On a fairness type approach to consensus reaching support under fuzziness via linguistic summaries

Kacprzyk, Janusz; Zadrożny, Sławomir

doi:10.1109/fuzz-ieee.2016.7737937

Cited by 13 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As mentioned in the introduction section, it is an open problem whether a CRP can improve the decision quality. Thus, we argue that it will be interesting to investigate the quality of the group decision results (such as non-biased decision results) in the proposed comparison framework based on some latest CRP studies (e.g., Gołuńska and Hołda, 2013;Kacprzyk and Zadrożny, 2016).…”

Section: Discussion: Advantages and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consensus efficiency in group decision making: A comprehensive comparative study and its optimal design

Zhang

Dong

Chiclana

et al. 2019

European Journal of Operational Research

290

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussion: Advantages and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consensus efficiency in group decision making: A comprehensive comparative study and its optimal design

Zhang

Dong

Chiclana

et al. 2019

European Journal of Operational Research

290

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…(b) In this paper, we discuss the self-management mechanism to manage non-cooperative behaviors in the LCRP by analyzing whether a consensual collective solution can be achieved. We argue that it will be interesting to investigate the non-biased outcomes in the proposed LCRP framework based on the latest research results on CRP (e.g., Gołuńska and Hołda [20], and Kacprzyk and Zadrożny [30]).…”

Section: Discussion: Advantages and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Self-Management Mechanism for Noncooperative Behaviors in Large-Scale Group Consensus Reaching Processes

Dong

Zhao

Zhang

et al. 2018

IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst.

221

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In large-scale group decision making (GDM), non-cooperative behavior in the consensus reaching process (CRP) is not unusual. For example, some individuals might form a small alliance with the aim to refuse attempts to modify their preferences or even to move them against consensus to foster the alliance's own interests. In this paper, we propose a novel framework based on a self-management mechanism for non-cooperative behaviors in large-scale consensus reaching processes (LCRPs). In the proposed consensus reaching framework, experts are classified into different subgroups using a clustering method, and experts provide their evaluation information, i.e., the multi-criteria mutual evaluation matrices (MCMEMs), regarding the subgroups based on subgroups' performance (e.g., professional skills, cooperation, and fairness). The subgroups' weights are dynamically generated from the MCMEMs, which are in turn employed to update the individual experts' weights. This self-management mechanism in the LCRP allows penalizing the weights of the experts with non-cooperative behaviors. Detailed simulation experiments and comparison analysis are presented to verify the validity of the proposed framework for managing non-cooperative behaviors in the LCRP.

show abstract

“…Only considering low cost is not conducive to reaching a stable consensus. Utility preference [1,3,26,27], consensus fairness [28,29], and other factors are also crucial to the consensus process and the selection process in GDM problems.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Compared with previous studies, this model considers both the negotiation cost and the DM's preference structure. This paper constructs a stochastic optimization group consensus model with minimum cost and maximum utility, which can reach a stable consensus [27].…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two-level consensus modeling with utility and cost constraints

Diao

Liu

2022

J. of Syst. Eng. Electron.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There exist many two-level group consensus problems with different psychological behaviors of decision makers. To deal with these group consensus problems and reach a stable consensus, based on the principles and methods of grey system, utility theory and group consensus, we use grey utility function to describe and reflect decision makers ' opinion preferences in different subgroups and different levels, and then we construct a two-level group consensus method with a moderator, and exploit it to solve the negotiation problems of the natural gas subsidy.

show abstract

On a fairness type approach to consensus reaching support under fuzziness via linguistic summaries

Cited by 13 publications

References 41 publications

Consensus efficiency in group decision making: A comprehensive comparative study and its optimal design

Consensus efficiency in group decision making: A comprehensive comparative study and its optimal design

A Self-Management Mechanism for Noncooperative Behaviors in Large-Scale Group Consensus Reaching Processes

Two-level consensus modeling with utility and cost constraints

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About