4.7 Article

Trust based consensus model for social network in an incomplete linguistic information context

期刊

APPLIED SOFT COMPUTING
卷 35, 期 -, 页码 827-839

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.asoc.2015.02.023

关键词

Social network; Multiple criteria group decision making; Trust propagation; Trust aggregation; Visual feedback; Incomplete linguistic information

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [71101131, 71331002]
  2. Spanish research projects [TIN2010-17876, TIN2013-40658-P, TIC-05299, TIC-5991]
  3. University of Granada 'Strengthening through Short-Visits' programme [GENIL-SSV 2014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A theoretical framework to consensus building within a networked social group is put forward. This article investigates a trust based estimation and aggregation methods as part of a visual consensus model for multiple criteria group decision making with incomplete linguistic information. A novel trust propagation method is proposed to derive trust relationship from an incomplete connected trust network and the trust score induced order weighted averaging operator is presented to aggregate the orthopairs of trust/distrust values obtained from different trust paths. Then, the concept of relative trust score is defined, whose use is twofold: (1) to estimate the unknown preference values and (2) as a reliable source to determine experts' weights. A visual feedback process is developed to provide experts with graphical representations of their consensus status within the group as well as to identify the alternatives and preference values that should be reconsidered for changing in the subsequent consensus round. The feedback process also includes a recommendation mechanism to provide advice to those experts that are identified as contributing less to consensus on how to change their identified preference values. It is proved that the implementation of the visual feedback mechanism guarantees the convergence of the consensus reaching process. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据