A multi-step goal programming approach for group decision making with incomplete interval additive reciprocal comparison matrices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents a goal programming framework to solve group decision making problems where decision-makers’ judgments are provided as incomplete interval additive reciprocal comparison matrices (IARCMs). New properties of multiplicative consistent IARCMs are put forward and used to define consistent incomplete IARCMs. A two-step goal programming method is developed to estimate missing values for an incomplete IARCM. The first step minimizes the inconsistency of the completed IARCMs and controls uncertainty ratios of the estimated judgments within an acceptable threshold, and the second step finds the most appropriate estimated missing values among the optimal solutions obtained from the previous step. A weighted geometric mean approach is proposed to aggregate individual IARCMs into a group IARCM by employing the lower bounds of the interval additive reciprocal judgments. A two-step procedure consisting of two goal programming models is established to derive interval weights from the group IARCM. The first model is devised to minimize the absolute difference between the logarithm of the group preference and that of the constructed multiplicative consistent judgment. The second model is developed to generate an interval-valued priority vector by maximizing the uncertainty ratio of the constructed consistent IARCM and incorporating the optimal objective value of the first model as a constraint. Two numerical examples are furnished to demonstrate validity and applicability of the proposed approach.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".