Advertisement

Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 28, Issue 6, pp 1167–1191 | Cite as

Direct Iterative Procedures for Consensus Building with Additive Preference Relations Based on the Discrete Assessment Scale

  • Zhibin WuEmail author
  • Jie Xiao
  • Ivan Palomares
Article

Abstract

Individual consistency and group consensus are both important when seeking reliable and satisfying solutions for group decision making (GDM) problems using additive preference relations (APRs). In this paper, two new algorithms are proposed to facilitate the consensus reaching process, the first of which is used to improve the individual consistency level, and the second of which is designed to assist the group to achieve a predefined consensus level. Unlike previous GDM studies for consistency and consensus building, the proposed algorithms are essentially heuristic, modify only some of the elements in APRs to reduce the number of preference modifications in the consistency and consensus process, and have modified preferences that belong to the original evaluation scale to make the generated suggestions easier to understand. In particular, the consensus algorithm ensures that the individual consistency level is still acceptable when the predefined consensus level is achieved. Finally, classical examples and simulations are given to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approaches.

Keywords

Group decision making Additive preference relation Consistency Consensus 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 71671118.

References

  1. Alonso S, Chiclana F, Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Alcalá-Fdez J, Porcel C (2008) A consistency-based procedure to estimate missing pairwise preference values. Int J Intell Syst 23:155–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cabrerizo FJ, Morente-Molinera JA, Pedrycz W, Taghavi A, Herrera-Viedma E (2018) Granulating linguistic information in decision making under consensus and consistency. Expert Syst Appl 99:83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cao D, Leung LC, Law JS (2008) Modifying inconsistent comparison matrix in analytic hierarchy process: a heuristic approach. Decis Support Syst 44(4):944–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cavallo B, D’Apuzzo L (2009) A general unified framework for pairwise comparison matrices in multicriterial methods. Int J Intell Syst 24:377–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chiclana F, Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E (1998) Integrating three representation models in fuzzy multipurpose decision making based on fuzzy preference relations. Fuzzy Sets Syst 97:33–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chiclana F, Mata F, Martinez L, Herrera-viedma E, Alonso S (2008) Integration of a consistency control module within a consensus model. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 16:35–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chu JF, Liu XW, Wang YM, Chin KS (2016) A group decision making model considering both the additive consistency and group consensus of intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations. Comput Ind Eng 101:227–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Contreras I (2010) A distance-based consensus model with flexible choice of rank-position weights. Group Decis Negot 19(5):441–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dong YC, Xu JP (2016) Consensus building in group decision making: searching the consensus path with minimum adjustments. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dong YC, Zhang HJ, Herrera-Viedma E (2016) Integrating experts’ weights generated dynamically into the consensus reaching process and its applications in managing non-cooperative behaviors. Decis Support Syst 84:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dong QX, Zhou X, Martínez L (2019) A hybrid group decision making framework for achieving agreed solutions based on stable opinions. Inf Sci 490(2019):227–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gong ZW, Xu C, Chiclana F, Xu XX (2016) Consensus measure with multi-stage fluctuation utility based on China’s urban demolition negotiation. Group Decis Negot 26(2):1–29Google Scholar
  13. González-Arteaga T, Andrés-Calle R, Chiclana F (2016) A new measure of consensus with reciprocal preference relations: the correlation consensus degree. Knowl Based Syst 107:104–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gupta M (2018) Consensus building process in group decision making-an adaptive procedure based on group dynamics. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 26(4):1923–1933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F, Chiclana F, Luque M (2004) Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations. Eur J Oper Res 154:98–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Herrera-Viedma E, Alonso S, Chiclana F, Herrera F (2007) A consensus model for group decision making with incomplete fuzzy preference relations. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 15:863–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herrera-Viedma E, Chiclana F, Herrera F, Alonso S (2007) Group decision-making model with incomplete fuzzy preference relations based on additive consistency. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B 37(1):176–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hou F (2015) A consensus gap indicator and its application to group decision making. Group Decis Negot 24(3):415–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kim J (2008) A model and case for supporting participatory public decision making in e democracy. Int J Intell Syst 17:179–193Google Scholar
  20. Li CC, Rodríguez R, Martínez L, Dong YC, Herrera F (2019) Consensus building with individual consistency control in group decision making. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 27:319–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li KW, Wang ZJ, Tong XY (2016) Acceptability analysis and priority weight elicitation for interval multiplicative comparison matrices. Eur J Oper Res 250:628–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ma J, Fan ZP, Jiang YP, Mao JY, Ma L (2006) A method for repairing the inconsistency of fuzzy preference relations. Fuzzy Sets Syst 157:20–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Orlovsky SA (1978) Decision-making with a fuzzy preference relation. Fuzzy Sets Syst 1:155–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Palomares I, Rodríguez RM, Martínez L (2013) An attitude-driven web consensus support system for heterogeneous group decision making. Expert Syst Appl 40(1):139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Parreiras RO, Ekel PY, Morais DC (2012) Fuzzy set based consensus schemes for multicriteria group decision making applied to strategic planning. Group Decis Negot 21:153–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pearl J (1984) Heuristics: intelligent search strategies for computer problem solving. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  27. Pérez IJ, Cabrerizo FJ, Alonso S, Herrera-Viedma E (2014) A new consensus model for group decision making problems with nonhomogeneous experts. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 44(4):494–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rezaei J, Ortt R (2013) Multi-criteria supplier segmentation using a fuzzy preference relations based AHP. Eur J Oper Res 225(1):75–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Wan SP, Wang F, Dong JY (2018) A group decision making method with interval valued fuzzy preference relations based on the geometric consistency. Inf Sci 40:87–100Google Scholar
  31. Wu ZB, Xu JP (2012) A concise consensus support model for group decision making with reciprocal preference relations based on deviation measures. Fuzzy Sets Syst 206:58–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wu ZB, Huang S, Xu JP (2019) Multi-stage optimization models for individual consistency and group consensus with preference relations. Eur J Oper Res 275:182–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wu ZB, Jin BM, Xu JP (2018a) Local feedback strategy for consensus building with probability-hesitant fuzzy preference relations. Appl Soft Comput 67:691–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wu ZB, Xu JP (2018b) A consensus model for large-scale group decision making with hesitant fuzzy information and changeable clusters. Inf Fusion 41:217–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Xu YJ, Li KW, Wang HM (2013) Distance-based consensus models for fuzzy and multiplicative preference relations. Inf Sci 253:56–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhang BW, Dong YC, Herrera-Viedma E (2019) Group decision making with heterogeneous preference structures: an automatic mechanism to support consensus reaching. Group Decis Negot.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-018-09609-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhang GQ, Dong YC, Xu YF (2012) Linear optimization modeling of consistency issues in group decision making based on fuzzy preference relations. Expert Syst Appl 39:2415–2420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhang HJ, Dong YC, Herrera-Viedma E (2018a) Consensus building for the heterogeneous large-scale GDM with the individual concerns and satisfactions. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 26(2):884–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhang Z, Kou XY, Dong QX (2018b) Additive consistency analysis and improvement for hesitant fuzzy preference relations. Expert Syst Appl 98:118–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Uncertainty Decision-Making Laboratory, Business SchoolSichuan UniversityChengduPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.School of Computer Science, Electrical and Electronic Engineering, and Engineering MathematicsUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations