Jacek Szybowski

Konrad Kułakowski, Jacek Szybowski, Jiri Mazurek et al.

In decision-making methods, it is common to assume that the experts are honest and professional. However, this is not the case when one or more experts in the group decision making framework, such as the group analytic hierarchy process (GAHP), try to manipulate results in their favor. The aim of this paper is to introduce two heuristics in the GAHP, setting allowing to detect the manipulators and minimize their effect on the group consensus by diminishing their weights. The first heuristic is based on the assumption that manipulators will provide judgments which can be considered outliers with respect to those of the rest of the experts in the group. The second heuristic assumes that dishonest judgments are less consistent than the average consistency of the group. Both approaches are illustrated with numerical examples and simulations.

Jacek Szybowski, Konrad Kułakowski, Sebastian Ernst

The role of an expert in the decision-making process is crucial, as the final recommendation depends on his disposition, clarity of mind, experience, and knowledge of the problem. However, the recommendation also depends on their honesty. But what if the expert is dishonest? Then, the answer on how difficult it is to manipulate in a given case becomes essential. In the presented work, we consider manipulation of a ranking obtained by comparing alternatives in pairs. More specifically, we propose an algorithm for finding an almost optimal way to swap the positions of two selected alternatives. Thanks to this, it is possible to determine how difficult such manipulation is in a given case. Theoretical considerations are illustrated by a practical example.

Konrad Kułakowski, Jacek Szybowski

A project (e.g., writing a collaborative research paper) is often a group effort. At the end, each contributor identifies their contribution, often verbally. The reward, however, is very frequently financial. It leads to the question of what (percentage) share in the creation of the paper is due to individual authors. Different authors may have various opinions on the matter; even worse, their opinions may have different relevance. In this paper, we present simple models that allow aggregation of experts' views, linking the priority of his preference directly to the assessment made by other experts. In this approach, the more significant the contribution of a given expert, the greater the importance of his opinion. The presented method can be considered an attempt to find consensus among peers involved in the same project. Hence, its applications may go beyond the proposed study example of writing a scientific paper.

Jacek Szybowski, Konrad Kułakowski, Jiri Mazurek

A series of papers has introduced the Heuristic Rating Estimation method, which evaluates a set of alternatives based on pairwise comparisons and the weights of reference alternatives. We formulate the conditions under which the HRE method can be applied correctly. The research considers both arithmetic and geometric algorithms for complete and incomplete pairwise comparison methods. The illustrative examples show that the estimations of inconsistency in the arithmetic variant are optimal.

Jacek Szybowski, Konrad Kułakowski, Jiri Mazurek et al.

Abstract Like electoral systems, decision-making methods are also vulnerable to manipulation by decision-makers. The ability to effectively defend against such threats can only come from thoroughly understanding the manipulation mechanisms. In the presented article, we show two algorithms that can be used to launch a manipulation attack. They allow for equating the weights of two selected alternatives in the pairwise comparison method and, consequently, choosing a leader. The theoretical considerations are accompanied by a Monte Carlo simulation showing the relationship between the size of the PC matrix, the degree of inconsistency, and the ease of manipulation. This work is a continuation of our previous research published in the paper (Szybowski et al., 2023)