A general unified framework for interval pairwise
comparison matrices∗
Bice Cavalloa and Matteo Brunellib
a Department

of Architecture, University of Naples “Federico II”, Italy
e–mail: bice.cavallo@unina.it

b Department

of Industrial Engineering, University of Trento, Italy

arXiv:1711.09441v1 [cs.AI] 26 Nov 2017

e–mail: matteo.brunelli@unitn.it

Abstract
Interval Pairwise Comparison Matrices have been widely used to account for uncertain statements concerning the
preferences of decision makers. Several approaches have been proposed in the literature, such as multiplicative
and fuzzy interval matrices. In this paper, we propose a general unified approach to Interval Pairwise Comparison
Matrices, based on Abelian linearly ordered groups. In this framework, we generalize some consistency conditions
provided for multiplicative and/or fuzzy interval pairwise comparison matrices and provide inclusion relations between them. Then, we provide a concept of distance between intervals that, together with a notion of mean defined
over real continuous Abelian linearly ordered groups, allows us to provide a consistency index and an indeterminacy
index. In this way, by means of suitable isomorphisms between Abelian linearly ordered groups, we will be able to
compare the inconsistency and the indeterminacy of different kinds of Interval Pairwise Comparison Matrices, e.g.
multiplicative, additive, and fuzzy, on a unique Cartesian coordinate system..
Keywords: Multi-criteria decision making; interval pairwise comparison matrix; Abelian linearly ordered group;
consistency; consistency index; indeterminacy index.

1 Introduction
As their name suggests, Pairwise Comparison Matrices (PCMs) have been a long standing technique for
comparing alternatives and their role has been pivotal in the development of modern decision making
methods. In accordance with decision theory, in this paper we shall consider a finite non-empty set of
n entities (e.g. criteria or alternatives) X = {x1 , . . . , xn }, and the object of our investigation is the set
of comparisons between them with respect to one of their properties. That is, we are interested in the
subjective estimations aij ∀i, j ∈ {1, . . . , n}, where aij is a numerical representation of the intensity of
preference of xi over xj .
With respect to the values that aij can assume and their interpretation, it is fundamental to be aware that
various proposals have been presented, studied, and applied in the literature to solve real-world problems.
The foremost type of representation of valued preferences, at least with respect to the number of real-world
applications is probably the multiplicative representation, used among others by Saaty in the theory of
∗

This is a preprint of the paper “Cavallo B. and Brunelli M., A general unified framework for interval pairwise comparison
matrices. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 93, 178–198. DOI:10.1016/j.ijar.2017.11.002.

the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). In this sense, pairwise comparisons are expressed as positive real
numbers, aij ∈]0, +∞[ satisfying a condition of multiplicative reciprocity, aij · aji = 1. We shall note that
the AHP [37] is not the only method using this scheme for pairwise comparisons. For instance, proponents
of Multi Attribute Value Theory (MAVT) such as Keeney and Raiffa [24] and Belton and Stewart [2]
advocate the use of pairwise comparisons to estimate the ratios between weights of criteria when the value
function is additive. Hereafter, representations of preference of this kind will be called multiplicative.
Reciprocal preference relations, whose origins can be traced back at least to a study by Zermelo [53], assume
that intensities of preferences are represented on the open unit interval; that is, aij ∈]0, 1[. Similarly
to the multiplicative case, reciprocal preference relations obey a condition of reciprocity, in this case
aij + aji = 1. Interestingly, such a representation was studied, among others, also by Luce and Suppes [31]
under the name of ‘probabilistic preference relations’ and has been widely popularized within the fuzzy
sets community under the name of ‘fuzzy preference relations’. Instances of influential studies on these
mathematical structures under the fuzzy lens have been offered by Tanino [40], Herrera-Viedma et al. [21]
and Kacprzyk [23]. For sake of simplicity, and because the unit interval recalls the idea of membership
function, we shall refer to this case as the fuzzy case in the rest of this manuscript.
The third representation considered in this paper shall be called additive due to the fact that intensities
of preferences are expressed as real numbers, aij ∈] − ∞, +∞[ and comply with a condition of additive
reciprocity, i.e. aij + aji = 0. We shall note that this representation coincides with the Skew-symmetric
additive representation of utilities proposed by Fishburn [17] and with the representation used by some
decision analysis methodologies such as REMBRANDT [35].
All in all, it emerges a picture where the technique of pairwise comparisons plays an important role within
decision theory. Moreover, in spite of their different formulations and interpretations, it was formalized
that different representations share the same algebraic structure [8], based on Abelian linearly ordered
groups, i.e. commutative groups equipped with an ordering relation. Hence, to derive results which
are general enough to pertain to each of these representations of preferences, we will focus on this more
general algebraic representation and exploit the full potential of group theory. Several authors have already
adopted this approach based on Abelian linearly ordered groups (e.g. [22, 25, 36, 47]). Nevertheless, in
spite of the general formulation of our results, examples involving specific representations of preferences
will be used in the rest of this paper.
More specifically, within this framework, we shall investigate the case of Interval Pairwise Comparisons
+
Matrices (IPCMs) according to which comparison values are expressed as intervals ãij = [a−
ij , aij ] ⊂ R
instead of real numbers. The approach with intervals has been widely used to account for uncertain
statements concerning the preferences of a decision maker (e.g. [26, 54]) and studied separately in the
case of multiplicative preference relations [38, 39] and in the case of fuzzy preference relations [49], just to
cite few examples. In this paper, we shall generalize it and derive broader results. More specifically, we
will generalize interval arithmetic and propose a concept of metric on intervals when these are subsets of
Abelian linearly ordered groups. This will be instrumental to formulate the concept of IPCM and study,
in a more general context, the notions of reciprocity, consistency, and indeterminacy. Having done this,
we will propose and justify a consistency index which, in concert with an indeterminacy index, can be
used to evaluate the acceptability of IPCMs.
There are further papers in the literature that take into consideration consistency and indeterminacy:
Wang [43] considered multiplicative IPCMs and proposed a geometric mean based uncertainty index to
capture the inconsistency in the original multiplicative PCM; Liu [28] measured the consistency of a
multiplicative IPCM by computing Saaty’s consistency index [37] of one or two associated PCMs; Li et
al. [27] and Wang and Chen [44] proposed as indeterminacy index the geometric mean of the ratios
a+
ij
a−
ij

for both multiplicative and fuzzy IPCMs. However, no paper proposed a consistency index to be

computed directly from the IPCM, i.e. without considering associated PCMs, and no paper proposes
both a general consistency index and a general indeterminacy index suitable for each kind of IPCM (e.g.
additive, multiplicative, and fuzzy).

The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides the necessary notions and notation for the real-valued
case. Next, in Section 3, we discuss the idea of intervals defined over a special type of group structure.
By drawing from the previous two sections, in Section 4 we present a general notion of interval pairwise
comparison matrix which has the merit of unifying different approaches under the same umbrella. This
will give us the possibility, in Section 5, to discuss reciprocity and consistency conditions in a more general
setting. In Sections 6 and 7, we introduce a consistency and an indeterminacy index, respectively. These
indices can be used in concert to evaluate the acceptability of preferences. Section 8 draws some conclusions
and proposes directions for future work. Finally, Appendix contains the proofs of the statements

2 Notation and preliminaries
In this section, we will provide notation and preliminaries which will be necessary in the rest of the paper.

2.1 Abelian linearly ordered groups
We start providing definitions and essential notation about Abelian linearly ordered groups in order to
define Pairwise Comparison Matrices (Subsection 2.2) and Interval Pairwise Comparison Matrices (Sections
4 and 5); for further details the reader can refer to [8].
Definition 2.1. Let G be a non-empty set, : G × G → G a binary operation on G, ≤ a weak order on
G. Then, G = (G, , ≤) is an Abelian linearly ordered group, Alo-group for short, if (G, ) is an Abelian
group and
a ≤ b ⇒ a c ≤ b c.
(1)
Let us denote with e the identity with respect to , a(−1) the inverse of a ∈ G with respect to
the operation defined by a ÷ b = a b(−1) ∀a, b ∈ G. Then, we have [8]:
a(−1) = e÷a,

(a b)(−1) = a(−1) b(−1) ,

(a÷b)(−1) = b÷a,

a ≥ e ⇔ a(−1) ≤ e,

and ÷

a ≤ b ⇔ b(−1) ≤ a(−1) .
(2)

Furthermore, we can define the concept of (n)-natural-power.
Definition 2.2. [8] Let G = (G, , ≤) be an Alo-group and n ∈ N0 . The (n)-natural-power a(n) of a ∈ G
is defined as follows:
(
e,
if n = 0
a(n) =
(n−1)
a
a, if n ≥ 1.
Let z ∈ Z; then the (z)-integer- power a(z) of a ∈ G is defined as follows [8]:
(
a(n) ,
if z = n ∈ N0
a(z) =
(n)
(−1)
(a )
if z = −n, n ∈ N.

(3)

An isomorphism between two Alo-groups G = (G, , ≤) and H = (H, ∗, ≤) is a bijection φ : G → H that
is both a lattice isomorphism and a group isomorphism, that is:
a < b ⇔ φ(a) < φ(b) and

φ(a

b) = φ(a) ∗ φ(b);

(4)

where < is the strict simple order defined by “a < b ⇔ a ≤ b and a 6= b”.
2.1.1 G-norm and G-distance
By definition, an Alo-group G is a lattice ordered group [3]. Namely, there exists max{a, b}, for each
a, b ∈ G. Thus, the existence of the max value between two elements of G and the existence of the inverse
of each element of G allows us to formulate the notions of G-norm and G-distance, which are generalizations
to G of the usual concepts of norm and distance.

Definition 2.3. [8] Let G = (G, , ≤) be an Alo-group. Then, the function:
|| · ||G : a ∈ G → ||a||G = max{a, a(−1) } ∈ G

(5)

is a G-norm, or a norm on G.
Proposition 2.1. [8] The G-norm satisfies the properties:
1. ||a||G = ||a(−1) ||G ;
2. a ≤ ||a||G ;
3. ||a||G ≥ e;
4. ||a||G = e ⇔ a = e;
5. ||a

b||G ≤ ||a||G

||b||G .

