Abstract
Trust is a crucial element in the consensus decision-making process, as it significantly impacts a group’s capacity to achieve consensus. Nevertheless, low trust by experts may result in detrimental decision-making behaviors that decrease group consensus degree. Meanwhile, it is important to note that experts’ opinions are not always reliable, and ignoring the unreliability degree of opinions may have an impact on the result of consensus decision-making. To deal with these issues, this paper proposes a trust improvement consensus model considering unreliability degree of opinions. First, considering that the discreteness of membership degree has a much smaller impact on the hesitancy degree in hesitant fuzzy elements than the number of membership degrees in extant research, an improved approach is suggested to quantify the unreliability degree of opinions. Second, a trust improvement method is proposed based on the score function for trust propagation path and the trust propagation operator considering unreliability degree of opinions. Third, a method for adjusting the opinions of experts is suggested, considering unreliability degree of opinions. Finally, the feasibility, effectiveness, and advantages of the proposed trust improvement consensus model are verified through a case study on the selection of cascade utilization alternatives for power lithium-ion batteries, as well as simulation and comparative analysis. The results show that: (1) The improved method exhibits a significant impact of the discreteness of membership degree on the hesitancy degree; (2) Trust improvement can facilitate group consensus, and the score function of trust propagation path can enhance trust degree among experts more effectively; (3) The unreliability degree of opinions not only affects the degree of trust improvement but also affects the ranking of alternatives. By taking into account the unreliability degree of opinions throughout the process of adjusting opinions, it is possible to promote group consensus and decrease the unreliability degree of opinions.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Consensus decision-making is a procedure where a group of experts express their opinions on alternatives and strive to reach a consensus on the selection of the alternatives [1, 2]. Conventional studies on consensus decision-making generally operate on the assumption that experts do not have any influence on one another [3, 4]. Nevertheless, the advancement of information technology enables experts to connect, collaborate, and share knowledge in a more convenient manner, hence building trust relationships [5, 6]. Trust has emerged as a crucial factor in determining consensus decision-making, and there is a growing interest among scholars in studying trust-based consensus decision-making [7,8,9,10,11,12]. It has also been extensively applied to address practical issues such as selecting investment projects in complex and uncertain settings [6], deploying cellular base stations [13], making product design decisions [14], and choosing suitable sites for elderly care institutions [15]. Based on the extant research, this paper primarily explores the research issues related to trust-based consensus decision-making.
Currently, most research on trust-based consensus decision-making assumes that trust relationships contribute to achieving group consensus [16, 17]. Nevertheless, the veracity of this claim may be questionable, as a lack of trust among experts can impede the progress of reaching a consensus in decision-making [18]. For example, experts who have a lower degree of consensus must participate in discussions and negotiations with others to align their opinions with the group consensus [19]. When there is a low trust degree among experts, they may refuse to engage in discussions and negotiations with others [20], making it difficult to reach group consensus. Meanwhile, experts with lower trust degree may experience relational conflicts with others [21, 22], or even engage in non-cooperative behaviors [23, 24], such as dishonestly expressing their opinions or refusing to adjust their viewpoints [25], which decreases group consensus degree. It is evident that trust relationships are not entirely beneficial to consensus decision-making, and it is necessary to consider the negative effects of low trust degree of experts on hindering group consensus reaching. Trust improvement plays a crucial role in the consensus decision-making process by increasing experts’ trust degree in others, motivating them to actively engage in discussions and negotiations, and ultimately resulting in group consensus. Dong et al. [26] pointed out that trust improvement can facilitate group consensus reaching. However, their study specifically focuses on the development of new indirect trust relationships among experts who do not have initial trust. This essentially completes the trust network that is previously incomplete, and does not pertain to the trust improvement consensus model because of the low degree of trust among experts. Hence, given the low degree of trust among experts that obstructs group consensus reaching, this paper primarily explores the trust improvement consensus model.
