Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A novel 2-phase consensus with customized feedback based group decision-making involving heterogeneous decision-makers

  • Published:
The Journal of Supercomputing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In Group Decision-Making (GDM), decision-makers (DMs) who are experts take wise decisions. But in systems such as smart cities, IoT, and e-democracy, the acceptance and survival of the decision given by the experts depend on the experience of citizens and end-users. Hence, an attempt can be made to use the citizens' perceptions. A potential solution to improve the acceptance and survival of the decision is to include citizens' opinions too in the decision-making. In this work, a novel GDM model is proposed that involves non-experts along with the experts to understand the opinions of non-experts also by the experts. Two phases of the consensus reaching process (CRP) are defined: the inter-consensus reaching phase, where consensus between experts and non-experts will be achieved, and the intra-consensus reaching phase, where the experts negotiate among themselves to attain the consensus. In existing GDM models, CRP overcomes the conflicts in the opinions of the DMs by providing feedback to DMs for modifying their preferences to achieve the required consensus. However, multiple feedback rounds increase the cost of CRP. The proposed GDM gives customized feedback to the experts only once at each phase, reducing the feedback cost in attaining the consensus. A numerical example is discussed to explain the effectiveness of the proposed model. The proposed approach is tested on different consensus thresholds to verify its practicality.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

References

  1. Efremov R, Insua DR, Lotov A (2009) A framework for participatory decision support using Pareto frontier visualization, goal identification and arbitration. Eur J Oper Res 199(2):459–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2008.10.034

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Kim J (2008) A model and case for supporting participatory public decision making in e-democracy. Gr Decis Negot 17(3):179–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-007-9075-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Liang Q, Liao X, Liu J (2017) A social ties-based approach for group decision-making problems with incomplete additive preference relations. Knowl-Based Syst 119:68–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lin J, Yu W, Zhang N, Yang X, Zhang H, Zhao W (2017) A survey on internet of things: architecture, enabling technologies, security and privacy, and applications. IEEE Int Things J 4(5):1125–1142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Herrera F, Martı́nez L, Sánchez PJ (2005) Managing non-homogeneous information in group decision making. Europ J Operat Res 166(1):115–132

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Herrera-Viedma E, Cabrerizo FJ, Kacprzyk J, Pedrycz W (2014) A review of soft consensus models in a fuzzy environment. Inf Fusion 17:4–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kopackova H, Libalova P (2017) Smart city concept as socio-technical system. In: 2017 International Conference on Information and Digital Technologies (IDT), pp. 198–205

  8. Tadili J, Fasly H (2019) Citizen participation in smart cities: A survey. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Smart City Applications, pp. 1–6.

  9. Boukhris I, Ayachi R, Elouedi Z, Mellouli S, Ben Amor N (2016) Decision model for policy makers in the context of citizens engagement: application on participatory budgeting. Soc Sci Comput Rev 34(6):740–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. “https://hub.beesmart.city/en/strategy/how-smart-cities-boost-citizen-engagement.

  11. Tang M, Liao H, Fujita H (2021) Delegation mechanism-based large-scale group decision making with heterogeneous experts and overlapping communities. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2021.3070902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cabrerizo FJ, Pérez IJ, Herrera-Viedma E (2010) Managing the consensus in group decision making in an unbalanced fuzzy linguistic context with incomplete information. Knowl-Based Syst 23(2):169–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Choudhury AK, Shankar R, Tiwari MK (2006) Consensus-based intelligent group decision-making model for the selection of advanced technology. Decis Support Syst 42(3):1776–1799

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gupta M (2017) Consensus building process in group decision making—an adaptive procedure based on group dynamics. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 26(4):1923–1933

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dong Q, Cooper O (2016) A peer-to-peer dynamic adaptive consensus reaching model for the group AHP decision making. Eur J Oper Res 250(2):521–530

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Pérez IJ, Cabrerizo FJ, Alonso S, Herrera-Viedma E (2013) A new consensus model for group decision making problems with non-homogeneous experts. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 44(4):494–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F, Chiclana F (2002) A consensus model for multiperson decision making with different preference structures. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Humans 32(3):394–402

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhang Z, Guo C (2016) Consistency and consensus models for group decision-making with uncertain 2-tuple linguistic preference relations. Int J Syst Sci 47(11):2572–2587

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Herrera-Viedma E, Martínez L, Mata F, Chiclana F (2005) A Consensus support system model for group decision-making problems with multigranular linguistic preference relations. IEEE Trans fuzzy Syst 13(5):644–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wu J, Chiclana F, Fujita H, Herrera-Viedma E (2017) A visual interaction consensus model for social network group decision making with trust propagation. Knowl-Based Syst 122:39–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhang H, Dong Y, Chiclana F, Yu S (2019) Consensus efficiency in group decision making: a comprehensive comparative study and its optimal design. Eur J Oper Res 275(2):580–598

