Cognitive Consistency in Uncertain and Preference Involved Weights Determination

IF 1 4区 计算机科学 Q4 COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Lesheng Jin, Ronald R. Yager, Radko Mesiar, Tapan Senapati, Chiranjibe Jana, Chao Ma, Humberto Bustince
{"title":"Cognitive Consistency in Uncertain and Preference Involved Weights Determination","authors":"Lesheng Jin, Ronald R. Yager, Radko Mesiar, Tapan Senapati, Chiranjibe Jana, Chao Ma, Humberto Bustince","doi":"10.1142/s0218488524500107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In uncertain information environment, bi-polar preferences can be elicited from experts and processed to be exerted over some weights determination for multiple-agents evaluation. Recently, some weighting methodologies and models in uncertain and preference involved environment with multiple opinions from multiple experts are proposed in some literature. However, in that existing method, when collecting different types of preferences from a single expert, sometimes some subtle cognitive inconsistency may occur. To eliminate such inconsistency, this work elaborately analyzes the possible reasons and proposes some amendment together with a new distinguishable set of formulations for modeling. In addition, we further consider two situations of the weighting models for the problem, with one only considering the situation of single expert with no risk of cognitive inconsistency and the other considering the case of multiple experts wherein some inconsistency might occur. Numerical example and comparison are also presented accordingly.</p>","PeriodicalId":50283,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Uncertainty Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Uncertainty Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1142/s0218488524500107","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In uncertain information environment, bi-polar preferences can be elicited from experts and processed to be exerted over some weights determination for multiple-agents evaluation. Recently, some weighting methodologies and models in uncertain and preference involved environment with multiple opinions from multiple experts are proposed in some literature. However, in that existing method, when collecting different types of preferences from a single expert, sometimes some subtle cognitive inconsistency may occur. To eliminate such inconsistency, this work elaborately analyzes the possible reasons and proposes some amendment together with a new distinguishable set of formulations for modeling. In addition, we further consider two situations of the weighting models for the problem, with one only considering the situation of single expert with no risk of cognitive inconsistency and the other considering the case of multiple experts wherein some inconsistency might occur. Numerical example and comparison are also presented accordingly.

不确定性和涉及偏好的权重确定中的认知一致性
在不确定的信息环境中,可以从专家那里获得两极偏好,并对其进行处理,以确定多方评价的权重。最近,一些文献提出了在不确定和涉及偏好的环境中,由多个专家提供多种意见的一些加权方法和模型。然而,在现有的方法中,当从一个专家那里收集不同类型的偏好时,有时可能会出现一些微妙的认知不一致。为了消除这种不一致性,本文详细分析了可能的原因,并提出了一些修正建议和一套新的可区分的建模公式。此外,我们还进一步考虑了该问题权重模型的两种情况,一种是只考虑单个专家的情况,不存在认知不一致的风险;另一种是考虑多个专家的情况,可能会出现一些不一致。我们还给出了相应的数字示例和比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
审稿时长
13.5 months
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems is a forum for research on various methodologies for the management of imprecise, vague, uncertain or incomplete information. The aim of the journal is to promote theoretical or methodological works dealing with all kinds of methods to represent and manipulate imperfectly described pieces of knowledge, excluding results on pure mathematics or simple applications of existing theoretical results. It is published bimonthly, with worldwide distribution to researchers, engineers, decision-makers, and educators.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信