Trust propagation is an effective tool to improve trust relationships among experts. This is because third-party experts can transmit information through trust propagation, which facilitates communication between the other two experts [13, 27]. However, current studies on trust propagation mostly concentrate on completing in incomplete trust relationships, while neglecting the potential of trust propagation in trust improvement [28,29,30]. Simultaneously, experts often have various trust propagation paths. The efficiency of trust propagation is significantly influenced by the trust degree and the quantity of intermediary experts. On the one hand, an excessive number of intermediary experts in the trust propagation process might result in inaccurate trust value evaluations [31, 32], and decreases the transmission efficiency [33]. On the other hand, higher trust degree with experts in propagation pathways might ensure the efficacy of information transfer [34, 35]. However, the above research does not concurrently take into account the influence of both trust degree and the number of intermediaries on the efficiency of trust propagation. Hence, it is imperative to explore an efficient approach for improving trust degree among experts through trust propagation.
In the consensus decision-making process based on trust improvement, the opinions provided by experts may not be completely reliable, which is related to their experience and level of knowledge. As the unreliability degree of opinions increases, the capacity of experts to accurately evaluate alternatives decreases [36]. According to Mondal et al. [37] and Xue et al. [38], experts may give unreliable opinions if they lack knowledge of the information that is used to make decisions, do not have the necessary experience, or are not interested in the topics involved in making decisions. Disregarding the unreliability degree of opinions may lead to irrational outcomes of consensus decision-making. As a result, they suggested implementing a consensus-based decision-making process that takes into account the reliability of expert opinions. However, with regard to unreliability degree of opinions, the existing research does not encompass the entire consensus decision-making process based on trust improvement [39,40,41,42,43]. In the consensus decision-making process based on trust improvement, experts need to consider unreliability degree of opinions to enhance trust in others and adjust their opinions to achieve group consensus. Neglecting unreliability degree of opinions may impact the outcomes of trust improvement consensus decision-making. On the one hand, neglecting unreliability degree of opinions diminishes the efficacy of trust improvement. The experts’ limited cognitive capacity can cause their evaluations of alternatives to be unreliable [44], which in turn reduces trust degree in those experts during the process of trust improvement. This is because experts typically have a greater degree of trust in individuals who possess a better level of knowledge [45]. Disregarding the unreliability degree of opinions can result in biases when assessing trust degree during the process of trust improvement. On the other hand, disregarding the unreliability degree of opinions may lead experts to trust and reliance on unreliable opinions, which undermines the logic and scientific nature of consensus decision-making process. The complexity of decision-making environments makes it challenging for experts to possess the time, knowledge, and information necessary to make accurate opinions [44, 46, 47]. If the inaccurate opinions provided by experts is not revised, these inaccurate opinions will be directly utilized in the final selecting process of alternatives, and there may even be a situation where certain highly trusted but unreliable opinions are excessively referenced during the opinion adjustment process. Consequently, this will inevitably lead to imprecise group consensus or subpar quality of consensus outcome. Hence, it is imperative to consider unreliability degree of opinions in the consensus decision-making based on trust improvement.
The experts’ higher level of hesitancy in assessing alternatives corresponds to a greater unreliability degree in their opinions. Nevertheless, the majority of current methods to measure the unreliability degree of opinions mostly based on the distance between expert and group opinions, or inconsistency in preferences [38, 42, 44]. Experts may be hesitant while evaluating alternatives due to restricted cognitive abilities or the intricate nature of decision-making context [48,49,50]. Experts displaying a greater degree of hesitation imply a significant amount of doubt in their judgment [51], which reduces the quality and scientific validity of decision-making information, leading to unreliable opinions from the experts. To explore the correlation between the hesitancy degree of experts and the unreliability degree of opinions, this study utilizes hesitant fuzzy sets to represent experts’ opinions. Hesitant fuzzy sets enable experts to express their opinions by hesitating between multiple membership degrees for a particular element, thus retaining as many evaluation opinions from the experts as possible [52, 53]. However, there is a limited amount of research available on measuring the unreliability degree of opinions by considering the hesitancy degree of experts in hesitant fuzzy sets. In addition, while several studies have proposed methods for quantifying the hesitancy degree of experts using hesitant fuzzy sets to represent experts’ hesitant evaluation information, there are still certain constraints. For instance, Li et al. [54] and Zhang et al. [55] proposed a method to quantify the hesitancy degree of experts through the number of membership degrees in a hesitant fuzzy set. A larger number of membership degrees indicates a higher hesitancy degree of experts for alternatives. However, they neglect to consider the impact of the level of membership degree discreteness on the hesitancy degree of experts. Lin et al. [56] introduced a method to measure the hesitancy degree in hesitant fuzzy elements. They considered both the number of membership degrees and the discreteness level of membership degree. However, they measured the discreteness degree of membership degree using variance, which resulted in a much smaller impact on the hesitancy degree in hesitant fuzzy elements compared to the number of membership degrees. Hence, there is a need to enhance the present methods for assessing the hesitancy degree and develop a method for quantifying the unreliability degree of opinions in judgments using this approach.
