1,944 research outputs found
An overview on managing additive consistency of reciprocal preference relations for consistency-driven decision making and Fusion: Taxonomy and future directions
The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link.The reciprocal preference relation (RPR) is a powerful tool to represent decision makersâ preferences in decision making problems. In recent years, various types of RPRs have been reported and investigated, some of them being the âclassicalâ RPRs, interval-valued RPRs and hesitant RPRs. Additive consistency is one of the most commonly used property to measure the consistency of RPRs, with many methods developed to manage additive consistency of RPRs. To provide a clear perspective on additive consistency issues of RPRs, this paper reviews the consistency measurements of the different types of RPRs. Then, consistency-driven decision making and information fusion methods are also reviewed and classified into four main types: consistency improving methods; consistency-based methods to manage incomplete RPRs; consistency control in consensus decision making methods; and consistency-driven linguistic decision making methods. Finally, with respect to insights gained from prior researches, further directions for the research are proposed
Managing Incomplete Preference Relations in Decision Making: A Review and Future Trends
In decision making, situations where all experts are able to efficiently express their preferences over all the available options are the exception rather than the rule. Indeed, the above scenario requires all experts to possess a precise or sufficient level of knowledge of the whole problem to tackle, including the ability to discriminate the degree up to which some options are better than others. These assumptions can be seen unrealistic in many decision making situations, especially those involving a large number of alternatives to choose from and/or conflicting and dynamic sources of information. Some methodologies widely adopted in these situations are to discard or to rate more negatively those experts that provide preferences with missing values. However, incomplete information is not equivalent to low quality information, and consequently these methodologies could lead to biased or even bad solutions since useful information might not being taken properly into account in the decision process. Therefore, alternative approaches to manage incomplete preference relations that estimates the missing information in decision making are desirable and possible. This paper presents and analyses methods and processes developed on this area towards the estimation of missing preferences in decision making, and highlights some areas for future research
Distributed Linguistic Representations in Decision Making: Taxonomy, Key Elements and Applications, and Challenges in Data Science and Explainable Artificial Intelligence
Distributed linguistic representations are powerful tools for modelling the uncertainty and complexity of preference information in linguistic decision making. To provide a comprehensive perspective on the development of distributed linguistic representations in decision making, we present the taxonomy of existing distributed linguistic representations. Then, we review the key elements and applications of distributed linguistic information processing in decision making, including the distance measurement, aggregation methods, distributed linguistic preference relations, and distributed linguistic multiple attribute decision making models. Next, we provide a discussion on ongoing challenges and future research directions from the perspective of data science and explainable artificial intelligence.National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) 71971039
71421001,71910107002,71771037,71874023
71871149Sichuan University sksyl201705
2018hhs-5
An optimal feedback model to prevent manipulation behaviours in consensus under social network group decision making
The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link.A novel framework to prevent manipulation behaviour
in consensus reaching process under social network
group decision making is proposed, which is based on a theoretically
sound optimal feedback model. The manipulation
behaviour classification is twofold: (1) âindividual manipulationâ
where each expert manipulates his/her own behaviour to achieve
higher importance degree (weight); and (2) âgroup manipulationâ
where a group of experts force inconsistent experts to adopt
specific recommendation advices obtained via the use of fixed
feedback parameter. To counteract âindividual manipulationâ, a
behavioural weights assignment method modelling sequential
attitude ranging from âdictatorshipâ to âdemocracyâ is developed,
and then a reasonable policy for group minimum adjustment cost
is established to assign appropriate weights to experts. To prevent
âgroup manipulationâ, an optimal feedback model with objective
function the individual adjustments cost and constraints related
to the threshold of group consensus is investigated. This approach
allows the inconsistent experts to balance group consensus and
adjustment cost, which enhances their willingness to adopt the
recommendation advices and consequently the group reaching
consensus on the decision making problem at hand. A numerical
example is presented to illustrate and verify the proposed optimal
feedback model
A systematic review on multi-criteria group decision-making methods based on weights: analysis and classification scheme
Interest in group decision-making (GDM) has been increasing prominently over the last decade. Access to global databases, sophisticated sensors which can obtain multiple inputs or complex problems requiring opinions from several experts have driven interest in data aggregation. Consequently, the field has been widely studied from several viewpoints and multiple approaches have been proposed. Nevertheless, there is a lack of general framework. Moreover, this problem is exacerbated in the case of expertsâ weighting methods, one of the most widely-used techniques to deal with multiple source aggregation. This lack of general classification scheme, or a guide to assist expert knowledge, leads to ambiguity or misreading for readers, who may be overwhelmed by the large amount of unclassified information currently available. To invert this situation, a general GDM framework is presented which divides and classifies all data aggregation techniques, focusing on and expanding the classification of expertsâ weighting methods in terms of analysis type by carrying