A Biobjective Optimization Model for Expert Opinions Aggregation and Its Application in Group Decision Making
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expert opinions aggregation is a generic part of the group decision making (GDM) problem. The challenge of expert opinions aggregation is to reduce the subjectivity in the process as much as possible and improve the reliability of the aggregated opinion. Most of the existing literature try to eliminate the subjectivity but seldom consider the reliability of the aggregation result. In this article, we propose a new criterion that contains consensus level and confidence level to improve both objectivity (i.e., consensus) and reliability (i.e., no absurd result) with the experts' opinions being represented as probability density functions. Subsequently, the expert opinion aggregation problem is formulated as a biobjective optimization model. The Survey of Professional Forecasters is used as an example to examine the feasibility and accuracy of the proposed approach and the result shows that the new approach can provide a better estimation than that of the single objective model in the literature. To our best knowledge, the proposed criterion is new in the literature of GDM along with relevant problems. The proposed criterion is actually a pilot work to probe the problem of the quality of a GDM process, which is largely ignored in the field of GDM.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it