While scholars have explored consensus decision-making regarding trust relationships and unreliability degree of opinions, these studies still have the following limitations:
-
(1)
Existing research assumes trust relationships are entirely beneficial for consensus, but low trust degree among experts can decrease group consensus degree. Existing research overlooks the potential of trust propagation in trust improvement, and the influence of trust degree and intermediaries on the efficiency of trust propagation.
-
(2)
The process of trust improvement and opinion adjustment in consensus requires considering the unreliability degree of opinions, while neglecting it compromises decision outcome. Existing research does not involve.
-
(3)
There is limited research on measuring the unreliability degree of opinions based on the hesitancy degree of experts. Existing methods for measuring hesitancy degree of experts prioritize membership degree discreteness over the number of membership degrees.
Based on the aforementioned limitations, this paper aims to construct a trust improvement consensus model considering unreliability degree of opinions, and explores the impact of trust improvement on consensus decision-making process, as well as the influence of unreliability degree of opinions on trust improvement consensus. The main contributions of this paper are as follows:
-
(1)
A measurement method for unreliability degree of opinions is proposed based on hesitancy degree of experts. Specifically, an improved measurement method for hesitancy degree of experts addresses the issue that the influence of the discreteness of membership degree on hesitation is much smaller than the number of membership degrees.
-
(2)
A trust improvement method is proposed based on the measurement of unreliability degree of opinions. This method can enhance the trust degree of experts, promote group consensus, and ensure the accuracy of trust degree evaluation. Additionally, a score function for trust propagation path is introduced to select more efficient trust propagation paths, thus guaranteeing the efficiency of trust improvement.
-
(3)
A method for adjusting opinions among relevant experts is proposed based on unreliability degree of opinions and trust relationships between experts. This method can simultaneously increase individual consensus degree and reduce unreliability degree of opinions.
To illustrate the differences between this study and existing research more intuitively, Table 1 provides a comparison between the relevant literature and the proposed trust improvement consensus model in this paper.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Sect. 2 introduces the relevant knowledge of hesitant fuzzy sets and trust propagation operator. Section 3 proposes a method for measuring unreliability degree of opinions. In Sect. 4, we present a trust improvement method considering unreliability degree of opinions. Section 5 constructs a trust improvement model including the method of opinions adjustment considering unreliability degree of opinions. Section 6 verifies the feasibility of the proposed model through a practical case study and simulation analysis. In Sect. 7, the effectiveness and advantages of the proposed model are validated through simulation and comparative analysis. Finally, Sect. 8 presents the conclusions of this paper.
2 Preliminaries
To measure unreliability degree of opinions and improve trust relationship among experts, it is necessary to define the concepts of hesitant fuzzy sets and trust propagation operator.
2.1 Hesitant Fuzzy Sets
In this paper, hesitant fuzzy sets are used to represent experts’ evaluation opinions. Due to the complexity of the decision-making environment [57], limited cognitive abilities of experts, or decision-making pressure [30], they may hesitate and provide multiple evaluation opinions when assessing alternatives. Hesitant fuzzy sets can extract imprecise and hesitant information [52].
