基于自信双层语言偏好关系的大规模群体共识决策方法及其应用研究

doi:10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2021.0927

Abstract

Abstract:

Double hierarchy linguistic term set is a complex linguistic representation model provided from the angle of 2-tuple linguistic structure. By giving the self-confident degree to each preference information， the concept of self-confident double hierarchy linguistic preference relation （SC-DHLPR） is obtained when experts provide their preference information. The large-scale group consensus decision-making method based on SC-DHLPRs and its application are studied. Firstly， the additive consistency measure of a SC-DHLPR and the consistency checking and inconsistency repairing methods are researched. Then， the large-scale group consensus decision-making method based on SC-DHLPRs is developed including experts clustering method， weights-determining method and large-scale group consensus decision-making method. Finally， the proposed large-scale group consensus decision-making method is applied to a practical decision-making method involving the evaluation of special education reform in Sichuan Province. By making comparative analyses with some existing methods， the effectiveness and applicability of the methods studied in this paper are highlighted.

Key words: self-confident double hierarchy linguistic preference relations, large-scale group decision-making method, consensus, Sichuan Province, special education reform evaluation

CLC Number:

C934

Xun-jie GOU, Fu-min DENG, Ze-shui XU. The Application of the Large-scale Group Consensus Decision-making Method Based on Self-confident Double Hierarchy Linguistic Preference Relations[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2023, 31(9): 222-232.

Figures/Tables 3

语言术语集粒度	$m = 3$	$m = 4$	$m = 5$	$m = 6$	$m = 7$	$m = 8$
$T = 5$	0.2207	0.3030	0.3488	0.3774	0.3970	0.4112
$T = 9$	0.1103	0.1515	0.1744	0.1887	0.1985	0.2056
$T = 17$	0.0552	0.0758	0.0872	0.0944	0.0993	0.1028

一致性指标	$a$
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
$C I (R a (0))$	0.1621	0.1048	0.1565	0.0239	0.0657	0.0383	0.0592
	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
$C I (R a (0))$	0.1145	0.0605	0.0393	0.0349	0.0239	0.0585	0.0433
	15	16	17	18	19	20
$C I (R a (0))$	0.0638	0.0349	0.0549	0.0090	0.0669	0.0271

