Analysis of compatibility between interdependent

matrices in ANP
LC Leung
1
*, YV Hui
2
and M Zheng
3
1
Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong;
2
City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; and
3
Fudan
University, China
Analytic network process (ANP) addresses multi-attribute decision-making where attributes exhibit dependencies. A
principal characteristic of such problems is that pairwise comparisons are needed for attributes that have
interdependencies. We propose that before such comparison matrices are usedin addition to a test that assesses
the consistency of a pairwise comparison matrixa test must also be conducted to assess consistency across
interdependent matrices. We call such a cross-matrix consistency test as a compatibility test. In this paper, we design a
compatibility test for interdependent matrices between two clusters of attributes. We motivate our exposition by
addressing compatibility in Sinarchy, a special form of ANP where interdependency exists between the last and next-to-
last level. The developed compatibility test is applicable to any pair of interdependent matrices that are a part of an
ANP.
Journal of the Operational Research Society (2003) 54, 758768. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601569
Keywords: analytic hierarchy process; analytic network process; cross-matrix consistency; simulation
Introduction
Multi-attribute decision problems involving intangibles are
well known to be difcult to solve. In AHP, one nds a
simple and intuitive way to approach this class of problems.
1
It is also well known that AHP is only applicable to
problems that do not exhibit dependencies between attri-
butes. There are two kinds of dependencies. Interactions
between attributes at different levels are considered as
interdependencies, whereas interactions between attributes at
the same level are considered as innerdependency. With such
interactions, the hierarchical structure becomes a network
and this class of problems is referred to as analytic network
process (ANP).
2
In general, two attributes are independent if they are
unrelated (eg aesthetics and reliability) and are dependent
when they are related (eg reliability and productivity). In the
latter case, the preference determination between the two
attributes requires assessment of the extent of dependency
between them. Problems with dependency may be imple-
mented using an AHP framework if the decision-maker is
capable of factoring all the interactions and can directly
provide preferences between attributes. For example, when
assessing the relative importance between reliability and
productivity, the decision-maker can somehow incorporate
the impact that these two attributes have on each other with
respect to a certain criterion and can determine their relative
preference. However, if the decision-maker is not capable of
doing so, ANP should be used.
Interdependency can be present in a subtle way in that the
dependency is inherent in the problem. Consider a simple
multi-attribute problem shown in Figure 1. Here the decision
is for an employee to select the most desirable bonus
package. The criteria are stock options and cash bonus.
There are three alternatives (A, B, C): (20 shares, $500), (10
shares, $1500), and (ve shares, $2000). Assume that the
problem has an implicit preference relationship between a
unit of stock options and a unit of cash bonus. To have
meaningful results, the decision-maker must provide pre-
ference between the criteria of stock options and cash bonus
in accordance with the weight composition of the alter-
natives. However, such preference determination violates the
fundamental AHP assumption of hierarchic decomposition,
which says that when the preference of attributes at a certain
level is assessed, it must do so without consideration of
attributes at other levels. We will discuss the matrices X and
Y a little later.
This interdependency issue has been raised in the
literature, pointing out that the paired comparisons in
AHP do not represent relative measure between attributes,
but represent the distribution of importance downwards.
39
While Perez
10
has shown that the multi-district election
problem ts this distribution framework and possesses
hierarchical decomposition, there is a host of other real-life
problems that inherently violate hierarchical decomposition.
What are the kinds of problems that inherently violate
hierarchical decomposition? In general, AHP cannot
*Correspondence: LC Leung, Decision Sciences and Managerial Econom-
ics, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Journal of the Operational Research Society (2003) 54, 758768 r 2003 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved. 0160-5682/03 $25.00
www.palgrave-journals.com/jors
capture problems with trade-offs that are in relative
measurementsfor example, one unit of stock option
indifferent to $100 of cash bonussince such preferences
are dependent on the compositions of the alternatives. In
AHP, trade-offs between criteria are dependent on the
alternatives proportion of contribution towards each
criterion. For problems where trade-offs between criteria
are in terms of their relative measurements, a special form of
ANPSinarchyshould be used.
11
In Sinarchy, to determine the weight of the alternatives,
the decision-maker needs to determine the interdependent
matrices X and Y, which are based on the corresponding
pairwise comparison matrix. The matrix X contains normal-
ized weights of the alternatives with respect to individual
criteria and the matrix Y (feedback matrix) contains
normalized weights of the criteria with respect to individual
alternatives. The Sinarchy is representative of ANP pro-
blems with interdependencies, where pairwise comparisons
are needed for interdependent attributes. However, for such
attributes, their comparison matrices exhibit certain inherent
relationships. Hence, before such comparison matrices are
usedin addition to a consistency test that assesses the
consistency of a pairwise comparison matrixa test must
also be conducted to assess the consistency across matrices.
We call such a cross-matrix consistency test as a compat-
ibility test. Using the above example, we next illustrate the
relationship of X and Y, and discuss the signicance of such
a compatibility test.
Here assume that one share is indifferent to $100, the
cash-equivalent weight of the alternatives are ($2000, $500)
($1000, $1500) ($500, $2000) and the normalized weights are
(4/15, 1/15) (2/15, 3/15) (1/15, 4/15). Thus, the values for X
and Y are given by
X
4=7 1=8
2=7 3=8
1=7 1=2

