4.7 Article

A consensus reaching process with quantum subjective adjustment in linguistic group decision making

Journal

INFORMATION SCIENCES
Volume 533, Issue -, Pages 150-168

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ins.2020.05.003

Keywords

Group decision making; Consensus reaching process; Consistency; Preference adjustment; Quantum probability theory

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71171112, 71502073]
  2. Anhui Provincial Natural Science Foundation [1708085MG168]
  3. Humanities and Social Sciences Foundation of the Ministry of Education of China [18YJC630249]
  4. Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics PhD Short-Term Visiting Scholar Project [190631DF09]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The consensus reaching process (CRP) is essential to obtain a final solution in group decision making (GDM). This paper focuses on constructing a consensus mechanism where decision makers (DMs) use linguistic term sets (LTSs) to express their preferences. LTSs can describe real decision making well. Adjusting opinions can improve the consensus level, we assume that the adjusted opinion combines an initial preference and a referenced preference. The subjective behavior characteristics expressed by DMs would affect the CRP. To simulate human behavior, quantum probability theory is applied to aggregate referenced opinions, reflecting the interference effect caused by subjective beliefs flowing toward decision classification paths. The paths are composed of the clusters with the highest consensus and consistency degrees. Moreover, the combination is generated based on the subjective willingness defined by the consensus position of the recognized DM in the group. An optimization model is set to control individual consistency after implementing modifications. Finally, a numerical example illustrates the principle of the constructed model. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. 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