社会信任网络下基于T2PLD算子的多属性大群体决策方法

doi:10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2023.0437

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

针对社会信任网络下，决策者偏好表达为概率语言信息的多属性大群体决策问题，提出一种新的、基于三维概率语言密度算子的多属性大群体决策方法。首先，考虑决策者同时隶属于多个群组或存在孤立节点的现实情境，依据决策者之间的社会信任网络关系对决策者进行聚类分组；接着，利用社会信任网络中心性、信任度和群组内决策者数量等指标，确定群组的综合密度权重；然后，定义一种新的三维概率语言密度算子，并依据该算子对大群体概率语言决策信息进行集结；最后，通过应急管理决策案例说明所提方法的有效性和优越性。

关键词: 社会网络分析, 多属性决策, 大群体决策, 密度算子, 概率语言

Abstract:

With the increasing complexity of decision-making problems and the increasing scale of decision-making groups， how to aggregate large group decision-making information to obtain satisfactory decision-making results is a key step and an important part of multi-attribute large group decision-making problems. However， in the previous research on multi-attribute large group decision-making methods， most of them usually assume that decision makers are independent of each other， and rarely consider the social network relationship among decision makers. At the same time， most of the existing multi-attribute large group decision-making methods based on social trust network have not considered the realistic situation that decision makers belong to multiple groups or decision makers are isolated nodes. In order to solve these problems， in this paper， a new multi-attribute large group decision making method based three-dimensional probabilistic linguistic density operator is proposed. First， for the situation that decision makers belong to multiple groups or have isolated nodes in decision making， the improved method of social network analysis is used to make a proper cluster for large group decision makers based on the social trust network relationship among decision makers. Then， the weight of decision makers can be obtained by measuring the similarity of preference information of decision makers in the sub-groups， and the comprehensive density weight of sub-groups can be obtained by the linear combination of the vectors of centrality， trust and the number of decision makers in the sub-groups. Finally， the three-dimensional probabilistic linguistic density operator is defined， which is used to aggregate large group probabilistic linguistic evaluation information.Through an emergency management decision-making case， the proposed method is effectively applied. The case shows that the decision-making method is reasonable and reliable as it not only can deal with the social trust network relationship among large group decision makers， but also can effectively aggregate the probabilistic linguistic information of large group decision making. On this basis， in order to illustrate the advantages of this method， the group decision-making methods in previous studies are introduced to conduct the method comparisons. The results show that the decision-making method based on three-dimensional probabilistic linguistic density operator enhances the flexibility and stability of large group decision-making expert clustering， and improves the consensus level of large group decision-making.

Key words: social network analysis, multiple attribute decision making, large group decision making, density operator, probabilistic language

中图分类号:

C934

张发明, 韩江涛, 张淋茜, 朱姝琪. 社会信任网络下基于T₂PLD算子的多属性大群体决策方法[J]. 中国管理科学, 2025, 33(9): 177-188.

Faming Zhang, Jiangtao Han, Linqian Zhang, Shuqi Zhu. Multi-Attribute Large Group Decision Making Method Based on T₂PLD Operator in Social Trust Network[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2025, 33(9): 177-188.

