Consistency- and Consensus-Based Group Decision-Making Method With Incomplete Probabilistic Linguistic Preference Relations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of incomplete probabilistic linguistic term sets (InPLTSs) can enrich the flexibility of qualitative decision-making information expression, especially in decision-making situations with high time pressure and insufficient knowledge. In this article, we develop a method for group decision-making (GDM) with incomplete probabilistic linguistic preference relations (InPLPRs), considering consistency and consensus simultaneously. First, to fully explore the ability of InPLTSs to express uncertain information, InPLTSs are specifically classified. Then, an expected multiplicative consistency of InPLPRs is introduced, which is conducive to estimating the missing information more accurately and effectively. Subsequently, considering the consensus of GDM problems, a consensus index, which considers the principle of majority and minority, is developed to measure the agreement degree among multiple individuals. Because individual InPLPRs may not all meet acceptable consistency after reaching consensus, a consistency- and consensus-improving mathematical programming model considering information distortion is presented. Then, to aggregate all individual preference relations into a collective one, a reliability-induced ordered weighted geometric operator is introduced, whose induced variable reliability is determined by the confidence degree and consistency index of individual preference relations. Furthermore, a multiphase algorithm with InPLPRs is developed to solve GDM problems. Finally, a numerical example of fire emergency decisions is presented to illustrate the applicability of the proposed method, and a detailed validity test and comparative analysis are conducted to highlight the advantages of the proposed method.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".