IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v31y2022i2d10.1007_s10726-021-09752-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk-Averse Two-Stage Stochastic Minimum Cost Consensus Models with Asymmetric Adjustment Cost

Author

Listed:
  • Ying Ji

    (Shanghai University)

  • Huanhuan Li

    (Business School, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology)

  • Huijie Zhang

    (Business School, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology)

Abstract

In the process of reaching consensus, it is necessary to coordinate different views to form a general group opinion. However, there are many uncertain factors in this process, which has brought different degrees of influence in group decision-making. Besides, these uncertain elements bring the risk of loss to the whole process of consensus building. Currently available models not account for these two aspects. To deal with these issues, three different modeling methods for constructing the two-stage mean-risk stochastic minimum cost consensus models (MCCMs) with asymmetric adjustment cost are investigated. Due to the complexity of the resulting models, the L-shaped algorithm is applied to achieve an optimal solution. In addition, a numerical example of a peer-to-peer online lending platform demonstrated the utility of the proposed modeling approach. To verify the result obtained by the L-shaped algorithm, it is compared with the CPLEX solver. Moreover, the comparison results show the accuracy and efficiency of the given method. Sensitivity analyses are undertaken to assess the impact of risk on results. And in the presence of asymmetric cost, the comparisons between the new proposed risk-averse MCCMs and the two-stage stochastic MCCMs and robust consensus models are also given.

Suggested Citation

  • Ying Ji & Huanhuan Li & Huijie Zhang, 2022. "Risk-Averse Two-Stage Stochastic Minimum Cost Consensus Models with Asymmetric Adjustment Cost," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 261-291, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:31:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-021-09752-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-021-09752-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-021-09752-z
    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/s10726-021-09752-z?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. Guo, Yanhong & Zhou, Wenjun & Luo, Chunyu & Liu, Chuanren & Xiong, Hui, 2016. "Instance-based credit risk assessment for investment decisions in P2P lending," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(2), pages 417-426.
    2. Tajeddini, Mohammad Amin & Rahimi-Kian, Ashkan & Soroudi, Alireza, 2014. "Risk averse optimal operation of a virtual power plant using two stage stochastic programming," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 958-967.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Cheng, Dong & Zhou, Zhili & Cheng, Faxin & Zhou, Yanfang & Xie, Yujing, 2018. "Modeling the minimum cost consensus problem in an asymmetric costs context," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 270(3), pages 1122-1137.
    6. Ma, Gang & Zheng, Junjun & Wei, Ju & Wang, Shilei & Han, Yefan, 2021. "Robust optimization strategies for seller based on uncertainty sets in context of sequential auction," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 390(C).
    7. 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.
    8. Labella, Álvaro & Liu, Hongbin & Rodríguez, Rosa M. & Martínez, Luis, 2020. "A Cost Consensus Metric for Consensus Reaching Processes based on a comprehensive minimum cost model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 281(2), pages 316-331.
    9. Zhang, Huanhuan & Kou, Gang & Peng, Yi, 2019. "Soft consensus cost models for group decision making and economic interpretations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(3), pages 964-980.
    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. Shuai Li & Shaojian Qu, 2023. "The Three-Level Supply Chain Finance Collaboration under Blockchain: Income Sharing with Shapley Value Cooperative Game," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-28, March.
    2. Victor Fernandez-Viagas & Luis Sanchez-Mediano & Alvaro Angulo-Cortes & David Gomez-Medina & Jose Manuel Molina-Pariente, 2022. "The Permutation Flow Shop Scheduling Problem with Human Resources: MILP Models, Decoding Procedures, NEH-Based Heuristics, and an Iterated Greedy Algorithm," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(19), pages 1-32, September.
    3. Mahyar Mirabnejad & Hadi Mohammadi & Mehrdad Mirzabaghi & Amir Aghsami & Fariborz Jolai & Maziar Yazdani, 2022. "Home Health Care Problem with Synchronization Visits and Considering Samples Transferring Time: A Case Study in Tehran, Iran," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-25, November.
    4. Dian Retno Sari Dewi & Yustinus Budi Hermanto & Elizabeth Tait & Martinus Edy Sianto, 2023. "The Product–Service System Supply Chain Capabilities and Their Impact on Sustainability Performance: A Dynamic Capabilities Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-24, January.
    5. Paweł Hanczar & Zahra Azadehranjbar, 2022. "A Bi-Objective Sustainable Supply Chain Redesign: What Effect Does Energy Availability Have on Redesign?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-13, May.
    6. Oana Dobre-Baron & Alina Nițescu & Dorina Niță & Cătălin Mitran, 2022. "Romania’s Perspectives on the Transition to the Circular Economy in an EU Context," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-26, April.
    7. Xing Chen & Eunmi Jang, 2022. "A Sustainable Supply Chain Network Model Considering Carbon Neutrality and Personalization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-23, April.
    8. Ziqi Wu & Kai Zhu & Shaojian Qu, 2022. "Distributionally Robust Optimization Model for a Minimum Cost Consensus with Asymmetric Adjustment Costs Based on the Wasserstein Metric," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(22), pages 1-21, November.
    9. Mohammed Alkahtani & Lofti Hidri & Mehdi Mrad, 2023. "Multi-Stage Production and Process Outsourcing in Automobile-Part Supply Chain Considering a Carbon Tax Strategy Using Sequential Quadratic Optimization Technique," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-23, February.
    10. M. Nithya & Gyanendra Prasad Joshi & C. Sugapriya & S. Selvakumar & N. Anbazhagan & Eunmok Yang & Ill Chul Doo, 2022. "Analysis of Stochastic State-Dependent Arrivals in a Queueing-Inventory System with Multiple Server Vacation and Retrial Facility," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(17), pages 1-29, August.

