4.8 Article

A Consensus Model for Large-Scale Linguistic Group Decision Making With a Feedback Recommendation Based on Clustered Personalized Individual Semantics and Opposing Consensus Groups

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS
Volume 27, Issue 2, Pages 221-233

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2018.2857720

Keywords

Consensus; large-scale group decision making (LSGDM); personalized individual semantics (PIS); preference relation

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation of China [71571124, sksyl201705, 2018hhs-58]
  2. Sichuan University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In linguistic large-scale group decision making (LSGDM), it is often necessary to achieve a consensus. Particularly, when computing with words and linguistic decision, we must keep in mind that words mean different things to different people. Therefore, to represent the specific semantics of each individual, we need to consider the personalized individual semantics (PIS) model in linguistic LSGDM. In this paper, we propose a consensus model based on PIS for LSGDM. Specifically, a PIS process to obtain the individual semantics of linguistic terms with linguistic preference relations is introduced. A consensus process based on PIS, including the consensus measure and feedback recommendation phases, is proposed to improve the willingness of decision makers who follow the suggestions to revise their preferences in order to achieve a consensus in linguistic LSGDM problems. The consensus measure defines two opposing consensus groups with respective acceptable and unacceptable consensus. In the feedback recommendation phase, a PIS-based clustering method to get decision makers with similar individual semantics is proposed. Recommendation rules design a feedback for decision makers with unacceptable consensus, finding suitable moderators from the decision makers with acceptable consensus based on cluster proximity.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available