IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v89y2019icp164-176.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Opinion-based optimal group formation

Author

Listed:
  • Oliva, Gabriele
  • Scala, Antonio
  • Setola, Roberto
  • Dell’Olmo, Paolo

Abstract

Most of classical decision making processes aim at selecting the “best” alternative or at ranking alternatives based on the opinions of decision makers. Often, such a process occurs among people (experts or decision makers) who are expected to achieve some shared consensus in ranking the alternatives. However, this is not likely to happen (especially for a large and heterogeneous collection of people) and decision makers tend to reveal groups characteristics derived from their different opinions. A major problem is that inconsistency in opinions arises as each expert has a limited knowledge, errors and misinterpretation of data can occur and thus it is not clear how groups can be identified to be internally consistent and non-conflicting. In this paper, we investigate the conditions under which experts can be split into different sub-groups that share coherent and consistent opinions but are mutually in conflict in the ordering of the alternatives. We face this problem by presenting a non-linear integer programming model where each decision maker specifies incomplete preferences on pairs of alternatives and the objective is to obtain groups having the least possible degree of inconsistency. From a theoretical standpoint, we show that the proposed problem is non-convex and NP-Hard. Moreover, we validate the proposed approach with respect to a case study related to the 2018 Italian political elections. Specifically, we analyze the opinions of 33 decision makers and we show that the proposed technique is able to identify sub-groups characterized by large internal consistency, i.e., the members of each sub-groups express similar judgements upon the different options, while such options are evaluated very differently by the different sub-groups. Interestingly, while dividing the decision makers in three sub-groups, we obtain group rankings that reflect the structure of the Italian political parties or coalitions at the time, i.e., left-wing, right-wing and populists, even if such kind of information has not been directly provided by the decision makers nor used within the proposed case study.

