Analysis and optimisation of the preferences of decision-makers in black-start group decision-making

As the first stage of power system restoration after a blackout, an optimal black-start scheme is very important for speeding up the whole restoration procedure. Up to now, much research work has been done on generating or selecting an optimal black-start scheme by a single round of decision-making. However, less attention has been paid for improving the final decision-making results through a multiple-round decision-making procedure. In the group decision-making environment, decision-making results evaluated by different black-start experts may differ significantly with each other. Thus, the consistency of black-start decision-making results could be deemed as an important indicator in assessing the black-start group decision-making results. Given this background, an intuitionistic fuzzy distance-based method is presented to analyse the consistency of black-start group decision-making results. Moreover, the weights of black-start indices as well as the weights of decision-making experts are modified in order to optimise the consistency of black-start group decision-making results. Finally, an actual example is served for demonstrating the proposed method.

Biased group decision-making and the effect of computer-mediated communication: separating the effects of anonymity, voting and blind picking

The influence of communication technology on group decision-making has been examined in many studies. But the findings are inconsistent. Some studies showed a positive effect on decision quality, other studies have shown that communication technology makes the decision even worse. One possible explanation for these different findings could be the use of different Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS) in these studies, with some GDSS better fitting to the given task than others and with different sets of functions. This paper outlines an approach with an information system solely designed to examine the effect of (1) anonymity, (2) voting and (3) blind picking on decision quality, discussion quality and perceived quality of information.

A study on the authentication method for TAmI in ambient intelligence (secure group decision making toolkit)

It is difficult to get the decision about an opinion after many users get the meeting in same place. It used to spend too much time in order to find solve some problem because of the various opinions of each other. TAmI (Group Decision Making Toolkit) is the System to Group Decision in Ambient Intelligence [1]. This program was composed with IGATA [2], WebMeeting and the related Database system. But, because it is sent without any encryption in IP / Password, it can be opened to attacker. They can use the IP / Password to the bad purpose. As the result, although they make the wrong result, the joined member can’t know them. Therefore, in this paper, we studied the applying method of user’s authentication into TAmI.

Personality, emotion, and mood in agent-based group decision making

Group decision making plays an important role in organizations, especially in the present-day economy that demands high-quality, yet quick decisions. Group decision-support systems (GDSSs) are interactive computer-based environments that support concerted, coordinated team efforts toward the completion of joint tasks. The need for collaborative work in organizations has led to the development of a set of general collaborative computer-supported technologies and specific GDSSs that support distributed groups (in time and space) in various domains. However, each person is unique and has different reactions to various arguments. Many times a disagreement arises because of the way we began arguing, not because of the content itself. Nevertheless, emotion, mood, and personality factors have not yet been addressed in GDSSs, despite how strongly they influence results. Our group’s previous work considered the roles that emotion and mood play in decision making. In this article, we reformulate these factors and include personality as well. Thus, this work incorporates personality, emotion, and mood in the negotiation process of an argumentbased group decision-making process. Our main goal in this work is to improve the negotiation process through argumentation using the affective characteristics of the involved participants. Each participant agent represents a group decision member. This representation lets us simulate people with different personalities. The discussion process between group members (agents) is made through the exchange of persuasive arguments. Although our multiagent architecture model4 includes two types of agents—the facilitator and the participant— this article focuses on the emotional, personality, and argumentation components of the participant agent.

Context-aware emotion-based model for group decision making

Involving groups in important management processes such as decision making has several advantages. By discussing and combining ideas, counter ideas, critical opinions, identified constraints, and alternatives, a group of individuals can test potentially better solutions, sometimes in the form of new products, services, and plans. In the past few decades, operations research, AI, and computer science have had tremendous success creating software systems that can achieve optimal solutions, even for complex problems. The only drawback is that people don’t always agree with these solutions. Sometimes this dissatisfaction is due to an incorrect parameterization of the problem. Nevertheless, the reasons people don’t like a solution might not be quantifiable, because those reasons are often based on aspects such as emotion, mood, and personality. At the same time, monolithic individual decisionsupport systems centered on optimizing solutions are being replaced by collaborative systems and group decision-support systems (GDSSs) that focus more on establishing connections between people in organizations. These systems follow a kind of social paradigm. Combining both optimization- and socialcentered approaches is a topic of current research. However, even if such a hybrid approach can be developed, it will still miss an essential point: the emotional nature of group participants in decision-making tasks. We’ve developed a context-aware emotion based model to design intelligent agents for group decision-making processes. To evaluate this model, we’ve incorporated it in an agent-based simulator called ABS4GD (Agent-Based Simulation for Group Decision), which we developed. This multiagent simulator considers emotion- and argument based factors while supporting group decision-making processes. Experiments show that agents endowed with emotional awareness achieve agreements more quickly than those without such awareness. Hence, participant agents that integrate emotional factors in their judgments can be more successful because, in exchanging arguments with other agents, they consider the emotional nature of group decision making.

