article

Measuring consensus in group decisions by means of qualitative reasoning

Authors:

Llorenç Roselló,

Francesc Prats,

Mónica SánchezAuthors Info & Claims

International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, Volume 51, Issue 4

Pages 441 - 452

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2010.01.002

Published: 01 March 2010 Publication History

Abstract

This paper presents a mathematical framework to assess the consensus found among different evaluators who use ordinal scales in group decision-making and evaluation processes. This framework is developed on the basis of the absolute order-of-magnitude qualitative model through the use of quantitative entropy. As such, we study the algebraic structure induced in the set of qualitative descriptions given by evaluators. Our results demonstrate that it is a weak partial semi-lattice structure that in some conditions takes the form of a distributive lattice. We then define the entropy of a qualitatively described system. This enables us, on the one hand, to measure the amount of information provided by each evaluator and, on the other hand, to consider a degree of consensus among the evaluation committee. This new approach is capable of managing situations where the assessment given by experts involves different levels of precision. In addition, when there is no consensus regarding the group decision, an automatic process assesses the effort required to achieve said consensus.

References

[1]

Ayman Boujelben, M., De Smet, Y., Frikha, A. and Chabchoub, H., Building a binary outranking relation in uncertain, imprecise and multi-experts contexts: the application of evidence theory. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning. v50 i8. 1259-1278.

[2]

C. Bennet, P. Gács, L. Ming, M. Vitányi, W. Zurek, Information distance, in: Proceedings of the 25th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computer, 1993, pp. 21--30.

[3]

Birkhoff, G., Lattice Theory. 1967. American Mathematical Society (Colloquium Publications).

[4]

F.J. Cabrerizo, J.M. Moreno, J.J. Pérez, E. Herrera-Viedma, Analyzing consensus approaches in fuzzy group decision making: advantages and drawbacks, Soft Computing (2008)

[5]

Cabrerizo, F.J., Alonso, S. and Herrera-Viedma, E., A Consensus Model for Group Decision Making Problems with Unbalanced Fuzzy Linguistic Information. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making. v8 i1. 109-131.

[6]

Chiclana, F., Mata, F., Martínez, L., Herrera-Viedma, E. and Alonso, S., Integration of a consistency control module within a consensus model. International Journal of Uncertainty Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems. v16 i1. 35-53.

[7]

P. Dague, Numeric reasoning with relative orders of magnitude, in: AAAI Conference, Washington, 1993.

[8]

Dubois, D. and Prade, H., Properties of measures of information in evidence and possibility theories. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. v100. 35-49.

[9]

Dubois, D. and Prade, H., Possibility theory, probability theory and multiple valued logics: a clarification. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence. v32. 35-66.

[10]

Eklund, P., Rusinowski, A. and De Swart, H., Consensus reaching in committees. European Journal of Operational Research. v178. 185-193.

[11]

Forbus, K., Qualitative process theory. Artificial Intelligence. v24. 85-158.

[12]

Forbus, K., . 1996. CRC Hand-Book of Computer Science and Engineering, 1996.CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

[13]

Grätzer, G., General Lattice Theory. 1998. Birkhäuser, Basel.

[14]

Halmos, P.R., Measure Theory. 1974. Springer, Berlin.

[15]

Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E. and Verdegay, J.L., A model of consensus in group decision making under linguistic assessments. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. v78. 73-87.

[16]

Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E. and Verdegay, J.L., A rational consensus model in group decision making using linguistic assessments. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. v88. 31-49.

[17]

Herrera-Viedma, E., Alonso, S., Chiclana, F. and Herrera, F., A Consensus Model for Group Decision Making with Incomplete Fuzzy Preference Relations. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems. v15 i2. 863-877.

[18]

Jiang, Y., An approach to group decision-making based on interval fuzzy preference relations. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering. v16 i1. 113-120.

[19]

Kacprzyk, J., Fedrizzi, M. and Nurmi, H., Group decission making and consensus under fuzzy preferences and fuzzy majority. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. v49. 21-31.

[20]

Kalagnanam, J., Simon, H. and Iwasaki, Y., The mathematical bases for qualitative reasoning. IEEE Expert.

[21]

Klir, G., Where do we stand on measures of uncertainty, ambiguity, fuzziness, and the like?. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. v24 i2. 141-160.

[22]

Klir, G. and Smith, R., On measuring uncertainty and uncertainty-based information: recent developments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence. v32. 5-33.

[23]

Kuipers, B., Making sense of common sense knowledge. Ubiquity. v4 i45.

[24]

Mata, F., Martínez, L. and Herrera-Viedma, E., An Adaptive Consensus Support Model for Group Decision Making Problems in a Multi-Granular Fuzzy Linguistic Context. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems. v17 i2. 279-290.

[25]

Martínez, L. and Montero, J., Challenges for improving consensus reaching process in collective decisions. New Mathematics and Natural Computation. v3 i2. 203-217.

[26]

Missier, A., Piera, N. and Travé, L., Order-of-magnitude algebras: a survey. Revue d'Intelligence Artificielle. v3 i4. 95-109.

[27]

Ngwenyama, O., Bryson, N. and Mobolurin, A., Supporting facilitation in group support systems: techniques for analyzing consensus relevant data. Decision Support Systems. v16. 155-168.

[28]

L. Roselló, F. Prats, M. Sánchez, N. Agell, A definition of entropy based on qualitative descriptions, in: L.T.-M. Bradley (Ed.), Proceedings of the 22nd International Workshop on Qualitative Reasoning (QR 2008), University of Boulder, Colorado, USA, July 2008.

