IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v30y2021i1d10.1007_s10726-020-09714-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Group Decision Making with Transitive Preferences Under Ordinal and Cardinal Consistencies: An Optimization Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Zhibin Wu

    (Sichuan University)

  • Rong Yuan

    (Sichuan University)

  • Jiancheng Tu

    (Sichuan University)

Abstract

With the ubiquity of preference relations used in group decision making (GDM), controlling the transitivity of preferences characterized by individual consistency has attracted much attention. However, few previous studies consider ordinal and cardinal consistencies simultaneously and the ordinal consistency is often ignored in consensus reaching process in existing studies. In this study, the conditions of individual ordinal consistency are proved to be equivalent to a series of inequalities, based on which, an optimization model is developed to deal with the ordinal inconsistency problem. In addition, a second optimization model is proposed to address the coexistence of both ordinal and cardinal inconsistencies. A framework is designed to provide a complete strategy for controlling consistency. Such a framework is also generalized to accommodate the consensus problem in GDM. Comparing to the existing consistency improvement approaches, the proposed approach explicitly solves the ordinal consistency problem by an optimization approach. Furthermore, the proposed group consensus model guarantees both ordinal consistency and acceptable cardinal consistency when consensus is achieved. Finally, classical examples with extensive comparisons are conducted to show the effectiveness of the proposed approaches.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhibin Wu & Rong Yuan & Jiancheng Tu, 2021. "Group Decision Making with Transitive Preferences Under Ordinal and Cardinal Consistencies: An Optimization Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 221-250, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:30:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s10726-020-09714-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-020-09714-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-020-09714-x
    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/s10726-020-09714-x?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. Helen M. Moshkovich & Alexander I. Mechitov, 2017. "ORCON - a tool for analysis of ordinal consistency in a pairwise comparison matrix," International Journal of Management and Decision Making, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 16(1), pages 50-72.
    2. Cherchye, Laurens & Demuynck, Thomas & De Rock, Bram, 2018. "Transitivity of preferences: when does it matter?," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(3), September.
    3. Cherchye, Laurens & Demuynck, Thomas & De Rock, Bram, 2018. "Transitivity of preferences: when does it matter?," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(3), September.
    4. Elena Rokou & Konstantinos Kirytopoulos, 2014. "A Calibrated Group Decision Process," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(6), pages 1369-1384, November.
    5. Gong, Zaiwu & Guo, Weiwei & Herrera-Viedma, Enrique & Gong, Zejun & Wei, Guo, 2020. "Consistency and consensus modeling of linear uncertain preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 283(1), pages 290-307.
    6. Christian Genest & Shuang-Shuang Zhang, 1996. "A Graphical Analysis of Ratio-Scaled Paired Comparison Data," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(3), pages 335-349, March.
    7. 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.
    8. Nadezhda I. Nedashkovskaya, 2018. "Investigation of methods for improving consistency of a pairwise comparison matrix," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 69(12), pages 1947-1956, December.
    9. Fanyong Meng & Xiaohong Chen, 2018. "A robust additive consistency-based method for decision making with triangular fuzzy reciprocal preference relations," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 49-73, March.
    10. 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).
    11. Triantaphyllou, Evangelos & Yanase, Juri & Hou, Fujun, 2020. "Post-consensus analysis of group decision making processes by means of a graph theoretic and an association rules mining approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    12. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    13. Siraj, Sajid & Mikhailov, Ludmil & Keane, John, 2012. "A heuristic method to rectify intransitive judgments in pairwise comparison matrices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 216(2), pages 420-428.
    14. Fanyong Meng, 2018. "An approach to decision-making with triangular fuzzy reciprocal preference relations and its application," International Journal of Systems Science, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(3), pages 567-581, February.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Wenqi Liu & Hengjie Zhang & Haiming Liang & Cong-cong Li & Yucheng Dong, 2022. "Managing Consistency and Consensus Issues in Group Decision-Making with Self-Confident Additive Preference Relations and Without Feedback: A Nonlinear Optimization Method," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 213-240, February.
    4. Hongyue Diao & Ansheng Deng & Hui Cui & Xin Liu & Li Zou, 2022. "An approach for solving fuzzy multi-criteria decision problem under linguistic information," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 45-69, March.
    5. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Stochastic preference analysis in numerical preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(2), pages 628-633.
    6. 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.
    7. József Temesi, 2019. "An interactive approach to determine the elements of a pairwise comparison matrix," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 27(2), pages 533-549, June.
    8. Wang, Ying-Ming & Parkan, Celik, 2008. "Optimal aggregation of fuzzy preference relations with an application to broadband internet service selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(3), pages 1476-1486, June.
    9. Cherchye, Laurens & Demuynck, Thomas & Rock, Bram De, 2019. "Bounding counterfactual demand with unobserved heterogeneity and endogenous expenditures," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 211(2), pages 483-506.
    10. 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.
    11. Victor H. Aguiar & Per Hjertstrand & Roberto Serrano, 2020. "Rationalizable Incentives: Interim Implementation of Sets in Rationalizable Strategies," Working Papers 2020-16, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    12. 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.
    13. Xu, Zeshui & Chen, Jian, 2008. "Some models for deriving the priority weights from interval fuzzy preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 266-280, January.
    14. Aguiar, Victor H. & Hjertstrand, Per & Serrano, Roberto, 2020. "A Rationalization of the Weak Axiom of Revealed Preference," Working Paper Series 1321, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Kuo-Fang Hsu & Ping-Lung Huang & Tian-Shyug Lee & Bruce C. Y. Lee, 2023. "Analysis of Taiwan Emergency Physicians’ Core Competencies Based on ACGME Criteria," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(1), pages 21582440231, February.
    18. Cooper, Orrin & Yavuz, Idil, 2016. "Linking validation: A search for coherency within the Supermatrix," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 252(1), pages 232-245.
    19. Wu, Desheng Dash, 2009. "Performance evaluation: An integrated method using data envelopment analysis and fuzzy preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(1), pages 227-235, April.
    20. Corrente, Salvatore & Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio, 2016. "Combining analytical hierarchy process and Choquet integral within non-additive robust ordinal regression," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 2-18.

    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:grdene:v:30:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s10726-020-09714-x. 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.