IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v13y2025i3p379-d1576188.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bidirectional Feedback Mechanism in Group Decision-Making: A Quantum Probability Theory Model Based on Interference Effects

Author

Listed:
  • Mei Cai

    (Collaborative Innovation Center on Forecast and Evaluation of Meteorological Disasters, School of Management Science and Engineering, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing 210044, China
    Research Center of Risk Governance and Emergency Decision Making, School of Management Science and Engineering, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing 210044, China)

  • Yilong Heng

    (Collaborative Innovation Center on Forecast and Evaluation of Meteorological Disasters, School of Management Science and Engineering, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing 210044, China)

Abstract

Feedback in group decision-making (GDM) is an effective procedure for eliminating preference inconsistencies among experts. As the core of GDM, feedback controls the progress and cost of the process. However, the current feedback model seldom considers interference effects caused by the interaction among experts. In addition, the stubbornness of experts to change preferences through interaction is different. This study proposes a bidirectional feedback model that considers interference effects. The model integrating quantum probability theory (QPT) into a feedback mechanism has greater flexibility and is more conducive to revealing modern cognitive psychology. First, experts were classified into concordant and stubborn discordant groups according to their personality parameters. Bidirectional feedback was proposed for a stubborn discordant group to improve the efficiency of feedback process and reduce the consensus-reaching cost. QPT was then used to describe the probability of experts modifying their preferences during the game process. Combining the interference value determined by the quantum probability with the feedback mechanism, a bidirectional feedback model driven by a minimum feedback control parameter is proposed to ensure that a certain consensus level can be achieved with minimal adjustment. The proposed feedback mechanism considers interference effects produced by experts in the interaction and can capture the feelings of conflict and compromise.

Suggested Citation

  • Mei Cai & Yilong Heng, 2025. "Bidirectional Feedback Mechanism in Group Decision-Making: A Quantum Probability Theory Model Based on Interference Effects," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-24, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:13:y:2025:i:3:p:379-:d:1576188
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/13/3/379/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/13/3/379/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Huang, Zhiming & Yang, Lin & Jiang, Wen, 2019. "Uncertainty measurement with belief entropy on the interference effect in the quantum-like Bayesian Networks," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 347(C), pages 417-428.
    3. Tiantian Gai & Mingshuo Cao & Francisco Chiclana & Zhen Zhang & Yucheng Dong & Enrique Herrera-Viedma & Jian Wu, 2023. "Consensus-trust Driven Bidirectional Feedback Mechanism for Improving Consensus in Social Network Large-group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 45-74, February.
    4. Lipovetsky, Stan, 2018. "Quantum paradigm of probability amplitude and complex utility in entangled discrete choice modeling," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 62-73.
    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. Jingmei Xiao & Mei Cai & Yu Gao, 2022. "A VIKOR-Based Linguistic Multi-Attribute Group Decision-Making Model in a Quantum Decision Scenario," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(13), pages 1-23, June.
    2. Kaixin Gong & Weimin Ma & Hui Zhang & Mark Goh, 2023. "Heterogeneous Multi-attribute Large-Scale Group Decision-Making Considering Individual Concerns and Information Credibility," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(6), pages 1315-1349, December.
    3. Chao Fu & Wenjun Chang, 2024. "A Markov Chain-Based Group Consensus Method with Unknown Parameters," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 1019-1048, October.
    4. 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).
    5. Stan Lipovetsky, 2021. "Predictor Analysis in Group Decision Making," Stats, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-14, February.
    6. Jinmuzi Zhang & Haiyan Xu & Ginger Y. Ke, 2024. "A Novel Consensus and Dissent Framework Under Grey Preference Based on the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution for Two Decision Makers," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 711-744, August.
    7. 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).
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Hancock, Thomas O. & Broekaert, Jan & Hess, Stephane & Choudhury, Charisma F., 2020. "Quantum choice models: A flexible new approach for understanding moral decision-making," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    12. 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).
    13. Liguo Fei & Jun Xia & Yuqiang Feng & Luning Liu, 2019. "A novel method to determine basic probability assignment in Dempster–Shafer theory and its application in multi-sensor information fusion," International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, , vol. 15(7), pages 15501477198, July.
    14. Leandro Peçanha De Souza & Carlos Francisco Simões Gomes & Alexandre Pinheiro De Barros, 2018. "Implementation of New Hybrid AHP–TOPSIS-2N Method in Sorting and Prioritizing of an it CAPEX Project Portfolio," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 977-1005, July.
    15. 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.
    16. Fahim ul Amin & Qian-Li Dong & Katarzyna Grzybowska & Zahid Ahmed & Bo-Rui Yan, 2022. "A Novel Fuzzy-Based VIKOR–CRITIC Soft Computing Method for Evaluation of Sustainable Supply Chain Risk Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-15, February.
    17. Cui, Huizi & Zhou, Lingge & Li, Yan & Kang, Bingyi, 2022. "Belief entropy-of-entropy and its application in the cardiac interbeat interval time series analysis," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    18. Liu, Bingsheng & Zhou, Qi & Ding, Ru-Xi & Palomares, Iván & Herrera, Francisco, 2019. "Large-scale group decision making model based on social network analysis: Trust relationship-based conflict detection and elimination," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(2), pages 737-754.
    19. Wu, Xingli & Liao, Huchang, 2019. "A consensus-based probabilistic linguistic gained and lost dominance score method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(3), pages 1017-1027.
    20. Li Li & Huihui Rao & Minghao Wang & Weisheng Mao & Changzhe Jin, 2024. "A Variable-Weight Model for Evaluating the Technical Condition of Urban Viaducts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-22, March.

    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:gam:jmathe:v:13:y:2025:i:3:p:379-:d:1576188. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.