Definition 2.4. [8] Let G = (G, , ≤) be an Alo-group. Then, the operation
d : (a, b) ∈ G × G → d(a, b) ∈ G
is a G-metric or G-distance if:
1. d(a, b) ≥ e;
2. d(a, b) = e ⇔ a = b;
3. d(a, b) = d(b, a);
4. d(a, b) ≤ d(a, c)

d(c, b).

Proposition 2.2. [8] Let G = (G, , ≤) be an Alo-group. Then, the operation
dG : (a, b) ∈ G × G → dG (a, b) = ||a ÷ b||G ∈ G

(6)

is a G-distance.
Let φ be an isomorphism between G = (G, , ≤) and H = (H, ∗, ≤), g1 , g2 ∈ G and h1 , h2 ∈ H; then,
Cavallo and D’Apuzzo [8] prove that:
dH (h1 , h2 ) = φ(dG (φ−1 (h1 ), φ−1 (h2 ))),

dG (g1 , g2 ) = φ−1 (dH (φ(g1 ), φ(g2 ))).

(7)

2.1.2 G-mean in real continuous Alo-groups
An Alo-group G = (G, , ≤) is called continuous if the operation
is continuous [8], and real if G is a
subset of the real line R and ≤ is the weak order on G inherited from the usual order on R. From now
on, we will assume that G = (G, , ≤) is a real continuous Alo-group, with G an open interval. Under
these assumptions, the equation x(n) = a has a unique solution [8]; thus, it is reasonable to consider the
following notions of (n)-root and G-mean.
1

Definition 2.5. [8]For each n ∈ N and a ∈ G, the (n)-root of a, denoted by a( n ) , is the unique solution
of the equation x(n) = a, that is:
 1 (n)
a( n )
= a.
Definition 2.6. [8] The G-mean mG (a1 , a2 , ..., an ) of the elements a1 , a2 , ..., an of G is
(
a1
for n=1 ,
mG (a1 , a2 , ..., an ) = Jn
(1/n)
( i=1 ai )
for n ≥ 2.
For each q =
follows [14]:

m
n

∈ Q, with m ∈ Z and n ∈ N, and for each a ∈ G, the (q)-rational-power a(q) is defined as
1

a(q) = (a(m) )( n ) .

(8)

The following are examples of real continuous Alo-groups which will be relevant in the rest of the paper
(see [9, 14] for details):

Multiplicative Alo-group. R+ = (R+ , ·, ≤), where R+ =]0, +∞[ and · is the usual multiplication on R.
Thus, the R+ -mean operator is the geometric mean,

mR+ (a1 , ..., an ) =

n
Y

!1

n

ai

i=1

and the R+ -distance between a and b is dR+ (a, b) = max

a

b
b, a

.

Additive Alo-group. R = (R, +, ≤), where R =] − ∞, +∞[ and + is the usual addition on R. Thus, the
R-mean operator is the arithmetic mean,
Pn
ai
mR (a1 , ..., an ) = i=1
n
and the R-distance between a and b is dR (a, b) = max{a − b, b − a} = |a − b|.
Fuzzy Alo-group. I = (I, ⊗, ≤), where I =]0, 1[ and ⊗ :]0, 1[2 →]0, 1[ is the operation defined by
a⊗b=

ab
.
ab + (1 − a)(1 − b)

Thus, the I-mean operator is given by the following function [14]:
p
Qn
n
i=1 ai
p
.
mI (a1 , ..., an ) = p
Qn
Qn
n
n
i=1 ai +
i=1 (1 − ai )

(9)

(10)

The operation ⊗ is the restriction to ]0, 1[2 of a widely known uninorm introduced by Yager and
Rybalov [52] and then studied by Fodor et al.[18]. For this Alo-group, the I-distance between a and
b is the following one:


b(1 − a)
a(1 − b)
,
.
dI (a, b) = max
a(1 − b) + (1 − a)b b(1 − a) + (1 − b)a
It was proven that for each pair G = (G, , ≤) and H = (H, ∗, ≤) of real continuous Alo-groups with G
and H open intervals, there exists an isomorphism between them [8]. For example, the function
h : x ∈]0, +∞[7→

x
∈]0, 1[
1+x

(11)

is an isomorphism between multiplicative Alo-group and fuzzy Alo-group. Another example is the function
g : x ∈] − ∞, +∞[7→

ex
∈]0, 1[,
1 + ex

(12)

which is an isomorphism between the additive Alo-group and the fuzzy Alo-group.
Moreover, let φ be an isomorphism between G = (G, , ≤) and H = (H, ∗, ≤), g1 , g2 . . . , gn ∈ G and
h1 , h2 . . . , hn ∈ H; then, Cavallo and D’Apuzzo [8] prove that:

mG (g1 , g2 , ..., gn ) = φ−1 mH (φ(g1 ), φ(g2 ), ..., φ(gn )) ;
(13)

mH (h1 , h2 , ..., hn ) = φ mG (φ−1 (h1 ), φ−1 (h2 ), ..., φ−1 (hn )) .
We believe that it is important to stress that the use of Alo-groups and the definition of group isomorphisms
between them is not a mere theoretical exercise. Alo-groups and their isomorphisms are necessary to show
the formal equivalence between different approaches. For instance, in his widely used textbook, Fraleigh
[19] defines an isomorphism as “the concept of two systems being structurally identical, that is, one being
just like the other except for names”.

2.2 Pairwise Comparison Matrices over a real continuous Alo-group
Quantitative pairwise comparisons are a useful tool for estimating the relative weights on a set X =
{x1 , x2 , ..., xn } of decision elements such as criteria or alternatives. Pairwise comparisons can be modelled
by a quantitative preference relation on X:
A : (xi , xj ) ∈ X × X → aij = A(xi , xj ) ∈ G
where G is an open interval of R and aij quantifies the preference intensity of xi over xj . When the
cardinality of X is small, A can be represented by a Pairwise Comparison Matrix (PCM )
x1

x2

···

xn

x1 a11
x2 
 a21
A = ..  ..
.  .

a12
a22
..
.

...
···
..
.


a1n
a2n 

.. .
. 

xn

an2

···

ann



an1

(14)

Definition 2.7. [8] A PCM A = (aij ) is a G-reciprocal if it verifies the condition:
(−1)

∀ i, j ∈ {1, . . . , n}.

aji = aij

Let A = (aij ) be a G-reciprocal PCM and (σ(1), . . . , σ(n)) a permutation of (1, . . . , n); then, by Definition
2.7, for each permutation σ, the following equalities hold true:
(−1)

aσ(j)σ(i) = aσ(i)σ(j) ∀ i, j ∈ {1, . . . , n}
and, as a consequence, Aσ defined as follows:



A =


σ

aσ(1)σ(1)
aσ(2)σ(1)
..
.

aσ(1)σ(2)
aσ(2)σ(2)
..
.

· · · aσ(1)σ(n)
· · · aσ(2)σ(n)
..
..
.
.

aσ(n)σ(1) aσ(n)σ(2) · · · aσ(n)σ(n)








(15)

is a G-reciprocal PCM too. In other words, if we apply row-column permutations to a G-reciprocal PCM,
then also the resulting matrix will be a G-reciprocal PCM.
Definition 2.8. [8] A = (aij ) is a G-consistent PCM, if verifies the following condition:
aik = aij

ajk

∀i, j, k ∈ {1, . . . , n}.

(16)

Proposition 2.3. [8] Let A = (aij ) be G-reciprocal PCM. Then, the following statements are equivalent:
1. A = (aij ) is a G-consistent PCM;
2. aik = aij

ajk

∀i < j < k ∈ {1, . . . , n}.

Definition 2.9. [8] Let A = (aij ) be a G-reciprocal PCM of order n ≥ 3. Then, its G-consistency index
is:

( 1 )
|T |
K


,
IG (A) =
dG (aik , aij ajk )
i<j<k

with T = {(i, j, k) : i < j < k} and |T | =

n(n−2)(n−1)
6

its cardinality.

We stress that, in Definition 2.9, |T | ∈ N, with |T | ≥ 1, and the G-consistency index is a G-mean
(see Definition 2.6) of |T | G-distances from G-consistency. Moreover, let φ be an isomorphism between
G = (G, , ≤) and H = (H, ∗, ≤), A0 = φ(A) = (φ(aij )); then, Cavallo and D’Apuzzo [8] prove that:
IH (A0 ) = φ(IG (A)).

(17)

Proposition 2.4. [8] Let A = (aij ) be G-reciprocal PCM. Then, the following statements hold:
1. IG (A) ≥ e;
2. IG (A) = e ⇔ A is G-consistent;
3. IG (A) = IG (Aσ ) for all permutations σ.

3 Intervals over a real continuous Alo-group
In this section, by respecting standard rules of interval arithmetic [7, 34], we extend interval arithmetic
to work on a real continuous Alo-group G = (G, , ≤), with G an open interval of R. For notational
convenience, let [G] be the set of closed intervals over G, that is:
[G] = {ã = [a− , a+ ]|a− , a+ ∈ G, a− ≤ a+ }.

(18)

The subset of all singleton intervals (points) is denoted by [G]p , that is:
[G]p = {ã = [a− , a+ ] ∈ [G]|a− = a+ }.

(19)

Of course, if ã ∈ [G]p then ã degenerates in an element of G. Equality relation on [G] is defined as follows:
ã = b̃ ⇔ a− = b− and a+ = b+ .

(20)

Following [34] and [15], for each ã = [a− , a+ ] ∈ [G], we denote with:
ã(−1) = [(a+ )(−1) , (a− )(−1) ]

(21)

the reciprocal interval of ã; of course, ã(−1) ∈ [G] because, by the last equivalence in (2), (a+ )(−1) ≤
(a− )(−1) .
Let us consider ã = [a− , a+ ] and b̃ = [b− , b+ ] ∈ [G]; then we can borrow the definition of binary operation
on intervals and set:
ã [G] b̃ = {a b| a ∈ ã, b ∈ b̃}
(22)
and consequently
ã ÷[G] b̃ = ã

[G]

b̃(−1) .

