4.7 Article

The robust maximum expert consensus model with risk aversion

Journal

INFORMATION FUSION
Volume 99, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101866

Keywords

Group decision making; Maximum expert consensus; Robust optimization; Mean-variance; Uncertainty set

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The maximum expert consensus model (MECM) is an effective model for achieving consensus in group decision making. However, previous literature on MECM has overlooked the uncertainty and risks in the decision environment. This paper proposes novel MECMs, including the risk MECM (RMECM) based on mean-variance theory and the robust risk MECM (R-RMECM) to handle uncertainty caused by estimation errors. The models are tested with a specific example of new energy vehicle subsidy policy negotiation.
The maximum expert consensus model (MECM) is an effective model for achieving consensus during the consensus reaching process (CRP) in group decision making (GDM). However, previous literature on MECM has focused only on the resources in CRP and ignored the uncertainty and the risks resulting from the unpredictable decision environment. To address these issues, this paper constructs novel MECMs that can handle both the uncertainty and risks emerging in the CRP. First, the risk maximum expert consensus model (RMECM) is pro-posed based on the mean-variance (MV) theory. Then, the novel robust risk maximum expert consensus model (R-RMECM) is developed to address the uncertainty caused by the estimation error of the mean and covariance matrix of unit adjustment cost. Additionally, the R-RMECMs are developed under three uncertain scenarios to comprehensively make the models closer to the real decision environment. Finally, the proposed models are verified by applying them to a specific example of the new energy vehicle subsidy policy negotiation and the sensitivity analysis is also conducted.

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