; Y
4=5 2=5 1=5
1=5 3=5 4=5

Since both X and Y are determined from the same set of
information but with a different reference point, there must
be a relationship between X and Y. Saatys consistency test is
applicable to the consistency of a pairwise comparison
matrix. Such a test ensures that both X and Y are
constructed from consistent comparison matrices, but there
is no mechanism to detect whether X and Y exhibit the
appropriate relationship.
Consider the following problematic pairwise comparisons
for our example problem:
1. Pairwise comparisons of alternatives with respect to
individual criteria:
Stock option
A B C
A
B
C
1 2 4
1=2 1 2
1=4 1=2 1

Cash bonus
A B C
A
B
C
1 1=3 1=4
3 1 3=4
4 4=3 1

2. Pairwise comparisons of criteria with respect to

individual alternatives:
A Stock Cash
Stock
Cash
1 5
1=5 1

B Stock Cash
Stock
Cash
1 3
1=3 1

C Stock Cash
Stock
Cash
1 2
1=2 1

The comparisons for alternatives with respect to indivi-

dual criteria are appropriate, whereas the comparisons for
criteria with respect to individual alternatives are potentially
awed. The latter comparisons give Y to be
Y
0

5=6 3=4 2=3
1=6 1=4 1=3

The composite weights of the alternatives based on this Y
0
is (0.47, 0.31, 0.22), which is quite different from the true
weights of (1/3, 1/3, 1/3)the solution procedure to
determine the weights is provided in Section 2. But the
pairwise comparisons themselves are all consistent. Indeed,
the decision-maker has provided matrices that are consistent
but do not exhibit the inherent relationship that they are
supposed to have. We call the matrices X and Y, as
incompatible and such information should not be used for
further analysis. However, it should also be recognized that
it is unrealistic to expect perfect compatibility. Analogous
to the tolerance level of consistency, there should be a
tolerance level for compatibility as well. The matrices X and
Y must also be tested to see whether the matrices are indeed
compatible within a certain tolerance limit.
In this paper, we develop a compatibility test for
interdependent matrices between two clusters of attributes.
We motivate our exposition by addressing compatibility in
Sinarchy, where interdependency exists between the last and
next-to-last level.
2
This special form has been identied to
have relevant applications and a needed complement to
AHP.
11
Although AHP is widely used, it does have certain
limitations, which render it inappropriate even for a simple
problem such as the aforementioned. AHPs rank reversal
Figure 1 ANP with interdependency.
LC Leung et alCompatibility between interdependent matrices in ANP 759
has been an issue of considerable discussion.
46,8,9
It has been
argued that hierarchic decomposition is always, violated.
3,79
Harker and Vargas,
12
Schenkerman,
13
and Vargas
14
argue
that when dependencies exist, ANP should be used instead.
Leung and Cao
11
have shown that Sinarchy preserves
rank and has also provided a detailed discussion on the
relationship between Sinarchy and other rank-preservation
approaches. In essence, the referenced AHP of Schoner and
Wedley
7
solves Sinarchy within the AHP framework, but
without hierarchic decomposition. The linking pin method
and its variants
5,6,9
ensure that the ratio of criterion weights
represents the trade-offs between criteria in their relative
measurements. Both Kamenetzky
3
and Dyer
8
provide
modications to overcome the discrepancies in comparing
alternatives under differing criterion scaleswhich the
Sinarchy resolves using the feedback cycle. The ideal mode
of Saaty
15
preserves rank by normalizing the local priorities
so the sum is one, while PAHAP of Kang and Stam
16
avoids
the scaling problem by normalizing the aggregated pairwise
comparison ratios. However, both approaches are shown to
be capable of inducing ordering even when no order exists.
17
In the ensuing sections, we rst formulate the compat-
ibility relationship between the interdependent matrices X
and Y. Allowing a certain level of tolerance, we then develop
a compatibility index to measure the level of compatibility
between the two matrices. The compatibility indexes of
different orders of matrices are established using results from
simulations of random X and Y as well as compatible X and
Y. It should be pointed out that the developed compatibility
test is applicable not only to the feedback cycle in Sinarchy,
but also to any pair of interdependent matrices that are a
part of an ANP. Such interdependent clusters exist in
Sinarchy as well as other forms of ANP.
2
Compatible consistency and consistency index in Sinarchy
Consider a Sinarchy of three levels of m criteria and n
alternatives. Let X
k
(x
1k
, y, x
nk
)
T
, be the normalized
weight vector of alternatives under criterion k, X
nm
(X
1
,
y, X
m
), the matrix containing weight vectors under different
criteria, Y
i
(y
1i
, y, y
mi
)
T
, the normalized weight vector of
elements in alternatives i, Y
mn
(Y
1
, y, Y
n
), the matrix
containing all normalized weight vectors Y
i
, and P(p
1
, y,
p
m
)
T
, the criterion weight vector.
Saaty
2
provides the supermatrix approach to obtain the
composite weights of alternatives as follows:
Z lim
l!1
XYX
l
P
Z can also be expressed as
Z lim
l!1
XYX
l
P lim
l!1
XY
l
XP
the normalized eigenvector of XY
with respect to the eigenvalue 1
That is, w
1
=w
2

