IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v22y2013i6d10.1007_s10726-012-9298-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On Consensus of Group Decision Making with Interval Utility Values and Interval Preference Orderings

Author

Listed:
  • Zeshui Xu

    (PLA University of Science and Technology)

  • Xiaoqiang Cai

    (The Chinese University of Hong Kong)

Abstract

Uncertainty is a common phenomenon in our real world. Interval utility values and interval preference orderings are two of the simplest and most convenient tools to describe uncertain preferences in decision making. In this paper, we investigate consensus problems in group decision making with interval utility values and interval preference orderings. We first establish their transformation relations, and give a formula for calculating the association coefficients of individual uncertain preferences and group ones. We then develop a consensus procedure for group decision making with interval utility values and interval preference orderings, which takes interval utility values as the uniform preference representation. This procedure can be reduced to a series of processes for dealing with some special group decision making situations, such as: group decision making with utility values and preference orderings, group decision making with interval utility values, group decision making with interval preference orderings, etc. Finally, we illustrate the applications of the developed procedures with two practical examples.

Suggested Citation

  • Zeshui Xu & Xiaoqiang Cai, 2013. "On Consensus of Group Decision Making with Interval Utility Values and Interval Preference Orderings," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(6), pages 997-1019, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:22:y:2013:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-012-9298-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-012-9298-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-012-9298-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-012-9298-2?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. Samuel E. Bodily, 1979. "Note--A Delegation Process for Combining Individual Utility Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(10), pages 1035-1041, October.
    2. Haines, Linda M., 1998. "A statistical approach to the analytic hierarchy process with interval judgements. (I). Distributions on feasible regions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 112-125, October.
    3. Herrera, F. & Herrera-Viedma, E. & Chiclana, F., 2001. "Multiperson decision-making based on multiplicative preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(2), pages 372-385, March.
    4. Xu, Zeshui & Chen, Jian, 2008. "Some models for deriving the priority weights from interval fuzzy preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 266-280, January.
    5. Saaty, Thomas L. & Vargas, Luis G., 1987. "Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 107-117, October.
    6. Zeshui Xu & Xiaoqiang Cai, 2012. "Uncertain Power Average Operators for Aggregating Interval Fuzzy Preference Relations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 381-397, May.
    7. Meimei Xia & Zeshui Xu, 2011. "Some Issues On Multiplicative Consistency Of Interval Reciprocal Relations," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 10(06), pages 1043-1065.
    8. Horace W. Brock, 1980. "The Problem of “Utility Weights” in Group Preference Aggregation," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 176-187, February.
    9. Ramanathan, R. & Ganesh, L. S., 1994. "Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members' weightages," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 249-265, December.
    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. J. C. R. Alcantud & R. Andrés Calle & J. M. Cascón, 2015. "Pairwise Dichotomous Cohesiveness Measures," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 833-854, September.
    2. Mario Barchi & Marco Greco, 2018. "Negotiation in Open Innovation: A Literature Review," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 343-374, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Jianjun Zhu & Shitao Zhang & Ye Chen & Lili Zhang, 2016. "A Hierarchical Clustering Approach Based on Three-Dimensional Gray Relational Analysis for Clustering a Large Group of Decision Makers with Double Information," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 325-354, March.

    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. Xu, Zeshui & Chen, Jian, 2008. "Some models for deriving the priority weights from interval fuzzy preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 266-280, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Sen Liu & Wei Yu & Ling Liu & Yanan Hu, 2019. "Variable weights theory and its application to multi-attribute group decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy numbers on determining decision maker’s weights," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-21, March.
    4. Meng, Fanyong & Tan, Chunqiao & Chen, Xiaohong, 2017. "Multiplicative consistency analysis for interval fuzzy preference relations: A comparative study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 17-38.
    5. Zeshui Xu & Xiaoqiang Cai, 2012. "Minimizing Group Discordance Optimization Model for Deriving Expert Weights," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(6), pages 863-875, November.
    6. Wang, Zhou-Jing & Li, Kevin W., 2015. "A multi-step goal programming approach for group decision making with incomplete interval additive reciprocal comparison matrices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(3), pages 890-900.
    7. Mikhailov, L., 2004. "A fuzzy approach to deriving priorities from interval pairwise comparison judgements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(3), pages 687-704, December.
    8. Wang, Ying-Ming & Elhag, Taha M.S., 2007. "A goal programming method for obtaining interval weights from an interval comparison matrix," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(1), pages 458-471, February.
    9. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Stochastic preference analysis in numerical preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(2), pages 628-633.
    10. 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.
    11. Yulan Wang & Huayou Chen & Ligang Zhou, 2013. "Logarithm Compatibility of Interval Multiplicative Preference Relations with an Application to Determining the Optimal Weights of Experts in the Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 759-772, July.
    12. Hahn, Eugene D., 2006. "Link function selection in stochastic multicriteria decision making models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(1), pages 86-100, July.
    13. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui & Zhang, Ren & Hong, Mei, 2015. "Generalized analytic network process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 244(1), pages 277-288.
    14. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    15. Yibin Zhang & Kevin W. Li & Zhou-Jing Wang, 2017. "Prioritization and Aggregation of Intuitionistic Preference Relations: A Multiplicative-Transitivity-Based Transformation from Intuitionistic Judgment Data to Priority Weights," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 409-436, March.
    16. Alfredo Altuzarra & José María Moreno-Jiménez & Manuel Salvador, 2010. "Consensus Building in AHP-Group Decision Making: A Bayesian Approach," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 58(6), pages 1755-1773, December.
    17. Qiang Yang & Ping-an Du & Yong Wang & Bin Liang, 2017. "A rough set approach for determining weights of decision makers in group decision making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, February.
    18. Ting Kuo & Ming-Hui Chen, 2022. "On Indeterminacy of Interval Multiplicative Pairwise Comparison Matrix," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, February.
    19. Conde, Eduardo & de la Paz Rivera Pérez, María, 2010. "A linear optimization problem to derive relative weights using an interval judgement matrix," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 201(2), pages 537-544, March.
    20. Fang Liu & Mao-Jie Huang & Cai-Xia Huang & Witold Pedrycz, 2022. "Measuring consistency of interval-valued preference relations: comments and comparison," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 371-399, March.

    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:spr:grdene:v:22:y:2013:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-012-9298-2. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.