4.7 Article

Consensus Reaching and Strategic Manipulation in Group Decision Making With Trust Relationships

期刊

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TSMC.2019.2961752

关键词

Decision making; Transmission line measurements; Analytical models; Bridges; Proposals; Manipulator dynamics; Directed graphs; Consensus; group decision making (GDM); opinion dynamics; strategic manipulation; trust relationships

资金

  1. NSF of China [71871149]
  2. Sichuan University [sksyl201705, 2018hhs58]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article introduces a trust relationships CRP with a feedback mechanism, consisting of leader-based preference adjustment and trust relationships improvement. It bridges opinion dynamics and group decision making, highlighting the role of leaders and trust relationships in GDM problems. It also discusses a new strategic manipulation issue called trust relationship manipulation and presents clique-based strategies for manipulating trust relationships.
To date, a large number of consensus reaching processes (CRPs) have been reported in group decision making (GDM). Trust relationships should be an essential element in interactions among a group of individuals, leading to the evolution of individuals' preferences. Therefore, in this article, we present a trust relationships CRP with a feedback mechanism which consists of two approaches of facilitating consensus reaching: 1) the leader-based preference adjustment and 2) the trust relationships improvement. In the trust relationships CRP, we build a bridge between opinion dynamics and GDM to highlight the role of the leaders and trust relationships improvements in the GDM problems. Furthermore, we present a new strategic manipulation issue, called trust relationship manipulation, and discuss some clique-based strategies to manipulate trust relationships to obtain the desired ranking of the alternatives in the GDM problems. Finally, the detailed simulation experiments are proposed to justify our proposal.

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