T
XY w
1
=w
2

T
where (w
1
, w
2
)
T
are the
composite weights of the alternatives. Note that P has no
effect on the outcome. The composite weights of the
alternatives solely depend on X and Y. We next explore
the relationship between X and Y.
Relationship between X and Y
Without loss of generality, we let v
ik
be the quantity
measurement of alternative i with respect to criterion k;
here elements in alternative i are arranged as an ordered set
whose kth element corresponds to criterion k. Let
v
k

l
v
ik
total contribution of alternatives on criterionk
Suppose the ratio l
k
/l
k
0 represents the inherent indifference
relationship between one unit of criterion k and one unit of
criterion k
0
with respect to alternative i. For now, assuming
that this indifference relationship is identical for all the
alternatives, we have
x
ij
v
ij
=v
j
y
ji
l
j
v
ij
=

k
l
k
v
ik
Then
x
ij
y
ji

k
l
k
v
k
x
ik

l
j
v
j
Let b
j
v
j
l
j
/

k
v
k
l
k
. We relate the criterion elements of X
and Y through
y
ji

b
j
x
ij

k
b
k
x
ik
; i 1; . . . ; n; j 1; . . . ; m 1
That is
Y
b
1
.
.
.
b
m

X
T
1

k
b
k
x
1k
.
.
.
1

k
b
k
x
nk

2
where both
b
1
.
.
.
b
m

and
1

k
b
k
x
1k
.
.
.
1

k
b
k
x
nk

are diagonal matrices and the latter normalizes the matrix

b
1
.
.
.
b
m

X
T
:
We now derive the more general situation where the trade-
off behavior is not uniform among alternatives. Here we let
760 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 54, No. 7
the trade-off behavior to be specic to each alternative.
Denote l
ik
/l
ik
0 as the relationship between one unit of
criteria k and one unit of k
0
with respect to alternative i.
Then elements in matrices X and Y can be expressed as
follows:
x
ij
l
ij
v
ij

k
l
kj
v
kj
y
ji
l
ij
v
ij

k
l
ik
v
ik
Letting b
j
(

k
l
kj
v
kj
)/(

k
l
lk
v
lk
), it can be seen that
X and Y are still related as (2). That is, for both uniform
preference relationships and preference relationships that
are specic to individual alternatives, matrices X and
Y are related according to (2). This leads to the following
theorem.
Theorem 1 In Sinarchy, the matrices X and Y are perfectly
compatible if and only if Equation (2) holds.
Proof The preceding discussion proves the ifthen situa-
tion. We now prove that the converse is also true. Assume
that there exists a set of b
1
,y,b
m
such that Equation (2)
holds. That is
y
ji