(23)

The following theorem provides a further representations of ã [G] b̃ and ã ÷[G] b̃. Its main scope is that of
providing closed forms for the operations [G] and ÷[G] . This will help simplify the operations and derive
results in closed form.
Theorem 3.1. Let ã, b̃ ∈ [G]; then, the following equalities hold:
ã

[G]

b̃ = [a−

b− , a+

b+ ],

ã ÷[G] b̃ = [a− ÷ b+ , a+ ÷ b− ].
Proposition 3.1. The following assertions hold:
1. [e, e] ∈ [G] is the identity with respect to
2. ã ∈ [G] has inverse with respect to
Example 3.1.
inverse.
Let us consider
Let us consider
Let us consider

[G]

[G] ;

if and only if ã ∈ [G]p .

From the previous proposition we know that if ã 6∈ [G]p , then ã(−1) in (21) is not its
the multiplicative Alo-group; then, e.g. we have [2, 4] [R+ ] [1/4, 1/2] = [1/2, 2] 6= [1, 1].
the additive Alo-group; then, e.g. we have [2, 4] [R] [−4, −2] = [−2, 2] 6= [0, 0].
the fuzzy Alo-group; then, e.g. we have [0.6, 0.7] [I] [0.3, 0.4] = [0.39, 0.61] 6= [0.5, 0.5].

A strict partial order on [G] is defined as follows:
ã <[G] b̃ ⇔ a+ < b− ;

(24)

ã ≤[G] b̃ ⇔ ã = b̃ or ã <[G] b̃.

(25)

thus, we set

It is important to note that, as one should expect, the real case is just an instance of the interval-valued
case when the intervals are singletons. Hence, all the results obtained in the interval-valued case are
compatible with, and apply to, the real valued case as well. For sake of precision, the following theorem
stipulates this connection in the form of a isomorphism between Alo-groups.
[G] , ≤[G] )

Theorem 3.2. [G]p = ([G]p ,

is an Alo-group isomorphic to G = (G, , ≤).

Since the proof of the previous theorem implicitly shows that [G] is a monoid operation for the Abelian
monoid [G] = ([G], [G] ), from now on, we will use [G] instead of [G] .
The distance between two real numbers in an Alo-group was already defined by Cavallo and D’Apuzzo
[8] and here recalled in Proposition 2.2. Now we shall extend this proposal to the more general case of
intervals. First, we propose and study a notion of [G]-norm, that is the generalization to intervals of the
concept of G-norm in Definition 2.3.
Definition 3.1. The [G]-norm on [G] is given by the following function:
|| · ||[G] : ã ∈ [G] → ||ã||[G] = max{||a− ||G , ||a+ ||G } ∈ G.
Similarly to Proposition 2.1, we provide the following properties of [G]-norm:
Proposition 3.2. The [G]-norm satisfies the following properties:
1. ||ã||[G] = ||ã(−1) ||[G] ;
2. a− , a+ ≤ ||ã||[G] ;
3. ||ã||[G] ≥ e;
4. ||ã||[G] = e ⇔ a− = a+ = e;
5. ||ã

[G]

b̃||[G] ≤ ||ã||[G]

||b̃||[G] .

We are now ready to extend the concept of G-distance to the interval-valued case and we call it [G]-distance.
Definition 3.2. The function
m : (ã, b̃) ∈ [G] × [G] → m(ã, b̃) ∈ G
is a [G]-metric or [G]-distance if:
1. m(ã, b̃) ≥ e;
2. m(ã, b̃) = e ⇔ ã = b̃:
3. m(ã, b̃) = m(b̃, ã);
4. m(ã, b̃) ≤ m(ã, c̃)

m(c̃, b̃).

With the following proposition, we introduce a function acting as a [G]-distance.
Proposition 3.3. The function
d[G] : (ã, b̃) ∈ [G] × [G] → d[G] (ã, b̃) = ||[a− ÷ b− , a+ ÷ b+ ]||[G] ∈ G
is a [G]-distance.
Remark 3.1. As one should expect, for the additive Alo-group, d[G] collapses into the distance between
real intervals, i.e. d[R] (ã, b̃) = max{|a− − a+ |, |b− − b+ |}.

4 Interval pairwise comparison matrices over a real continuous Alo-group
Let us assume that G = (G, , ≤) is a real continuous Alo-group, with G an open interval, and X =
{x1 , x2 , ..., xn } a set of decision elements such as criteria or alternatives.
Having laid down the necessary mathematical foundations, we are now ready to formalize and study the
concept of interval pairwise comparison matrix, where each entry is an interval in G (i.e. an element of
[G]). Let us consider the following quantitative preference relation on X:
Ã : (xi , xj ) ∈ X × X → ãij = Ã(xi , xj ) ∈ [G]
+
where the interval ãij = [a−
ij , aij ] ⊂ G represents the uncertain estimation of the preference intensity of xi
over xj . When the cardinality of X is small, Ã can be represented by an Interval Pairwise Comparison
Matrix (IPCM )

x1

x2

···

xn

x1 ã11
x2 
 ã21
Ã = ..  ..
.  .

ã12
ã22
..
.

...
···
..
.

xn

ãn2

···

  − +
[a11 , a11 ]
ã1n
 − +

[a21 , a21 ]

ã2n 
..  = 
..
.  
.




ãn1


+
−
+
[a−
12 , a12 ] . . . [a1n , a1n ]
+
−
+ 
[a−
22 , a22 ] · · · [a2n , a2n ] 
.
..
..
..

.
.
.

−
+
−
+
−
+
[an1 , an1 ] [an2 , an2 ] · · · [ann , ann ]

ãnn

(26)

Let Ã = (ãij ) be a IPCM; we say that Ã = (ãij ) degenerates in a PCM over G = (G, , ≤) if ãij ∈
[G]p , ∀i, j ∈ {1, . . . , n}.

4.1 [G]-reciprocal IPCMs
As it was done for PCMs, we can now formulate and study the concept of reciprocity for IPCMs in a more
general framework.
Definition 4.1. Ã = (ãij ), with ãij ∈ [G] for each i, j = 1, . . . , n, is a [G]-reciprocal IPCM if:
(−1)

ãji = ãij

.

(27)

Corollary 4.1. Ã = (ãij ), with ãij ∈ [G] for each i, j = 1, . . . , n, is a [G]-reciprocal IPCM if and only if
a−
ij

+
a+
ji = aij

a−
ji = e.

(28)

The following examples will show that [G]-reciprocity is suitable for the three most widely used types of
IPCMs.
Example 4.1. The following IPCM


[1, 1]

Ã =  [2, 4]
[ 71 , 16 ]


[ 14 , 12 ] [6, 7]

[1, 1] [3, 5] 
[ 15 , 13 ] [1, 1]

is a multiplicative [R+ ]-reciprocal IPCM; thus, each entry is an interval in R+ .
Example 4.2. The following IPCM


[0, 0]

Ã =  [−7, −4]
[−4, −2]

[4, 7]
[2, 4]
[0, 0] [−3, −2]
[2, 3]
[0, 0]





is an additive [R]-reciprocal IPCM; thus, each entry is an interval in R.

Example 4.3. The following IPCM


[0.5, 0.5]

Ã =  [0.3, 0.4]
[0.2, 0.3]


[0.6, 0.7] [0.7, 0.8]

[0.5, 0.5] [0.6, 0.8] 
[0.2, 0.4] [0.5, 0.5]

is a fuzzy [I]-reciprocal IPCM; thus, each entry is an interval in I =]0, 1[.
Proposition 4.1. Ã = (ãij ) is a [G]-reciprocal IPCM with
ãij

[G]

ãji = [e, e] ∀i, j

(29)

if and only if Ã = (ãij ) degenerates in a G-reciprocal PCM.
From now on, we assume that Ã is a [G]-reciprocal IPCM. Let (σ(1), . . . , σ(n)) be a permutation of
(1, . . . , n); then, similarly to Aσ in (15), we define Ãσ as follows:


ãσ(1)σ(1) ãσ(1)σ(2) ... ãσ(1)σ(n)
 ã
ãσ(2)σ(2) ... ãσ(2)σ(n) 


Ãσ =  σ(2)σ(1)
(30)
.


...
...
...
...
ãσ(n)σ(1) ãσ(n)σ(2) ... ãσ(n)σ(n)
By using an argument similar to the one used to show that G-reciprocity of A guarantees the G-reciprocity
of Aσ , we provide the following proposition, which extends the result to IPCMs:
Proposition 4.2. Ã = (ãij ) is [G]-reciprocal if and only if Ãσ is [G]-reciprocal for all permutations σ.

5 [G]-Consistency conditions for [G]-reciprocal IPCMs
The formulation of consistency conditions and reliable indices to estimate the extent of their violation
have played a pivotal role in the development of the theory of pairwise comparisons. As emerges from
recent studies [4], there is not a meeting of minds on the best way of capturing inconsistency. This is
even more so in the case of IPCMs since in this context there is not even a uniquely accepted condition of
consistency.
In this section, we generalize to [G]-reciprocal IPCMs consistency conditions which were initially proposed
in the literature for fuzzy IPCMs [45, 46] and multiplicative IPCMs [27, 42].

5.1 Liu’s [G]-consistency
+
Let Ã = ([a−
ij , aij ]) be a [G]-reciprocal IPCM, then we define L = (lij ) and R = (rij ) as follows


−
+


a
i
<
j


 ij
aij i < j
lij = e
rij = e
i=j
i=j .




a+ i > j
a− i > j
ij

(31)

ij

We stress that L = (lij ) and R = (rij ) are G-reciprocal PCMs. At this point, we can state the first
condition of consistency, which we call Liu’s [G]-consistency because it generalizes a consistency condition
provided by Liu [28] for multiplicative IPCMs.
+
Definition 5.1. Ã = ([a−
ij , aij ]) is Liu’s [G]-consistent if
(
lik = lij ljk
∀i, j, k ∈ {1, . . . , n};
rik = rij rjk

that is, L and R are G-consistent PCMs over (G, , ≤).

(32)

Proposition 5.1. The following statements are equivalent:
+
1. Ã = ([a−
ij , aij ]) is Liu’s [G]-consistent;
(
lik = lij ljk
2.
∀i < j < k;
rik = rij rjk

3. ãik = ãij

[G]

ãjk

∀i < j < k.

