MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036704845 · doi:10.1109/tfuzz.2020.3003501

Consistency- and Consensus-Based Group Decision-Making Method With Incomplete Probabilistic Linguistic Preference Relations

2020· article· en· W3036704845 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsConsistency (knowledge bases)Probabilistic logicGroup decision-makingPreferenceMissing dataComputer scienceComplete informationData miningReliability (semiconductor)MathematicsArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematical economicsStatisticsSocial psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.162
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it