Definition 1
[52]: Let \(X\) be a given non-empty set, then a hesitant fuzzy set on \(X\) is defined as:
where \(h_A \left( x \right)\) is a set of several values in \(\left[ {0,1} \right]\), which represents the possible membership degrees of element \(x\) with respect to the \(A\), and \(h = h_A (x)\) is called a hesitant fuzzy element.
Definition 2
[56]: Let \(h = \left\{ {\gamma^i |i = 1,2,...,l_h } \right\}\) be a hesitant fuzzy element, then the hesitancy degree \(H\left( h \right)\) of \(h\) is defined as:
where \(l_h\) is the number of membership degrees in \(h\), \(\gamma^i\) is the \(i\) th membership degree in \(h\).
Definition 3
[52]: Let \(h\) be a hesitant fuzzy element, then the score function \(s\left( h \right)\) of \(h\) is defined as:
For \(h_1\) and \(h_2\), if \(s\left( {h_1 } \right) > s\left( {h_2 } \right)\), \(h_1\) is considered superior to \(h_2\), denoted as \(h_1 > h_2\); if \(s\left( {h_1 } \right) = s\left( {h_2 } \right)\), \(h_1\) and \(h_2\) are considered indistinguishable, denoted as \(h_1\) ~ \(h_2\).
2.2 Trust Propagation Operator
Based on the Einstein product operator, the trust degree of experts is calculated through the trust propagation process, aiming to improve the trust relationship among experts.
Definition 4
[58]: The trust propagation operator of the Einstein product is defined as:
where \(x_i\) represents the trust degree of the \(i\) th node on the trust propagation path.
3 Unreliability Degree of Opinions
The unreliability degree of opinions can ensure the effectiveness of improving trust relationships and achieve reasonable consensus decision-making results. In this paper, the unreliability degree of opinions is measured based on the hesitancy degree of experts, as experts may exhibit a certain level of hesitation due to limited cognitive abilities or the complexity of the decision-making environment [30, 57]. High hesitation of experts implies high uncertainty in their evaluations [51], which can lead to a decrease in the quality of decision-making information, resulting in unreliable opinions provided by experts. The higher the hesitancy degree of experts, the more unreliable their evaluation opinions on alternatives. Let \(E = \left\{ {e_1 ,e_2 ,...,e_k } \right\}\left( {k \ge 2} \right)\) be the set of experts. The set of alternatives is \(X = \left\{ {x_1 ,x_2 ,...,x_m } \right\}\left( {m \ge 2} \right)\), and the attribute set of the alternatives is denoted as \(A = \left\{ {a_1 ,a_2 ,...,a_n } \right\}\left( {n \ge 2} \right)\). The trust relationship matrix of the group is \(\Lambda = \left( {t_{ij} } \right)_{k \times k}\), where \(t_{ij}\) represents the trust degree of \(e_i\) to \(e_j\). The hesitant fuzzy decision matrix of \(e_i\) is denoted as \(S_i = \left( {s_i^{bf} } \right)_{m \times n}\), where \(s_i^{bf}\) represents the hesitant fuzzy element evaluation of \(e_i\) on \(x_b\) with respect to \(a_f\). \(s_i^{bfl_{(s_i^{bf} )} }\) represents the \(l_{(s_i^{bf} )}\) th membership degree in \(s_i^{bf}\), and \(p_{(s_i^{bf} )}\) represents the number of membership degrees in \(s_i^{bf}\), where \(s_i^{bfl_{(s_i^{bf} )} } \in \left[ {0,1} \right]\).
Definition 2 measures hesitancy degree of hesitant fuzzy elements based on the number of membership degrees and the degree of membership discreteness. However, this method uses variance to represent the degree of membership discreteness, which makes the influence of membership discreteness on the hesitancy degree of hesitant fuzzy elements much smaller than the number of membership degrees. In mathematical statistics, both variance and standard deviation can describe the discreteness of a dataset [59]. The variance is equal to the sum of the squares of the standard deviation. Since the standard deviation has a range of \(\left[ {0,1} \right]\), the square standard deviation will yield the variance of the smaller number. Consequently, hesitancy degree is not significantly impacted by the dispersion degree of membership using the variance metric. Therefore, in this paper, standard deviation is used to represent the degree of membership discreteness, and a parameter for membership discreteness is introduced. Meanwhile, in Sect. 7.3, the method of Definition 2 is compared with the improved method in this paper.