It is crucial to notice that, analogously to Liu’s consistency defined for multiplicative IPCMs (see [30]),
Liu’s [G]-consistency is not invariant with respect to the permutation of alternatives. This means that Liu’s
[G]-consistency depends on the labeling of criteria/alternatives and, as a consequence, Liu’s [G]-consistency
(inconsistency) of Ã does not imply Liu’s [G]-consistency (inconsistency) of Ãσ for different permutations
σ.
Example 5.1. Let us consider the following two additive [R]-reciprocal IPCMs:




[0, 0]
[2, 4]
[4, 7]
[0, 0]
[−4, −2] [2, 3]




Ã = [−4, −2]
[0, 0]
[2, 3] Ãσ =  [2, 4]
[0, 0]
[4, 7] ,
[−7, −4] [−3, −2] [0, 0]
[−3, −2] [−7, −4] [0, 0]
where the latter is obtained by applying σ = {2, 1, 3} to the former. Permutation σ does not change the
structure of the preferences, yet only the first IPCM is deemed Liu [R]-consistent.
The soundness of such consistency condition has thus been questioned in recent papers [33, 42, 32] as
it seems to violate a principle according to which a simple reordering of alternatives which leaves the
preferences unchanged shall not affect the consistency of these latter ones [6]. Consequently, to overcome
this issue, more recent formulations of consistency conditions for IPCMs are invariant under permutations
of alternatives.

5.2 Approximate [G]-consistency
In order to deal with the above mentioned shortcoming of Liu’s [G]-consistency, Liu et al. [30] proposed
an approximate consistency condition for multiplicative IPCMs. This consistency condition has also been
used in applications of multiplicative IPCM to solve problems of partner selection [29]. In this section, we
provide the notion of approximate [G]-consistency to generalize approximate consistency.
+
σ
σ
σ
Let Ã = ([a−
ij , aij ]) be a [G]-reciprocal IPCM, σ a permutation of {1, 2, . . . , n}, Ã in (30) and L = (lij )
σ
σ
σ
σ
and R = (rij ) with lij and rij defined as follows:

σ
lij

=


−

aσ(i)σ(j)

e


a+
σ(i)σ(j)

i<j
i=j

σ
rij

=

i>j


+

aσ(i)σ(j)

e


a−
σ(i)σ(j)

i<j
i=j

.

(33)

i>j

Example 5.2. Let us consider the multiplicative [R+ ]-reciprocal IPCM in Example 4.1. Let σ = {1, 2, 3},
then Ãσ = Ã and




1 12 7
1 14 6




Lσ =  4 1 3  R σ =  2 1 5  .
1
1
1
1
6
3 1
7
5 1
Let σ1 = {1, 3, 2}, then


Ãσ1

[1, 1] [6, 7]
 1 1
=  [ 7 , 6 ] [1, 1]
[2, 4] [3, 5]


[ 41 , 12 ]

[ 15 , 13 ] 
[1, 1]

and



Lσ1


6 41


=  16 1 15 
4 5 1



1

R σ1


7 12


=  17 1 13  .
2 3 1
1

+
Definition 5.2. An IPCM Ã = ([a−
ij , aij ]) is approximately [G]-consistent if there is a permutation σ such
σ ) and Rσ = (r σ ) are G-consistent PCMs over (G, , ≤).
that Lσ = (lij
ij
+
Remark 5.1. We stress that, said in other words, Ã = ([a−
ij , aij ]) is an approximately [G]-consistent IPCM
if and only if there is a permutation σ such that Ãσ is Liu’s [G]-consistent.

Example 5.3. Let us consider the additive [R]-reciprocal IPCM in Example 4.2 and the permutation
σ = {1, 3, 2}. Then:


[0, 0]
[2, 4]
[4, 7]


Ãσ =  [−4, −2]
[0, 0]
[2, 3]  .
[−7, −4] [−3, −2] [0, 0]
The additive PCMs




0
2 4


Lσ =  −2 1 2 
−4 −2 1




0
4 7


Rσ =  −4 1 3 
−7 −3 1

are R-consistent; thus, Ã in Example 4.2 is an approximately [R]-consistent IPCM.
+
Theorem 5.1. The IPCM Ã = ([a−
ij , aij ]) degenerates in a G-consistent PCM over (G, , ≤) if and only
σ ) and Rσ = (r σ ) are G-consistent PCMs over (G, , ≤) for each permutation σ.
if Lσ = (lij
ij

5.3 [G]-consistency
In this section, we generalize the consistency condition employed by Li et al. [27] and Zhang [55] for
multiplicative IPCMs.
Definition 5.3. Ã = (ãij ) is a [G]-consistent IPCM if
ãij

[G]

ãjk

[G]

ãki = ãik

[G]

ãkj

[G]

ãji

∀i, j, k ∈ {1, . . . , n}.

(34)

By Theorem 3.1, [G]-consistency in Definition 5.3 is equivalent to:
(
a−
ij

a−
jk

−
a−
ki = aik

a−
kj

a−
ji

∀i, j, k ∈ {1, . . . , n}

a+
ij

a+
jk

+
a+
ki = aik

a+
kj

a+
ji

∀i, j, k ∈ {1, . . . , n}.

(35)

The following proposition will show that [G]-consistency is invariant with respect to permutations of
alternatives.
Proposition 5.2. Ã = (ãij ) is [G]-consistent if and only if Ãσ is [G]-consistent for all permutations σ.
Theorem 5.2. Let Ã = (ãij ) be a [G]-reciprocal IPCM. Then, the following assertions are equivalent:
1. Ã = (ãij ) is a [G]-consistent IPCM;
2. a−
ik

−
a+
ik = aij

a+
ij

a−
jk

a+
jk

∀i, j, k ∈ {1, . . . , n};

3. a−
ik

−
a+
ik = aij

a+
ij

a−
jk

a+
jk

∀i < j < k.

5.4 Comparisons between consistency conditions
We are now ready to compare Liu’s [G]-consistency (Definition 5.1), approximate [G]-consistency (Definition 5.2) and [G]-consistency (Defintion 5.3). Under the assumption of [G]-reciprocity, the following
proposition holds.
Proposition 5.3. The following statements hold:
1. If Ã is Liu’s [G]-consistent then Ã is approximately [G]-consistent;
2. If Ã is approximately [G]-consistent then Ã is [G]-consistent.
We stress that in the same way as G-consistency implies G-reciprocity [8], both Liu’s [G]-consistency
and approximate [G]-consistency imply [G]-reciprocity. Conversely, [G]-consistency does not imply [G]reciprocity. It is sufficient to propose a counterexample in the form of the following multiplicative IPCM:


[1, 1] [2, 10] [6, 40]
 1 1

 [ 5 , 2 ] [1, 1] [3, 4]  ,
1 1
[ 40
, 6 ] [ 18 , 13 ] [1, 1]
which is [R+ ]-consistent but not [R+ ]-reciprocal.
Finally, it can be shown that, unlike approximate [G]-consistency, in which case one needs to seek for a
Liu’s [G]-consistent IPCM Ãσ to guarantee approximate [G]-consistency of Ã (see Remark 5.1), checking
[G]-consistency of Ã is more immediate because no permutation σ has to be considered (see Proposition
5.2).
The following examples show that the reverse implications in Proposition 5.3 are not true.
Example 5.4. The additive IPCM Ãσ in Example 5.1 is approximately [R]-consistent (because Ã is Liu
[R]-consistent) but not Liu [R]-consistent.
+
−
+
−
+
Example 5.5. The following additive IPCM is [R]-consistent, since a−
13 + a13 = a12 + a12 + a23 + a23 , but
not approximately [R]-consistent.


[0, 0]
[0, 1]
[0, 1]


[−1, 0] [0, 0] [−2, 2]
[−1, 0] [−2, 2] [0, 0]

The findings of Proposition 5.3 and the previous counterexamples are summarized in Figure 1.

Liu’s [G]-consistency
Approximate [G]-consistency
[G]-consistency

Figure 1: Inclusion relations between consistency conditions.

6 [G]-Consistency index of [G]-reciprocal IPCMs
In this section, we propose a method for quantifying the [G]-inconsistency of IPCMs as a violation of the
condition of [G]-consistency in Definition 5.3.
Let us denote with ãijk and ãikj the following intervals:
h
+
−
ãijk = [a−
a−
ijk , aijk ] = aij
jk
h
+
−
ãikj = [a−
a−
ikj , aikj ] = aik
kj

+
a−
ki , aij

a+
jk

+
a−
ji , aik

a+
kj

i
a+
ki ,
i
+
aji .

with this notation we can rewrite the [G]-consistency condition in Definition 5.3 as follows,
ãijk = ãikj

∀i, j, k ∈ {1, . . . , n}.

(36)

Since [G]-inconsistency manifests itself in the violation of this latter condition and both sides of the equation
are intervals, we consider appropriate to quantify [G]-inconsistency by means of a suitable distance between
ãijk and ãikj . At this point, we can employ the [G]-distance d[G] in Proposition 3.3 to measure the local
[G]-inconsistency associated with i, j, k as follows:
−
+
+
d[G] (ãijk , ãikj ) = max{dG (ã−
ijk , ãikj ), dG (ãijk , ãikj )}.

(37)

Proposition 6.1. Let Ã be a [G]-reciprocal IPCM. Then, the following equalities hold true:
n
o
n
o
−
−
−
−
−
+
+
d[G] (ãijk , ãikj ) = max ã−
÷
ã
,
ã
÷
ã
=
max
ã
÷
ã
,
ã
÷
ã
ijk
ikj
ikj
ijk
ijk
ikj
ijk
ikj =
n
o
n
o
+
+
+
+
−
+
+
= max ã−
÷
ã
,
ã
÷
ã
=
max
ã
÷
ã
,
ã
÷
ã
ikj
ijk
ikj
ijk
ijk
ikj
ikj
ijk .
Example 6.1. Let us consider the multiplicative IPCM Ã in Example 4.1; then, we have


12/5
112
3/28 12/5
=
,
=
= 22.4.
d[R+ ] (ã123 , ã132 ) = max
12/5 3/28
3/28
5
At this point, similarly to the G-consistency index in Definition 2.9, we can extend the local evaluation of
the [G]-inconsistency to an entire IPCM of order n ≥ 3 thanks to the concept of G-mean (see Definition
2.6) as follows:
Definition 6.1. Let Ã be a [G]-reciprocal IPCM of order n ≥ 3. Then, its [G]-consistency index is

( 1 )
|T |
 
K
I[G] Ã = 
d[G] (ãijk , ãikj )
,

(38)

i<j<k

with T = {(i, j, k) : i < j < k} and |T | =

n(n−2)(n−1)
6

its cardinality.

