IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v25y2016i5d10.1007_s10726-015-9468-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Prametric-Based GDM Procedure Under Fuzzy Environment

Author

Listed:
  • Fujun Hou

    (Beijing Institute of Technology)

Abstract

The prametric is an ‘almost metric’ which does not necessarily satisfy the triangle inequality but able to describe the consensus intransitivity in group decision making (GDM) such as Tom and Jack have preferences in common, also Jack and John have preferences in common, but, Tom and John do not necessarily have preferences in common. A prametric-based consensus formation procedure for GDM was presented in a literature. This paper considers the procedure under fuzzy environment where the individuals’ preferences are provided as fuzzy numbers. The Yager defuzzification method is used for constructing the preference sequence matrix where the (i, j)-th entry indicates the alternative i’s position(s) assigned by individual j. An illustrative example for application is also included.

Suggested Citation

  • Fujun Hou, 2016. "The Prametric-Based GDM Procedure Under Fuzzy Environment," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(5), pages 1071-1084, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:25:y:2016:i:5:d:10.1007_s10726-015-9468-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-015-9468-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-015-9468-0
    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/s10726-015-9468-0?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. R. E. Bellman & L. A. Zadeh, 1970. "Decision-Making in a Fuzzy Environment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 141-164, December.
    2. Satterthwaite, Mark Allen, 1975. "Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 187-217, April.
    3. Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
    4. Wade D. Cook & Lawrence M. Seiford, 1978. "Priority Ranking and Consensus Formation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(16), pages 1721-1732, December.
    5. Ronald D. Armstrong & Wade D. Cook & Lawrence M. Seiford, 1982. "Priority Ranking and Consensus Formation: The Case of Ties," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(6), pages 638-645, June.
    6. Ralph L. Keeney, 2013. "Foundations for Group Decision Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 103-120, June.
    7. Cook, Wade D. & Kress, Moshe & Seiford, Lawrence M., 1997. "A general framework for distance-based consensus in ordinal ranking models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 392-397, January.
    8. James S. Dyer & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1979. "Group Preference Aggregation Rules Based on Strength of Preference," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(9), pages 822-832, September.
    9. Fujun Hou, 2015. "A Consensus Gap Indicator and Its Application to Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 415-428, May.
    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. Hou, Fujun & Triantaphyllou, Evangelos, 2019. "An iterative approach for achieving consensus when ranking a finite set of alternatives by a group of experts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(2), pages 570-579.
    2. 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).
    3. Fujun Hou, 2018. "Mutual Conversion Between Preference Maps And Cook-Seiford Vectors," Papers 1812.03566, arXiv.org.
    4. Evangelos Triantaphyllou & Fujun Hou & Juri Yanase, 2020. "Analysis of the Final Ranking Decisions Made by Experts After a Consensus has Been Reached in Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 271-291, April.

    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. Fujun Hou, 2015. "A Consensus Gap Indicator and Its Application to Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 415-428, May.
    2. Hou, Fujun & Triantaphyllou, Evangelos, 2019. "An iterative approach for achieving consensus when ranking a finite set of alternatives by a group of experts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(2), pages 570-579.
    3. Simon French & Nikolaos Argyris, 2018. "Decision Analysis and Political Processes," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 208-222, December.
    4. Fujun Hou, 2018. "Mutual Conversion Between Preference Maps And Cook-Seiford Vectors," Papers 1812.03566, arXiv.org.
    5. Luis C. Dias & Paula Sarabando, 2012. "A Note on a Group Preference Axiomatization with Cardinal Utility," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 231-237, September.
    6. Yucheng Dong & Yao Li & Ying He & Xia Chen, 2021. "Preference–Approval Structures in Group Decision Making: Axiomatic Distance and Aggregation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 273-295, December.
    7. Spenkuch, Jörg, 2013. "On the Extent of Strategic Voting," MPRA Paper 50198, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Urs Fischbacher & Simeon Schudy, 2020. "Agenda Control And Reciprocity In Sequential Voting Decisions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 58(4), pages 1813-1829, October.
    9. Josheski Dushko & Karamazova Elena, 2021. "Auction theory and a note on game mechanisms," Croatian Review of Economic, Business and Social Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 7(1), pages 43-59, May.
    10. Felix Brandt & Patrick Lederer & René Romen, 2024. "Relaxed notions of Condorcet-consistency and efficiency for strategyproof social decision schemes," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 63(1), pages 19-55, August.
    11. Alix-Garcia, Jennifer M. & Sims, Katharine R.E. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 2019. "Using referenda to improve targeting and decrease costs of conditional cash transfers," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 179-194.
    12. Bock, Hans-Hermann & Day, William H. E. & McMorris, F. R., 1998. "Consensus rules for committee elections," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 219-232, May.
    13. Fabian R. Pieroth & Martin Bichler, 2022. "$\alpha$-Rank-Collections: Analyzing Expected Strategic Behavior with Uncertain Utilities," Papers 2211.10317, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2024.
    14. Elkind, Edith & Grandi, Umberto & Rossi, Francesca & Slinko, Arkadii, 2020. "Cognitive hierarchy and voting manipulation in k-approval voting," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 193-205.
    15. Umut Keskin & M. Remzi Sanver & H. Berkay Tosunlu, 2021. "Recovering non-monotonicity problems of voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(1), pages 125-141, January.
    16. ,, 2009. "Strategy-proofness and single-crossing," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 4(2), June.
    17. Ricardo Martínez & Bernardo Moreno, 2011. "Manipulability in Restricted Separable Domains," Working Papers 2011-01, Universidad de Málaga, Department of Economic Theory, Málaga Economic Theory Research Center.
    18. Yuliya Veselova, 2016. "The difference between manipulability indices in the IC and IANC models," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(3), pages 609-638, March.
    19. Marco LiCalzi, 2022. "Bipartite choices," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 45(2), pages 551-568, December.
    20. Gershkov, Alex & Kleiner, Andreas & Moldovanu, Benny & Shi, Xianwen, 2023. "Voting with interdependent values: The Condorcet winner," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 193-208.

    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:25:y:2016:i:5:d:10.1007_s10726-015-9468-0. 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.