Definition 5:
Let \(\lambda\) be a parameter for membership discreteness, which is the standard deviation of the maximum and minimum values of \(s_i^{bfl_{(s_i^{bf} )} }\). The improved hesitancy degree \(HD_i^{bf}\) of \(s_i^{bf}\) is:
where \(HD_i^{bf} \in \left[ {0,1} \right]\).
Definition 6:
The improved hesitancy degree \(HD_i\) of \(e_i\) is defined as:
where \(HD_i \in \left[ {0,1} \right]\).
Experts may be hesitant while evaluating alternatives due to restricted cognitive abilities or the intricate nature of decision-making context [48,49,50]. Experts with a greater degree of hesitation imply a significant amount of doubt in their judgment [51], which reduces the quality and scientific validity of decision-making information, and leads to unreliable opinions from the experts. Therefore, based on \(HD_i\), the unreliability degree of opinions \(NRD_i\) of \(e_i\) is proposed.
Definition 7:
The unreliability degree of opinions \(NRD_i\) of \(e_i\) is:
where \(NRD_i \in \left[ {0,1} \right]\).
Theorem 1:
\(HD_i\) increases with the increase of \(NRD_i\).
Proof
\(HD_i\) has a range of \(\left[ {0,1} \right]\). When \(x \in \left[ {0,1} \right]\), the range of function \(y = x^2\) is \(y \in \left[ {0,1} \right]\), and its derivative \(y^{\prime} = 2x\) is greater than 0 within \(x \in \left[ {0,1} \right]\), so \(y = x^2\) is monotonically increasing within \(x \in \left[ {0,1} \right]\). Therefore, it can be concluded that \(HD_i\) increases with the increase of \(NRD_i\)
Theorem 2:
The increment of \(NRD_i\) increases with the increase of \(HD_i\).
Proof
Since the second derivative \(y^{\prime\prime} = 2\) of \(y = x^2\) is always greater than 0, \(y = x^2\) is a convex function. Therefore, the increment of \(NRD_i\) increases with the increase of \(HD_i\).
4 Trust Improvement Method Considering Unreliability Degree of Opinions
In the process of consensus decision-making, low trust degree of experts toward others can trigger negative decision-making behaviors and hinder the group from reaching consensus [21]. Therefore, a trust degree threshold is set in this paper, and when the trust degree of experts towards others is lower than the trust degree threshold, their trust relationship needs to be improved. At the same time, considering unreliability degree of opinions can more accurately evaluate the trust of experts during the process of trust improvement.
According to [13] and [27], it is assumed that trust improvement among experts is caused by trust propagation paths, as the third-party experts can transmit information through trust propagation paths, facilitating communication between other pairs of experts and enhancing their trust degree. Moreover, the shorter the trust propagation path [31,32,33], and the higher the trust degree of experts [34, 35], the more efficient the trust propagation. This indicates that the efficiency of trust improvement is higher. Based on this, a score function for trust propagation path is constructed to identify the trust propagation path during trust improvement among experts.
Definition 8:
Let d be a trust propagation path from \(e_i\) to \(e_j\), \(\delta_d \left( {\delta_d \ge 3} \right)\) represents the number of experts on \(d\), \(t_{y\left( {y + 1} \right)}^d\) represents the trust degree of the \(y\) th expert on \(d\) towards the \(y + 1\) th expert, and \(y_d\) represents the number of experts on \(d\). The score function \(f\left( d \right)\) of \(d\) is defined as:
where \(t_{y\left( {y + 1} \right)}^d \in \left[ {0,1} \right]\), \(f\left( d \right) \in \left[ {0,1} \right]\). For \(d_1\) and \(d_2\), if \(f\left( {d_1 } \right) > f\left( {d_2 } \right)\), \(d_1\) is considered superior to \(d_2\), denoted as \(d_1 > d_2\); if \(f\left( {d_1 } \right) = f\left( {d_2 } \right)\), \(d_1\) and \(d_2\) are considered indistinguishable, denoted as \(d_1\) ~ \(d_2\).
