IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v9y2021i1p93-d474403.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards Better Concordance among Contextualized Evaluations in FAST-GDM Problems

Author

Listed:
  • Marcelo Loor

    (Department of Telecommunications and Information Processing, Ghent University, Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat 41, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
    Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, ESPOL Polytechnic University, Campus Gustavo Galindo V. Km. 30.5 Vía Perimetral, P.O. Box 09-01-5863, Guayaquil, Ecuador
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Ana Tapia-Rosero

    (Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, ESPOL Polytechnic University, Campus Gustavo Galindo V. Km. 30.5 Vía Perimetral, P.O. Box 09-01-5863, Guayaquil, Ecuador
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Guy De Tré

    (Department of Telecommunications and Information Processing, Ghent University, Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat 41, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

Abstract

A flexible attribute-set group decision-making (FAST-GDM) problem consists in finding the most suitable option(s) out of the options under consideration, with a general agreement among a heterogeneous group of experts who can focus on different attributes to evaluate those options. An open challenge in FAST-GDM problems is to design consensus reaching processes (CRPs) by which the participants can perform evaluations with a high level of consensus. To address this challenge, a novel algorithm for reaching consensus is proposed in this paper. By means of the algorithm, called FAST-CR-XMIS, a participant can reconsider his/her evaluations after studying the most influential samples that have been shared by others through contextualized evaluations. Since exchanging those samples may make participants’ understandings more like each other, an increase of the level of consensus is expected. A simulation of a CRP where contextualized evaluations of newswire stories are characterized as augmented intuitionistic fuzzy sets (AIFS) shows how FAST-CR-XMIS can increase the level of consensus among the participants during the CRP.

Suggested Citation

  • Marcelo Loor & Ana Tapia-Rosero & Guy De Tré, 2021. "Towards Better Concordance among Contextualized Evaluations in FAST-GDM Problems," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-17, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:9:y:2021:i:1:p:93-:d:474403
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/9/1/93/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/9/1/93/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Herrera, F. & Martinez, L. & Sanchez, P. J., 2005. "Managing non-homogeneous information in group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 166(1), pages 115-132, October.
    2. Kacprzyk, Janusz & Fedrizzi, Mario, 1988. "A `soft' measure of consensus in the setting of partial (fuzzy) preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 316-325, March.
    3. R. O. Parreiras & P. Ya. Ekel & D. C. Morais, 2012. "Fuzzy Set Based Consensus Schemes for Multicriteria Group Decision making Applied to Strategic Planning," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 153-183, March.
    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. Bowen Zhang & Yucheng Dong & Enrique Herrera-Viedma, 2019. "Group Decision Making with Heterogeneous Preference Structures: An Automatic Mechanism to Support Consensus Reaching," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 585-617, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Jia-Wei Tang & Tsuen-Ho Hsu, 2018. "Utilizing the Hierarchy Structural Fuzzy Analytical Network Process Model to Evaluate Critical Elements of Marketing Strategic Alliance Development in Mobile Telecommunication Industry," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 251-284, April.
    4. Rusinowska, Agnieszka & Taalaibekova, Akylai, 2019. "Opinion formation and targeting when persuaders have extreme and centrist opinions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 9-27.
    5. Raquel González del Pozo & Luis C. Dias & José Luis García-Lapresta, 2020. "Using Different Qualitative Scales in a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Procedure," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-20, March.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Doukas, Haris, 2013. "Modelling of linguistic variables in multicriteria energy policy support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 227(2), pages 227-238.
    11. Xidonas, Panos & Doukas, Haris & Hassapis, Christis, 2021. "Grouped data, investment committees & multicriteria portfolio selection," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 205-222.
    12. Giove, Silvio & Rosato, Paolo & Breil, Margaretha, 2008. "A Multicriteria Approach for the Evaluation of the Sustainability of Re-use of Historic Buildings in Venice," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 46625, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    13. Zhibin Wu & Jie Xiao & Ivan Palomares, 2019. "Direct Iterative Procedures for Consensus Building with Additive Preference Relations Based on the Discrete Assessment Scale," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(6), pages 1167-1191, December.
    14. Bustince, H. & Jurio, A. & Pradera, A. & Mesiar, R. & Beliakov, G., 2013. "Generalization of the weighted voting method using penalty functions constructed via faithful restricted dissimilarity functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 225(3), pages 472-478.
    15. Yuan Li & Xiuwu Liao & Wenhong Zhao, 2009. "A rough set approach to knowledge discovery in analyzing competitive advantages of firms," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 205-223, April.
    16. Matheus Pereira Libório & Lívia Maria Leite Silva & Petr Iakovlevitch Ekel & Letícia Ribeiro Figueiredo & Patrícia Bernardes, 2022. "Consensus-Based Sub-Indicator Weighting Approach: Constructing Composite Indicators Compatible with Expert Opinion," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 164(3), pages 1073-1099, December.
    17. Fang Liu & Mao-Jie Huang & Cai-Xia Huang & Witold Pedrycz, 2022. "Measuring consistency of interval-valued preference relations: comments and comparison," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 371-399, March.
    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. Hsin-Chieh Wu & Yu-Cheng Wang & Tin-Chih Toly Chen, 2020. "Assessing and Comparing COVID-19 Intervention Strategies Using a Varying Partial Consensus Fuzzy Collaborative Intelligence Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-23, October.
    20. 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.

    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:9:y:2021:i:1:p:93-:d:474403. 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.