4.7 Article

Consensus-based non-cooperative behaviors management in large-group emergency decision-making considering experts' trust relations and preference risks

Journal

KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS
Volume 190, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.knosys.2019.105108

Keywords

Non-cooperative behaviors; Social network analysis; Risk; Large group; Emergency decision-making

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71671189, 71971217]
  2. Major Project of the Natural Science Foundation of China [71790615]
  3. Integrated Project of Natural Science Foundation of China [91846301]
  4. Independent Exploration of Innovation Project for Postgraduate of Central South University, China [2018zzts300]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Consensus-based large-group emergency decision-making (LGEDM) is a dynamic and iterative process, in which some experts may show non-cooperative behaviors because they have different knowledge backgrounds and represent different stakeholders. Non-cooperative behaviors greatly affect the efficiency and results of decision-making. Time is of the essence in an emergency situation, and thus rational treatment of non-cooperative behaviors is required. In addition, in traditional group decision-making (GDM), the decision model is based on the premise that decision makers are independent. However, with the development of online social networks, the objective trust relationships between experts should be considered. Hence, this paper proposes a consensus model that considers the experts trust relations based on social network analysis and preference risks based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. The trust risk, preference risk, and an approach for analyzing and managing non-cooperative behaviors are proposed. An illustrative example and a comparison are provided to verify the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed method. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available