图/表 7

图1

图2

图3

图4

图5

表1

表2

参考文献 37

[1]	Sun B， Qi C， Ma W， et al. Variable precision diversified attribute multigranulation fuzzy rough set-based multi-attribute group decision making problems［J］. Computers & Industrial Engineering，2020，142： 106331.
[2]	Zha Q， Liang H， Kou G， et al. A feedback mechanism with bounded confidence： Based optimization approach for consensus reaching in multiple attribute large-scale group decision-making［J］. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems， 2019， 6（5）： 994-1006.
[3]	Teng F， Du C， Shen M， et al. A dynamic large-scale multiple attribute group decision-making method with probabilistic linguistic term sets based on trust relationship and opinion correlation［J］. Information Sciences， 2022， 612： 257-295.
[4]	Liu B， Zhou Q， Ding R X， et al. Large-scale group decision making model based on social network analysis： Trust relationship-based conflict detection and elimination［J］. European Journal of Operational Research， 2019， 275（2）： 737-754.
[5]	王伟明，徐海燕，朱建军，等. 基于TTD_WAA算子和TPBM算子的混合型多属性大群体决策方法［J］. 中国管理科学， 2024， 32（4）： 97-107.
	Wang W M， Xu H Y， Zhu J J， et al. A hybrid multiple attribute large group decision-making approach based on TTD_WAA operator and TPBM operator［J］. Chinese Journal of Management Science， 2024， 32（4）： 97-107.
[6]	Ding R X， Wang X， Shang K， et al. Social network analysis-based conflict relationship investigation and conflict degree：Based consensus reaching process for large scale decision making using sparse representation［J］. Information Fusion， 2019， 50： 251-272.
[7]	Xu X H， Du Z J， Chen X H， et al. Confidence consensus-based model for large-scale group decision making： A novel approach to managing non-cooperative behaviors［J］.Information Sciences，2019，477： 410-427.
[8]	陈晓红，张威威，徐选华. 社会网络环境下基于犹豫度和一致性的大群体决策方法［J］. 系统工程理论与实践， 2020， 40（5）： 1178-1192.
	Chen X H， Zhang W W， Xu X H. Large group decision-making method based on hesitation and consistency under social network context［J］.Systems Engineering- Theory & Practice， 2020， 40（5）： 1178-1192.
[9]	Chao X， Kou G， Peng Y， et al. Large-scale group decision-making with non-cooperative behaviors and heterogeneous preferences： An application in financial inclusion［J］. European Journal of Operational Research， 2021， 288（1）： 271-293.
[10]	王伟明，徐海燕. 不确定语言信息下的大规模群体DEMATEL决策方法［J］. 控制与决策， 2021， 36（8）： 2023-2033.
	Wang W M， Xu H Y. Large-scale group DEMATEL decision making method under uncertain linguistic information［J］. Control and Decision， 2021， 36（8）： 2023-2033.
[11]	Tang M， Liao H， Xu J， et al. Adaptive consensus reaching process with hybrid strategies for large-scale group decision making［J］. European Journal of Operational Research， 2020， 282（3）： 957-971.
[12]	Liu Q， Wu H， Xu Z. Consensus model based on probability K-means clustering algorithm for large scale group decision making［J］. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics， 2021， 12（6）： 1609-1626.
[13]	Dong Y， Zha Q， Zhang H， et al. Consensus reaching in social network group decision making： Research paradigms and challenges［J］. Knowledge-Based Systems， 2018， 162： 3-13.
[14]	Wu J， Dai L， Chiclana F， et al. A minimum adjustment cost feedback mechanism based consensus model for group decision making under social network with distributed linguistic trust［J］. Information Fusion， 2018， 41： 232-242.
[15]	Liu Z， He X， Deng Y. Network-based evidential three-way theoretic model for large-scale group decision analysis［J］. Information Sciences， 2021， 547： 689-709.
[16]	Liang X， Guo J， Liu P.A large-scale group decision-making model with no consensus threshold based on social network analysis［J］. Information Sciences， 2022， 612： 361-383.
[17]	Wu T， Liu X， Liu F. An interval type-2 fuzzy TOPSIS model for large scale group decision making problems with social network information［J］. Information Sciences， 2018， 432： 392-410.
[18]	Liu P， Zhang K， Wang P， et al. A clustering- and maximum consensus-based model for social network large-scale group decision making with linguistic distribution［J］. Information Sciences，2022，602： 269-297.
