Group efficiency and individual fairness tradeoff in making wise decisions

被引:12
作者
Tang, Ming [1 ]
Liao, Huchang [2 ]
机构
[1] Dalian Univ Technol, Sch Econ & Management, Dalian 116024, Peoples R China
[2] Sichuan Univ, Business Sch, Chengdu 610064, Peoples R China
来源
OMEGA-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE | 2024年 / 124卷
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Group decision making; Collective intelligence; Minimum cost consensus; Efficiency and fairness; Altruistic behaviors; CONSENSUS MODEL; NONCOOPERATIVE BEHAVIORS; COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE; SOCIAL-INFLUENCE; WISDOM; COST; MINIMUM; FUZZY; INFORMATION; KNOWLEDGE;
D O I
10.1016/j.omega.2023.103015
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
In group decision making, the consensus model with minimum cost has been researched with the aim of improving group efficiency and saving resources. However, one limitation of the minimum cost consensus model is that the reach of consensus is usually at the expense of some group members. We consider two issues that we see as keys in group consensus: efficiency and fairness. We propose the price of fairness in the opinion revision process and give two kinds of fairness schemes. According to the individual's perception of inequity, we intro-duce inequity aversion parameters and classify experts into two types: experts with non-cooperative behaviors and with altruistic behaviors. Experts with altruistic behaviors will be allowed to contribute more than the recommended number of modifications. Then, we discuss how to achieve the tradeoff between efficiency and fairness. Furthermore, with the rapid development of social media, cloud, and e-government platforms, collective intelligence (CI), i.e., groups of individuals doing things collectively that seem intelligent, has been a hot topic. We expand our work to a crowd context with many individuals. We investigate how the opinion revision process and fairness schemes can influence the emergence of CI. Results suggest that the proportional fairness and max -min fairness have similar performance in stimulating CI. Moreover, the improvement of group accuracy is mainly related to two factors: the group consensus level of initial opinions and the relative distance between group aggregated opinion and the ground truth.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 77 条
  • [71] A consensus model for large-scale group decision making with hesitant fuzzy information and changeable clusters
    Wu, Zhibin
    Xu, Jiuping
    [J]. INFORMATION FUSION, 2018, 41 : 217 - 231
  • [72] Impact of Decision Rules and Non-cooperative Behaviors on Minimum Consensus Cost in Group Decision Making
    Xu, Weijun
    Chen, Xin
    Dong, Yucheng
    Chiclana, Francisco
    [J]. GROUP DECISION AND NEGOTIATION, 2021, 30 (06) : 1239 - 1260
  • [73] Consensus model for multi-criteria large-group emergency decision making considering non-cooperative behaviors and minority opinions
    Xu, Xuan-hua
    Du, Zhi-jiao
    Chen, Xiao-hong
    [J]. DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS, 2015, 79 : 150 - 160
  • [74] Minimum-Cost Consensus Models Under Aggregation Operators
    Zhang, Guiqing
    Dong, Yucheng
    Xu, Yinfeng
    Li, Hongyi
    [J]. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS MAN AND CYBERNETICS PART A-SYSTEMS AND HUMANS, 2011, 41 (06): : 1253 - 1261
  • [75] An overview on feedback mechanisms with minimum adjustment or cost in consensus reaching in group decision making: Research paradigms and challenges
    Zhang, Hengjie
    Zhao, Sihai
    Kou, Gang
    Li, Cong-Cong
    Dong, Yucheng
    Herrera, Francisco
    [J]. INFORMATION FUSION, 2020, 60 (60) : 65 - 79
  • [76] Soft consensus cost models for group decision making and economic interpretations
    Zhang, Huanhuan
    Kou, Gang
    Peng, Yi
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 2019, 277 (03) : 964 - 980
  • [77] Teaching agents to understand teamwork: Evaluating and predicting collective intelligence as a latent variable via Hidden Markov Models
    Zhao, Michelle
    Eadeh, Fade R.
    Nguyen, Thuy-Ngoc
    Gupta, Pranav
    Admoni, Henny
    Gonzalez, Cleotilde
    Woolley, Anita Williams
    [J]. COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR, 2023, 139