IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v55y2015icp81-90.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The consensus models with interval preference opinions and their economic interpretation

Author

Listed:
  • Gong, Zaiwu
  • Xu, Xiaoxia
  • Zhang, Huanhuan
  • Aytun Ozturk, U.
  • Herrera-Viedma, Enrique
  • Xu, Chao

Abstract

This paper aims to explore the case when an individual opinion is interval preference in consensus decision making. And for this purpose, we construct two multi-objective optimization models: one based on the minimum cost from the perspective of the moderator, the other the maximum return from the perspective of the individuals. On the basis of multi-objective programming theories, these multi-objective programming models are then transformed into two single-objective linear programming models, i.e., the primal model and the dual model. The primal model focuses on how to obtain a consensus with the minimum cost, while the dual model is concerned with how to get the maximum return. With the help of dual linear programming theories, we have revealed the following economic significance of the primal-dual consensus models: the primal-dual consensus models can not only help us probe into the relations between the minimum cost paid by the moderator and the maximum return expected by individuals who changed their opinions before, but also help us explore the relations between the unit cost that the moderator pays each individual, unit return that each individual receives, each individual opinion and the consensus opinion. This paper with the aid of theoretical analysis and an illustrative example indicates that once the consensus is obtained, the optimal unit return and optimal consensus opinion value are also solved. This paper also points out that the amount of the total return acquired by all the individuals who have abandoned their original opinions before is equivalent to that of the total cost paid by the moderator to reach the consensus. This paper also argues that there exists compact correlations between the individual׳s unit return, the consensus opinion, the individual׳s interval opinion, and the moderator׳s unit cost.

Suggested Citation

  • Gong, Zaiwu & Xu, Xiaoxia & Zhang, Huanhuan & Aytun Ozturk, U. & Herrera-Viedma, Enrique & Xu, Chao, 2015. "The consensus models with interval preference opinions and their economic interpretation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 81-90.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:55:y:2015:i:c:p:81-90
    DOI: 10.1016/j.omega.2015.03.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305048315000444
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.omega.2015.03.003?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. Pang, Jifang & Liang, Jiye, 2012. "Evaluation of the results of multi-attribute group decision-making with linguistic information," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 294-301.
    2. Hatami-Marbini, Adel & Tavana, Madjid, 2011. "An extension of the Electre I method for group decision-making under a fuzzy environment," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 373-386, August.
    3. Feng, Bo & Lai, Fujun, 2014. "Multi-attribute group decision making with aspirations: A case study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 136-147.
    4. Gong, Zaiwu & Zhang, Huanhuan & Forrest, Jeffrey & Li, Lianshui & Xu, Xiaoxia, 2015. "Two consensus models based on the minimum cost and maximum return regarding either all individuals or one individual," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(1), pages 183-192.
    5. Wang, Ying-Ming & Chin, Kwai-Sang, 2011. "The use of OWA operator weights for cross-efficiency aggregation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 493-503, October.
    6. Morais, Danielle C. & de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira, 2012. "Group decision making on water resources based on analysis of individual rankings," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 42-52, January.
    7. Xu, Zeshui, 2005. "Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations in group decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 249-254, June.
    8. Cook, Wade D. & Kress, Moshe & Seiford, Lawrence M., 1997. "A general framework for distance-based consensus in ordinal ranking models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 392-397, January.
    9. González-Pachøn, Jacinto & Romero, Carlos, 1999. "Distance-based consensus methods: a goal programming approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 341-347, June.
    10. Cook, Wade D., 2006. "Distance-based and ad hoc consensus models in ordinal preference ranking," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(2), pages 369-385, July.
    11. Li, Deng-Feng, 2011. "Linear programming approach to solve interval-valued matrix games," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 655-666, December.
    12. Linares, Pedro & Romero, Carlos, 2002. "Aggregation of preferences in an environmental economics context: a goal-programming approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 89-95, April.
    13. Eklund, Patrik & Rusinowska, Agnieszka & De Swart, Harrie, 2007. "Consensus reaching in committees," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(1), pages 185-193, April.
    14. González-Pachón, Jacinto & Romero, Carlos, 2011. "The design of socially optimal decisions in a consensus scenario," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 179-185, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Sun, Bingzhen & Ma, Weimin, 2015. "An approach to consensus measurement of linguistic preference relations in multi-attribute group decision making and application," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 83-92.
    2. Yan, Hong-Bin & Ma, Tieju & Huynh, Van-Nam, 2017. "On qualitative multi-attribute group decision making and its consensus measure: A probability based perspective," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 94-117.
    3. González-Arteaga, T. & Alcantud, J.C.R. & de Andrés Calle, R., 2016. "A cardinal dissensus measure based on the Mahalanobis distance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(2), pages 575-585.
    4. Wu, Zhibin & Xu, Jiuping, 2016. "Managing consistency and consensus in group decision making with hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 28-40.
    5. Benítez-Fernández, Amalia & Ruiz, Francisco, 2020. "A Meta-Goal Programming approach to cardinal preferences aggregation in multicriteria problems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    6. Pang, Jifang & Liang, Jiye, 2012. "Evaluation of the results of multi-attribute group decision-making with linguistic information," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 294-301.
    7. Morais, Danielle C. & de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira, 2012. "Group decision making on water resources based on analysis of individual rankings," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 42-52, January.
    8. Lan, Jibin & Chen, Yuwen & Ning, Mengyao & Wang, Zhongxing, 2015. "A new linguistic aggregation operator and its application to multiple attribute decision making," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 2(C), pages 156-164.
    9. Li, Sheng-Tun & Chou, Wei-Chien, 2014. "Power planning in ICT infrastructure: A multi-criteria operational performance evaluation approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 134-148.
    10. Fujun Hou, 2015. "A Consensus Gap Indicator and Its Application to Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 415-428, May.
    11. J González-Pachón & C Romero, 2006. "An analytical framework for aggregating multiattribute utility functions," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(10), pages 1241-1247, October.
    12. Jacinto González-Pachón & Carlos Romero, 2007. "Inferring consensus weights from pairwise comparison matrices without suitable properties," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 123-132, October.
    13. Wu, Zhibin & Huang, Shuai & Xu, Jiuping, 2019. "Multi-stage optimization models for individual consistency and group consensus with preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(1), pages 182-194.
    14. Zhang, Hengjie & Dong, Yucheng & Chiclana, Francisco & Yu, Shui, 2019. "Consensus efficiency in group decision making: A comprehensive comparative study and its optimal design," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(2), pages 580-598.
    15. Liao, Huchang & Wu, Xingli & Mi, Xiaomei & Herrera, Francisco, 2020. "An integrated method for cognitive complex multiple experts multiple criteria decision making based on ELECTRE III with weighted Borda rule," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    16. Wu, Xingli & Liao, Huchang, 2019. "A consensus-based probabilistic linguistic gained and lost dominance score method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(3), pages 1017-1027.
    17. Tavares, L. Valadares, 2012. "An acyclic outranking model to support group decision making within organizations," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 782-790.
    18. Feng, Bo & Lai, Fujun, 2014. "Multi-attribute group decision making with aspirations: A case study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 136-147.
    19. 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.
    20. Roberto Cervelló-Royo & Francisco Guijarro & Victor Martinez-Gomez, 2019. "Social Performance considered within the global performance of Microfinance Institutions: a new approach," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 737-755, September.

    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:jomega:v:55:y:2015:i:c:p:81-90. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    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.