[19]	Tang M， Liao H， Fujita H. Delegation mechanism-based large-scale group decision making with heterogeneous experts and overlapping communities［J］. IEEE Transactions on Systems， Man， and Cybernetics： Systems， 2022， 52（6）： 3542-3555.
[20]	张发明，朱姝琪. 社会网络环境下基于群体一致性的概率语言多属性大群体决策方法［J］. 系统管理学报， 2022， 31（4）： 679-688.
	Zhang F M， Zhu S Q. Probabilistic language multi-attribute large group decision-making method based on group consistency in social network analysis［J］. Journal of Systems & Management， 2022， 31（4）： 679-688.
[21]	Hendiani S， Jiang L， Sharifi E， et al. Multi-expert multi-criteria decision making based on the likelihoods of interval type-2 trapezoidal fuzzy preference relations［J］. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics， 2020， 11（12）： 2719-2741.
[22]	Zhang Y， Hu S， Zhou W. Multiple attribute group decision making using J-divergence and evidential reasoning theory under intuitionistic fuzzy environment［J］. Neural Computing and Applications， 2020， 32（10）： 6311-6326.
[23]	Zeng W， Ma R， Li D， et al. Novel operations of weighted hesitant fuzzy sets and their group decision making application［J］. Aims Mathematics， 2022， 7（8）： 14117-14138.
[24]	Zeng W， Li D， Yin Q. Distance and similarity measures of Pythagorean fuzzy sets and their applications to multiple criteria group decision making［J］. International Journal of Intelligent Systems， 2018， 33（11）： 2236-2254.
[25]	Liao N N， Gao H， Wei G W， et al. GPT- MABAC-Based multiple attribute group decision making method with probabilistic hesitant fuzzy information［J］. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems， 2021， 41（6）： 6999-7014.
[26]	Pang Q， Wang H， Xu Z. Probabilistic linguistic term sets in multi-attribute group decision making［J］. Information Sciences， 2016， 369： 128-143.
[27]	Wu T， Zhang K， Liu X， et al. A two-stage social trust network partition model for large-scale group decision-making problems［J］. Knowledge-Based Systems， 2019， 163： 632-643.
[28]	Bondy J A. Graph theory with applications［M］.Ontario， Canada： Macmillan， 1976.
[29]	Wu J， Xiong R， Chiclana F. Uninorm trust propagation and aggregation methods for group decision making in social network with four tuple information［J］. Knowledge-Based Systems， 2016， 96： 29-39.
[30]	Wasserman S， Faust K. Social Network Analysis［M］. Cambridge， UK： Cambridge University Press， 1994.
[31]	Pei F， He Y W， Yan A， et al. A consensus model for intuitionistic fuzzy group decision-making problems based on the construction and propagation of trust/distrust relationships in social networks［J］. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems， 2020， 22（8）： 2664-2679.
[32]	Dong Y， Ding Z， Martínez L， et al. Managing consensus based on leadership in opinion dynamics［J］. Information Sciences， 2017， 397： 187-205.
[33]	王伟明，邓潇，徐海燕. 基于三维密度算子的群体DEMATEL 指标权重确定方法［J］. 中国管理科学， 2021， 29（12）： 179-190.
	Wang W M， Deng X， Xu H Y. A new index weights calculation method of group DEMATEL based on three-dimensional density operator［J］. Chinese Journal of Management Science， 2021， 29（12）： 179-190.
[34]	易平涛，郭亚军，张丹宁. 密度加权平均中间算子及其在多属性决策中的应用［J］. 控制与决策， 2007， 22（5）： 515-519+524.
	Yi P T， Guo Y J， Zhang D N. Density weighted averaging middle operator and application in multi-attribute decision making［J］. Control and Decision， 2007， 22（5）： 515-519+524.
[35]	张发明，郭亚军，易平涛. 基于二维密度加权算子的群体评价信息集结方法［J］. 系统管理学报， 2009， 18（4）： 397-401.
	Zhang F M， Guo Y J， Yi P T. A method of group evaluation information aggregation based on two-dimensional density operator［J］. Journal of Systems & Management， 2009， 18（4）： 397-401.
[36]	张发明，王伟明. 不确定语言信息下的大规模交互式群体评价方法及其应用［J］. 系统管理学报， 2018， 27（6）： 1081-1092.
	Zhang F M， Wang W M. Large-scale interactive group evaluation method based on uncertain linguistic information and its application［J］. Journal of Systems& Management， 2018， 27（6）： 1081-1092.
[37]	王伟明，徐海燕，朱建军. 区间信息下的大规模群体DEMATEL决策方法［J］. 系统工程理论与实践， 2021， 41（6）： 1585-1597.
	Wang W M， Xu H Y， Zhu J J. Large- scale group DEMATEL decision making method under interval information［J］. Systems Engineering-Theory& Practice， 2021， 41（6）： 1585-1597.

