Individual and Social Strategies to Deal with Ignorance Situations in Multi-Person Decision Making

Multi-person decision making problems involve the preferences of some experts about a set of alternatives in order to find the best one. However, sometimes experts might not possess a precise or sufficient level of knowledge of part of the problem and as a consequence that expert might not give all the information that is required. Indeed, this may be the case when the number of alternatives is high and experts are using fuzzy preference relations to represent their preferences. In the literature, incomplete information situations have been studied, and as a result, procedures that are able to compute the missing information of a preference relation have been designed. However, these approaches usually need at least a piece of information about every alternative in the problem in order to be successful in estimating all the missing preference values.In this paper, we address situations in which an expert does not provide any information about a particular alternative, which we call situations of total ignorance. We analyze several strategies to deal with these situations. We classify these strategies into: (i) individual strategies that can be applied to each individual preference relation without taking into account any information from the rest of experts and (ii) social strategies, that is, strategies that make use of the information available from the group of experts. Both individual and social strategies use extra assumptions or knowledge, which could not be directly instantiated in the experts preference relations. We also provide an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each one of the strategies presented, and the situations where some of them may be more adequate to be applied than the others.

[1]  F. Herrera,et al.  A consistency-based procedure to estimate missing pairwise preference values , 2008 .

[2]  Dimitar Filev,et al.  Induced ordered weighted averaging operators , 1999, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part B.

[3]  Jian Ma,et al.  A method for repairing the inconsistency of fuzzy preference relations , 2006, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[4]  Tetsuzo Tanino,et al.  Fuzzy Preference Relations in Group Decision Making , 1988 .

[5]  S. Orlovsky Decision-making with a fuzzy preference relation , 1978 .

[6]  G. Marakas Decision Support Systems in the 21st Century , 1998 .

[7]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  A rational consensus model in group decision making using linguistic assessments , 1997, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[8]  Zeshui Xu,et al.  A method based on linguistic aggregation operators for group decision making with linguistic preference relations , 2004, Inf. Sci..

[9]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  A consistency‐based procedure to estimate missing pairwise preference values , 2008, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

[10]  J. Kacprzyk,et al.  Group decision making and consensus under fuzzy preferences and fuzzy majority , 1992 .

[11]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Theory and Methodology Choice functions and mechanisms for linguistic preference relations , 2000 .

[12]  Etienne E. Kerre,et al.  Consistency of Judgement Matrix and fuzzy weights in fuzzy analytic Hierarchy Process , 1995, Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowl. Based Syst..

[13]  J. Kacprzyk Group decision making with a fuzzy linguistic majority , 1986 .

[14]  Thomas L. Saaty Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory , 2000 .

[15]  Soung Hie Kim,et al.  An interactive procedure for multiple attribute group decision making with incomplete information: Range-based approach , 1999, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[16]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  A note on the reciprocity in the aggregation of fuzzy preference relations using OWA operators , 2003, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[17]  Susumu Kunifuji,et al.  Consensus-Making Support Systems Dedicated to Creative Problem Solving , 2007, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak..

[18]  MaoJi-Ye,et al.  A method for repairing the inconsistency of fuzzy preference relations , 2006 .

[19]  Dimitris K. Despotis,et al.  A min-max Goal Programming Approach to Priority Derivation in AHP with Interval Judgements , 2008, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak..

[20]  Christer Carlsson,et al.  Consensus in distributed soft environments , 1992 .

[21]  Madjid Tavana,et al.  N-site: a Distributed Consensus Building and Negotiation Support System , 2006, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak..

[22]  P. Fishburn SSB Utility theory: an economic perspective , 1984 .

[23]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  A Note on the Estimation of Missing Pairwise Preference Values: a Uninorm Consistency Based Method , 2008, Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowl. Based Syst..

[24]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  A consensus model for multiperson decision making with different preference structures , 2002, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[25]  Marc Roubens,et al.  Fuzzy Preference Modelling and Multicriteria Decision Support , 1994, Theory and Decision Library.

[26]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Cardinal Consistency of Reciprocal Preference Relations: A Characterization of Multiplicative Transitivity , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems.

