IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v252y2016i3p947-968.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The strength of coalition in a dispersed decision support system with negotiations

Author

Listed:
  • Przybyła-Kasperek, Małgorzata
  • Wakulicz-Deja, Alicja

Abstract

Issues related to decision making based on dispersed knowledge are discussed in the paper. A system using a process of combining classifiers into coalitions is used. In this article clusters that are generated using an approach with a negotiation stage are used. Such clusters are more complex and are better able to reconstruct the views of the agents on the classifications. However, a significant improvement is not obtained when we use these clusters without an additional enhancement to the method of conflict analysis. In order to take full advantage of the clustering method, the size and structure of the clusters should be taken into account. Therefore, the main aim of this paper is to examine the impact of the method of conflict analysis and the methods that are used to determine the individual weights of the clusters on the effectiveness of the inference in a system that has a negotiation stage. Four new methods for determining the strength of a coalition are proposed and compared. The tests, which were performed on data from the University of California, Irvine Repository, are presented. The results that were obtained are much better than in the case in which the strength of the clusters was not calculated. The approach that consists in the computation of the individual weights from the judgments of each cluster allowed the size and structure of the clusters to be taken into account. This in turn allowed us to take full advantage of a clustering method with a negotiation stage.

Suggested Citation

  • Przybyła-Kasperek, Małgorzata & Wakulicz-Deja, Alicja, 2016. "The strength of coalition in a dispersed decision support system with negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 252(3), pages 947-968.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:252:y:2016:i:3:p:947-968
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2016.02.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221716300285
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.02.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Theodoros Ntouskas & Nineta Polemi, 2012. "STORM-RM: a collaborative and multicriteria risk management methodology," International Journal of Multicriteria Decision Making, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(2), pages 159-177.
    2. Greco, Salvatore & Matarazzo, Benedetto & Slowinski, Roman, 2001. "Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(1), pages 1-47, February.
    3. Kuncheva, Ludmila I., 1995. "Using degree of consensus in two-level fuzzy pattern recognition," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 365-370, January.
    4. Roman Słowiński & Salvatore Greco & Benedetto Matarazzo, 2014. "Rough-Set-Based Decision Support," Springer Books, in: Edmund K. Burke & Graham Kendall (ed.), Search Methodologies, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 557-609, Springer.
    5. Brunelli, Matteo & Fedrizzi, Michele, 2015. "Boundary properties of the inconsistency of pairwise comparisons in group decisions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(3), pages 765-773.
    6. Gregory E. Kersten & Hsiangchu Lai, 2007. "Negotiation Support and E-negotiation Systems: An Overview," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(6), pages 553-586, November.
    7. Salo, Ahti A., 1995. "Interactive decision aiding for group decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 134-149, July.
    8. Herrera, F. & Martinez, L. & Sanchez, P. J., 2005. "Managing non-homogeneous information in group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 166(1), pages 115-132, October.
    9. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    10. N.R. Jennings & P. Faratin & A.R. Lomuscio & S. Parsons & M.J. Wooldridge & C. Sierra, 2001. "Automated Negotiation: Prospects, Methods and Challenges," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 199-215, March.
    11. Bernasconi, Michele & Choirat, Christine & Seri, Raffaello, 2014. "Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: Theory and evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 584-592.
    12. R.C. Van den Honert, 2001. "Decisional Power in Group Decision Making: A Note on the Allocation of Group Members' Weights in the Multiplicative AHP and SMART," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 275-286, May.
    13. Lin, Robert & Lin, Jennifer Shu-Jen & Chang, Jason & Tang, Didos & Chao, Henry & Julian, Peter C, 2008. "Note on group consistency in analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 190(3), pages 672-678, November.
    14. Bertrand Mareschal & Gérard Colson, 1994. "JUDGES: a descriptive group decision support system for the ranking of items," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9351, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    15. Andrej Bregar, 2014. "Towards a Framework for the Measurement and Reduction of User-Perceivable Complexity of Group Decision-Making Methods," International Journal of Decision Support System Technology (IJDSST), IGI Global, vol. 6(2), pages 21-45, April.
    16. Dias, Luis C. & Climaco, Joao N., 2005. "Dealing with imprecise information in group multicriteria decisions: a methodology and a GDSS architecture," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(2), pages 291-307, January.
    17. Matsatsinis, Nikolaos F. & Samaras, Andreas P., 2001. "MCDA and preference disaggregation in group decision support systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(2), pages 414-429, April.