Searching for consensus in ahp-group decision making. A bayesian perspective

This paper sets out to identify the initial positions of the different decision makers who intervene in a group decision making process with a reduced number of actors, and to establish possible consensus paths between these actors. As a methodological support, it employs one of the most widely-known multicriteria decision techniques, namely, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Assuming that the judgements elicited by the decision makers follow the so-called multiplicative model (Crawford and Williams, 1985; Altuzarra et al., 1997; Laininen and Hämäläinen, 2003) with log-normal errors and unknown variance, a Bayesian approach is used in the estimation of the relative priorities of the alternatives being compared. These priorities, estimated by way of the median of the posterior distribution and normalised in a distributive manner (priorities add up to one), are a clear example of compositional data that will be used in the search for consensus between the actors involved in the resolution of the problem through the use of Multidimensional Scaling tools

Multi-attribute collaborative filtering recommendation based on improved group decision-making

Currently researchers in the field of personalized recommendations bear little consideration on users' interest differences in resource attributes although resource attribute is usually one of the most important factors in determining user preferences. To solve this problem, the paper builds an evaluation model of user interest based on resource multi-attributes, proposes a modified Pearson-Compatibility multi-attribute group decision-making algorithm, and introduces an algorithm to solve the recommendation problem of k-neighbor similar users. Considering the characteristics of collaborative filtering recommendation, the paper addresses the issues on the preference differences of similar users, incomplete values, and advanced converge of the algorithm. Thus the paper realizes multi-attribute collaborative filtering. Finally, the effectiveness of the algorithm is proved by an experiment of collaborative recommendation among multi-users based on virtual environment. The experimental results show that the algorithm has a high accuracy on predicting target users' attribute preferences and has a strong anti-interference ability on deviation and incomplete values.

A two-stage dynamic group decision making method for processing ordinal information

In group decision making (GDM) problems, ordinal data provide a convenient way of articulating preferences from decision makers (DMs). A number of GDM models have been proposed to aggregate such kind of preferences in the literature. However, most of the GDM models that handle ordinal preferences suffer from two drawbacks: (1) it is difficult for the GDM models to manage conflicting opinions, especially with a large number of DMs; and (2) the relationships between the preferences provided by the DMs are neglected, and all DMs are assumed to be of equal importance, therefore causing the aggregated collective preference not an ideal representative of the group's decision. In order to overcome these problems, a two-stage dynamic group decision making method for aggregating ordinal preferences is proposed in this paper. The method consists of two main processes: (i) a data cleansing process, which aims to reduce the influence of conflicting opinions pertaining to the collective decision prior to the aggregation process; as such an effective solution for undertaking large-scale GDM problems is formulated; and (ii) a support degree oriented consensus-reaching process, where the collective preference is aggregated by using the Power Average (PA) operator; as such, the relationships of the arguments being aggregated are taken into consideration (i.e., allowing the values being aggregated to support each other). A new support function for the PA operator to deal with ordinal information is defined based on the dominance-based rough set approach. The proposed GDM model is compared with the models presented by Herrera-Viedma et al. An application related to controlling the degradation of the hydrographic basin of a river in Brazil is evaluated. The results demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed method in handling GDM problems with ordinal information.

A hybrid weighted aggregation method based on consistency and consensus in group decision making

A recent study in Science indicated that the confidence of a decision maker played an essential role in group decision making problems. In order to make use of the information of each individual's confidence of the current decision problem, a new hybrid weighted aggregation method to solve a group decision making peoblem is proposed in this paper. Specifically, the hybrid weight of each expert is generated by a convex combination of his/her subjective experience-based weight and objective problem-domain-based weight. The experience-based weight is derived from the expert's historical experiences and the problem-domain-based weight is characterized by the confidence degree and consensus degree of each expert's opinions in the current decision making process. Based on the hybrid weighted aggregation method, all the experts' opinions which are expressed in the form of fuzzy preference relations are consequently aggregated to obtain a collective group opinion. Some valuable properities of the proposed method are discussed. A nurse manager hiring problem in a hospital is employed to illustrate that the proposed method provides a rational and valid solution for the group decision making problem when the experts are not willing to change their initial preferences, or the cost of change is high due to time limitation.

