4.3 Article

Risk-Averse Two-Stage Stochastic Minimum Cost Consensus Models with Asymmetric Adjustment Cost

期刊

GROUP DECISION AND NEGOTIATION
卷 31, 期 2, 页码 261-291

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10726-021-09752-z

关键词

Two-stage mean-risk stochastic programming; Minimum cost consensus model; Directional constraints; L-shaped algorithm

资金

  1. National Social Science Foundation of China [17BGL083]
  2. Philosophy and Social Science of Shanghai [2020BGL010]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the process of reaching consensus, uncertain factors impact group decision-making, with new models considering both risk and cost, and achieving optimal solutions through the L-shaped algorithm, showing high accuracy and efficiency.
In the process of reaching consensus, it is necessary to coordinate different views to form a general group opinion. However, there are many uncertain factors in this process, which has brought different degrees of influence in group decision-making. Besides, these uncertain elements bring the risk of loss to the whole process of consensus building. Currently available models not account for these two aspects. To deal with these issues, three different modeling methods for constructing the two-stage mean-risk stochastic minimum cost consensus models (MCCMs) with asymmetric adjustment cost are investigated. Due to the complexity of the resulting models, the L-shaped algorithm is applied to achieve an optimal solution. In addition, a numerical example of a peer-to-peer online lending platform demonstrated the utility of the proposed modeling approach. To verify the result obtained by the L-shaped algorithm, it is compared with the CPLEX solver. Moreover, the comparison results show the accuracy and efficiency of the given method. Sensitivity analyses are undertaken to assess the impact of risk on results. And in the presence of asymmetric cost, the comparisons between the new proposed risk-averse MCCMs and the two-stage stochastic MCCMs and robust consensus models are also given.

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

4.3
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