b
j
x
ij

k
b
k
x
ik
; i 1; . . . ; n; j 1; . . . ; m
Given x
ij
v
ij
/

l
w
il
v
lj
with a set of arbitrary weights w
il
s,
y
ji

b
j
x
ij

k
b
k
x
ik

b
j
v
ij
=

l
w
il
v
lj

k
b
k
v
ik

l
w
il
v
lk

v
ij
b
j
=

l
w
il
v
lj

k
v
ik
b
k

l
w
il
v
lk

Let l
ij
b
j
/

l
w
il
v
lj
. We have
y
ji

v
ij
l
ij

k
v
ik
l
ik

v
ij

k
l
ik
=l
ij
v
ik
which represents the inherent indifference relationship, that
is, perfect compatibility. Note that the special caseswhere
w
il
1, for all (i, l) or (w
i1
,w
i2
,y,w
im
) are equal for all i
would give the identical inherent relationship.
While Theorem 1 is specic to Sinarchy, we can in fact
generalize the theorem as follows.
Theorem 2 In any ANP where interdependency exists
between two clusters of attributes, the corresponding pair of
interdependent matrices, X and Y, are perfectly compatible if
and only if Equation (2) holds.
Proof One may add any number of clusters to the Sinarchy
and the compatibility relationship between the pair of
interdependent matrices, X and Y, still holds.
Measure of compatibility: a compatibility index
In practice, the implementation of perfect compatibility is
likely to be unrealistic. In this section, we develop a measure
of compatibilityan index that can be used as an indicator
of the level of departure from perfect compatibility. We rst
give the following denition to handle the comparison of
two matrices.
Denition Let B(b
ij
) and C(c
ij
) be two n m
matrices. If A(a
ij
)
n m
(b
ij
/c
ij
)
n m
(assuming 0/0 0),
then we say AB/C.
Now if Equation (2) holds, we have
Y
X
T

b
1
.
.
.
b
m

k
b
k
x
1k
; ;
1

k
b
k
x
nk

Thereby rank(Y/X
T
) 1.
Conversely if rank(Y/X
T
) 1, then
Y
X
T

u
1
g
2
u
1
. . . g
n
u
1
: : : :
u
m
g
2
u
m
. . . g
n
u
m

or
y
ji
g
i
u
j
x
ji
g
i
u
j
v
ji
=v
i

Given i and any ( j, j

0
), we have
y
j
0
y
j
0
i

u
j
u
j
0
v
ji
v
j
0
i
3
Given any i
0
ai and ( j, j
0
), we have
y
ji
0
y
j
0
i
0

u
j
u
j
0
v
ji
0
v
j
0
i
0
4
Equations (3) and (4) indicate the indifference
relationship. These give the following corollary of
Theorem 2.
Corollary 1 In any ANP where interdependency exists
between two clusters of attributes, the corresponding pair of
interdependent matrices, X and Y, are perfectly compatible if
and only if rank(Y/X
T
) 1.
Dene AY/X
T
. Then both AA
T
and A
T
A are non-
negative-denite matrices. AA
T
can be decomposed as
follows:
AA
T
Q
m
1
.
.
.
m
m

Q
T
where Q is an orthogonal matrix, Q
T
is the transpose of Q
and m
i
Z0 for all i 1, y, n. In particular, we can assume
m
1
Zm
2
Z Zm
m
.
LC Leung et alCompatibility between interdependent matrices in ANP 761
We dene an index of compatibility or by
r 1
m
1

m
i1
m
i
3
If (2) is true, then r 0. Otherwise, r is a positive value not
exceeding 1. This value r can be used to measure the level of
compatibility between X and Y. The closer r is to 0, the more
compatible X and Y are.
Remark If A
T
A is used instead of AA
T
, we can also obtain
the same consistency index.
To illustrate, consider our earlier example. For the
appropriate pairwise comparisons,
A
Y
X
T

7=5 7=5 7=5
8=5 8=5 8=5

and the consistency index r 0. Thus X and Y are perfectly
compatible. For the problematic comparisons,
A
0

