IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v251y2016i2p575-585.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A cardinal dissensus measure based on the Mahalanobis distance

Author

Listed:
  • González-Arteaga, T.
  • Alcantud, J.C.R.
  • de Andrés Calle, R.

Abstract

In this paper we address the problem of measuring the degree of consensus/dissensus in a context where experts or agents express their opinions on alternatives or issues by means of cardinal evaluations. To this end we propose a new class of distance-based consensus model, the family of the Mahalanobis dissensus measures for profiles of cardinal values. We set forth some meaningful properties of the Mahalanobis dissensus measures. Finally, an application over a real empirical example is presented and discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • González-Arteaga, T. & Alcantud, J.C.R. & de Andrés Calle, R., 2016. "A cardinal dissensus measure based on the Mahalanobis distance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(2), pages 575-585.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:251:y:2016:i:2:p:575-585
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2015.11.019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221715010681
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.11.019?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Patrik Eklund & Agnieszka Rusinowska & Harrie Swart, 2008. "A consensus model of political decision-making," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 158(1), pages 5-20, February.
    2. Dong, Yucheng & Xu, Yinfeng & Li, Hongyi, 2008. "On consistency measures of linguistic preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 189(2), pages 430-444, September.
    3. Gong, Zaiwu & Zhang, Huanhuan & Forrest, Jeffrey & Li, Lianshui & Xu, Xiaoxia, 2015. "Two consensus models based on the minimum cost and maximum return regarding either all individuals or one individual," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(1), pages 183-192.
    4. Wade D. Cook & Lawrence M. Seiford, 1982. "On the Borda-Kendall Consensus Method for Priority Ranking Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(6), pages 621-637, June.
    5. Mario Fedrizzi & Michele Fedrizzi & R. A. Marques Pereira, 2007. "Consensus Modelling In Group Decision Making: Dynamical Approach Based On Fuzzy Preferences," New Mathematics and Natural Computation (NMNC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(02), pages 219-237.
    6. Fu, Chao & Yang, Shan-Lin, 2010. "The group consensus based evidential reasoning approach for multiple attributive group decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(3), pages 601-608, November.
    7. Alcantud, José Carlos R. & de Andres Calle, Rocio & Cascon, José Manuel, 2012. "Approval consensus measures," MPRA Paper 39610, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. González-Pachøn, Jacinto & Romero, Carlos, 1999. "Distance-based consensus methods: a goal programming approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 341-347, June.
    9. Cook, Wade D., 2006. "Distance-based and ad hoc consensus models in ordinal preference ranking," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(2), pages 369-385, July.
    10. Fu, Chao & Yang, Shanlin, 2012. "An evidential reasoning based consensus model for multiple attribute group decision analysis problems with interval-valued group consensus requirements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(1), pages 167-176.
    11. Liu, Jiapeng & Liao, Xiuwu & Yang, Jian-bo, 2015. "A group decision-making approach based on evidential reasoning for multiple criteria sorting problem with uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(3), pages 858-873.
    12. Jack High & Howard Bloch, 1989. "On the History of Ordinal Utility Theory: 1900–1932," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 21(2), pages 351-365, Summer.
    13. Eklund, Patrik & Rusinowska, Agnieszka & De Swart, Harrie, 2007. "Consensus reaching in committees," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(1), pages 185-193, April.
    14. Rodríguez Alcantud, José Carlos & de Andrés Calle, Rocío & González-Arteaga, Teresa, 2013. "Codifications of complete preorders that are compatible with Mahalanobis disconsensus measures," MPRA Paper 50533, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. J. C. R. Alcantud & R. Andrés Calle & J. M. Cascón, 2015. "Pairwise Dichotomous Cohesiveness Measures," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 833-854, September.
    16. Jorge Alcalde-Unzu & Marc Vorsatz, 2013. "Measuring the cohesiveness of preferences: an axiomatic analysis," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(4), pages 965-988, October.
    17. Fu, Chao & Yang, Shanlin, 2011. "An attribute weight based feedback model for multiple attributive group decision analysis problems with group consensus requirements in evidential reasoning context," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 212(1), pages 179-189, July.
