The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 70 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An overview on feedback mechanisms with minimum adjustment or cost in consensus reaching in group decision making: Research paradigms and challenges
Abstract
Abstract Consensus reaching process is a very powerful decision tool to eliminate the preference conflict in group decision making. In general, the consensus is achieved by the decision makers modifying their preferences (or opinions) toward a point of mutual consent, and the feedback mechanism aims to provide preference-modifications suggestions. In many situations, the preference-modifications mean cost and the resources for the consensus reaching process are limited. So, in the last decade, the feedback mechanism with minimum adjustment or cost (FMMA/C) has been developed and widely used in various group decision making contexts to improve consensus efficiency. In this review, we first analyze the origin and basic research paradigm of the FMMA/C. Then, we review the FMMA/C in two decision contexts: (1) the FMMA/C in classical group decision making problems, and (2) the FMMA/C in complex group decision making problems (e.g., social network, large-scale, and opinion dynamic group decision making problems). Finally, we identify research challenges and propose future research direction.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Analytic Hierarchy Process
SAATY, T. L., & KEARNS, K. P. (1985) · Analytical Planning · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-032599-6.50008-8 · Cited by 15,357
On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decisionmaking
Yager, R. R. (1988) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/21.87068 · Cited by 7,289
Degroot, M. H. (1974) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1974.10480137 · Cited by 4,004
A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words
Martinez, L., & Herrera, F. (2000) · IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems · doi:10.1109/91.890332 · Cited by 2,662
Self-citationOpinion Dynamics and Bounded Confidence Models, Analysis and Simulation
Hegselmann, R., & Krause, U. (2002) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 2,366
Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Term Sets for Decision Making
Rodriguez, R. M., Martinez, L., & Herrera, F. (2012) · IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems · doi:10.1109/tfuzz.2011.2170076 · Cited by 2,328
Self-citationThe Analytic Hierarchy Process: Structuring, Measurement, and Synthesis
Wang, J., Chakraborty, C., & Ouyang, H. (2011) · Encyclopedia of Decision Making and Decision Support Technologies · doi:10.4018/9781599048437.ch003 · Cited by 1,328
Decision-making with a fuzzy preference relation
Orlovsky, S. (1978) · Fuzzy Sets and Systems · doi:10.1016/0165-0114(78)90001-5 · Cited by 1,246
Wallenius, J., Dyer, J. S., Fishburn, P. C., Steuer, R. E., Zionts, S., & Deb, K. (2008) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1070.0838 · Cited by 839
A consensus model for multiperson decision making with different preference structures
Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F., & Chiclana, F. (2002) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans · doi:10.1109/tsmca.2002.802821 · Cited by 762
Self-citation
Cited by
Li, Y., Liu, P., & Li, G. (2023) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ress.2023.109196 · Cited by 50
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhang, H., Zhao, S., Kou, G., Li, C.-C., Dong, Y., & Herrera, F.
- Venue
- Information Fusion
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-08
- Volume
- 60
- Pages
- 65-79
- ISSN
- 1566-2535 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3010010446
- Cited by
- 355
- References
- 70
- FWCI
- 34.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An overview on feedback mechanisms with minimum adjustment or cost in consensus reaching in group decision making: Research paradigms and challenges. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.inffus.2020.03.001
- The paper
- Zhang, H., Zhao, S., Kou, G., Li, C.-C., Dong, Y., & Herrera, F. (2020). An overview on feedback mechanisms with minimum adjustment or cost in consensus reaching in group decision making: Research paradigms and challenges. Information Fusion. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2020.03.001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
