (2024). The use of pairwise comparisons for decision making may lead to grossly inaccurate results.Computers & Industrial Engineering, 198, Article 110653.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2024.110653 van den Honert, R. C. (1998). Stochastic group preference modelling in the multiplicative AHP: A model of group consensus.Europ...

work page doi:10.1016/j.cie.2024.110653 2024
[31]

An uncertainty-induced axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process and its implication

Wang, Z.-J., & Deng, S. (2023). Comments on “An uncertainty-induced axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process and its implication”.Expert Systems with Applications, 224, Article 119914.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.119914

work page doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2023.119914 2023
[32]

Xu, Y., Patnayakuni, R., & Wang, H. (2013). The ordinal consistency of a fuzzy preference relation.Information Sciences, 224, 152–164.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2012.10. 035

work page doi:10.1016/j.ins.2012.10 2013
[33]

Zhu, B., & Xu, Z. (2014). Stochastic preference analysis in numerical preference relations. European Journal of Operational Research, 237(2), 628–633.https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ejor.2014.01.068

work page 2014

[1] [1]

A., & Lamata, M

Alonso, J. A., & Lamata, M. T. (2005). A statistical criterion of consistency in the analytic hierarchy process. InModeling Decisions for Artificial Intelligence(Lecture Notes in Com- puter Science, Vol. 3558, pp. 67–76). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.https://doi.org/10. 1007/11526018_8 Bozóki, S., Dezső, L., Poesz, A., & Temesi, J. (2013). Analysis of pai...

work page doi:10.1007/s10479-013-1328-1 2005

[2] [2]

A., & Terry, M

Bradley, R. A., & Terry, M. E. (1952). Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. The method of paired comparisons.Biometrika, 39(3–4), 324–345.https://doi.org/10.1093/ biomet/39.3-4.324

work page 1952

[3] [3]

Brunelli, M. (2018). A survey of inconsistency indices for pairwise comparisons.International Journal of General Systems, 47(8), 751–771.https://doi.org/10.1080/03081079.2018. 1523156

work page doi:10.1080/03081079.2018 2018

[4] [4]

Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis.Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3), 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(85)90090-9

work page doi:10.1016/0165-0114(85)90090-9 1985

[5] [5]

N., Lahdelma, R., & Salminen, P

Durbach, I. N., Lahdelma, R., & Salminen, P. (2014). The analytic hierarchy process with stochastic judgements.European Journal of Operational Research, 238(2), 552–559.https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.03.045

work page doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2014.03.045 2014

[6] [6]

Ellingsen, A., Lundholm, D., & Magnot, J.-P. (2024). The six blind men and the elephant: An interdisciplinary selection of measurement features. In P. Kielanowski, D. Beltiţă, A. Dobrogowska, & T. Goliński (Eds.),Geometric Methods in Physics XL: Workshop, Bi- ałowieża, Poland, 2023(pp. 275–307). Birkhäuser, Cham.https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-031-62407-0_...

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Fan, Z.-P., Liu, Y., & Feng, B. (2010). A method for stochastic multiple criteria decision making based on pairwise comparisons of alternatives with random evaluations.European Journal of Operational Research, 207(2), 906–915.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor. 2010.05.032

work page doi:10.1016/j.ejor 2010

[8] [8]

Farkas, A., &Rózsa, P.(2001).Dataperturbationsofmatricesofpairwisecomparisons.Annals of Operations Research, 101, 401–425.https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010986321720

work page doi:10.1023/a:1010986321720 2001

[9] [9]

Forman, E. H. (1990). Random indices for incomplete pairwise comparison matrices.Eu- ropean Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 153–155.https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0377-2217(90)90072-J

work page 1990

[10] [10]

Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Chiclana, F. (2001). Multiperson decision-making based on multiplicative preference relations.European Journal of Operational Research, 129(2), 372–385.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00197-6

work page doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(99)00197-6 2001

[11] [11]

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00725-7

Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F., Chiclana, F., &Luque, M.(2004).Someissuesonconsistency of fuzzy preference relations.European Journal of Operational Research, 154(1), 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00725-7

work page doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(02)00725-7 2004

[12] [12]

Herrera-Viedma, E., Chiclana, F., Herrera, F., & Alonso, S. (2007). Group decision-making model with incomplete fuzzy preference relations based on additive consistency.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics, 37(1), 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCB.2006.875872

work page doi:10.1109/tsmcb.2006.875872 2007

[13] [13]

Hu, Y.-K., Liu, F., & Cai, Y.-R. (2024). Algebraic analysis of pairwise comparisons with non-reciprocal property.Information Sciences, 682, Article 121272.https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ins.2024.121272

work page arXiv 2024

[14] [14]

