Minimum cost consensus modelling under various linear uncertain-constrained scenarios

被引:95
作者
Gong, Zaiwu [1 ,2 ]
Xu, Xiaoxia [1 ,2 ]
Guo, Weiwei [1 ,2 ]
Herrera-Viedma, Enrique [3 ,4 ]
Cabrerizo, Francisco Javier [3 ]
机构
[1] Nanjing Univ Informat Sci & Technol, Minist Educ, Sch Management Sci & Engn, Nanjing 210044, Peoples R China
[2] Nanjing Univ Informat Sci & Technol, Collaborat Innovat Ctr Forecast & Evaluat Meteoro, Nanjing 210044, Peoples R China
[3] Univ Granada, Andalusian Res Inst Data Sci & Computat Intellige, Granada 18071, Spain
[4] King Abdulaziz Univ, Fac Engn, Dept Elect & Comp Engn, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Group decision-making; Minimum cost consensus model (MCCM); Uncertainty theory; Linear uncertainty distribution; Belief degree; GROUP DECISION-MAKING; LINGUISTIC INFORMATION; SOCIAL NETWORK; MAXIMUM-RETURN; ADJUSTMENT; FEEDBACK; MECHANISM; TRUST;
D O I
10.1016/j.inffus.2020.08.015
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
Group decision-making combined with uncertainty theory is verified as a more conclusive theory, by building a bridge between deterministic and indeterministic group decision-making in this paper. Due to the absence of sufficient historical data, reliability of decisions are mainly determined by experts rather than some prior probability distributions, easily leading to the problem of subjectivity. Thus, belief degree and uncertainty distribution are used in this paper to fit individual preferences, and five scenarios of uncertain chance-constrained minimum cost consensus models are further discussed from the perspectives of the moderator, individual decision-makers and non-cooperators. Through deduction, reaching conditions for consensus and analytic formulas of the minimum total cost are both theoretically given. Finally, with the application in carbon quota negotiation, the proposed models are demonstrated as a further extension of the crisp number or interval preference-based minimum cost consensus models. In other words, the basic conclusions of the traditional models are some special cases of the uncertain minimum cost consensus models under different belief degrees.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 17
页数:17
相关论文
共 57 条
  • [1] Establishing dominance between strategies with interval judgments of state probabilities
    Ahn, Byeong Seok
    Park, Haechurl
    [J]. OMEGA-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2014, 49 : 53 - 59
  • [2] A linguistic consensus model for Web 2.0 communities
    Alonso, S.
    Perez, I. J.
    Cabrerizo, F. J.
    Herrera-Viedma, E.
    [J]. APPLIED SOFT COMPUTING, 2013, 13 (01) : 149 - 157
  • [3] Multi-criteria group consensus under linear cost opinion elasticity
    Ben-Arieh, D.
    Easton, T.
    [J]. DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS, 2007, 43 (03) : 713 - 721
  • [4] Minimum Cost Consensus With Quadratic Cost Functions
    Ben-Arieh, David
    Easton, Todd
    Evans, Brandon
    [J]. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS MAN AND CYBERNETICS PART A-SYSTEMS AND HUMANS, 2009, 39 (01): : 210 - 217
  • [5] Bezdek J. C., 1978, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, V1, P255, DOI 10.1016/0165-0114(78)90017-9
  • [6] Granulating linguistic information in decision making under consensus and consistency
    Cabrerizo, Francisco Javier
    Antonio Morente-Molinera, Juan
    Pedrycz, Witold
    Taghavi, Atefe
    Herrera-Viedma, Enrique
    [J]. EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS, 2018, 99 : 83 - 92
  • [7] CHANCE-CONSTRAINED PROGRAMMING
    CHARNES, A
    COOPER, WW
    [J]. MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 1959, 6 (01) : 73 - 79
  • [8] Variation analysis of uncertain stationary independent increment processes
    Chen, Xiaowei
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 2012, 222 (02) : 312 - 316
  • [9] Reaching a minimum adjustment consensus in social network group decision-making
    Cheng, Dong
    Cheng, Faxin
    Zhou, Zhili
    Wu, Yong
    [J]. INFORMATION FUSION, 2020, 59 : 30 - 43
  • [10] Modeling the minimum cost consensus problem in an asymmetric costs context
    Cheng, Dong
    Zhou, Zhili
    Cheng, Faxin
    Zhou, Yanfang
    Xie, Yujing
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 2018, 270 (03) : 1122 - 1137