Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Consensus models with aggregation operators for minimum quadratic cost in group decision making

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In group decision making (GDM), to facilitate an acceptable consensus among the experts from different fields, time and resources are paid for persuading experts to modify their opinions. Thus, consensus costs are important for the GDM process. Notwithstanding, the unit costs in the common linear cost functions are always fixed, yet experts will generally express more resistance if they have to make more compromises. In this study, we use the quadratic cost functions, the marginal costs of which increase with the opinion changes. Aggregation operators are also considered to expand the applications of the consensus methods. Moreover, this paper further analyzes the minimum cost consensus models under the weighted average (WA) operator and the ordered weighted average (OWA) operators, respectively. Corresponding approaches are developed based on strictly convex quadratic programming and some desirable properties are also provided. Finally, some examples and comparative analyses are furnished to illustrate the validity of the proposed models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. Palomares I, Liu J, Xu Y, Martínez L (2012) Modelling experts’ attitudes in group decision making. Soft Comput 16:1755–1766

  2. Gong ZW, Zhang HH, Forrest J et al (2015) Two consensus models based on the minimum cost and maximum return regarding either all individuals or one individual. Eur J Oper Res 240:183–192

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Dong QX, Cooper O (2016) A peer-to-peer dynamic adaptive consensus reaching model for the group AHP decision making. Eur J Oper Res 250:521–530

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Li Y, Zhang HJ, Dong YC (2017) The interactive consensus reaching process with the minimum and uncertain cost in group decision making. Appl Soft Comput 60:202–212

    Google Scholar 

  5. Liu X, Xu YJ, Montes R et al (2019) Alternative ranking-based clustering and reliability index-based consensus reaching process for hesitant fuzzy large scale group decision making. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 27:159–171

    Google Scholar 

  6. DeGroot MH (1974) Reaching a consensus. J Am Stat Assoc 69:118–121

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Escobar MT, Aguarón J, Moreno-Jiménez JM (2015) Some extensions of the precise consistency consensus matrix. Decis Support Syst 74:67–77

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wu WS, Kou G (2016) A group consensus model for evaluating real estate investment alternatives. Financial Innov 2(1):8

  9. Meng FY, An QX, Chen XH (2016) A consistency and consensus-based method to group decision making with interval linguistic preference relations. J Oper Res Soc 67:1419–1437

    Google Scholar 

  10. Palomares I, Estrella FJ, Martinez L, Herrera F (2014) Consensus under a fuzzy context: Taxonomy, analysis framework AFRYCA and experimental case of study. Inf Fusion 20:252–271

    Google Scholar 

  11. Sun BZ, Ma WM (2015) An approach to consensus measurement of linguistic preference relations in multi-attribute group decision making and application. Omega 51:83–92

    Google Scholar 

  12. Xu XH, Du ZJ, Chen XH (2015) Consensus model for multi-criteria large-group emergency decision making considering non-cooperative behaviors and minority opinions. Decis Support Syst 79:150–160

    Google Scholar 

  13. Zhang HJ, Zhao SH, Kou G et al (2020) An overview on feedback mechanisms with minimum adjustment or cost in consensus reaching in group decision making: Research paradigms and challenges. Inf Fusion 60:65–79

    Google Scholar 

  14. Xu YJ, Wen XW, Zhang WC (2018) A two-stage consensus method for large-scale multi-attribute group decision making with an application to earthquake shelter selection. Comput Ind Eng 116:113–129

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ben-Arieh D, Easton T, Evans B (2009) Minimum cost consensus with quadratic cost functions. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. - Part A: Syst. Hum 39:210–217

  16. Tapia Garcia JM, del Moral MJ, Martinez MA, Herrera-Viedma E (2012) A consensus model for group decision making problems with linguistic interval fuzzy preference relations. Expert Syst Appl 39:10022–10030

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dong YC, Zhang HJ, Herrera-Viedma E (2016) Consensus reaching model in the complex and dynamic MAGDM problem. Knowl Based Syst 106:206–219

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jose del Moral M, Chiclana F, Miguel Tapia J, Herrera-Viedma E (2018) A comparative study on consensus measures in group decision making. Int.J Intell Syst 33:1624–1638

  19. Cao MS, Wu J, Chiclana F, Herrera-Viedma E (2021) A bidirectional feedback mechanism for balancing group consensus and individual harmony in group decision making. Inf Fusion 76:133–144

    Google Scholar 

  20. Wu J, Zhao ZW, Sun Q, Fujita H (2021) A maximum selft-esteem degree based feedback mechanism for group consensus reaching with the distributed linguistic trust propagation in social network. Inf Fusion 67:80–93

    Google Scholar 

  21. Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Verdegay JL (1996) A model of consensus in group decision making under linguistic assessments. Fuzzy Sets Syst 78:73–87

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Roubens M (1997) Fuzzy sets and decision analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst 90:199–206

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhang HH, Kou G, Peng Y (2019) Soft consensus cost models for group decision making and economic interpretations. Eur J Oper Res 277:964–980

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Ben-Arieh D, Easton T (2007) Multi-criteria group consensus under linear cost opinion elasticity. Decis Support Syst 43:713–721

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kou G, Ergu DJ, Lin CS, Chen Y (2016) Pairwise comparison matrix in multiple criteria decision making. Technol Econ Dev Econ 22:738–765

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–291

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Gong ZW, Xu XX, Li LS, Xu C (2015) Consensus modeling with nonlinear utility and cost constraints: A case study. Knowl Based Syst 88:210–222