Y
0
X
0

T

35=24 21=8 14=3
4=3 2=3 2=3

and r
0
0:0329
We can conclude that the inputs are not perfectly
compatible, but we still cannot conclude that the pairwise
comparisons are awed. It is entirely possible that the level
of deviation is a reasonable one. We need to determine
whether or not the pairwise comparisons are acceptable
based on a statistical criterion. Essentially, we need to
establish, with a certain level of condence, that the level of
deviation is acceptable. It should also be noted that the
variability of the compatibility index is also dependent on
the sizes of the matrices.
Establishing tolerance of r-values via simulation
In this section, we use Monte Carlo simulation to
experimentally establish the range of r-values within which
the matrices X and Y may be accepted as compatible. There
are two sets of simulations, see Figure 2.
The rst set of simulations establishes the distribution of
r-values from randomly generated X and Y. While this
distribution is not identical to the distribution of non-
compatible r-values as some randomly generated X and Y
might be compatible, it represents the lower bound of non-
compatible r-values and can be used to establish the upper
bound of Type II error for compatibility. Here a Type II
error of 10% is targeted. The second set of simulation
establishes the distribution of r-values when matrices X and
Y are related according to the appropriate compatibility
relationship, but subject to random deviation. We adopt a
Type I error of 5%.
Simulation 1: r-values for arbitrary X and Y
We generate matrices X and Y randomly as follows.
Step 1: Set the dimensions of X and Y.
Step 2: Randomly generate values (using a uniform dis-
tribution between 0 and 1) to form an-normalized
columns of X and Y.
Step 3: Normalize to unity the columns of X and Y.
Step 4: Calculate the compatibility index r for X and Y
using (3).
For each pair of sizes, we perform 10 000 replications and
estimate the percentiles. The 10 percentile of r-values for
different sizes of m and n are shown in Table 1. Note that the
distribution of r shifts to the right (r increases) as the matrix
order increases. This may be explained by the fact that
random matrices of higher order have more degrees of
freedom.
Figure 2 Establishing r-value tolerance via two simulations.
Table 1 10 percentile r-values for random X and Y
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 0.001 0.003 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.007 0.007 0.008 0.008
3 0.009 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011
4 0.012 0.012 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014
5 0.014 0.014 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.016
6 0.015 0.016 0.016 0.017 0.017
7 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.018
8 0.017 0.017 0.018
9 0.019 0.019
10 0.019
762 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 54, No. 7
Simulation 2: r-values for interdependent X and Y
Simulating interdependent X and Y is not as straightforward
as simulating random X and Y. We have shown that if
matrices X and Y are perfectly compatible, they are related
as in (2). That is, for a given set of alternative weights, there
exists implicitly a set of preference values of b
1
,b
2
,y,b
m
with
which there is a unique set of corresponding X and Y. This
also means that a matrix X may be compatible with many
different Y depending on the alternative weights. Consider
two sets of alternative weights: (1,4) and (2,3), (2,4) and
(4,3). The X matrix would be the same for both sets, but
their Y-matrices are different. Thus, simulating interdepen-
dent X and Y must begin with the generation of
interdependent alternative weights.
In the following steps, we simulate the distribution of
compatible r-values with different sizes of m and n
(m,n 2,y,10). Different levels of error are simulated using
a range of standard deviations.
Step 1: Set the dimensions of alternatives and criteria.
Step 2: Generate randomly w
ij
, the weights of alternative i
with respect to criterion j the criterion weights, from a
uniform distribution between 0 and 1.
Step 3: Normalize w
ij
and compute X and Y using x
ij
w
ij
/

i
w
ij
and y
ji
w
ij
/

j
w
ij
.
Step 4: Generate pairwise comparisons from X and Y.
Here, from each column of X, a reciprocal pairwise
comparison matrix is generated where the elements in the
kth comparison matrix are x
ik
/x
jk
(k1,y,m); similarly
for matrix Y also a series of reciprocal pairwise
comparison matrices are generated. In generating the
pairwise comparison values, a random error e
ij
in multi-
plicative form is imbedded into the comparisons. Such
comparisons are the true matrices (with random error) for
the composite alternative weights. For comparison matrices
that fail the consistency test (consistency index is bigger than
0.1 times the random index), regenerate the comparison
matrix.
Step 5: Perform step 4 for random errors e
ij
with the levels
of deviations shown in Table 2 (e
ij
is generated from a
uniform distribution U(a, b) with mean (a b) equal to 1
and standard deviation b a=

