There are many priority deriving methods for pairwise comparison (PC) matrices. It is known that when these matrices are consistent all these methods result in the same priority vector. However, when they are inconsistent, the results may vary. The presented work formulates an estimation of the difference between priority vectors in the two most popular ranking methods: the eigenvalue method and the geometric mean method. The estimation provided refers to the inconsistency of the PC matrix. Theoretical considerations are accompanied by Monte Carlo experiments showing the discrepancy between the values of both methods.

Comparing alternatives in pairs is a very well known technique of ranking creation. The answer to how reliable and trustworthy ranking depends on the inconsistency of the data from which it was created. There are many indices used for determining the level of inconsistency among compared alternatives. Unfortunately, most of them assume that the set of comparisons is complete, i.e. every single alternative is compared to each other. This is not true and the ranking must sometimes be made based on incomplete data. In order to fill this gap, this work aims to adapt several existing inconsistency indices for the purpose of analyzing incomplete data sets. The modified indices are subjected to Monte Carlo experiments. Those of them that achieved the best results in the experiments carried out are recommended for use in practice.

Comparison, rating, and ranking of alternative solutions, in case of multicriteria evaluations, have been an eternal focus of operations research and optimization theory. There exist numerous approaches at practical solving the multicriteria ranking problem. The recent focus of interest in this domain was the event of parametric evaluation of research entities in Poland. The principal methodology was based on pairwise comparisons. For each single comparison, four criteria have been used. One of the controversial points of the assumed approach was that the weights of these criteria were arbitrary. The main focus of this study is to put forward a theoretically justified way of extracting weights from the opinions of domain experts. Theoretical bases for the whole procedure are based on a survey and its experimental results. Discussion and comparison of the two resulting sets of weights and the computed inconsistency indicator are discussed.