    Google Scholar 

  28. Yager RR (1988) On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 18:183–190

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Yager RR, Kacprzyk J, Beliakov G (2011) Recent developments in the ordered weighted averaging operators: Theory and practice. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  30. Chen ZS, Yu C, Chin KS, Martinez L (2019) An enhanced ordered weighted averaging operators generation algorithm with applications for multicriteria decision making. Appl Math Model 71:467–490

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Zhang GQ, Dong YC, Xu YF, Li HY (2011) Minimum-cost consensus models under aggregation operators. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern - Part A: Syst Hum 41:1253–1261

  32. Cheng D, Zhou ZL, Cheng FX et al (2018) Modeling the minimum cost consensus problem in an asymmetric costs context. Eur J Oper Res 270:1122–1137

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Gong ZW, Xu XX, Zhang HH et al (2015) The consensus models with interval preference opinions and their economic interpretation. Omega 55:81–90

    Google Scholar 

  34. Zhang BW, Liang HM, Gao Y, Zhang GQ (2018) The optimization-based aggregation and consensus with minimum-cost in group decision making under incomplete linguistic distribution context. Knowl Based Syst 162:92–102

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lu YL, Xu YJ, Herrera-Viedma E, Han YF (2021) Consensus of large-scale group decision making in social network: the minimum cost model based on robust optimization. Inf Sci 547:910–930

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Wu J, Dai LF, Chiclana F et al (2018) A minimum adjustment cost feedback mechanism based consensus model for group decision making under social network with distributed linguistic trust. Inf Fusion 41:232–242

    Google Scholar 

  37. Wu ZB, Yang XY, Tu JC, Chen X (2020) Optimal consistency and consensus models for interval additive preference relations: A discrete distribution perspective. J Oper Res Soc 71:1479–1497

    Google Scholar 

  38. Liu X, Xu YJ, Herrera F (2019) Consensus model for large-scale group decision making based on fuzzy preference relation with self-confidence: Detecting and managing overconfidence behaviors. Inf Fusion 52:245–256

    Google Scholar 

  39. Dong YC, Xu YF, Li HY, Feng B (2010) The OWA-based consensus operator under linguistic representation models using position indexes. Eur J Oper Res 203:455–463

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Xu YJ, Wu NN (2019) A two-stage consensus reaching model for group decision making with reciprocal fuzzy preference relations. Soft Comput 23:8057–8073

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. Wan SP, Wang F, Dong JY (2017) Additive consistent interval-valued Atanassov intuitionistic fuzzy preference relation and likelihood comparison algorithm based group decision making. Eur J Oper Res 263:571–582

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  42. Liu J, Chan FTS, Li Y et al (2012) A new optimal consensus method with minimum cost in fuzzy group decision. Knowl Based Syst 35:357–360

    Google Scholar 

  43. Bonferroni C (1950) Sulle medie multiple di potenze. B Unione Mat Ital 5:267–270

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Yager RR (2009) On generalized Bonferroni mean operators for multi-criteria aggregation. Int J Approx Reason 50:1279–1286

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Qin JD, Liu XW (2014) An approach to intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute decision making based on Maclaurin symmetric mean operators. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 27:2177–2190

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. Maclaurin C (1729) A second letter to Martin Folkes, Esq.; concerning the roots of equations, with the demonstartion of other rules in algebra. Philos Trans R Soc A-Math Phys Eng Sci 36:59–96

  47. Dong YC, Zhao SH, Zhang HJ et al (2018) A self-management mechanism for noncooperative behaviors in large-scale group consensus reaching processes. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 26:3276–3288

    Google Scholar 

  48. Labella A, Liu Y, Rodriguez RM, Martinez L (2018) Analyzing the performance of classical consensus models in large scale group decision making: A comparative study. Appl Soft Comput 67:677–690

    Google Scholar 

  49. Zhang HJ, Dong YC, Herrera-Viedma E (2018) Consensus building for the heterogeneous large-scale GDM with the individual concerns and satisfactions. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 26:884–898

    Google Scholar 

  50. Chen ZS, Liu XL, Chin KS et al (2021) Online-review analysis based large-scale group decision-making for determining passenger demands and evaluating passenger satisfaction: Case study of high-speed rail system in China. Inf Fusion 69:22–39

    Google Scholar 

  51. Chen ZS, Liu XL, Rodriguez RM et al (2020) Identifying and prioritizing factors affecting in-cabin passenger comfort on high-speed rail in China: A fuzzy-based linguistic approach. Appl Soft Comput 95:106558

  52. Jin CY, Levi R, Liang Q et al (2021) Testing at the source: Analytics-enabled risk-based sampling of food supply chains in China. Manage Sci 67:2985-2996

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was partly supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under Grant 71871085, and also supported by the Spanish State Research Agency under Project PID2019-103880RB-I00/AEI/10.13039/501100011033.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Business School, Hohai University, Nanjing, 211100, People’s Republic of China

    Ruonan Zhang & Jing Huang

  2. College of Management and Economics, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, People’s Republic of China

    Yejun Xu

  3. Andalusian Research Institute in Data Science and Computational Intelligence (DaSCI), University of Granada, 18071, Granada, Spain

    Enrique Herrera-Viedma

  4. School of Computing, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310, Bahru, Johor, Malaysia

    Enrique Herrera-Viedma

Authors
  1. Ruonan Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jing Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yejun Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Enrique Herrera-Viedma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yejun Xu.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, R., Huang, J., Xu, Y. et al. Consensus models with aggregation operators for minimum quadratic cost in group decision making. Appl Intell 53, 1370–1390 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-021-02948-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-021-02948-5

Keywords