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhang H, Dong Y, Chen X (2017) The 2-rank consensus reaching model in the multigranular linguistic multiple-attribute group decision-making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 48(12):2080–2094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ben-Arieh D, Easton T (2007) Multi-criteria group consensus under linear cost opinion elasticity. Decis Support Syst 43(3):713–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wu J, Dai L, Chiclana F, Fujita H, Herrera-Viedma E (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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Chen X, Ding Z, Dong Y, Liang H (2019) Managing consensus with minimum adjustments in group decision making with opinions evolution. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 51(4):2299–2311

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhang H, Zhao S, Kou G, Li C-C, Dong Y, Herrera F (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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Wu J, Chiclana F (2014) Visual information feedback mechanism and attitudinal prioritisation method for group decision making with triangular fuzzy complementary preference relations. Inf Sci (Ny) 279:716–734

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Zha Q, Dong Y, Zhang H, Chiclana F, Herrera-Viedma E (2019) A personalized feedback mechanism based on bounded confidence learning to support consensus reaching in group decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 51(6):3900–3910. https://doi.org/10.1109/tsmc.2019.2945922

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Cao M, Wu J, Chiclana F, Urena R, Herrera-Viedma E (2020) A personalized consensus feedback mechanism based on maximum harmony degree. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst. https://doi.org/10.1109/tsmc.2019.2960052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rodríguez RM, Labella Á, De Tré G, Martinez L (2018) A large scale consensus reaching process managing group hesitation. Knowl-Based Syst 159:86–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Dong Y, Zhao S, Zhang H, Chiclana F, Herrera-Viedma E (2018) A self-management mechanism for noncooperative behaviors in large-scale group consensus reaching processes. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 26(6):3276–3288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Palomares I, Martinez L, Herrera F (2013) A consensus model to detect and manage noncooperative behaviors in large-scale group decision making. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 22(3):516–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Wu X, Liao H (2019) A consensus-based probabilistic linguistic gained and lost dominance score method. Eur J Oper Res 272(3):1017–1027

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F, Chiclana F, Luque M (2004) Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations. Eur J Oper Res 154(1):98–109

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Orlovsky S (1978) Decision-making with a fuzzy preference relation. Fuzzy sets Syst 1(3):155–167

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Świtalski Z (1999) Rationality of fuzzy reciprocal preference relations. Fuzzy Sets Syst 107(2):187–190

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Chiclana F, García JMT, del Moral MJ, Herrera-Viedma E (2013) A statistical comparative study of different similarity measures of consensus in group decision making. Inf Sci (Ny) 221:110–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Yager RR (2001) The power average operator. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Humans 31(6):724–731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Yager RR (1988) On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decisionmaking. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 18(1):183–190

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  42. Dong Y, Zhang H, Herrera-Viedma E (2016) Integrating experts’ weights generated dynamically into the consensus reaching process and its applications in managing non-cooperative behaviors. Decis Support Syst 84:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Dong Y et al (2018) Consensus reaching in social network group decision making: research paradigms and challenges. Knowledge-Based Syst 162:3–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Pérez IJ, Cabrerizo FJ, Alonso S, Dong YC, Chiclana F, Herrera-Viedma E (2018) On dynamic consensus processes in group decision making problems. Inf Sci (Ny) 459:20–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Koksalmis E, Kabak Ö (2019) Deriving decision makers’ weights in group decision making: an overview of objective methods. Inf Fusion 49:146–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Verdegay JL (1995) A sequential selection process in group decision making with a linguistic assessment approach. Inf Sci (Ny) 85(4):223–239

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Labella Á, Liu H, Rodríguez RM, Martinez L (2020) A cost consensus metric for consensus reaching processes based on a comprehensive minimum cost model. Eur J Oper Res 281(2):316–331

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Xu X, Zhong X, Chen X, Zhou Y (2015) A dynamical consensus method based on exit–delegation mechanism for large group emergency decision making. Knowledge-Based Syst 86:237–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (Banaras Hindu University), Varanasi, India

    Manisha Singh & Anil Kumar Tripathi

  2. Department of Computer Science, Institute of Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India

    Gaurav Baranwal

Authors
  1. Manisha Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gaurav Baranwal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anil Kumar Tripathi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gaurav Baranwal.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Singh, M., Baranwal, G. & Tripathi, A.K. A novel 2-phase consensus with customized feedback based group decision-making involving heterogeneous decision-makers. J Supercomput 79, 3936–3973 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-022-04796-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-022-04796-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation