IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/fuzodm/v20y2021i1d10.1007_s10700-020-09331-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Managing consensus reaching process with self-confident double hierarchy linguistic preference relations in group decision making

Author

Listed:
  • Xunjie Gou

    (Sichuan University)

  • Zeshui Xu

    (Sichuan University
    Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology)

  • Xinxin Wang

    (Sichuan University)

  • Huchang Liao

    (Sichuan University)

Abstract

Group decision making (GDM) can be defined as an environment where there exist a set of possible alternatives and a set of individuals (experts, judgements, etc.). Preference relation is one of the most widely used preference representation structures in GDM. Considering that the self-confidence degree is an important part to express preference information, and double hierarchy linguistic preference relation (DHLPR) is a cognitive complex linguistic information representation tool to express complex linguistic information, this paper presents a novel preference relation named as self-confident DHLPR. In addition, a weight-determining method is developed, which considers three kinds of information including the subjective weights and two kinds of objective weights. Furthermore, a consensus model is set up to manage the GDM problems with self-confident DHLPRs based on the priority ordering theory. The effectiveness of the proposed consensus model is illustrated by a case study concerning the selection of optimal hospitals in the field of Telemedicine. Finally, a simulation experiment is devised to testify the proposed consensus model and then some comparisons with other consensus reaching models are provided from three different angles including the number of iterations, the consensus success ratio and the distance between the original and adjusted preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Xunjie Gou & Zeshui Xu & Xinxin Wang & Huchang Liao, 2021. "Managing consensus reaching process with self-confident double hierarchy linguistic preference relations in group decision making," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 51-79, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:fuzodm:v:20:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s10700-020-09331-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s10700-020-09331-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10700-020-09331-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10700-020-09331-y?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. Xu, Zeshui, 2005. "Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations in group decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 249-254, June.
    2. Jinpei Liu & Jingmiao Song & Qin Xu & Zhifu Tao & Huayou Chen, 2019. "Group decision making based on DEA cross-efficiency with intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 345-370, September.
    3. Herrera-Viedma, E. & Herrera, F. & Chiclana, F. & Luque, M., 2004. "Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(1), pages 98-109, April.
    4. Ramanathan, R. & Ganesh, L. S., 1994. "Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members' weightages," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 249-265, December.
    5. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    6. Wenqi Liu & Yucheng Dong & Francisco Chiclana & Francisco Javier Cabrerizo & Enrique Herrera-Viedma, 2017. "Group decision-making based on heterogeneous preference relations with self-confidence," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 429-447, December.
    7. Huchang Liao & Xiaomei Mi & Zeshui Xu, 2020. "A survey of decision-making methods with probabilistic linguistic information: bibliometrics, preliminaries, methodologies, applications and future directions," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 81-134, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Du, Junliang & Liu, Sifeng & Liu, Yong, 2022. "A limited cost consensus approach with fairness concern and its application," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(1), pages 261-275.
    2. Keng-Yu Lin & Kuei-Hu Chang, 2023. "Artificial Intelligence and Information Processing: A Systematic Literature Review," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-20, May.
    3. Liang, Decui & Fu, Yuanyuan & Ishizaka, Alessio, 2023. "A consensual group ELECTRE-SORT approach considering the incomparable classes with the application of machine maintenance strategy assignment," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).

    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. Feifei Jin & Zhiwei Ni & Reza Langari & Huayou Chen, 2020. "Consistency Improvement-Driven Decision-Making Methods with Probabilistic Multiplicative Preference Relations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 371-397, April.
    2. Min Xue & Chao Fu & Shanlin Yang, 2022. "A comparative analysis of probabilistic linguistic preference relations and distributed preference relations for decision making," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 71-97, March.
    3. Huayou Chen & Ligang Zhou, 2012. "A Relative Entropy Approach to Group Decision Making with Interval Reciprocal Relations Based on COWA Operator," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 585-599, July.
    4. Lidan Pei & Feifei Jin & Zhiwei Ni & Huayou Chen & Zhifu Tao, 2017. "An automatic iterative decision-making method for intuitionistic fuzzy linguistic preference relations," International Journal of Systems Science, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(13), pages 2779-2793, October.
    5. 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.
    6. Dong, Yucheng & Xu, Yinfeng & Li, Hongyi & Dai, Min, 2008. "A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 229-242, April.
    7. Fang Liu & Jia-Wei Zhang & Qin Yu & Ya-Nan Peng & Witold Pedrycz, 2020. "On weak consistency of interval additive reciprocal matrices," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 153-175, June.
    8. Jie Tang & Fanyong Meng & Francisco Javier Cabrerizo & Enrique Herrera-Viedma, 2020. "Group Decision Making with Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Multiplicative Linguistic Preference Relations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 169-206, February.
    9. Ni Li & Minghui Sun & Zhuming Bi & Zeya Su & Chao Wang, 2014. "A new methodology to support group decision-making for IoT-based emergency response systems," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 16(5), pages 953-977, November.
    10. Zeshui Xu, 2013. "Compatibility Analysis of Intuitionistic Fuzzy Preference Relations in Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 463-482, May.
    11. Zhou-Jing Wang & Yuhong Wang & Kevin W. Li, 2016. "An Acceptable Consistency-Based Framework for Group Decision Making with Intuitionistic Preference Relations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 181-202, January.
    12. Bice Cavallo, 2019. "$$\mathcal {G}$$ G -distance and $$\mathcal {G}$$ G -decomposition for improving $$\mathcal {G}$$ G -consistency of a Pairwise Comparison Matrix," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 57-83, March.
    13. Jacinto González-Pachón & Carlos Romero, 2007. "Inferring consensus weights from pairwise comparison matrices without suitable properties," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 123-132, October.
    14. 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.
    15. Liu Fang & Peng Yanan & Zhang Weiguo & Pedrycz Witold, 2017. "On Consistency in AHP and Fuzzy AHP," Journal of Systems Science and Information, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 128-147, April.
    16. Hsu-Shih Shih, 2016. "A Mixed-Data Evaluation in Group TOPSIS with Differentiated Decision Power," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 537-565, May.
    17. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    18. Aull-Hyde, Rhonda & Erdogan, Sevgi & Duke, Joshua M., 2006. "An experiment on the consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 171(1), pages 290-295, May.
    19. Parra-López, Carlos & Reina-Usuga, Liliana & Carmona-Torres, Carmen & Sayadi, Samir & Klerkx, Laurens, 2021. "Digital transformation of the agrifood system: Quantifying the conditioning factors to inform policy planning in the olive sector," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    20. Liu, Fang & Zhang, Wei-Guo & Zhang, Li-Hua, 2014. "Consistency analysis of triangular fuzzy reciprocal preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(3), pages 718-726.

    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:spr:fuzodm:v:20:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s10700-020-09331-y. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.