IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jcomop/v36y2018i1d10.1007_s10878-016-0086-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Creating an acceptable consensus ranking for group decision making

Author

Listed:
  • Kelin Luo

    (Xi’an Jiaotong University)

  • Yinfeng Xu

    (Xi’an Jiaotong University
    The State Key Lab for Manufacturing Systems Engineering)

  • Bowen Zhang

    (Xi’an Jiaotong University)

  • Huili Zhang

    (Xi’an Jiaotong University)

Abstract

This paper examines the problem of combining a set of ordinal rankings to form an acceptable consensus ranking. The objective of traditional group decision making problem is to determine the Minimum Violation Ranking. Motived by the applications of adjusted consensus in recent years, we study this problem from a new perspective, for obtaining an acceptable consensus ranking for group decision making. In this paper, every voter ranks a set of alternatives respectively, and we know the acceptability index, which represents the minimum adjustments that are allowed for each voter. The problem is to find the Minimum Acceptable Violation Ranking (MAVR) which minimizes the sum of voter’s unacceptable violations. Besides, we develop a branch and bound ranking algorithm to solve this problem. The suggested improvement include: (1) analysing the ranking preference by two ways: pairwise preference and ranking-based preference; (2) constructing the lower bound and upper bound, which exclude at most half of the feasible solutions in each iteration process. Furthermore, the effectiveness and efficiency of this algorithm are verified with an example and numerical experiments. Finally, we discuss two extensions of the basic MAVR problem: the Minimum Weighted Acceptable Violation problem, whose voters are accompanied with a set of weights or multiples, and the Minimum Hierarchy Acceptable Violation problem, which uses hierarchical acceptability indexes. In addition, our results can be applied to other ranking and subset selection problems in which provide consensus rankings over the alternatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Kelin Luo & Yinfeng Xu & Bowen Zhang & Huili Zhang, 2018. "Creating an acceptable consensus ranking for group decision making," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 307-328, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jcomop:v:36:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s10878-016-0086-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10878-016-0086-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10878-016-0086-9
    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/s10878-016-0086-9?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. Inada, Ken-Ichi, 1969. "The Simple Majority Decision Rule," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 37(3), pages 490-506, July.
    2. Wade D. Cook & Lawrence M. Seiford, 1978. "Priority Ranking and Consensus Formation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(16), pages 1721-1732, December.
    3. Iqbal Ali & Wade D. Cook & Moshe Kress, 1986. "On the Minimum Violations Ranking of a Tournament," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(6), pages 660-672, June.
    4. J. M. Blin & A. B. Whinston, 1974. "Note--A Note on Majority Rule under Transitivity Constraints," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(11), pages 1439-1440, July.
    5. V. J. Bowman & C. S. Colantoni, 1973. "Majority Rule Under Transitivity Constraints," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(9), pages 1029-1041, May.
    6. Jonathan Barzilai & Wade D. Cook & Moshe Kress, 1986. "A Generalized Network Formulation of the Pairwise Comparison Consensus Ranking Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(8), pages 1007-1014, August.
    7. 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.
    8. Wade D. Cook & Lawrence M. Seiford, 1982. "On the Borda-Kendall Consensus Method for Priority Ranking Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(6), pages 621-637, June.
    9. Wade D. Cook & Moshe Kress, 1990. "A Data Envelopment Model for Aggregating Preference Rankings," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(11), pages 1302-1310, November.
    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. Akram Dehnokhalaji & Pekka J. Korhonen & Murat Köksalan & Nasim Nasrabadi & Diclehan Tezcaner Öztürk & Jyrki Wallenius, 2014. "Constructing a strict total order for alternatives characterized by multiple criteria: An extension," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(2), pages 155-163, March.
    2. Tavana, M. & Kennedy, D. T. & Joglekar, P., 1996. "A group decision support framework for consensus ranking of technical manager candidates," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 523-538, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Michel Truchon, 2005. "Aggregation of Rankings: a Brief Review of Distance-Based Rules," Cahiers de recherche 0534, CIRPEE.
    5. Irène Charon & Olivier Hudry, 2010. "An updated survey on the linear ordering problem for weighted or unweighted tournaments," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 107-158, March.
    6. Ignacio Contreras, 2010. "A Distance-Based Consensus Model with Flexible Choice of Rank-Position Weights," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 441-456, September.
    7. Michael J. Brusco & Douglas Steinley & Ashley L. Watts, 2022. "Disentangling relationships in symptom networks using matrix permutation methods," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 87(1), pages 133-155, March.
    8. Wade D. Cook & Tal Raviv & Alan J. Richardson, 2010. "Aggregating Incomplete Lists of Journal Rankings: An Application to Academic Accounting Journals," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 217-235, September.
    9. Jorge Alcalde-Unzu & Marc Vorsatz, 2008. "The Measurement of Consensus: An Axiomatic Analysis," Working Papers 2008-28, FEDEA.
    10. Michael Brusco & Hans-Friedrich Köhn & Stephanie Stahl, 2008. "Heuristic Implementation of Dynamic Programming for Matrix Permutation Problems in Combinatorial Data Analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 73(3), pages 503-522, September.
    11. Hanna Bury & Dariusz Wagner, 2009. "Group judgement with ties. A position-based approach," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Technology, Institute of Organization and Management, vol. 4, pages 9-26.
    12. Yu Xiao & Ye Deng & Jun Wu & Hong‐Zhong Deng & Xin Lu, 2017. "Comparison of rank aggregation methods based on inherent ability," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(7), pages 556-565, October.
    13. G. Laffond & J. Lainé, 2013. "Unanimity and the Anscombe’s paradox," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 21(3), pages 590-611, October.
    14. Hanna Bury & Dariusz Wagner, 2009. "Group judgment with ties. A position-based approach," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 19(4), pages 7-26.
    15. Cook, Wade D., 2006. "Distance-based and ad hoc consensus models in ordinal preference ranking," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(2), pages 369-385, July.
    16. Yeşilçimen, Ali & Yıldırım, E. Alper, 2019. "An alternative polynomial-sized formulation and an optimization based heuristic for the reviewer assignment problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(2), pages 436-450.
    17. Way C.W. Chang & Po-Young Chu & Cherng G. Ding & Soushan Wu, 2000. "Analyzing Ordinal Data for Group Representation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 47-61, January.
    18. 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.
    19. Jorge Alcalde-Unzu & Marc Vorsatz, 2016. "Do we agree? Measuring the cohesiveness of preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(2), pages 313-339, February.
    20. I. Contreras, 2012. "Ordered Weighted Disagreement Functions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 345-361, May.

    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:jcomop:v:36:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s10878-016-0086-9. 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.