[29]

Shafer, G., A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. 1976. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

[30]

Shannon, C.E., A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal. v27. 379-423.

[31]

Struss, P., Mathematical aspects of qualitative reasoning. AI in Engineering. v3 i3. 156-169.

[32]

L. Travé-Massuyès, P. Dague, F. Guerrin, Le raisonnement qualitatif pour les sciences de l'ingénieur. Ed. Hermès, 1997.

[33]

2003. Modèles et raisonnements qualitatifs, 2003.Hermès Science.

[34]

L. Travé-Massuyès, N. Piera, The orders of magnitude models as qualitative algebras, in: IJCAI 11th, 1989.

[35]

Xie, G., Zhang, J., Lai, K.K. and Yu, L., Variable precision rough set for group decision making: an application. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning. v49 i2. 331-343.

[36]

Zadeh, L., Fuzzy sets. Information and Control. v8. 338-353.

Cited By

Wu YLi CChen XDong Y(2018)Group decision making based on linguistic distributions and hesitant assessmentsInformation Fusion10.1016/j.inffus.2017.08.00841:C(151-160)Online publication date: 1-May-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.inffus.2017.08.008
Prats FRoselló LSánchez MAgell N(2016)On fuzzy-qualitative descriptions and entropyInternational Journal of Approximate Reasoning10.1016/j.ijar.2016.02.00675:C(93-107)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.ijar.2016.02.006
García-Lapresta JPérez-Román D(2016)Consensus-based clustering under hesitant qualitative assessmentsFuzzy Sets and Systems10.1016/j.fss.2014.05.004292:C(261-273)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.fss.2014.05.004
Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Using consensus and distances between generalized multi-attribute linguistic assessments for group decision-making

This paper proposes a mathematical framework and methodology for group decision-making under multi-granular and multi-attribute linguistic assessments. It is based on distances between linguistic assessments and a degree of consensus. Distances in the ...
An axiomatizable logical foundation for lattice-ordered qualitative linguistic approach for reasoning with words

It is commonsense that people do express, think, reason, and make decision directly using linguistic terms in natural language rather than using numerical quantification. How to establish the formalized approach imitating the common way of human being's ...
A Set-Theoretical Foundation of Qualitative Reasoning and its Application to the Modeling of Economics and Business Management Problems

The qualitative reasoning (QR) field has developed various representation and reasoning methods for the modeling with incomplete information or incomplete knowledge. While most uncertain reasoning approaches describe uncertain or imprecisely known ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image International Journal of Approximate Reasoning

International Journal of Approximate Reasoning Volume 51, Issue 4

March, 2010

108 pages

ISSN:0888-613X

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © Elsevier Inc. © 2010.

Publisher

Elsevier Science Inc.

United States

Publication History

Published: 01 March 2010

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

12
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 13 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Wu YLi CChen XDong Y(2018)Group decision making based on linguistic distributions and hesitant assessmentsInformation Fusion10.1016/j.inffus.2017.08.00841:C(151-160)Online publication date: 1-May-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.inffus.2017.08.008
Prats FRoselló LSánchez MAgell N(2016)On fuzzy-qualitative descriptions and entropyInternational Journal of Approximate Reasoning10.1016/j.ijar.2016.02.00675:C(93-107)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.ijar.2016.02.006
García-Lapresta JPérez-Román D(2016)Consensus-based clustering under hesitant qualitative assessmentsFuzzy Sets and Systems10.1016/j.fss.2014.05.004292:C(261-273)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.fss.2014.05.004
Fornells ARodrigo ZRovira XSánchez MSantomà RTeixidó-Navarro FGolobardes E(2015)Promoting consensus in the concept mapping methodologyPattern Recognition Letters10.1016/j.patrec.2015.05.01367:P1(39-48)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2015
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.patrec.2015.05.013
Dong YChen XHerrera F(2015)Minimizing adjusted simple terms in the consensus reaching process with hesitant linguistic assessments in group decision makingInformation Sciences: an International Journal10.1016/j.ins.2014.11.011297:C(95-117)Online publication date: 10-Mar-2015
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.ins.2014.11.011
Bouzarour-Amokrane YTchangani APeres F(2015)A bipolar consensus approach for group decision making problemsExpert Systems with Applications: An International Journal10.1016/j.eswa.2014.09.06142:3(1759-1772)Online publication date: 15-Feb-2015
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.09.061
Agell Nvan Ganzewinkel CSánchez MRoselló LPrats FAndriessen P(2015)A consensus model for Delphi processes with linguistic terms and its application to chronic pain in neonates definitionApplied Soft Computing10.1016/j.asoc.2015.03.02435:C(942-948)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2015
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.03.024
Beliakov GJames S(2015)Unifying approaches to consensus across different preference representationsApplied Soft Computing10.1016/j.asoc.2015.02.00835:C(888-897)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2015
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.02.008
Falcó EGarcía-Lapresta JRoselló L(2014)Allowing agents to be impreciseInformation Sciences: an International Journal10.1016/j.ins.2013.08.028258(249-265)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2014
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.ins.2013.08.028
Roselló LSánchez MAgell NPrats FMazaira F(2014)Using consensus and distances between generalized multi-attribute linguistic assessments for group decision-makingInformation Fusion10.1016/j.inffus.2011.09.00117(83-92)Online publication date: 1-May-2014
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.inffus.2011.09.001
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents