# Establishing a leader in a pairwise comparisons method

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.14885 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.14885/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 4 of its 33 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 21 Mar 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [On the monotonicity of the eigenvector method](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.10790/) (2019)
- [On Axiomatization of Inconsistency Indicators for Pairwise Comparisons](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1307.6272/) (2013)
- [On the Properties of the Priority Deriving Procedure in the Pairwise Comparisons Method](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1401.8219/) (2014)
- [Almost optimal manipulation of a pair of alternatives](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03060/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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)