[27]  Yin-Feng Xu,et al.  Consistency Measures of Linguistic Preference Relations and Its Properties in Group Decision Making , 2006, FSKD.

[28]  N. Bryson Group decision-making and the analytic hierarchy process: exploring the consensus-relevant information content , 1996 .

[29]  Han-Lin Li,et al.  Ranking Decision Alternatives by Integrated DEA, AHP and Gower Plot Techniques , 2008, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak..

[30]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Integrating multiplicative preference relations in a multipurpose decision-making model based on fuzzy preference relations , 2001, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[31]  Gloria Bordogna,et al.  A linguistic modeling of consensus in group decision making based on OWA operators , 1997, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[32]  Zeshui Xu,et al.  Incomplete linguistic preference relations and their fusion , 2006, Inf. Fusion.

[33]  Soung Hie Kim,et al.  Group decision making procedure considering preference strength under incomplete information , 1997, Comput. Oper. Res..

[34]  R. Yager Quantifier guided aggregation using OWA operators , 1996, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

[35]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  A Consensus Model for Group Decision Making With Incomplete Fuzzy Preference Relations , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems.

[36]  Hamidreza Eskandari,et al.  Handling Uncertainty in the Analytic Hierarchy Process: a Stochastic Approach , 2007, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak..

[37]  Zeshui Xu,et al.  An approach to pure linguistic multiple attribute decision making under uncertainty , 2005, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak..

[38]  M. Fedrizzi,et al.  On the issue of consistency in dynamical consensual aggregation , 2002 .

[39]  Enrique Herrera-Viedma,et al.  A Consensus Model for Group Decision Making Problems with Unbalanced Fuzzy Linguistic Information , 2009, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak..

[40]  Manoj Kumar Tiwari,et al.  Consensus-based intelligent group decision-making model for the selection of advanced technology , 2006, Decis. Support Syst..

[41]  Efe A. Ok Utility Representation of an Incomplete Preference Relation , 2002, J. Econ. Theory.

[42]  Janusz Kacprzyk,et al.  A consensus‐reaching process under intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations , 2003, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

[43]  Da Ruan,et al.  A Multi-Attribute Comparison of Turkish Quality consultants by Fuzzy AHP , 2007, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak..

[44]  Jui-Fang Chang,et al.  An Approach to Group Decision Making Based on Incomplete Linguistic Preference Relations , 2009, 2009 Fifth International Conference on Information Assurance and Security.

[45]  Z. S. Xu,et al.  Goal programming models for obtaining the priority vector of incomplete fuzzy preference relation , 2004, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[46]  Evangelos Triantaphyllou,et al.  Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study , 2000 .

[47]  Da Ruan,et al.  A fuzzy-set approach to treat determinacy and consistency of linguistic terms in multi-criteria decision making , 2007, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[48]  Ronald R. Yager,et al.  Induced aggregation operators , 2003, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[49]  Luis Martínez-López,et al.  An Adaptive Consensus Support Model for Group Decision-Making Problems in a Multigranular Fuzzy Linguistic Context , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems.

[50]  T. Tanino Fuzzy preference orderings in group decision making , 1984 .

[51]  Da Ruan,et al.  Fuzzy group decision-making for facility location selection , 2003, Inf. Sci..

[52]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[53]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Group Decision-Making Model With Incomplete Fuzzy Preference Relations Based on Additive Consistency , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics).

[54]  Soung Hie Kim,et al.  Interactive group decision making procedure under incomplete information , 1999, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[55]  J. Munemori,et al.  Evaluation and Application of Creativity Collaboration Support System GUNGEN DX II for Consensus-Building among Users , 2007, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak..

[56]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Integrating three representation models in fuzzy multipurpose decision making based on fuzzy preference relations , 1998, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[57]  Kweku-Muata Osei-Bryson,et al.  Group decision-making and the analytic hierarchy process: Exploring the consensus-relevant information content , 1996, Comput. Oper. Res..

[58]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  A note on the internal consistency of various preference representations , 2002, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[59]  C. J. Hearne Non-conventional Preference Relations in Decision Making , 1989 .