Similarly to Definition 2.9, we stress that, in Definition 6.1, |T | ∈ N, with |T | ≥ 1, and the [G]-consistency
index is a G-mean (see Definition 2.6) of |T | [G]-distances from [G]-consistency. Moreover, let φ be an
isomorphism between G = (G, , ≤) and H = (H, ∗, ≤), Ã0 = φ(Ã) = (φ(ãij )); then, by (37), equivalence
in (4), (7) and (13), we have that:
I[H] (Ã0 ) = φ(I[G] (Ã)).
(39)
Proposition 6.2. [8] Let Ã be a [G]-reciprocal IPCM; then:
I[G] (Ã) ≥ e,

I[G] (Ã) = e ⇔ Ã is [G]-consistent IPCM.

If all the entries of an IPCM collapse to singletons, then the [G]-consistency index I[G] for IPCMs becomes
the G-consistency index IG for PCMs (Definition 2.9). Hence, it is important to know that, to corroborate
the soundness of IG , it was shown [5, 11] that it satisfies a set of reasonable properties and therefore, at
present, it seems a reasonable function for estimating inconsistency. Moreover, contrarily to the approaches
by Liu [28] and Li et al. [27], where the consistency of a multiplicative IPCM is measured by computing
Saaty’s consistency index [37] of one or two associated PCMs, index I[G] is computed directly on the
original IPCM (i.e. without considering associated PCMs), and it is suitable for each kind of IPCM (i.e.
not only multiplicative IPCMs). For the cases of multiplicative, additive, fuzzy IPCMs, [G]-consistency
index I[G] assumes the following forms:
6


n(n−2)(n−1)
 
Y
I[R+ ] Ã = 
d[R+ ] (ãijk , ãikj )
,

i<j<k

(40)

 
I[R] Ã =

X
6
d[R] (ãijk , ãikj ),
n(n − 2)(n − 1)

(41)

i<j<k

6

n(n−2)(n−1)
d
(ã
,
ã
)
ijk
ikj
[I]
i<j<k
.
6
6

Q

n(n−2)(n−1)
n(n−2)(n−1)
d
(ã
,
ã
)
+
(1
−
d
(ã
,
ã
))
[I] ijk ikj
i<j<k [I] ijk ikj
i<j<k

Q

 
I[I] Ã = 
Q

(42)

We remark that isomorphisms between Alo-groups allow us to compare consistency of IPCMs defined over
different Alo-groups; e.g. in Example 6.3, we will compare consistency of a multiplicative IPCM with
consistency of a fuzzy IPCM.
Example 6.2. Let us consider the following multiplicative [R+ ]-reciprocal IPCM, which was used also by
Arbel and Vargas [1], Haines [20], and Wang et al. [41]


[1, 1] [2, 5] [2, 4] [1, 3]
[ 1 , 1 ] [1, 1] [1, 3] [1, 2] 


Ã1 =  15 21
.
1
1
[ 4 , 2 ] [ 3 , 1] [1, 1] [ 2 , 1]
[ 31 , 1] [ 12 , 1] [1, 2] [1, 1]
 
By applying Definition 6.1 and Proposition 6.1, I[R+ ] Ã1 is given by the following geometric mean:


I[R+ ] Ã1



q
= 4 d[R+ ] (ã123 , ã132 ) · d[R+ ] (ã124 , ã142 ) · d[R+ ] (ã134 , ã143 ) · d[R+ ] (ã234 , ã243 ) =
s
 − − − − − −
 − − − − − −
a12 · a24 · a41 a14 · a42 · a21
a12 · a23 · a31 a13 · a32 · a21
,
·
max
= 4 max
−
−
− , −
− ·
−
−
−
−
−
−
a13 · a32 · a21 a12 · a23 · a31
a−
14 · a42 · a21 a12 · a24 · a41
s
 − − − − − −
 − − − − − −
a23 · a34 · a42 a24 · a43 · a32
a13 · a34 · a41 a14 · a43 · a31
4
· max
· max
=
− , −
−
− , −
−
−
−
−
−
−
a14 · a43 · a31 a13 · a34 · a41
a−
24 · a43 · a32 a23 · a34 · a42
r
20 4 4
4 15
=
·
· · ≈ 2.58199.
4 3 3 3

Example 6.3. Let us consider the following [I]-reciprocal fuzzy IPCM, proposed by Wang and Li [45]

[0.50, 0.50]
[0.50, 0.65]

Ã2 = 
[0.40, 0.50]
[0.40, 0.55]

[0.35, 0.50]
[0.50, 0.50]
[0.30, 0.45]
[0.30, 0.50]

[0.50, 0.60]
[0.55, 0.70]
[0.50, 0.50]
[0.45, 0.60]


[0.45, 0.60]
[0.50, 0.70]

.
[0.40, 0.55]
[0.50, 0.50]

Its consistency index can be computed by applying (42), or by applying the isomorphism h : R+ →]0, 1[ in
(11), that is:
 
I[I] Ã2 = h(I[R+ ] (h−1 (Ã2 ))) ≈ 0.503448.
Interestingly, although they are expressed on two different scales, values of consistency indices from different
representations of preferences are, thanks to the isomorphisms, comparable. For instance, let us consider
the multiplicative IPCM in Example 6.2; then, by using the isomorphism h in (11), we have that

 
h I[R+ ] Ã1
≈ 0.720826,
which entails that Ã1 is more inconsistent than Ã2 .

7 [G]-Indeterminacy index of [G]-reciprocal IPCMs
If we follow the definition of [G]-consistency (Definition 5.3), we could encounter cases where IPCMs
with extremely wide intervals are considered [G]-consistent. Li et al.[27] and Zhang [55] reckoned that a

multiplicative IPCM with all non-diagonal entries equal to ãij = [1/9, 9] would be considered consistent.
This case reflects a high ambiguity from the decision maker’s side and is classified as fully consistent.
Thus, in all these cases, the consistency of a IPCM, as formulated in Definition 5.3 loses its capacity of
yielding information on the real ability of a decision maker to be rational. To mitigate this problem, Li
et al. [27]suggested the use of an index of indeterminacy. Inconsistency of interval-valued preferences and
width of the intervals can then be used in concert to better asses the discriminative capacity of a decision
maker. We shall here propose a general definition of indeterminacy index and show that the proposals by
Li et al. [27] and Zhang [55] fits within in.
Definition 7.1. Let Ã be a [G]-reciprocal IPCM. The indeterminacy value of the entry ãij is
+
δ(ãij ) = dG (a−
ij , aij ).

(43)

Corollary 7.1. Let Ã be a [G]-reciprocal IPCM; then the following equality holds:
−
δ(ãij ) = a+
ij ÷ aij .

(44)

Definition 7.2. Let Ã be a [G]-reciprocal IPCM. The [G]-indeterminacy index is

( 1 )
n(n−1)
 
K


.
∆[G] Ã =
δ(ãij )
i6=j

We stress that, in Definition 7.2, n(n − 1) ∈ N and the [G]-indeterminacy index is a G-mean (see Definition
2.6) of n(n − 1) indeterminacy values. Moreover, let φ be an isomorphism between G = (G, , ≤) and
H = (H, ∗, ≤), Ã0 = φ(Ã) = (φ(ãij )); then, by (13), we have that:
∆[H] (Ã0 ) = φ(∆[G] (Ã)).

(45)

−
+
−
Furthermore, by Corollary 4.1, we have that a+
ij ÷ aij = aji ÷ aji ; thus, it is sufficient to consider the
comparisons in the upper triangle of Ã and it leads to a simplification of the previous formula into:


( 1 )
 
(2) n(n−1)
K
−

∆[G] Ã = 
a+
.
ij ÷ aij

(46)

i<j

Proposition 7.1. Let Ã be a [G]-reciprocal IPCM; then:
 
 
∆[G] Ã ≥ e, ∆[G] Ã = e ⇔ Ã ∈ [G]p .
For multiplicative, additive and fuzzy IPCMs, the indeterminacy index can be written as follows, respectively,
2

! n(n−1)
 
Y a+
ij 
∆[R+ ] Ã = 
,
(47)
−
a
ij
i<j
 
∆[R] Ã =


X
2
−
a+
ij − aij ,
n(n − 1)

(48)

i<j


Q
 
∆[I] Ã = 
Q

−
a+
ij (1−aij )

i<j a+ (1−a− )+(1−a+ )a−
ij
ij
ij ij



−
a+
ij (1−aij )

2
n(n−1)

i<j a+ (1−a− )+(1−a+ )a−
ij
ij ij
ij



2
n(n−1)

+


Q


i<j

1−

−
a+
ij (1−aij )



2
n(n−1)

.

−
+ −
a+
ij (1−aij )+(1−aij )aij

It is worth noting that:
• The indeterminacy index (47) is equal to the indeterminacy index proposed by Li et al. [27];

(49)

• Function (48) represents a way to measure the indeterminacy of an additive IPCM and to best of
our knowledge there has not been similar proposals for the additive approach in the literature;
• Equation (49) is different from the indeterminacy index proposed by Wang and Chen [44] because
(49) takes in account the fuzzy mean, instead of geometric mean, and inverse of fuzzy group operation
⊗, instead of classical division (the set ]0, 1[ is not closed under the classical division of R).
Finally, the [G]-indeterminacy index is suitable for each kind of IPCM (i.e. not only multiplicative and
fuzzy IPCMs) and isomorphisms between Alo-groups allow us to compare indeterminacy of IPCMs defined
over different Alo-groups. In the following example we compare indeterminacy of a multiplicative IPCM
with indeterminacy of a fuzzy IPCM.
Example 7.1. Let us consider the multiplicative IPCM Ã1 in Example 6.2 and the fuzzy IPCM in Example
6.3. Firstly, we compute the [R+ ]-indeterminacy index of Ã1 as follows:

∆[R+ ] (Ã1 ) = 

Y
i<j

a+
ij
a−
ij

1
!2  4(4−1)



=

5 4 3 3 2 1
· · · · ·
2 2 1 1 1 12

!1/6
= 1801/6 ≈ 2.376.