方法对比	聚类方法	考虑社会网络	考虑重叠群组	考虑孤立节点
文献[19]	COPRA方法	√	√	×
文献[32]	基于“领导力”的社会网络分析法	√	×	×
文献[36]	基于群体相似度的直接聚类法	×	×	×
本文方法	社会信任网络分析法	√	√	√

方法对比	权重来源	综合密度权重计算结果	共识程度
文献[19]	专家偏好信息的偏差度和群组专家数量	{0.2445,0.2836,0.1802,0.2916}	0.9220
文献[36]	专家偏好信息的相似度和群组专家数量	{0.1473,0.2556,0.2471,0.3500}	0.9329
中心度权重	社会信任网络中心性	{0.1724,0.2414,0.1034,0.4828}	0.9357
信任度权重	社会信任网络信任度	{0.2455,0.2174,0.1613,0.3758}	0.9336
密度权重	专家偏好信息的相似度和群组专家数量	{0.1763,0.2462,0.2530,0.3244}	0.9356
本文方法	社会信任网络中心性、信任度、群组专家数量和相似度	{0.1981,0.2350,0.1726,0.3943}	0.9401

社会信任网络下基于T₂PLD算子的多属性大群体决策方法

Multi-Attribute Large Group Decision Making Method Based on T₂PLD Operator in Social Trust Network

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 7

参考文献 37

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	张思琪, 朱建军. 考虑“因素-阶段”双重关联的复杂装备交付风险动态评估方法[J]. 中国管理科学, 2025, 33(5): 173-183.
[2]	聂如欣,田章朋,梁鹤鸣. 社会网络环境下基于行为管理的大群体共识决策方法[J]. 中国管理科学, 2024, 32(9): 35-47.
[3]	王伟明,徐海燕,朱建军,黄鑫. 基于TTD_WAA算子和TPBM算子的混合型多属性大群体决策方法[J]. 中国管理科学, 2024, 32(4): 97-107.
[4]	李梦琪, 刘高峰, 许叶军, 刘霞, 王慧敏. 考虑专家信任风险行为挖掘与动态管理的社会网络群体共识决策研究[J]. 中国管理科学, 2024, 32(11): 144-156.
[5]	朱峰, 刘玉敏, 徐济超, 苏冰杰. 一种考虑形状—位置概率语言术语相似度及应用[J]. 中国管理科学, 2023, 31(4): 250-259.
[6]	翁克瑞, 周静. 非退市条件下更新产品扩散的投放时间与种子优化研究[J]. 中国管理科学, 2023, 31(2): 226-234.
[7]	徐选华, 马志鹏, 陈晓红. 基于公众偏好大数据分析的大群体应急决策质量动态演化研究[J]. 中国管理科学, 2022, 30(7): 140-149.
[8]	曲国华, 王彬宇, 曲卫华, , 徐泽水, 张强. 基于对偶犹豫模糊几何Heronian平均算子的多属性决策方法及其应用[J]. 中国管理科学, 2022, 30(11): 216-228.
[9]	王伟明, 徐海燕, 朱建军. 基于复杂网络和语言信息的交互式大规模群体评价方法[J]. 中国管理科学, 2022, 30(11): 260-271.
[10]	刘培德, 滕飞. 基于共识模型和ORESTE的扩展概率语言多属性群决策方法[J]. 中国管理科学, 2021, 29(3): 199-209.
[11]	王伟明, 邓潇, 徐海燕. 基于三维密度算子的群体DEMATEL指标权重确定方法[J]. 中国管理科学, 2021, 29(12): 179-190.
[12]	姚升保, 古淼. 移情关系影响下的群体共识决策模型研究[J]. 中国管理科学, 2021, 29(11): 203-214.
[13]	金飞飞,刘金培，陈华友，杜鹏程. 基于信任关系和信息测度的概率语义社会网络群决策模型[J]. 中国管理科学, 2021, 29(10): 178-190.
[14]	李鹏, 沈志杰. 基于Heronian平均算子的Pythagorean模糊不确定语言决策方法[J]. 中国管理科学, 2021, 29(1): 217-225.
[15]	张发明, 王伟明. 基于后悔理论和DEMATEL的语言型多属性决策方法[J]. 中国管理科学, 2020, 28(6): 201-210.