{"title":"Maximum expert consensus models with both type- $$\\alpha $$ and type- $$\\varepsilon $$ constraints","authors":"Dong Cheng, Huina Zhang, Yong Wu","doi":"10.1007/s10878-025-01342-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The maximum expert consensus model (MECM) aims to maximize the number of consensual decision-makers (DMs) within a limited budget. However, it may fail to achieve high group satisfaction or even cannot reach an acceptable consensus due to its neglect of the group consensus level, resulting in type-<span><span style=\"\"></span><span data-mathml='<math xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\"><mi>&#x03B1;</mi></math>' role=\"presentation\" style=\"font-size: 100%; display: inline-block; position: relative;\" tabindex=\"0\"><svg aria-hidden=\"true\" focusable=\"false\" height=\"1.412ex\" role=\"img\" style=\"vertical-align: -0.205ex;\" viewbox=\"0 -519.5 640.5 607.8\" width=\"1.488ex\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g fill=\"currentColor\" stroke=\"currentColor\" stroke-width=\"0\" transform=\"matrix(1 0 0 -1 0 0)\"><use x=\"0\" xlink:href=\"#MJMATHI-3B1\" y=\"0\"></use></g></svg><span role=\"presentation\"><math xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\"><mi>α</mi></math></span></span><script type=\"math/tex\">\\alpha </script></span> constraints not being satisfied. To address this issue, we extend the existing MECM by considering both type-<span><span style=\"\"></span><span data-mathml='<math xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\"><mi>&#x03B1;</mi></math>' role=\"presentation\" style=\"font-size: 100%; display: inline-block; position: relative;\" tabindex=\"0\"><svg aria-hidden=\"true\" focusable=\"false\" height=\"1.412ex\" role=\"img\" style=\"vertical-align: -0.205ex;\" viewbox=\"0 -519.5 640.5 607.8\" width=\"1.488ex\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g fill=\"currentColor\" stroke=\"currentColor\" stroke-width=\"0\" transform=\"matrix(1 0 0 -1 0 0)\"><use x=\"0\" xlink:href=\"#MJMATHI-3B1\" y=\"0\"></use></g></svg><span role=\"presentation\"><math xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\"><mi>α</mi></math></span></span><script type=\"math/tex\">\\alpha </script></span> and type-<span><span style=\"\"></span><span data-mathml='<math xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\"><mrow><mtext>&#x03B5;</mtext></mrow></math>' role=\"presentation\" style=\"font-size: 100%; display: inline-block; position: relative;\" tabindex=\"0\"><svg aria-hidden=\"true\" focusable=\"false\" height=\"1.412ex\" role=\"img\" style=\"vertical-align: -0.205ex;\" viewbox=\"0 -519.5 466.5 607.8\" width=\"1.083ex\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g fill=\"currentColor\" stroke=\"currentColor\" stroke-width=\"0\" transform=\"matrix(1 0 0 -1 0 0)\"><use x=\"0\" xlink:href=\"#MJMATHI-3B5\" y=\"0\"></use></g></svg><span role=\"presentation\"><math xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\"><mrow><mtext>ε</mtext></mrow></math></span></span><script type=\"math/tex\">\\varepsilon </script></span> consensus constraints to enable the group consensus level and the number of consensual DMs as large as possible. Firstly, we construct a dual-MECM that considers the above two constraints. Secondly, we further develop a dual-MECM considering compromise limits (dual-MECM-CL). To provide a reference for budgeting, a dual minimum cost consensus model (dual-MCCM) is established to determine the upper and lower bounds of the budget. Subsequently, we explore the relationships between the two proposed MECMs and the existing MECM. Finally, the effectiveness of the proposed models is illustrated by numerical examples. The results show that: (1) The dual-MECM can ensure that the majority of DMs reach consensus while maintaining a high group consensus level. (2) With a limited budget, the improvement of the overall consensus level will lead to the reduction in the number of consensual DMs. (3) Consideration of individual compromise limits may reduce the number of consensual DMs within the same budget. Therefore, the proposed models can derive a more reasonable consensus result due to full consideration of consensus measurements and DMs’ behaviors.</p>","PeriodicalId":50231,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Combinatorial Optimization","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Combinatorial Optimization","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10878-025-01342-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"数学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The maximum expert consensus model (MECM) aims to maximize the number of consensual decision-makers (DMs) within a limited budget. However, it may fail to achieve high group satisfaction or even cannot reach an acceptable consensus due to its neglect of the group consensus level, resulting in type- constraints not being satisfied. To address this issue, we extend the existing MECM by considering both type- and type- consensus constraints to enable the group consensus level and the number of consensual DMs as large as possible. Firstly, we construct a dual-MECM that considers the above two constraints. Secondly, we further develop a dual-MECM considering compromise limits (dual-MECM-CL). To provide a reference for budgeting, a dual minimum cost consensus model (dual-MCCM) is established to determine the upper and lower bounds of the budget. Subsequently, we explore the relationships between the two proposed MECMs and the existing MECM. Finally, the effectiveness of the proposed models is illustrated by numerical examples. The results show that: (1) The dual-MECM can ensure that the majority of DMs reach consensus while maintaining a high group consensus level. (2) With a limited budget, the improvement of the overall consensus level will lead to the reduction in the number of consensual DMs. (3) Consideration of individual compromise limits may reduce the number of consensual DMs within the same budget. Therefore, the proposed models can derive a more reasonable consensus result due to full consideration of consensus measurements and DMs’ behaviors.
期刊介绍:
The objective of Journal of Combinatorial Optimization is to advance and promote the theory and applications of combinatorial optimization, which is an area of research at the intersection of applied mathematics, computer science, and operations research and which overlaps with many other areas such as computation complexity, computational biology, VLSI design, communication networks, and management science. It includes complexity analysis and algorithm design for combinatorial optimization problems, numerical experiments and problem discovery with applications in science and engineering.
The Journal of Combinatorial Optimization publishes refereed papers dealing with all theoretical, computational and applied aspects of combinatorial optimization. It also publishes reviews of appropriate books and special issues of journals.