Reinforcement Learning-Based Feedback and Weight-Adjustment Mechanisms for Consensus Reaching in Group Decision Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of discussion rounds and harmony degree of decision makers are two crucial efficiency measures to be considered in the design of the consensus-reaching process for the group decision-making problems. Adjusting the feedback parameter and importance weights of the decision makers in the recommendation mechanism has a great impact on these efficiency measures. This work aims to propose novel and efficient reinforcement learning-based adjustment mechanisms to address the tradeoff between the aforementioned measures. To employ these adjustment mechanisms, we propose to extract the dynamics of state transition from consensus models based on the distributed trust functions and$Z$-Numbers in order to convert the decision environment into a Markov decision process. Two independent reinforcement learning agents are then trained via a deep deterministic policy gradient algorithm to adjust the feedback parameter and importance weights of decision makers. The first agent is trained toward reducing the number of discussion rounds while ensuring the highest possible level of harmony degree among the decision makers. The second agent merely speeds up the consensus reaching process by adjusting the importance weights of the decision makers. Various experiments are designed to verify the applicability and scalability of the proposed feedback and weight-adjustment mechanisms in different decision environments.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".