Optimal Interaction Priority Calculation From Hesitant Fuzzy Preference Relations Based on the Monte Carlo Simulation Method for the Acceptable Consistency and Consensus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To address the situation where the complete consistency is unnecessary, a stepwise optimization model-based method for testing the acceptably additive consistency (AAC) of hesitant fuzzy preference relations (HFPRs) is introduced. Then, an AAC concept for HFPRs is defined. Meanwhile, incomplete HFPRs (iHFPRs) are discussed and a series of optimization models to acquire complete HFPRs is constructed. If the consistency is unacceptable, an optimization model for revising unacceptably consistent HFPRs under the conditions of the AAC and maximizing the ordinal consistency (OC) is offered. Subsequently, a model for minimizing the number of adjusted variables is presented. Considering the weighting information and the consensus for group decision making (GDM), the weights of fuzzy preference relations (FPRs) obtained from each individual HFPR and the decision makers (DMs) are determined using the distance measure. With regard to the consensus, two models for reaching the consensus requirement and minimizing the amount of revised variables are separately constructed, which are both based on the analysis of maximizing the OC. Furthermore, the thresholds of the additive consistency and the consensus are studied using the Monte Carlo simulation method. A GDM algorithm with HFPRs is offered. Finally, an example and comparison are provided to show the efficiency of the new procedure.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".