An improved consensus-based group decision making model with heterogeneous information

In group decision making (GDM) problems, it is natural for decision makers (DMs) to provide different preferences and evaluations owing to varying domain knowledge and cultural values. When the number of DMs is large, a higher degree of heterogeneity is expected, and it is difficult to translate heterogeneous information into one unified preference without loss of context. In this aspect, the current GDM models face two main challenges, i.e., handling the complexity pertaining to the unification of heterogeneous information from a large number of DMs, and providing optimal solutions based on unification methods. This paper presents a new consensus-based GDM model to manage heterogeneous information. In the new GDM model, an aggregation of individual priority (AIP)-based aggregation mechanism, which is able to employ flexible methods for deriving each DM's individual priority and to avoid information loss caused by unifying heterogeneous information, is utilized to aggregate the individual preferences. To reach a consensus more efficiently, different revision schemes are employed to reward/penalize the cooperative/non-cooperative DMs, respectively. The temporary collective opinion used to guide the revision process is derived by aggregating only those non-conflicting opinions at each round of revision. In order to measure the consensus in a robust manner, a position-based dissimilarity measure is developed. Compared with the existing GDM models, the proposed GDM model is more effective and flexible in processing heterogeneous information. It can be used to handle different types of information with different degrees of granularity. Six types of information are exemplified in this paper, i.e., ordinal, interval, fuzzy number, linguistic, intuitionistic fuzzy set, and real number. The results indicate that the position-based consensus measure is able to overcome possible distortions of the results in large-scale GDM problems.

A group decision-making methodology with incomplete individual beliefs applied to e-Democracy

We consider the situation where there are several alternatives for investing a quantity of money to achieve a set of objectives. The choice of which alternative to apply depends on how citizens and political representatives perceive that such objectives should be achieved. All citizens with the right to vote can express their preferences in the decision-making process. These preferences may be incomplete. Political representatives represent the citizens who have not taken part in the decision-making process. The weight corresponding to political representatives depends on the number of citizens that have intervened in the decision-making process. The methodology we propose needs the participants to specify for each alternative how they rate the different attributes and the relative importance of attributes. On the basis of this information an expected utility interval is output for each alternative. To do this, an evidential reasoning approach is applied. This approach improves the insightfulness and rationality of the decision-making process using a belief decision matrix for problem modeling and the Dempster?Shafer theory of evidence for attribute aggregation. Finally, we propose using the distances of each expected utility interval from the maximum and the minimum utilities to rank the alternative set. The basic idea is that an alternative is ranked first if its distance to the maximum utility is the smallest, and its distance to the minimum utility is the greatest. If only one of these conditions is satisfied, a distance ratio is then used.

Veto values in Group Decision Making within MAUT: aggregating complete rankings derived from dominance intensity measures

We consider a groupdecision-making problem within multi-attribute utility theory, in which the relative importance of decisionmakers (DMs) is known and their preferences are represented by means of an additive function. We allow DMs to provide veto values for the attribute under consideration and build veto and adjust functions that are incorporated into the additive model. Veto functions check whether alternative performances are within the respective veto intervals, making the overall utility of the alternative equal to 0, where as adjust functions reduce the utilty of the alternative performance to match the preferences of other DMs. Dominance measuring methods are used to account for imprecise information in the decision-making scenario and to derive a ranking of alternatives for each DM. Specifically, ordinal information about the relative importance of criteria is provided by each DM. Finally, an extension of Kemeny's method is used to aggregate the alternative rankings from the DMs accounting for the irrelative importance.

Selecting the most preferable alternatives in a group decision making problem using DEA

Group decision making is the study of identifying and selecting alternatives based on the values and preferences of the decision maker. Making a decision implies that there are several alternative choices to be considered. This paper uses the concept of Data Envelopment Analysis to introduce a new mathematical method for selecting the best alternative in a group decision making environment. The introduced model is a multi-objective function which is converted into a multi-objective linear programming model from which the optimal solution is obtained. A numerical example shows how the new model can be applied to rank the alternatives or to choose a subset of the most promising alternatives.