Hughes, W. R. (2009). A statistical framework for strategic decision making with AHP: Prob- ability assessment and Bayesian revision.Omega, 37(2), 463–470.https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.omega.2007.07.002

work page 2009

[15] [15]

Ishizaka, A., & Labib, A. (2011). Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process.Expert Systems with Applications, 38(11), 14336–14345.https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.eswa.2011.04.143

work page 2011

[16] [16]

Masset, R

Jalao, E. R., Wu, T., & Shunk, D. (2014). A stochastic AHP decision making methodology for imprecise preferences.Information Sciences, 270, 192–203.https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ins.2014.02.077

work page doi:10.1016/j 2014

[17] [17]

Koczkodaj, W. W. (1993). A new definition of consistency of pairwise comparisons.Mathemat- ical and Computer Modelling, 18(7), 79–84.https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-7177(93) 90059-8

work page doi:10.1016/0895-7177(93 1993

[18] [18]

Linares, P., Lumbreras, S., Santamaría, A., & Veiga, A. (2016). How relevant is the lack of reciprocity in pairwise comparisons? An experiment with AHP.Annals of Operations Research, 245, 227–244.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-014-1767-3

work page doi:10.1007/s10479-014-1767-3 2016

[19] [19]

Liu, F., Liu, T., & Hu, Y.-K. (2023). Reaching consensus in group decision making with non-reciprocal pairwise comparison matrices.Applied Intelligence, 53(10), 12888–12907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-022-04136-5

work page doi:10.1007/s10489-022-04136-5 2023

[20] [20]

Liu, F., Qiu, M.-Y., & Zhang, W.-G. (2021). An uncertainty-induced axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process and its implication.Expert Systems with Applications, 183, Article 115427.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115427

work page doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115427 2021

[21] [21]

Luce, R. D. (1959).Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. Wiley, New York. NON RECIPROCAL PCS WITH NOISE 35

work page 1959

[22] [22]

Magnot, J.-P. (2019). On mathematical structures on pairwise comparisons matrices with coefficients in an abstract group arising from quantum gravity.Heliyon, 5(6), e01821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01821

work page doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01821 2019

[23] [23]

Magnot, J.-P. (2024). On random pairwise comparisons matrices and their geometry.Journal of Applied Analysis, 30(2), 345–361.https://doi.org/10.1515/jaa-2023-0057

work page doi:10.1515/jaa-2023-0057 2024

[24] [24]

Mazurek, J., & Linares, P. (2024). Some notes on non-reciprocal matrices in the multiplicative pairwise comparisons framework.Journal of the Operational Research Society, 75(5), 955– 966.https://doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2023.2223229

work page doi:10.1080/01605682.2023.2223229 2024

[25] [25]

Nishizawa, K. (2019). Non-reciprocal pairwise comparisons and solution method in AHP. InIntelligent Decision Technologies 2018(Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, Vol. 97, pp. 158–165). Springer, Cham.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92028-3_ 16

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-92028-3_ 2019

[26] [26]

Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures.Journal of Math- ematical Psychology, 15(3), 234–281.https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5

work page doi:10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5 1977

[27] [27]

Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process.European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9–26.https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I

work page doi:10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-i 1990

[28] [28]

Stam, A., & Duarte Silva, A. P. (1997). Stochastic judgments in the AHP: The measurement of rank reversal probabilities.Decision Sciences, 28(3), 655–688.https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01326.x

work page arXiv 1997

[29] [29]

Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment.Psychological Review, 34(4), 273– 286.https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070288

work page doi:10.1037/h0070288 1927

[30] [30]

Triantaphyllou, E., & Yanase, J. (2024). The use of pairwise comparisons for decision making may lead to grossly inaccurate results.Computers & Industrial Engineering, 198, Article 110653.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2024.110653 van den Honert, R. C. (1998). Stochastic group preference modelling in the multiplicative AHP: A model of group consensus.Europ...

work page doi:10.1016/j.cie.2024.110653 2024

[31] [31]

An uncertainty-induced axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process and its implication

Wang, Z.-J., & Deng, S. (2023). Comments on “An uncertainty-induced axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process and its implication”.Expert Systems with Applications, 224, Article 119914.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.119914

work page doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2023.119914 2023

[32] [32]

Xu, Y., Patnayakuni, R., & Wang, H. (2013). The ordinal consistency of a fuzzy preference relation.Information Sciences, 224, 152–164.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2012.10. 035

work page doi:10.1016/j.ins.2012.10 2013

[33] [33]

Zhu, B., & Xu, Z. (2014). Stochastic preference analysis in numerical preference relations. European Journal of Operational Research, 237(2), 628–633.https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ejor.2014.01.068

work page 2014