2021
DOI: 10.2991/ijcis.d.210201.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Consensus Reaching Process in the Two-Rank Group Decision-Making with Heterogeneous Preference Information

Abstract: This paper proposes a novel consensus reaching process (CRP) for the two-rank group decision-making (GDM) problems with heterogeneous preference information. The methods for deriving the individual and collective preference vector are provided. And the individual and collective two-rank vectors are obtained. Then, the feedback adjustment rules are proposed. Next, an algorithm is given to describe the two-rank CRP with heterogeneous preference information. Finally, we present a practical example to illustrate t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
(39 reference statements)
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The ordinal consensus degree among all decision-makers is given as follows: When the level of consensus is not met, a feedback adjustment procedure is applied to improve the level of consensus among decisionmakers, which is repeated until a predetermined level of consensus is reached  (Tang et al, 2021).…”
Section: Requirements Prioritization Techniquesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The ordinal consensus degree among all decision-makers is given as follows: When the level of consensus is not met, a feedback adjustment procedure is applied to improve the level of consensus among decisionmakers, which is repeated until a predetermined level of consensus is reached  (Tang et al, 2021).…”
Section: Requirements Prioritization Techniquesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Chen et al customized individual semantics by means of the possibility distribution of attitude and modeling the heterogeneity of evaluators which reflected the individual differences of cognitive styles [7]. Meanwhile, due to the difference in educational backgrounds [8][9][10][11], knowledge [12,13], experiences [8,[10][11][12][13][14], cultures [8,10,13,14], cognitive degrees [8,11], attributes [15], motivations [15], personalities [15], and expression habits [10,16] of evaluators, they usually use heterogeneous preference representation structures to express their preference for alternatives [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Chen et al customized individual semantics by means of the possibility distribution of attitude and modeling the heterogeneity of evaluators which reflected the individual differences of cognitive styles [ 7 ]. Meanwhile, due to the difference in educational backgrounds [ 8 11 ], knowledge [ 12 , 13 ], experiences [ 8 , 10 14 ], cultures [ 8 , 10 , 13 , 14 ], cognitive degrees [ 8 , 11 ], attributes [ 15 ], motivations [ 15 ], personalities [ 15 ], and expression habits [ 10 , 16 ] of evaluators, they usually use heterogeneous preference representation structures to express their preference for alternatives [ 8 16 ]. The preference structure is supposed to meet the heterogeneous needs of evaluators, yet a single preference structure fails to meet the differential expression habits and needs of evaluators from different fields.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%