4.7 Article

Consensus reaching for social network group decision making by considering leadership and bounded confidence

期刊

KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS
卷 204, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.knosys.2020.106240

关键词

Group decision making; Consensus reaching; Interval fuzzy preference relations; Social network analysis; Bounded confidence

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [71971039, 71501023, 71771034]
  2. Funds for Creative Research Groups of China [71421001]
  3. NSFC [71731003]
  4. Scientific and Technological Innovation Foundation of Dalian [2018J11CY009, 2018RQ69]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With the rapid development of information, communication and techniques, social network group decision making problems which allow information exchange and communication among experts are more and more common in recent years. How to use social relationships generated by social networks to promote consensus among experts has been becoming a hot topic in the field of group decision making. In this paper, we consider a new type of group decision making problems in which experts will provide his/her interval fuzzy preference relations over alternatives under social network environment and propose a new model to help experts reach consensus. In the proposed model, we first define the individual consensus measure and the group consensus measure, and then use a network partition algorithm to detect sub-networks of experts, based on which the leadership of experts can be identified. Afterwards, by considering the leadership and the bounded confidence levels of experts, a new feedback mechanism which can provide acceptable advice to experts who need to modify their opinions is devised and a consensus reaching algorithm is further developed. To demonstrate the performance of the proposed consensus model and algorithm, a hypothetical application and some simulation analysis are provided eventually. (C) 2020 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