    18. Dong, Yucheng & Xu, Yinfeng & Li, Hongyi & Feng, Bo, 2010. "The OWA-based consensus operator under linguistic representation models using position indexes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 203(2), pages 455-463, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gong, Zaiwu & Zhang, Huanhuan & Forrest, Jeffrey & Li, Lianshui & Xu, Xiaoxia, 2015. "Two consensus models based on the minimum cost and maximum return regarding either all individuals or one individual," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(1), pages 183-192.
    2. Sun, Bingzhen & Ma, Weimin, 2015. "An approach to consensus measurement of linguistic preference relations in multi-attribute group decision making and application," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 83-92.
    3. Fu, Chao & Yang, Shanlin, 2012. "An evidential reasoning based consensus model for multiple attribute group decision analysis problems with interval-valued group consensus requirements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(1), pages 167-176.
    4. Wu, Zhibin & Huang, Shuai & Xu, Jiuping, 2019. "Multi-stage optimization models for individual consistency and group consensus with preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(1), pages 182-194.
    5. Fu, Chao & Yang, Jian-Bo & Yang, Shan-Lin, 2015. "A group evidential reasoning approach based on expert reliability," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(3), pages 886-893.
    6. Gong, Zaiwu & Xu, Xiaoxia & Zhang, Huanhuan & Aytun Ozturk, U. & Herrera-Viedma, Enrique & Xu, Chao, 2015. "The consensus models with interval preference opinions and their economic interpretation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 81-90.
    7. Dong, Qingxing & Cooper, Orrin, 2016. "A peer-to-peer dynamic adaptive consensus reaching model for the group AHP decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(2), pages 521-530.
    8. Fernandez, Eduardo & Olmedo, Rafael, 2013. "An outranking-based general approach to solving group multi-objective optimization problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 225(3), pages 497-506.
    9. Zhang, Hengjie & Dong, Yucheng & Chiclana, Francisco & Yu, Shui, 2019. "Consensus efficiency in group decision making: A comprehensive comparative study and its optimal design," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(2), pages 580-598.
    10. Min Xue & Chao Fu & Shan-Lin Yang, 2021. "Dynamic Expert Reliability Based Feedback Mechanism in Consensus Reaching Process with Distributed Preference Relations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 341-375, April.
    11. Jorge Alcalde-Unzu & Marc Vorsatz, 2016. "Do we agree? Measuring the cohesiveness of preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(2), pages 313-339, February.
    12. Bowen Zhang & Yucheng Dong & Enrique Herrera-Viedma, 2019. "Group Decision Making with Heterogeneous Preference Structures: An Automatic Mechanism to Support Consensus Reaching," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 585-617, June.
    13. José Carlos R. Alcantud & María José M. Torrecillas, 2017. "Consensus measures for various informational bases. Three new proposals and two case studies from political science," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 285-306, January.
    14. Zhibin Wu & Jiuping Xu & Zeshui Xu, 2016. "A multiple attribute group decision making framework for the evaluation of lean practices at logistics distribution centers," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 247(2), pages 735-757, December.
    15. Yan, Hong-Bin & Ma, Tieju & Huynh, Van-Nam, 2017. "On qualitative multi-attribute group decision making and its consensus measure: A probability based perspective," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 94-117.
    16. Fu, Chao & Yang, Shanlin, 2011. "An attribute weight based feedback model for multiple attributive group decision analysis problems with group consensus requirements in evidential reasoning context," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 212(1), pages 179-189, July.
    17. Zhang, Bowen & Dong, Yucheng & Zhang, Hengjie & Pedrycz, Witold, 2020. "Consensus mechanism with maximum-return modifications and minimum-cost feedback: A perspective of game theory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 287(2), pages 546-559.
    18. Xue, Min & Fu, Chao & Yang, Shan-Lin, 2020. "Group consensus reaching based on a combination of expert weight and expert reliability," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 369(C).
    19. Wenjun Chang & Chao Fu & Nanping Feng & Shanlin Yang, 2021. "Multi-criteria Group Decision Making with Various Ordinal Assessments," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(6), pages 1285-1314, December.
    20. Rodríguez, Rosa M. & Labella, Álvaro & Nuñez-Cacho, Pedro & Molina-Moreno, Valentin & Martínez, Luis, 2022. "A comprehensive minimum cost consensus model for large scale group decision making for circular economy measurement," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:251:y:2016:i:2:p:575-585. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.