Reinforcement Learning-Based Feedback and Weight-Adjustment Mechanisms for Consensus Reaching 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
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 <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$Z$ </tex-math></inline-formula> -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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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