Secondly, we compute the [I]-indeterminacy index of Ã2 , by applying the isomorphism h in (11), that is:
 
∆[I] Ã2 = h(∆[R+ ] (h−1 (Ã2 ))) ≈ 0.6506.
In their present forms the two values are incomparable, but they can be made comparable by applying the
isomorphism h to ∆[R+ ] (Ã1 ) and obtain

 
h ∆[R+ ] Ã1
≈ 0.7038
which, being larger than 0.6506, indicates that globally the preferences contained in the multiplicative
IPCM Ã1 are more indeterminate than those contained in the fuzzy IPCM Ã2 , in addition to being more
inconsistent (see Example 6.3)
All in all, it has been stipulated that we can associate a consistency and an indeterminacy value to each
IPCM. In line with the approach by Li et al. [27], we also propose to use both values to determine whether
or not a matrix needs revision. To this end, we observe that the conjoint use of both indices lends itself
to some graphical interpretations.
• For each matrix Ã we have two values, I[G] (Ã) and ∆[G] (Ã). As shown in Figure 2a, these two values
partition the graph into four subsets. IPCMs with values in Q1 have greater indeterminacy and
inconsistency than Ã. Therefore it seems reasonable to consider them more inaccurate/irrational.
With a similar reasoning one could classify IPCMs with values in Q3 as less inaccurate/irrational.
IPCMs in Q2 and Q4 are not comparable since they have one value which is greater, but the other
one which is smaller.
• The second interpretation, also proposed by Li et al. [27] is that of fixing thresholds for both indices
and accept only IPCMs whose values are smaller or equal than the thresholds. Namely, if tI and t∆
were the thresholds, then we should accept only the IPCMs in the grey area in Figure 2b.
Example 7.2. Let us consider the multiplicative and fuzzy IPCMs Ã1 and Ã2 used in Examples 6.2, 6.3,
and 7.1. For Ã2 , we had:
I[I] (Ã2 ) = 0.503448;
∆[I] (Ã2 ) = 0.6506.
For Ã1 , by using the proper isomorphism h mentioned in (11), we obtained:
I[R+ ] (Ã1 ) = 2.58199 ⇒ h(2.582) = 0.720826 = I[I] (h(Ã1 ));
∆[R+ ] (Ã1 ) = 2.376 ⇒ h(2.376) = 0.7038 = ∆[I] (h(Ã1 )).

∆[G]

∆[G]
Q1

Q2
∆[G] (Ã)

t∆

Ã
Q3

Q4

e

e
e

I[G] (Ã)

I[G]

(a) First interpretation

e

tI

I[G]

(b) Second interpretation

Figure 2: I[G] -∆[G] axes: I[G] is the [G]-consistency index; ∆[G] is the [G]-indeterminacy index. Lying on
the I[G] axis, there are all PCMs. Lying on the ∆-axis, there are all [G]-consistent IPCMs. On
the origin of the axes (e, e), there are all G-consistent PCMs.
For sake of completeness, we also consider the following additive IPCM


[0, 0]
[1, 3]
[2, 4]
[6, 8]
[−3, −1]
[0, 0]
[1, 3]
[4, 5]


Ã3 = 
;
[−4, −2] [−3, −1]
[0, 0]
[2, 3]
[−8, −6] [−5, −4] [−3, −2] [0, 0]
for which, by using the isomorphism g presented in (11), we can derive:
I[R] (Ã3 ) = 3/2 ⇒ g(3/2) = 0.8175 = I[I] (g(Ã3 ));
∆[R] (Ã3 ) = 5/3 ⇒ g(5/3) = 0.841131 = ∆[I] (g(Ã3 )).
At this point, thanks to the isomorphisms, we can give a common graphical interpretation of the levels of
inconsistency and indeterminacy of all IPCMs, whether they be multiplicative, additive or fuzzy. In this
example, we can position the preferences expressed in Ã1 , Ã2 , Ã3 on [0.5, 1[×[0.5, 1[. Figure 3a represents
the “dominance”of the preferences expressed in Ã2 over those expressed in Ã1 since Ã2 is both less inconsistent and less indeterminate than h(Ã1 ). The same can be said of the preferences of Ã2 when compared
to those in Ã3 .
If we establish thresholds tI = 0.7 and t∆ = 0.7 and stipulate that an acceptable IPCM ought to satisfy both
of them, then Figure 3b shows that only the preferences contained in Ã2 should be considered acceptable.

8 Conclusions and future work
In the paper, after generalizing interval arithmetic to a suitable algebraic structure, we provide a general
unified framework for dealing with IPCMs; in particular, reciprocal IPCMs, whose entries are intervals
on real continuous Abelian linearly ordered groups, allow us to unify several approaches proposed in the
literature, such as multiplicative, additive and fuzzy IPCMs.
In this context, firstly, we generalize some consistency conditions proposed in the literature and we establish
inclusion relations between them. Then, we provide a consistency index, based on a concept of distance
between intervals, in order to asses how much an IPCM is far from consistency; this consistency index
generalizes a consistency index proposed in [8], [14] for PCMs. We also consider an indeterminacy index
in order to assess ambiguity of a decision maker in expressing his/her preferences; consistency index and
indeterminacy index are used in concert to assess the discriminative capacity of a decision maker and
isomorphisms between Alo-groups allow us to compare consistency and indeterminacy of each kind of
IPCM and to represent them on a unique Cartesian coordinate system.

∆[I]

∆[I]

h(Ã3 )

h(Ã3 )

0.7208

Ã1

Ã1

0.7

g(Ã2 )

g(Ã2 )

0.5

0.5
0.5

0.7038

I[I]

(a) Preferences expressed in Ã2 are less inconsistent
and less indeterminate than those in Ã1 . Preferences expressed in Ã1 are less inconsistent and
less indeterminate than those in Ã3 .

0.5

0.7

I[I]

(b) With thresholds tI = 0.7 and t∆ = 0.7 only Ã2
is considered acceptable.

Figure 3: I[I] -∆[I] axes: I[I] is the [I]-consistency index; ∆[I] is the [I]-indeterminacy index. Graphical
analysis of inconsistency and indeterminacy of matrices Ã1 , Ã2 and Ã3 .
Our future work will be directed to investigate the possibility to extend to this kind of IPCMs further
notions and results obtained in the context of PCMs defined over Abelian linearly ordered groups, such
as weighting vector [10], transitivity condition [12] and weak consistency [13].
Finally, we observe that besides the approach based on intervals, a seemingly different approach grounded
on Atanassov’s concept of intuitionistic fuzzy sets has gained prominence to extend the concepts of fuzzy
PCMs [50] and multiplicative PCMs [51, 48]. Having realized this, thanks to an isomorphism between
interval-valued fuzzy sets and intuitionistic fuzzy sets (see [16], Th. 2.3), the results and the methods
developed in this paper can be straightforwardly extended to the case of intuitionistic PCMs.

Acknowledgement
The research is supported by “Programma di scambi internazionali con Università e Istituti di Ricerca
Stranieri per la Mobilità di breve durata di Docenti, Studiosi e Ricercatori”, University of Naples “Federico
II”. The research of Matteo Brunelli was financed by the Academy of Finland (decision no. 277135). We
thank Prof. Raimo P. Hämäläinen for having invited Bice Cavallo as visiting researcher at Aalto University
and for having built the opportunity of research collaboration between the two Universities.

References
[1] A. Arbel and L. G. Vargas. Preference simulation and preference programming: robustness issues in
priority derivation. European Journal of Operational Research, 69(2):200–209, 1993.
[2] V. Belton and T. Stewart. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Springer
Science & Business Media, 2002.
[3] G. Birkhoff. Lattice theory, volume 25. American Mathematical Soc., 1984.
[4] M. Brunelli. Recent advances on inconsistency indices for pairwise comparisons—a commentary.
Fundamenta Informaticae, 144(3-4):321–332, 2016.
[5] M. Brunelli. Studying a set of properties of inconsistency indices for pairwise comparisons. Annals
of Operations Research, 248(1-2):143–161, 2017.
[6] M. Brunelli and M. Fedrizzi. Axiomatic properties of inconsistency indices for pairwise comparisons.
Journal of the Operational Research Society, 66(1):1–15, 2015.

[7] L. M. Cabrer and D. Mundici. Interval MV-algebras and generalizations. International Journal of
Approximate Reasoning, 55(8):1623–1642, 2014.
[8] B. Cavallo and L. D’Apuzzo. A general unified framework for pairwise comparison matrices in multicriterial methods. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 24(4):377–398, 2009.
[9] B. Cavallo and L. D’Apuzzo. Characterizations of consistent pairwise comparison matrices over
abelian linearly ordered groups. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 25(10):1035–1059, 2010.
[10] B. Cavallo and L. D’Apuzzo. Deriving weights from a pairwise comparison matrix over an alo-group.
Soft Computing, 16(2):353–366, 2012.
[11] B. Cavallo and L. D’Apuzzo. Investigating properties of the
Computational Intelligence, pages 315–327. Springer, 2012.