12
p
).
Step 6: Construct X
0
and Y
0
from comparison matrices
with errors. Calculate the compatibility index r for X
0
and
Y
0
.
For each size conguration (m, n) and each error level (L),
2000 replications are simulated and the percentiles of r-
values are obtaineda smaller sample size is adequate to
achieve steady state. Table 3 lists the 95 percentile for L3
(tables for L1,2,4,5 are shown in the appendix). For the
10-percentile random r-values (Table 1), r-value increases as
the matrix order increases. However, the behavior of the 95
percentile r-values is quite different (Table 3); it decreases as
the order increases. This means that the higher the matrix
order, the smaller the Type II error with respect to a given
Type I error.
Simulation 3: robustness on distributions
It is difcult to trace the distributions of the r-values from
the distributions of the reciprocal pairwise comparison
matrices. The randomness of the observed pairwise compar-
ison values can be simulated from a random multiplicative
error e
ij
accompanying x
ik
/x
jk
and similarly for y
ik
/y
jk
. The
procedure is discussed in Step 4 in Simulation 2.
Uniform errors with mean 1 and various standard
deviations are studied in Simulation 2. To examine the
robustness properties of error distributions on the r-values,
the experiment for Simulation 2 is repeated for other types of
error distributions with mean equal to 1.
Our rst set of experiments is on symmetric error
distributions including the triangular distributions and
Table 2 Family of uniform distributions for incompatibility errors
Level (L)deviate 1710% 2720% 3730% 4740% 5750%
e
ij
U(0.9,1.1) U(0.8,1.2) U(0.7,1.3) U(0.6,1.4) U(0.5,1.5)
Std dev 0.0577 0.1155 0.1732 0.2309 0.2886
Table 3 95-percentile r-values for compatible X and Y (L=3)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 0.017 0.017 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.014 0.014 0.013 0.013
3 0.017 0.015 0.014 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.012 0.012
4 0.015 0.013 0.012 0.012 0.011 0.011 0.010
5 0.012 0.011 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010
6 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.009 0.008
7 0.009 0.008 0.008 0.008
8 0.008 0.008 0.007
9 0.007 0.007
10 0.006
LC Leung et alCompatibility between interdependent matrices in ANP 763
normal distributions. The results almost duplicate the results
obtained in Simulation 2 and are not repeated here. This
shows that the r-values are robust with respect to symmetric
errors associated with pairwise comparison values.
Our second set of experiments is on the lognormal
distribution, which is asymmetric. The random error e
ij
is
generated in the following:
Generate a random normal variate z
ij
from the normal
distribution N(0,s
2
) with mean 0 and variance s
2
. e
ij
is
obtained through the transformation e
ij
exp(z
ij
).
Specically, the variance s
2
for the normal distribution is
chosen as 0.02313, 0.04319, 0.06090, 0.07681, 0.9128,
respectively, to match the standard deviations of the
uniform distributions (L1, 2, 3, 4, 5) in Step 5 of
Simulation 2.
Table 4 lists the 95 percentiles of the r-values for
lognormal errors with s
2
0.06090 that corresponds to the
uniform errors with L3 in Simulation 2 (tables for
s
2
0.02313, 0.04319, 0.07681 and 0.9128 are given in the
appendix). Both distributions (uniform with L3 and
lognormal with s
2
0.0609) have a standard deviation
0.1732.
It is observed that the results in Tables 3 and 4 are quite
close. The differences are all less than 10%. The difference
decreases as the dimension increases as expected. The
general trend of the r-values is also very similar. By
comparing the simulation results from the symmetric errors
(Tables 3, A1A4) with the asymmetric errors (Tables 4, A5
A8), we can conclude that the r-values are robust with
respect to the distributional assumption. The 95 percentile of
the r-value depends very much on the dispersion of error
distribution rather than on the distribution shape. Hence,
the results obtained from Simulation 2 can be used as a
reference for the r-value percentiles for compatible matrix X
and Y with random disturbances.
The compatibility test
To design an appropriate compatibility test, we need to
select a realistic level of error. From the tables of the 95
percentile of r-values generated from ve levels of deviation,
the r-values in the (i, j)th entry are dominated by the (k, k)th
entry where kmin(i, j). We extract the diagonals in the
tables and plot the values as shown in Figure 3.
L3 is recommended for the compatibility test that
corresponds to an error standard deviation 0.173. This is
perceived to be a reasonable choice as the lower levels can be
too stringent and the higher levels too relaxed. The following
simple array of critical values (C
k
, kmin(m, n)) of the
compatibility test are obtained from the diagonal elements of
Table 3:
We summarize the results in the previous two Sections and
formulate a goodness-of-compatibility test between X and Y
in the following:
Step 1: Evaluate the compatibility index r from (3).
Step 2: Either nd the critical value C
m,n
from Table 3, or
nd the critical value C
k
, kmin(m, n).
Step 3: Reject the hypothesis of compatibility between X
and Y if r4C
m,n
(or r4C
k
). Type I error of the above test is
0.05. Type II error is shown in Table 5.
Table 4 95-percentile r-values for compatible X and Y (s
2
=0.0287)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.015 0.014 0.014 0.014
3 0.016 0.014 0.014 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.012 0.012
4 0.014 0.013 0.012 0.011 0.010 0.010 0.010
5 0.011 0.011 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.009
6 0.010 0.009 0.009 0.008 0.008
7 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.007
8 0.007 0.007 0.007
9 0.007 0.006
10 0.006
Figure 3 95 percentile of r-values with different levels of
deviation.
K 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
C
k
0.017 0.017 0.015 0.012 0.010 0.009 0.008 0.007 0.006
764 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 54, No. 7
Illustrative example. To illustrate the proposed scheme, we
refer to our earlier simple example. Here we have
X
0

