4.7 Article

Managing Consensus With Minimum Adjustments in Group Decision Making With Opinions Evolution

期刊

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TSMC.2019.2912231

关键词

Decision making; Numerical models; Proposals; Companies; Facebook; Ions; Group decision making (GDM); minimum adjustments; opinions evolution; soft consensus

资金

  1. NSF of China [71571124, 71601133, 71871149, 71804148]
  2. Sichuan University [sksyl201705, 2018hhs-58]
  3. Graduate Student's Research and Innovation Fund from Sichuan University [2018YJSY036]
  4. Scientific Research Program from Shaanxi Provincial Education Department [18JK0737]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper proposes an approach to manage consensus in group decision making with opinions evolution by establishing a novel GDM model and providing a consensus algorithm. The feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed theoretical results are demonstrated through a numerical example.
Nowadays, online social networks, such as Facebook and WeChat, facilitate the expression, diffusion, and interactions of individuals' opinions regarding various issues. In this environment, individuals' opinions are liable to be influenced by others and then evolve over the time. In this paper, we propose an approach based on minimum adjustments to manage the consensus in the group decision making (GDM) with opinions evolution. First, inspired by the idea proposed in DeGroot model, we establish a novel GDM model with opinions evolution, and then discuss its consensus conditions. Based on this, we propose an algorithm to achieve the network partition, and then provide a consensus model with minimum adjustments to obtain the optimal adjusted initial opinions and collective consensus opinion. Finally, we provide a numerical example to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed theoretical results, and design comparative simulations to explore the effects of the opinions evolution on the final consensus solution.

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