-consistency index. In Advances in

[12] B. Cavallo and L. D’Apuzzo. Reciprocal transitive matrices over abelian linearly ordered groups:
Characterizations and application to multi-criteria decision problems. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 266:33–
46, 2015.
[13] B. Cavallo and L. D’Apuzzo. Ensuring reliability of the weighting vector: Weak consistent pairwise
comparison matrices. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 296:21–34, 2016.
[14] B. Cavallo, L. D’Apuzzo, and M. Squillante. About a consistency index for pairwise comparison
matrices over a divisible alo-group. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 27(2):153–175, 2012.
[15] H. Dawood. Theories of Interval Arithmetic: Mathematical Foundations and Applications. LAMBERT
Academic Publishing, 2011.
[16] G. Deschrijver and E. E. Kerre. On the relationship between some extensions of fuzzy set theory.
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 133(2):227–235, 2003.
[17] P. C. Fishburn. Preference relations and their numerical representations. Theoretical Computer
Science, 217(2):359–383, 1999.
[18] J. Fodor, R. Yager, and A. Rybalov. Structure of uninorms. International Journal of Uncertainty,
Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 5(4):411–427, 1997.
[19] J. B. Fraleigh. A First Course in Abstract Algebra. Pearson, 7th edition, 2002.
[20] L. M. Haines. A statistical approach to the analytic hierarchy process with interval judgements.(i).
distributions on feasible regions. European Journal of Operational Research, 110(1):112–125, 1998.
[21] E. Herrera-Viedma, F. Herrera, F. Chiclana, and M. Luque. Some issues on consistency of fuzzy
preferences relations. European Journal of Operational Research, 154:98–109, 2004.
[22] F. Hou. A multiplicative alo-group based hierarchical decision model and application. Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation, 45(8), 2016.
[23] J. Kacprzyk. Group decision making with a fuzzy linguistic majority. Fuzzy Sets and Systems,
18(2):105–118, 1986.
[24] R. L. Keeney and H. Raiffa. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs.
Wiley, New York, 1976.
[25] W. W. Koczkodaj, J. Szybowski, and E. Wajch. Inconsistency indicator maps on groups for pairwise
comparisons. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 69:81–90, 2016.
[26] J. Landes. Minmax decision rules for choice under complete uncertainty: Axiomatic characterizations
for preferences over utility intervals. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 55(5):1301–
1317, 2014.
[27] K. W. Li, Z.-J. Wang, and X. Tong. Acceptability analysis and priority weight elicitation for interval
multiplicative comparison matrices. European Journal of Operational Research, 250(2):628–638, 2016.
[28] F. Liu. Acceptable consistency analysis of interval reciprocal comparison matrices. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems, 160(18):2686–2700, 2009.
[29] F. Liu, L.-H. Pan, and Y.-N. Peng. A partner-selection method based on interval multiplicative

preference relations with approximate consistency. In Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE), 2016 IEEE
International Conference on, pages 2235–2240. IEEE, 2016.
[30] F. Liu, W. Pedrycz, and W. G. Zhang. Limited rationality and its quantification through the interval
number judgments with permutations. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, PP(99):1–13, 2016.
[31] R. D. Luce and P. Suppes. Preference, utility, and subjective probability. Handbook of Mathematical
Psychology, 3:249–410, 1965.
[32] F. Meng and C. Tan. A new consistency concept for interval multiplicative preference relations.
Applied Soft Computing, 52:262–276, 2017.
[33] F. Meng, C. Tan, and X. Chen. Multiplicative consistency analysis for interval fuzzy preference
relations: A comparative study. Omega, 68:17–38, 2017.
[34] R. E. Moore, R. B. Kearfott, and M. J. Cloud. Introduction to Interval Analysis. Siam Society for
Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2009.
[35] D. L. Olson, G. Fliedner, and K. Currie. Comparison of the REMBRANDT system with analytic
hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 82(3):522–539, 1995.
[36] J. Ramık. Pairwise comparison matrix with fuzzy elements on alo-group. Information Sciences,
297:236–253, 2015.
[37] T. L. Saaty. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical
Psychology, 15:234–281, 1977.
[38] T. L. Saaty and L. G. Vargas. Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process. European
Journal of Operational Research, 32(1):107–117, 1987.
[39] A. A. Salo and R. P. Hämäläinen. Preference programming through approximate ratio comparisons.
European Journal of Operational Research, 82(3):458–475, 1995.
[40] T. Tanino. Fuzzy preference orderings in group decision making. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 12(2):117–
131, 1984.
[41] Y.-M. Wang, J.-B. Yang, and D.-L. Xu. Interval weight generation approaches based on consistency
test and interval comparison matrices. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 167(1):252–273, 2005.
[42] Z.-J. Wang. A note on “A goal programming model for incomplete interval multiplicative preference
relations and its application in group decision-making”. European Journal of Operational Research,
247(3):867–871, 2015.
[43] Z.-J. Wang. Uncertainty index based consistency measurement and priority generation with interval
probabilities in the analytic hierarchy process. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 83:252 – 260,
2015.
[44] Z.-J. Wang and Y.-G. Chen. Logarithmic least squares prioritization and completion methods for
interval fuzzy preference relations based on geometric transitivity. Information Sciences, 289:59 – 75,
2014.
[45] Z.-J. Wang and K. W. Li. Goal programming approaches to deriving interval weights based on interval
fuzzy preference relations. Information Sciences, 193:180–198, 2012.
[46] Z.-J. Wang and K. W. Li. A multi-step goal programming approach for group decision making
with incomplete interval additive reciprocal comparison matrices. European Journal of Operational
Research, 242(3):890 – 900, 2015.
[47] M. Xia and J. Chen. Consistency and consensus improving methods for pairwise comparison matrices
based on abelian linearly ordered group. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 266(0):1–32, 2015.
[48] M. Xia, Z. Xu, and H. Liao. Preference relations based on intuitionistic multiplicative information.
IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 21(1):113–133, 2013.
[49] Z. Xu. On compatibility of interval fuzzy preference relations. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision
Making, 3(3):217–225, 2004.

[50] Z. Xu. Intuitionistic preference relations and their application in group decision making. Information
sciences, 177(11):2363–2379, 2007.
[51] Z. Xu. Priority weight intervals derived from intuitionistic multiplicative preference relations. IEEE
Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 21(4):642–654, 2013.
[52] R. R. Yager and A. Rybalov. Uninorm aggregation operators. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 80(1):111–120,
1996.
[53] E. Zermelo. Die berechnung der turnier-ergebnisse als ein maximumproblem der wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung. Mathematische Zeitschrift, 29(1):436–460, 1929.
[54] X. Zhang, C. Mei, D. Chen, and J. Li. Multi-confidence rule acquisition and confidence-preserved
attribute reduction in interval-valued decision systems. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 55(8):1787–1804, 2014.
[55] Z. Zhang. Logarithmic least squares approaches to deriving interval weights, rectifying inconsistency and estimating missing values for interval multiplicative preference relations. Soft Computing,
21(14):3993–4004, 2017.

Appendix
Proof of Theorem 3.1. We first consider the first equality. Since
is continuous on [a− , a+ ] × [b− , b+ ],
there exist minimum and maximum in [a− , a+ ] × [b− , b+ ], and assumes all values between minimum and
maximum. Finally, since is monotone increasing in both arguments, the minimum is equal to a− b−
and maximum is equal to a+ b+ ; thus, the assertion is achieved. The second equality follows from the
previous one and from (23)
Proof of Proposition 3.1.

1. By Theorem 3.1, ã

[G]

[e, e] = [e, e]

2. ⇒) Let us suppose that ∃b̃ ∈ [G] such that ã

[G]

b̃ = b̃

[a− , a+ ]

[G]

[b− , b+ ] = [a−

[G]

[G]

ã = ã, ∀ã ∈ [G].

ã = [e, e]. Then, we have,

b− , a+

b+ ] = [e, e],

from which
(
a−

b− = e

a+

b+ = e

⇒

(
a− = (b− )(−1)

(50)

a+ = (b+ )(−1)

By a− ≤ a+ , we have that (b− )(−1) ≤ (b+ )(−1) and, by first equivalence in (2), b− ≥ b+ , which,
together with b− ≤ b+ implies b− = b+ . This, with (50), implies that a− = a+ and ã ∈ [G]p .
⇐) Let us consider ã = [a, a] ∈ [G]p . Then, [a, a] [G] [a(−1) , a(−1) ] = [e, e] and the assertion is
achieved.

Proof of Theorem 3.2. By Theorem 3.1, ã [G] b̃ ∈ [G] for each ã, b̃ ∈ [G]. Associativity and commutativity
of [G] follow by associativity and commutativity of . Finally, by Proposition 3.1, [G]p = ([G]p , [G] ) is
an Abelian group. Moreover, by (25) and (1), we have:
[a, a] ≤[G] [b, b] ⇔ a ≤ b ⇔ a
thus, [G]p = ([G]p ,
The bijection

[G] , ≤[G] )

c≤b

c ⇔ [a, a]

[G]

[c, c] ≤[G] [b, b]

is an Alo-group.
i : a ∈ G 7→ [a, a] ∈ [G]p

is a group isomorphism because
i(a

b) = [a

b, a

b] = [a, a]

[G]

[b, b] = i(a)

[G]

i(b),

[G]

[c, c];

and a lattice isomorphism because
a ≤ b ⇔ [a, a] ≤[G] [b, b] ⇔ i(a) ≤[G] i(b);
thus, the assertion is achieved.
Proof of Proposition 3.2. Properties 1, 2, 3, 4 follow immediately from Definition 3.1 and Proposition 2.1.
By Theorem 3.1, Definition 3.1 and property 5 of Proposition 2.1, we have:
||ã

[G]

b̃||[G] = ||[a−

b− , a+

≤ max{||a− ||G
= ||ã||[G]

b+ ]||[G] = max{||a−
||b− ||G , ||a+ ||G

b− ||G , ||a+

b+ ||G } ≤

||b+ ||G } ≤ max{||a− ||G , ||a+ ||G }

max{||b− ||G , ||b+ ||G } =

||b̃||[G] ;

thus, item 5 is achieved.
Proof of Proposition 3.3. By Proposition 3.2, properties 1–3 in Definition 3.2 are satisfied.
Let us consider ã = [a− , a+ ], b̃ = [b− , b+ ], c̃ = [c− , c+ ] ∈ [G]; then, by Definition 3.1, Proposition 2.2 and
property 4 in Definition 2.4, we have:
d[G] (ã, b̃) = max{dG (a− , b− ), dG (a+ , b+ )}
≤ max{dG (a− , c− )

dG (c− , b− ), dG (a+ , c+ )

≤ max{dG (a− , c− ), dG (a+ , c+ )}
= d[G] (ã, c̃)

dG (c+ , b+ )}

max{dG (c− , b− ), dG (c+ , b+ )}

d[G] (c̃, b̃);

thus, the assertion is achieved.
Proof of Corollary 4.1. By Definition 4.1 and (21).
Proof of Proposition 4.1. ⇒) By (29) and Proposition 3.1, we have that ãij ∈ [G]p ; thus, by setting
+
aij = a−
aji = e (i.e. A = (aij ) is a G-reciprocal PCM).
ij = aij and by applying Corollary 4.1, we have aij
⇐) The assertion follows by:
ãij

[G]

ãji = [aij , aij ]

[G]

[aji , aji ] = [e, e]

and
(−1)

ãji = [aji , aji ] = [aij

(−1)

, aij

(−1)

] = ãij

.