4=7 2=7 1=7
1=8 3=8 4=8

Y
5=6 3=4 2=3
1=6 1=4 1=3

We compute
A
Y
X
0

35=24 21=8 14=3
4=3 2=3 2=3

AA
0

30:795 6:805
6:805 2:667

The eigenvalues of AA
0
are
m
1
32:255
m
2
1:1066
The index of compatibility is
r 1 m
1
=m
1
m
2
0:0329
Note that C
2,3
0.017 and C
2
0.017. Since r 0.0329
which is greater than C
2,3
and C
2
, we may conclude that the
matrices X and Y are not compatible. Type I error is 5% and
Type II error is at most 25%. A 30% deviation (L3) is
allowed for each entry in the pairwise comparison.
Discussion
The proposed compatibility test focuses on the control of
Type I error. It ensures that there is only a 5% chance of
rejecting matrices X and Y that are indeed compatible.
Could we have designed the test such that the focus is on
controlling the probability of accepting incompatible X and
Y? That is, could we have used the null hypothesis that
matrices X and Y are incompatible? There are two reasons
for considering that such a hypothesis is not appropriate.
Firstly, the distribution of incompatible r-values has yet to
be established since the distribution of random r-values also
includes some compatible r-values. Secondly and more
importantly, even if such distribution can be determined, it
can only be used to address the probability of accepting
incompatible matrices. It cannot be used to assess whether a
pair of matrices is compatible. The important distinction is
that matrices that are not statistically incompatible do not
automatically mean that they are compatible. There are
many pairs of matrices that are neither incompatible nor
compatible within a statistical context. These are matrices
that do not satisfy the incompatibility criterion and at the
same time have an unacceptable level of deviation (L), see
Figure 4. Note that when L gets larger and larger, the r-value
distribution approaches that of a random X and Y. It is
noted that the goodness of the proposed compatibility test
depends very much on the errors associated with pairwise
comparison matrices. This topic deserves further research.
Conclusion
AHP is a widely used decision scheme for multi-attribute
problems involving intangibles. When attributes exhibit
interdependency, ANP is needed. Analogous to the con-
sistency test in AHP, a compatibility test is also required for
interdependent matrices. There are many variations of
interdependencies. In this paper, we address the compat-
ibility requirement for a pair of interdependent matrices
derived from two clusters of interdependent attributes. We
rst formulate the relationship between the two matrices
under the assumption that no random error is involved.
We then perform two simulation experiments. The rst
Table 5 Type II error of the compatibility test (%)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 40 25 20 17 17 15 15 15 14
3 15 13 12 12 12 11 11 10
4 12 11 o10 o10 o10 o10 o10
5 o10 o10 o10 o10 o10 o10
6 o10 o10 o10 o10 o10
7 o10 o10 o10 o10
8 o10 o10 o10
9 o10 o10
10 o10
Figure 4 Compatible and incompatible r-values.
LC Leung et alCompatibility between interdependent matrices in ANP 765
simulation establishes the compatibility behavior of a pair of
random matrices and the second simulation establishes the
compatibility behavior of a pair of compatible matrices
subject to certain deviations. These two simulations form the
basis of a compatibility test that allows a Type I error of 5%.
ANP is a much-needed complement of AHP as there are a
wide variety of problems that exhibit dependency behavior.
There are still many open issues regarding the modeling of
multi-attribute problems using ANP. We believe the
compatibility issue raised in this paper is a critical
component in the proper use of ANP.
AcknowledgementsThis research was supported by a Hong Kong
RGC Competitive Earmarked Research Grant.
References
1 Saaty TL (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill:
New York.
2 Saaty TL (1996). The Analytic Network Process. RWS Publica-
tions; Pittsburgh.
3 Kamenetzky RD (1982). The relationship between the analytic
hierarchy process and the additive value function. Decis Sci 13:
702713.
4 Watson SR and Freeling ANS (1982). Assessing attribute
weights. OMEGA 10(6): 582583.
5 Belton V and Gear T (1983). On a short-coming of Saatys
method of analytic hierarchies. OMEGA 11(3): 228230.
6 Belton V and Gear T (1985). The legitimacy of rank reversala
comment. OMEGA 13(3): 143144.
7 Schoner B and Wedley WC (1989). Ambiguous criteria weights
in AHP: consequences and solution. Decision Sci 20: 462475.
8 Dyer JS (1990). Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process.
Mngt Sci 36(3): 249258.
9 Schoner B, Wedley WC and Choo EU (1993). A unied
approach to AHP with linking pins. Eur J Oper Res 64: 384
392.