    18. Liu, Fang & Zhang, Wei-Guo & Wang, Zhong-Xing, 2012. "A goal programming model for incomplete interval multiplicative preference relations and its application in group decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 218(3), pages 747-754.
    19. Cabrerizo, Francisco Javier & Herrera-Viedma, Enrique & Pedrycz, Witold, 2013. "A method based on PSO and granular computing of linguistic information to solve group decision making problems defined in heterogeneous contexts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 230(3), pages 624-633.
    20. Schneeweiss, Christoph, 2003. "Distributed decision making--a unified approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 150(2), pages 237-252, October.
    21. Yu, Lean & Wang, Shouyang & Lai, Kin Keung, 2009. "An intelligent-agent-based fuzzy group decision making model for financial multicriteria decision support: The case of credit scoring," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 195(3), pages 942-959, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shivam Gupta & Sachin Modgil & Samadrita Bhattacharyya & Indranil Bose, 2022. "Artificial intelligence for decision support systems in the field of operations research: review and future scope of research," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 308(1), pages 215-274, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tom Pape, 2020. "Value of agreement in decision analysis: Concept, measures and application," Papers 2012.13816, arXiv.org.
    2. Pape, Tom, 2017. "Value of agreement in decision analysis: concept, measures and application," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 68682, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Sasaki, Yasuo, 2023. "Strategic manipulation in group decisions with pairwise comparisons: A game theoretical perspective," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(3), pages 1133-1139.
    4. Athanasios Spyridakos & Denis Yannacopoulos, 2015. "Incorporating collective functions to multicriteria disaggregation–aggregation approaches for small group decision making," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 227(1), pages 119-136, April.
    5. Hsu-Shih Shih, 2016. "A Mixed-Data Evaluation in Group TOPSIS with Differentiated Decision Power," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 537-565, May.
    6. Bernasconi, Michele & Choirat, Christine & Seri, Raffaello, 2014. "Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: Theory and evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 584-592.
    7. N. F. Matsatsinis & E. Grigoroudis & A. Samaras, 2005. "Aggregation and Disaggregation of Preferences for Collective Decision-Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 217-232, May.
    8. Huang, Yeu-Shiang & Chang, Wei-Chen & Li, Wei-Hao & Lin, Zu-Liang, 2013. "Aggregation of utility-based individual preferences for group decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 229(2), pages 462-469.
    9. Brunelli, Matteo & Fedrizzi, Michele, 2015. "Boundary properties of the inconsistency of pairwise comparisons in group decisions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(3), pages 765-773.
    10. Kadziński, Miłosz & Wójcik, Michał & Ciomek, Krzysztof, 2022. "Review and experimental comparison of ranking and choice procedures for constructing a univocal recommendation in a preference disaggregation setting," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    11. Liu Fang & Peng Yanan & Zhang Weiguo & Pedrycz Witold, 2017. "On Consistency in AHP and Fuzzy AHP," Journal of Systems Science and Information, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 128-147, April.
    12. Rudolf Vetschera & Michael Filzmoser & Ronald Mitterhofer, 2014. "An Analytical Approach to Offer Generation in Concession-Based Negotiation Processes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 71-99, January.
    13. Yuan Li & Xiuwu Liao & Wenhong Zhao, 2009. "A rough set approach to knowledge discovery in analyzing competitive advantages of firms," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 205-223, April.
    14. Majid Mohammadi & Damian A. Tamburri & Jafar Rezaei, 2023. "Unveiling and Unraveling Aggregation and Dispersion Fallacies in Group MCDM," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 779-806, August.
    15. João N. Clímaco & Luis C. Dias, 2006. "An Approach to Support Negotiation Processes with Imprecise Information Multicriteria Additive Models," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 171-184, March.
    16. Contreras, I. & Marmol, A.M., 2007. "A lexicographical compromise method for multiple criteria group decision problems with imprecise information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(3), pages 1530-1539, September.
    17. Wang, Zhou-Jing, 2015. "A note on “A goal programming model for incomplete interval multiplicative preference relations and its application in group decision-making”," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 247(3), pages 867-871.
    18. Grošelj, Petra & Zadnik Stirn, Lidija, 2012. "Acceptable consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(2), pages 417-420.
    19. Juan Carlos Leyva López & Pavel Anselmo Álvarez Carrillo & Diego Alonso Gastélum Chavira & Jesús Jaime Solano Noriega, 2017. "A web-based group decision support system for multicriteria ranking problems," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 499-534, July.
    20. Du, Wen Sheng & Hu, Bao Qing, 2017. "Dominance-based rough fuzzy set approach and its application to rule induction," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 261(2), pages 690-703.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:252:y:2016:i:3:p:947-968. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.