Graph model for multiple composite decision makers with large-scale groups: Probability-hesitant fuzzy preference modeling and application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whenever humans interact with others, conflict inevitably arises. Sometimes, multiple composite decision makers (CDMs) are involved, some of which may be large-scale groups. When making a decision or strategy selection, a CDM needs to consider the interests of the group and the wishes of individual decision makers (IDMs). For example, a CDM may judge a move to be an improvement only if a certain fraction of IDMs consider it so – in other words, only when the IDMs reach a certain degree of consensus. This paper proposes an index of group consensus on more preferred (IGCMP) and an index of group consensus on less preferred (IGCLP), and uses them to determine whether a CDM more or less prefers the current state to another and reflect the heterogeneous characteristics of CDMs, including conservative, aggressive, and eclectic. Accordingly, the conflict for multiple CDMs with large-scale groups is investigated in this paper from the perspective of group consensus within the framework of the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution (GMCR). At first, CDMs’ preferences are represented by probability-hesitant fuzzy preference relations, which can reflect the heterogeneity of IDMs and preference uncertainty of CDMs. Then, the new forms of the unilateral improvement list for CDMs and coalitions are developed based on IGCMP and IGCLP. Subsequently, five extended stability definitions and their relationships are studied. Finally, to demonstrate the effectiveness of the new method, it is applied to model a water pollution conflict in the Yangtze River Delta, China.
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 | 0.024 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".