10 Perez J (1995). Some comments on Saatys AHP. Mngt Sci
41(6): 10911095.
11 Leung LC and Cao D (2001). On the efcacy of modeling multi-
attribute problems using AHP and Sinarchy. Eur J Oper Res
132: 3949.
12 Harker PT and Vargas LG (1987). The theory of ratio scale
estimation: Saatys analytic hierarchy process. Mngt Sci 33(11):
13831403.
13 Schenkerman S (1997). Inducement of nonexistent order by the
analytic hierarchy process. Decision Sci 28(2): 475482.
14 Vargas LG (1994). Reply to Schenkermans avoiding rank
reversal in AHP decision support models. Eur J Oper Res 74:
420425.
15 Saaty TL (1994). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy
process. Interface 24(6): 1943.
16 Kang M and Stam A (1994). PAHAP: a pairwise aggregated
hierarchical analysis of ration-scale preferences. Decision Sci
25(4): 607624.
17 Schenkerman S (1994). Avoiding rank reversal in AHP decision-
support models. Eur J Oper Res 74: 407419.
Appendix
As stated earlier, for uniform and lognormal errors, 95
percentile of r-values for different s
2
and L are shown in
Tables 613.
Received August 2002;
accepted January 2003
after one revision
Table 6 95 percentile of r-values (L=1)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001
3 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
4 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
5 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
6 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
7 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
8 0.001 0.001 0.001
9 0.001 0.001
10 0.001
Table 7 95 percentile of r-values (L=2)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 0.008 0.008 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006
3 0.008 0.007 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.005
4 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005
5 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.004
6 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004
7 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.003
8 0.003 0.003 0.003
9 0.003 0.003
10 0.003
766 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 54, No. 7
Table 9 95 percentile of r-values (L=5)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 0.0516 0.047 0.044 0.044 0.041 0.040 0.040 0.039 0.037
3 0.049 0.045 0.043 0.041 0.040 0.038 0.036 0.036
4 0.043 0.039 0.036 0.035 0.034 0.032 0.031
5 0.036 0.033 0.031 0.030 0.029 0.027
6 0.030 0.029 0.027 0.026 0.025
7 0.027 0.025 0.024 0.023
8 0.023 0.023 0.021
9 0.021 0.020
10 0.019
Table 8 95 percentile of r-values (L=4)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 0.031 0.031 0.030 0.028 0.027 0.025 0.024 0.024 0.024
3 0.030 0.028 0.027 0.025 0.024 0.023 0.022 0.022
4 0.025 0.024 0.023 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.019
5 0.022 0.020 0.019 0.018 0.018 0.017
6 0.019 0.018 0.017 0.016 0.016
7 0.016 0.016 0.015 0.014
8 0.015 0.014 0.013
9 0.013 0.012
10 0.012
Table 10 95 percentile of r-values (lognormal, s
2
=0.0033)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002
3 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001
4 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
5 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
6 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
7 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
8 0.001 0.001 0.001
9 0.001 0.001
10 0.001
Table 11 95 percentile of r-values (lognormal, s
2
=0.0131)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007
3 0.008 0.007 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.005
4 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005
5 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.004
6 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004
7 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.003
8 0.003 0.003 0.003
9 0.003 0.003
10 0.003
LC Leung et alCompatibility between interdependent matrices in ANP 767
Table 12 95 percentile of r-values (lognormal, s
2
=0.0495)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.026 0.027 0.025 0.025 0.025
3 0.027 0.026 0.024 0.023 0.022 0.021 0.021 0.020
4 0.024 0.022 0.020 0.019 0.018 0.017 0.017
5 0.020 0.018 0.017 0.016 0.016 0.015
6 0.017 0.016 0.015 0.014 0.013
7 0.015 0.014 0.013 0.012
8 0.013 0.012 0.011
9 0.011 0.011
10 0.010
Table 13 95 percentile of r-values (lognormal, s
2
=0.0745)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 0.036 0.041 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.038 0.038 0.035
3 0.038 0.037 0.036 0.034 0.032 0.032 0.031 0.031
4 0.034 0.033 0.030 0.029 0.028 0.027 0.026
5 0.029 0.028 0.026 0.025 0.023 0.022
6 0.033 0.024 0.022 0.021 0.021
7 0.022 0.021 0.020 0.019
8 0.019 0.018 0.017
9 0.017 0.017
10 0.016
768 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 54, No. 7