    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. Meng, Fan-Yong & Gong, Zai-Wu & Pedrycz, Witold & Chu, Jun-Fei, 2023. "Selfish-dilemma consensus analysis for group decision making in the perspective of cooperative game theory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 308(1), pages 290-305.
    2. Guo, Weiwei & Gong, Zaiwu & Zhang, Wei-Guo & Xu, Yanxin, 2023. "Minimum cost consensus modeling under dynamic feedback regulation mechanism considering consensus principle and tolerance level," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(3), pages 1279-1295.
    3. Gong, Zaiwu & Guo, Weiwei & Słowiński, Roman, 2021. "Transaction and interaction behavior-based consensus model and its application to optimal carbon emission reduction," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    4. Cheng, Dong & Yuan, Yuxiang & Wu, Yong & Hao, Tiantian & Cheng, Faxin, 2022. "Maximum satisfaction consensus with budget constraints considering individual tolerance and compromise limit behaviors," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(1), pages 221-238.
    5. 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.
    6. Mingwei Wang & Decui Liang & Zeshui Xu & Wen Cao, 2022. "Consensus reaching with the externality effect of social network for three-way group decisions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 315(2), pages 707-745, August.
    7. 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).
    8. 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.
    9. Li, Ying & Liu, Peide & Li, Gang, 2023. "An asymmetric cost consensus based failure mode and effect analysis method with personalized risk attitude information," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 235(C).
    10. Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang, 2021. "From conventional group decision making to large-scale group decision making: What are the challenges and how to meet them in big data era? A state-of-the-art survey," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    11. Shaojian Qu & Yefan Han & Zhong Wu & Hassan Raza, 2021. "Consensus Modeling with Asymmetric Cost Based on Data-Driven Robust Optimization," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(6), pages 1395-1432, December.
    12. 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.
    13. Yuanming Li & Ying Ji & Shaojian Qu, 2022. "Consensus Building for Uncertain Large-Scale Group Decision-Making Based on the Clustering Algorithm and Robust Discrete Optimization," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 453-489, April.
    14. Li, Yanhong & Kou, Gang & Li, Guangxu & Peng, Yi, 2022. "Consensus reaching process in large-scale group decision making based on bounded confidence and social network," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 303(2), pages 790-802.
    15. Labella, Álvaro & Liu, Hongbin & Rodríguez, Rosa M. & Martínez, Luis, 2020. "A Cost Consensus Metric for Consensus Reaching Processes based on a comprehensive minimum cost model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 281(2), pages 316-331.
    16. Weijun Xu & Xin Chen & Yucheng Dong & Francisco Chiclana, 2021. "Impact of Decision Rules and Non-cooperative Behaviors on Minimum Consensus Cost in Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(6), pages 1239-1260, December.
    17. Zhang, Huanhuan & Kou, Gang & Peng, Yi, 2019. "Soft consensus cost models for group decision making and economic interpretations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(3), pages 964-980.
    18. Ziqi Wu & Kai Zhu & Shaojian Qu, 2022. "Distributionally Robust Optimization Model for a Minimum Cost Consensus with Asymmetric Adjustment Costs Based on the Wasserstein Metric," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(22), pages 1-21, November.
    19. Feifei Jin & Chang Li & Jinpei Liu & Ligang Zhou, 2021. "Distribution Linguistic Fuzzy Group Decision Making Based on Consistency and Consensus Analysis," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(19), pages 1-19, October.
    20. Ngozi G. Emenogu & Monday Osagie Adenomon & Nwaze Obini Nweze, 2020. "On the volatility of daily stock returns of Total Nigeria Plc: evidence from GARCH models, value-at-risk and backtesting," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 6(1), pages 1-25, December.

    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:31:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-021-09752-z. 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.