References 35

1	Gou Xunjie， Xu Zeshui. Double hierarchy linguistic term set and its extensions： theory and methods［M］. Springer Nature Switzerland， AG， 2021.
2	Zadeh L. The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning-Part I［J］. Information Sciences， 1975， 8（3）： 199-249.
3	Herrera F， Martínez L. A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words［J］. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems， 2000（8）： 746-752.
4	Türkşen I. Type 2 representation and reasoning for CWW［J］. Fuzzy Sets and Systems， 2002， 127（1）： 17-36.
5	Xu Zeshui. A method based on linguistic aggregation operators for group decision making with linguistic preference relations［J］. Information Sciences， 2004， 166（1-4）： 19-30.
6	Rodríguez R， Martínez L， Herrera H. Hesitant fuzzy linguistic terms sets for decision making［J］. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems， 2012， 20（1）： 109-119.
7	廖虎昌，缑迅杰，徐泽水. 基于犹豫模糊语言集的决策理论与方法综述［J］. 系统工程理论与实践， 2017， 37（1）： 35-48.
	Liao Huchang， Gou Xunjie， Xu Zeshui. A survey of decision making theory and methodologies of hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set［J］. System Engineering Theory and Practice， 2017， 37（1）： 35-48.
8	Gou Xunjie， Liao Huchang， Xu Zeshui， et al. Double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set and MULTIMOORA method： a case of study to evaluate the implementation status of haze controlling measures［J］. Information Fusion， 2017， 38： 22-34.
9	Zhang Ruichen， Xu Zeshui， Gou Xunjie. An integrated method for multi-criteria decision-making based on the best-worst method and Dempster-Shafer evidence theory under double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic environment［J］. Applied Intelligence， 2020， 51（2）： 713-735.
10	Gou Xunjie， Liao Huchang， Xu Zeshui， et al. Group decision making with double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations： consistency based measures， index and repairing algorithms and decision model［J］. Information Sciences， 2019， 489： 93-112.
11	Wang Xindi， Gou Xunjie， Xu Zeshui. Assessment of traffic congestion with ORESTE method under double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set［J］. Applied Soft Computing， 2020， 86： 105864.
12	Gou Xunjie， Xu Zeshui， Liao Huchang， et al. A consensus model to manage minority opinions and noncooperative behaviors in large-scale GDM with double hierarchy linguistic preference relations［J］. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics， 2021， 51（1）： 283-296.
13	Gou Xunjie， Xu Zeshui， Wang Xinxin， et al. Managing consensus reaching process with self-confident double hierarchy linguistic preference relations in group decision making［J］. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making， 2021， 20（1）： 51-79.
14	Liu Rong， Chen Xiaohong. Improved clustering algorithm and its application in complex huge group decision making［J］. Systems Engineering and Electronics， 2006， 28（11）： 1695-1699.
15	Gou Xunjie， Xu Zeshui， Herrera F. Consensus reaching process for large-scale group decision making with double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations［J］. Knowledge-Based Systems， 2018， 157： 20-33.
16	Millet I. The effectiveness of alternative preference elicitation methods in the analytic hierarchy process［J］. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis， 1997（6）： 41-51.
17	Chiclana F， Herrera-Viedma E， Alonso S， et al. Cardinal consistency of reciprocal preference relations： a characterization of multiplicative transitivity［J］. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems， 2009， 17（1）： 14-23.
18	Liu Wenqi， Dong Yucheng， Chiclana F， et al. Group decision making based on heterogeneous preference relations with self-confidence［J］. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making， 2017， 16（4）： 429-447.
19	Liu Wenqi， Zhang Hengjie， Chen Xia， et al. Managing consensus and self-confidence in multiplicative preference relations in group decision making［J］. Knowledge-Based Systems， 2018， 162： 62-73.
20	Palomares I， Martínez L， Herrera F. A consensus model to detect and manage noncooperative behaviors in large-scale group decision making［J］. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems， 2014， 22（3）： 516-530.
21	Dong Yucheng， Zhao Sihai， Zhang Hengjie， et al. A self-management mechanism for non-cooperative behaviors in large-scale group consensus reaching processes［J］. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems， 2018， 26（6）： 3276-3288.
22	Wu Zhibin， Xu Jiuping. A consensus model for large-scale group decision making with hesitant fuzzy information and changeable clusters［J］. Information Fusion， 2018， 41： 217-231.
23	陈云翔，董骁雄，项华春，等. 基于信息熵的群组聚类组合赋权法［J］. 中国管理科学， 2015， 23（6）： 142-146.
	Chen Yunxiang， Dong Xiaoxiong， Xiang Huachun， et al. Method for combination weighting experts based on information entropy and cluster analysis［J］. Chinese Journal of Management Science， 2015， 23（6）： 142-146.
24	张发明，王伟明. 不确定语言信息下的大规模交互式群体评价方法及其应用［J］. 系统管理学报， 2018（6）： 1081-1092.
	Zhang Faming， Wang Weiming. Large-scale interactive group evaluation method based on uncertain linguistic information and its application［J］. Journal of Systems & Management， 2018（6）： 1081-1092.
25	Dong Yucheng， Zhang Hengjie， Herrera-Viedma E. Integrating experts’ weights generated dynamically into the consensus reaching process and its applications in managing non-cooperative behaviors［J］. Decision Support Systems， 2016， 84： 1-15.
26	熊才权，李德华，金良海. 基于保护少数人意见的群体一致性分析［J］. 系统工程理论与实践， 2008（10）： 102-107.
	Xiong Caiquan， Li Dehua， Jin Lianghai. Group consistency analysis for protecting the minority views［J］. System Engineering Theory and Practice， 2008（10）： 102-107.
27	Dong Yucheng， Xu Yinfeng， Li Hongyi. On consistency measures of linguistic preference relations［J］. European Journal of Operational Research， 2008， 189（2）： 430-444.
28	Zhu Bin， Xu Zeshui. Consistency measures for hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations［J］. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems， 2014， 22（1）： 35-45.
29	Herrera F， Herrera-Viedma E， Martínez L. A fuzzy linguistic methodology to deal with unbalanced linguistic term sets［J］. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems， 2008， 16（2）： 354-370.
30	章永，魏欣. 特殊教育教师幸福感与职业倦怠、心理健康的关系——以四川省特殊学校为例［J］. 基础教育， 2014， 11（5）： 70-75.
	Zhang Yong， Wei Xin. The relationship among general well-being， Job burnout and mental health of special education teachers in Sichuan Province［J］. Journal of Schooling Studies， 2014， 11（5）： 70-75.
31	黄汝倩. 抢抓发展机遇，实现特教大省到特教强省的跨越［J］. 现代特殊教育， 2020（9）： 4-8.
	Huang Ruqian. Seize the opportunity of development， to achieve a big province of special education to strong province［J］. Modern Special Education， 2020（9）： 4-8.
32	章永，魏欣. 四川省特殊教育教师问题及对策研究［J］. 教育科学论坛， 2012（12）： 55-57.
	Zhang Yong， Wei Xin. Research on problems and countermeasures of special education teachers in Sichuan Province［J］. Education Science Forum， 2012（12）： 55-57.
33	Liu Xia， Xu Yejun， Montes R， et al. Social network group decision making： managing self-confidence-based consensus model with the dynamic importance degree of experts and trust-based feedback mechanism［J］. Information Sciences， 2019（505）： 215-232.
34	Dong Yucheng， Liu Wenqi， Chiclana F， et al. Are incomplete and self-confident preference relations better in multicriteria decision making？ A simulation-based investigation［J］. Information Sciences， 2019（492）： 40-57.
35	Zhang Zhen， Kou Xinyue， Yu Wenyu， et al. Consistency improvement for fuzzy preference relations with self-confidence： an application in two-sided matching decision making［J］. Journal of the Operational Research Society， 2021， 72（8）： 1914-1927.