out an in-depth literature review. Results are not only classified but analysed and discussed regarding multiple characteristics, such as MCDMs in which they are applied, type of data used, ideal solutions considered or when they are applied. Furthermore, general requirements supplement this analysis such as initial influence, or component division considerations. As a result, this paper provides not only a general classification scheme and a detailed analysis of expertsâ weighting methods but also a road map for researchers working on GDM topics or a guide for experts who use these methods. Furthermore, six significant contributions for future research pathways are provided in the conclusions.The first author acknowledges support from the Spanish Ministry of Universities [grant number FPU18/01471]. The second and third author wish to recognize their support from the Serra Hunter program. Finally, this work was supported by the Catalan agency AGAUR through its research group support program (2017SGR00227). This research is part of the R&D project IAQ4EDU, reference no. PID2020-117366RB-I00, funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/ 501100011033.Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version
A contribution to consensus modeling in decision-making by means of linguistic assessments
Decision-making is an active field of research. Specifically, in recent times, a lot of contributions have been presented on decision-making under linguistic assessments. To tackle this kind of processes, hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets have been introduced to grasp the uncertainty inherent in human reasoning when expressing preferences. This thesis introduces an extension of the set of hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets to capture differences between non-compatible assessments. Based on this extension, a distance between linguistic assessments is defined to quantify differences between several opinions. This distance is used in turn to present a representative opinion from a group in a decision-making process. In addition, different consensus measures are introduced to determine the level of agreement or disagreement within a decision-making group and are used to define a decision makerâs profile to keep track of their dissension with respect to the group as well as their level of hesitancy. Furthermore, with the aim of allowing decision makers to choose the linguistic terms that they feel more comfortable with, the concept of free double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set is developed in this thesis. Finally, a new approach of the TOPSIS methodology for processes in which the assessments are given by means of free double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy information is presented to rank alternatives under these circumstances.Postprint (published version
Risk assessment in project management by a graphtheory- based group decision making method with comprehensive linguistic preference information
Risk assessment is a vital part in project management. It is possible
that experts may provide comprehensive linguistic preference
information in distinct forms with respect to different
aspects of the risk assessment problem in investment management.
It is a challenge to model and deal with comprehensive linguistic
preference assessments in multiple forms given by experts.
In this regard, this paper defines the generalised probabilistic linguistic
preference relation (GPLPR) to represent different forms of
linguistic preference information in a unified structure. Then, a
probability cutting method is proposed to simplify the representation
of a GPLPR. Afterwards, a graph-theory-based method is
developed to improve the consistency degree of a GPLPR. A
group decision making method with GPLPRs is then proposed to
carry on the risk assessment in project management. Discussions
regarding the comparative analysis and managerial insights
are given
Risk assessment in project management by a graph-theory-based group decision making method with comprehensive linguistic preference information
The work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71971145, 71771156, 72171158), the Andalusian Government under Project P20-00673, and also by the Spanish State Research Agency under Project PID2019-103880RB-I00/AEI/10.13039/501100011033.Risk assessment is a vital part in project management. It is possible
that experts may provide comprehensive linguistic preference
information in distinct forms with respect to different
aspects of the risk assessment problem in investment management.
It is a challenge to model and deal with comprehensive linguistic
preference assessments in multiple forms given by experts.
In this regard, this paper defines the generalised probabilistic linguistic
preference relation (GPLPR) to represent different forms of
linguistic preference information in a unified structure. Then, a
probability cutting method is proposed to simplify the representation
of a GPLPR. Afterwards, a graph-theory-based method is
developed to improve the consistency degree of a GPLPR. A
group decision making method with GPLPRs is then proposed to
carry on the risk assessment in project management. Discussions
regarding the comparative analysis and managerial insights
are given.National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) 71971145
71771156
72171158Andalusian Government P20-00673Spanish Government PID2019-103880RB-I00/AEI/10.13039/50110001103
Ordering based decision making: a survey
Decision making is the crucial step in many real applications such as organization management, financial planning, products evaluation and recommendation. Rational decision making is to select an alternative from a set of different ones which has the best utility (i.e., maximally satisfies given criteria, objectives, or preferences). In many cases, decision making is to order alternatives and select one or a few among the top of the ranking. Orderings provide a natural and effective way for representing indeterminate situations which are pervasive in commonsense reasoning. Ordering based decision making is then to find the suitable method for evaluating candidates or ranking alternatives based on provided ordinal information and criteria, and this in many cases is to rank alternatives based on qualitative ordering information. In this paper, we discuss the importance and research aspects of ordering based decision making, and review the existing ordering based decision making theories and methods along with some future research directions
- âŠ