Proof of Proposition 4.2. Let Ã = (ãij ) be a [G]-reciprocal IPCM; then, by Definition 4.1, for each permutation σ, the following equalities hold true:
(−1)

ãσ(j)σ(i) = ãσ(i)σ(j) ∀ i, j ∈ {1, . . . , n}
and, as a consequence, Ãσ is [G]-reciprocal.
The vice versa is straightforward.
Proof of Proposition 5.1. 1. ⇔ 2.By Proposition 2.3.
2. ⇒ 3. For each i < j < k, we have:
+
ãik = [a−
ik , aik ] = [lik , rik ] = [lij

ljk , rij

rjk ] = [lij , rij ]

[G]

+
[ljk , rjk ] = [a−
ij , aij ]

3. ⇒ 2. By assumption, for each i < j < k, we have:
+
− +
[a−
ik , aik ] = [aij , aij ]

[G]

+
−
[a−
jk , ajk ] = [aij

+
a−
jk , aij

a+
jk ];

[G]

+
[a−
jk , ajk ] = ãij

[G]

ãjk .

thus:
(
−
lik = a−
ik = aij

a−
jk = lij

+
rik = a+
ik = aij

ljk

a+
jk = rij

∀i < j < k.

rjk

+
Proof of Theorem 5.1. If Ã = ([a−
ij , aij ]) degenerates in a G-consistent PCM A = (aij ) over (G, , ≤) with
+
σ
a−
ij = aij = aij , for each i, j = 1, . . . , n, then by Proposition 2.4, A = (aσ(i)σ(j) ) is a G-consistent PCM
σ ) = Rσ = (r σ ) is a G-consistent PCM over (G, , ≤)
over (G, , ≤) for each permutation σ. Thus, Lσ = (lij
ij
for each permutation σ.
σ ) and Rσ = (r σ ) be G-consistent PCMs over (G, , ≤) for all permutation
Viceversa, let us assume Lσ = (lij
ij
σ; thus, for each permutation σ, the following equalities hold:
σ
σ
lik
= lij

σ
ljk

σ
σ
rik
= rij

σ
rjk
.

(51)

σ in
Without loss of generality, we can assume i1 < k1 < j1 ; thus, for a permutation σ1 , by definition of lij
(33) and first equality in (51), we have:
−
a−
σ1 (i1 )σ1 (k1 ) = aσ1 (i1 )σ1 (j1 )

a+
σ1 (j1 )σ1 (k1 ) .

Let us consider a permutation σ2 and integers i2 , j2 , k2 , with j2 < i2 < k2 , such that:
liσ11j1 = liσ22j2 , ljσ11k1 = ljσ22k2 , liσ11k1 = liσ22k2 ,
riσ11j1 = riσ22j2 , rjσ11k1 = rjσ22k2 , riσ11k1 = riσ22k2 .
σ in (33) and second equality in (51), we have:
Thus, by definition of rij
σ1
σ2
σ2
a+
σ1 (i1 )σ1 (k1 ) = ri1 k1 = ri2 k2 = ri2 j2

rjσ22k2 = a−
σ2 (i2 )σ2 (j2 )

−
a+
σ2 (j2 )σ2 (k2 ) = aσ1 (i1 )σ1 (j1 )

a+
σ1 (j1 )σ1 (k1 ) .

+
Thus, a−
σ(i)σ(k) = aσ(i)σ(k) (i, k ∈ {1, . . . , n}) for each permutation σ, and, as a consequence, the assertion
is achieved.

Proof of Proposition 5.2. Checking the [G]-consistency of Ã requires checking that condition (34) holds for
the set of triples in the set S = {(i, j, k) | i, j, k ∈ {1, . . . , n}}. Similarly, [G]-consistency of Ãσ requires that
condition (34) hold for all the triples in S σ = {(σ(i), σ(j), σ(k)) | i, j, k ∈ {1, . . . , n}}. Since by definition
σ : {1, . . . , n} → {1, . . . , n} is a bijection, we know that S = S σ , and hence the proposition is true.
Proof of Theorem 5.2. 1 ⇒ 2 Let us assume (35) be true. Then, by applying [G]-reciprocity a−
ij
−
a+
a
=
e
(Corollary
4.1),
we
have:
ij
ji
(a−
ik

a+
) (a− a−
| ik {z ki} kj
e

−
a−
ji ) = (aik
|

a−
kj
{z

a−
ji )
}

−
−
a−
ij ajk aki

a−
a+
kj
jk
| {z }
e

−
a−
a+
ji
ij = (aij
| {z }

a+
ij

a−
jk

a+
jk )

a+
ji =
(a−
ki

a−
kj

e

thus, by cancellative law, the assertion is achieved.
+
2 ⇒ 1 By applying [G]-reciprocity a−
a+
a−
ij
ji = aij
ji = e (Corollary 4.1), for each i, j, k ∈ {1, . . . , n}, we
have:
a−
ij

a−
jk

−
a−
ki =aij

a−
jk

a−
ki

a−
a+
ji
ij
| {z }
e

=a−
ik

a+ a− a−
| ik {z ki} ji
e

−
a−
a+
kj
jk = aij
| {z } |

−
a−
kj = aik

e

a−
kj

a−
ji

a−
jk

a+
ij
{z

+
a−
ik aik

−
a+
jk aki
}

a−
ji

a−
kj =

a−
ji );

and
a+
ij

a+
jk

+
a+
ki =aij

a+
jk

−
a−
a+
jk
kj = aij
| {z } |

a−
a+
ij
ji
| {z }

a+
ki

e

=a−
ik

a+ a+ a+
| ik {z ki} ji

{z

e

+
a+
kj = aik

a+
kj

a−
jk

a+
ij

+
a−
ik aik

+
a+
jk aki
}

a+
ji

a+
kj =

a+
ji ;

e

thus, by (35), Ã is [G]-consistent.
2 ⇒ 3 It is straightforward.
+
−
+
3 ⇒ 2 As a−
a+
a−
ii = aii and aij
ji = aij
ji = e (Corollary 4.1), item 2 always holds if three or any two of
indices i, j, k are equal. Thus, we consider the case that i 6= j 6= k.
For i < j < k, item 2 is identical to item 3; thus, item 2 holds.
−
Let us consider i < k < j. By item 3, we have a−
a+
a+
a−
a+
ij
ij = aik
ik
kj
kj . Thus, by (2) and
[G]-reciprocity (Corollary 4.1), we have:
a−
ik

−
a+
ik = aij

−
a+
ij ÷ (akj

−
a+
kj ) = aij

a+
ij

(a+
kj

(−1)
a−
= a−
ij
kj )

a−
jk

a+
ij

a+
jk .

Similarly, we obtain that item 2 holds true for the remaining cases j < i < k, j < k < i, k < i < j,
k < j < i; thus, item 2 is achieved.
Proof of Proposition 5.3. 1. It is straightforward; it is enough to consider the permutation σ such that
σ(i) = i ∀i ∈ {1, . . . , n}.
2. If Ã is approximately [G]-consistent then, by Remark 5.1, there is a permutation σ such that Ãσ is Liu’s
[G]-consistent and, by Proposition 5.1, we have:
ãσik = ãσij

ãσjk

∀i < j < k.

As a consequence, the following equality holds:
[(ãσik )− , (ãσik )+ ] = [(ãσij )−

(ãσjk )− , (ãσij )+

(ãσjk )+ ] ∀i < j < k.

Thus, we have that:
(ãσik )− = (ãσij )−

(ãσjk )− ,

(ãσik )+ = (ãσij )+

(ãσjk )+

∀i < j < k,

(ãσjk )−

(ãσjk )+

∀i < j < k;

and finally:
(ãσik )−

(ãσik )+ = (ãσij )−

(ãσij )+

thus, by Theorem 5.2, Ãσ is [G]-consistent, and by Proposition 5.2, Ã is [G]-consistent.
Proof of Proposition 6.1. By applying dG in Proposition 2.2, equality in (37) can be written as follows:
n
o
−
−
−
+
+
+
+
d[G] (ãijk , ãikj ) = max ã−
÷
ã
,
ã
÷
ã
,
ã
÷
ã
,
ã
÷
ã
ijk
ikj
ikj
ijk
ijk
ikj
ikj
ijk .
By applying [G]-reciprocity, we have:
−
−
ã−
ijk ÷ ãikj = (aij

a−
jk

−
a−
ki ) ÷ (aik

a−
kj

+
a−
ji ) = (aji

a+
kj

+
a+
ik ) ÷ (aki

a+
jk

+
+
a+
ij ) = ãikj ÷ ãijk

a−
kj

−
a−
ji ) ÷ (aij

a−
jk

+
a−
ki ) = (aki

a+
jk

+
a+
ij ) ÷ (aji

a+
kj

+
+
a+
ik ) = ãijk ÷ ãikj .

and
−
−
ã−
ikj ÷ ãijk = (aik

Thus, the assertion is achieved.
Proof of Proposition 6.2. By (38), (37) and Proposition 3.3.
+
−
+ +
−
+
−
Proof of Corollary 7.1. By dG (a−
ij , aij ) = max{ aij ÷ aij , aij ÷ aij } and aij ≥ aij .

Proof of Proposition 7.1. By Definition 7.2, Definition 7.1 and Proposition 2.2.