Suggested Citation

  • Oliva, Gabriele & Scala, Antonio & Setola, Roberto & Dell’Olmo, Paolo, 2019. "Opinion-based optimal group formation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 164-176.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:89:y:2019:i:c:p:164-176
    DOI: 10.1016/j.omega.2018.10.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305048318306479
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.omega.2018.10.008?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. Rainer Hegselmann & Ulrich Krause, 2002. "Opinion Dynamics and Bounded Confidence Models, Analysis and Simulation," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 5(3), pages 1-2.
    2. James S. Dyer, 1990. "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 249-258, March.
    3. Saaty, Thomas L., 2003. "Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 85-91, February.
    4. Bolloju, N., 2001. "Aggregation of analytic hierarchy process models based on similarities in decision makers' preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(3), pages 499-508, February.
    5. Guillaume Deffuant & David Neau & Frederic Amblard & Gérard Weisbuch, 2000. "Mixing beliefs among interacting agents," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(01n04), pages 87-98.
    6. Carmone, Frank J. & Kara, Ali & Zanakis, Stelios H., 1997. "A Monte Carlo investigation of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 102(3), pages 538-553, November.
    7. Fedrizzi, Michele & Giove, Silvio, 2007. "Incomplete pairwise comparison and consistency optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 183(1), pages 303-313, November.
    8. Alessandro Bessi & Mauro Coletto & George Alexandru Davidescu & Antonio Scala & Guido Caldarelli & Walter Quattrociocchi, 2015. "Science vs Conspiracy: Collective Narratives in the Age of Misinformation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-17, February.
    9. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    10. Russett, Bruce M., 1966. "Discovering Voting Groups in the United Nations," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 60(2), pages 327-339, June.
    11. James S. Dyer, 1990. "A Clarification of "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 274-275, March.
    12. Thomas L. Saaty, 1990. "An Exposition of the AHP in Reply to the Paper "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 259-268, March.
    13. Simon, Herbert A, 1979. "Rational Decision Making in Business Organizations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 493-513, September.
    14. Meløn, Mønica García & Aragonés Beltran, Pablo & Carmen González Cruz, M., 2008. "An AHP-based evaluation procedure for Innovative Educational Projects: A face-to-face vs. computer-mediated case study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 754-765, October.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Xu, Zeshui, 2005. "Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations in group decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 249-254, June.
    18. R. Luce & Albert Perry, 1949. "A method of matrix analysis of group structure," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 14(2), pages 95-116, June.
    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. Meng, Fanyong & Tang, Jie & An, Qingxian, 2023. "Cooperative game based two-stage consensus adjustment mechanism for large-scale group decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    2. Faramondi, Luca & Oliva, Gabriele & Setola, Roberto, 2020. "Multi-criteria node criticality assessment framework for critical infrastructure networks," International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, Elsevier, vol. 28(C).
    3. Szádoczki, Zsombor & Bozóki, Sándor & Tekile, Hailemariam Abebe, 2022. "Filling in pattern designs for incomplete pairwise comparison matrices: (Quasi-)regular graphs with minimal diameter," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 107(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. 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.
    2. Höfer, Tim & Sunak, Yasin & Siddique, Hafiz & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Wind farm siting using a spatial Analytic Hierarchy Process approach: A case study of the Städteregion Aachen," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 222-243.
    3. Gomez-Limon, J.A. & Atance, I., 2004. "Identification of public objectives related to agricultural sector support," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 26(8-9), pages 1045-1071, December.
    4. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    5. Michele Bernasconi & Christine Choirat & Raffaello Seri, 2010. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process and the Theory of Measurement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(4), pages 699-711, April.
    6. Jason R. W. Merrick & John R. Harrald, 2007. "Making Decisions About Safety in US Ports and Waterways," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 37(3), pages 240-252, June.
    7. Alessio Ishizaka & Sajid Siraj, 2020. "Interactive consistency correction in the analytic hierarchy process to preserve ranks," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 43(2), pages 443-464, December.
    8. José A. Gómez-Limón & Ignacio Atance, 2004. "Identification of Public Objectives Related to Agricultural Sector Support," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2004/57, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    9. L. Sun & B. S. Greenberg, 2006. "Multicriteria Group Decision Making: Optimal Priority Synthesis from Pairwise Comparisons," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 130(2), pages 317-339, August.
    10. Bana e Costa, Carlos A. & Vansnick, Jean-Claude, 2008. "A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(3), pages 1422-1428, June.
    11. Bentes, Alexandre Veronese & Carneiro, Jorge & da Silva, Jorge Ferreira & Kimura, Herbert, 2012. "Multidimensional assessment of organizational performance: Integrating BSC and AHP," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(12), pages 1790-1799.
    12. Kun Chen & Gang Kou & J. Michael Tarn & Yan Song, 2015. "Bridging the gap between missing and inconsistent values in eliciting preference from pairwise comparison matrices," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 235(1), pages 155-175, December.
    13. Joaquín Pérez, José L. Jimeno, Ethel Mokotoff, 2001. "Another potential strong shortcoming of AHP," Doctorado en Economía- documentos de trabajo 8/02, Programa de doctorado en Economía. Universidad de Alcalá., revised 01 Jun 2002.
    14. Jain, Bharat A. & Nag, Barin N., 1996. "A decision-support model for investment decisions in new ventures," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 90(3), pages 473-486, May.
    15. K. Madan Shankar & P. Udhaya Kumar & Devika Kannan, 2016. "Analyzing the Drivers of Advanced Sustainable Manufacturing System Using AHP Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-10, August.
    16. Siraj, Sajid & Mikhailov, Ludmil & Keane, John A., 2015. "Contribution of individual judgments toward inconsistency in pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(2), pages 557-567.
    17. Antonio Parravano & Ascensión Andina-Díaz & Miguel A Meléndez-Jiménez, 2016. "Bounded Confidence under Preferential Flip: A Coupled Dynamics of Structural Balance and Opinions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-23, October.
    18. Ernest H. Forman & Saul I. Gass, 2001. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process---An Exposition," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 469-486, August.
    19. Behnam Malakooti, 2015. "Double Helix Value Functions, Ordinal/Cardinal Approach, Additive Utility Functions, Multiple Criteria, Decision Paradigm, Process, and Types (Z Theory I)," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1353-1400, November.
    20. Millet, Ido & Saaty, Thomas L., 2000. "On the relativity of relative measures - accommodating both rank preservation and rank reversals in the AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 205-212, February.

    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:jomega:v:89:y:2019:i:c:p:164-176. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    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.