Biobjective Optimization Method for Large-Scale Group Decision Making Based on Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Preference Relations With Granularity Levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large-scale group decision making becomes increasingly common with the rapid development of society and the increasing complexity of practical problems. However, it is difficult to distinguish the semantic differences between the same linguistic term, and original linguistic term may not express flexible semantics, so that this will affect the precise of decision-making results. With the help of granular computing, this article adopts a new format of linguistic term, named as hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set with granularity level, to endow preference information with flexibility and at a specific granularity. Then, in this study, we propose a novel intelligent biobjective optimization method for large-scale group decision making, considering group consensus degree and group risk degree in the decision-making process, where group risk degree is measured from the motivation of portfolio risk. Differential evolution is used to handle biobjective optimization method to determine the optimal results. We also introduce an additive consistency measure and develop a method to derive the corresponding threshold values through Monte Carlo simulation. Finally, the case study and comparison results are covered to demonstrate the practicality and superiority of the proposed method. This work has some original points: 1) Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set with granularity level brings flexibility to the decision-making process. 2) Group consensus degree and group risk degree are involved in biobjective optimization method, where the group risk degree is measured from the motivation of portfolio risk. 3) A novel additive consistency measure is proposed and different threshold values of preference relations in different dimensions are derived.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".