数值	语义
1	完全不自信
2	很低的自信度
3	低的自信度
4	中等的自信度
5	高的自信度
6	很高的自信度
7	完全自信

[1]	Ruxin Nie,Zhangpeng Tian,Heming Liang. A Consensus Method for Large-Scale Group Decision-Making Based on Behavior Management under Social Network Environments [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2024, 32(9): 35-47.
[2]	Xiaoli Du,Dengfeng Li. Research on Blockchain Network Consensus of International Trade Logistics Based on Big Boss Game [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2024, 32(4): 120-129.
[3]	Xuanhua Xu,Ting Xiao,Xiaohong Chen. A consensus Model for Large-group Emergency Decision-making Based on Group Wisdomfusion under Social Network Environment [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2024, 32(2): 285-297.
[4]	Lisheng Jiang,Huchang Liao. Risk-efficiency Mixed Consensus Model Considering Consensus Efficiency and Misjudgment Risk [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2024, 32(2): 23-30.
[5]	HAN Wei, SUN Yong-he, MIAO Bin. A Group DEMATEL Decision-making Method with Incomplete Judgment Information [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2021, 29(5): 231-239.
[6]	LIU Pei-de, TENG Fei. Multiple Attribute Group Decision-Making Method Based on Consensus Model and ORESTE Method for Extended Probabilistic Linguistic Term Set [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2021, 29(3): 199-209.
[7]	WANG Wei-ming, DENG Xiao, XU Hai-yan. A New Index Weights Calculation Method of Group DEMATEL Based on Three-dimensional Density Operator [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2021, 29(12): 179-190.
[8]	YAO Sheng-bao, GU Miao. A Consensus Model for Group Decision Making under the Influence of Empathy [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2021, 29(11): 203-214.
[9]	REN Rong-rong, MENG Yi-ming, LI Xiao-qi, ZHAO Meng. Consensus Measure Method for Probabilistic Linguistic Information in Multi-attribute Group Decision Making [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2020, 28(4): 220-230.
[10]	LIU Jin-pei, YANG Hong-wei, CHEN Hua-you, ZHOU Li-gang. Group Decision Making with Interval Multiplicative Linguistic Preference Relations based on Cross-efficiency DEA and Group Consensus [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2020, 28(2): 190-198.
[11]	YAN Qin, LIANG Ji-ye. A Method for Consensus Analysis in Hybrid Multiple Attribute Group Decision Making [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2011, 19(6): 133-140.
[12]	JIANG Wen-qi, HUA Zhong-sheng. A Method of Clustering Analysis Based on Consensus of Group Judgment [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2005, (2): 35-39.

The Application of the Large-scale Group Consensus Decision-making Method Based on Self-confident Double Hierarchy Linguistic Preference Relations

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 3

References 35

Related Articles 12

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0