Based on \(f\left( d \right)\), trust propagation paths are identified to improve trust relationships among experts. If multiple trust propagation paths have the same \(f\left( d \right)\), one of them is randomly selected.
Ignoring unreliability degree of opinions in the trust improvement process can result in biases in the trust evaluations of experts towards others. Therefore, based on definition 4, a trust propagation operator considering the unreliability degree of opinions is proposed to calculate the trust degree increment of experts during the trust improvement process.
Definition 9:
Let \(NRD_{y + 1}^d\) be the unreliability degree of opinions of the \(y + 1\) th expert on \(d\), The trust propagation operator \(T_d\) considering unreliability degree of opinions is defined as:
where \(T_d \in \left[ {0,1} \right]\).
Definition 10:
The trust degree \(t_{ij}^d\) of \(e_i\) to \(e_j\) after trust improvement based on \(d\) is calculated as:
where \(t_{ij}^d \in \left[ {0,1} \right]\). Then, the trust relationship matrix is updated as \(\tilde{\Lambda }\) after trust improvement. The detailed trust improvement method considering unreliability degree of opinions is indicated in Algorithm 1.
Algorithm 1. Trust Improvement Method Considering Unreliability Degree of Opinions |
---|
Input: Initial trust relationship matrix \(\Lambda\), and trust degree threshold \(\overline{TD}\) |
Step 1. Identify the experts whose trust relationships need to improve based on the latest trust relationship matrix and \(\overline{TD}\) |
Step 2. Calculate \(HD_i\) based on the hesitant fuzzy decision matrix, then compute the \(NRD_i\) |
Step 3. Identify the trust propagation path for the expert during the trust improvement process using the score function \(f\left( d \right)\) |
Step 4. Calculate the trust degree of the experts after trust improvement using the identified trust propagation path and \(T_d\), and update the trust relationship matrix of experts as \(\tilde{\Lambda }\) |
Step 5. Determine whether the trust degree of all experts in \(\tilde{\Lambda }\) reaches \(\overline{TD}\). If it reaches \(\overline{TD}\), the trust improvement process ends; otherwise, go back to Step 1 |
Output: Updated trust relationship matrix \(\tilde{\Lambda }\) |
5 Trust Improvement Consensus Decision-Making
In consensus decision-making process, low trust by experts may result in detrimental decision-making behaviors that decrease group consensus degree. Meanwhile, it is important to note that experts’ opinions are not always reliable, and ignoring the unreliability degree of opinions may have an impact on the result of consensus decision-making. Therefore, this section will propose a trust improvement consensus decision-making process considering unreliability degree of opinions.
The trust improvement consensus decision-making process consists of the unreliability degree of opinions measurement process, trust improvement process, opinions adjustment process, and selection process.
5.1 Trust Improvement Consensus Framework
Based on the aforementioned works, a trust improvement consensus framework considering unreliability degree of opinions is constructed. The hesitancy degree of experts is calculated based on the hesitant fuzzy decision matrix of experts to measure the unreliability degree of opinions, then identify the experts whose trust degree is lower than the trust degree threshold. Using the score function for trust propagation paths, the trust relationships among experts are improved based on the consideration of unreliability degree of opinions. The experts who have not reached the individual consensus degree threshold or the unreliability degree of opinions threshold are identified, and their decision matrices are adjusted to facilitate the convergence of group opinions. Thus, a trust improvement consensus framework considering unreliability degree of opinions is constructed in Fig. 1.
5.2 Trust Improvement Consensus Model
5.2.1 Trust Improvement Process
Given the trust degree threshold \(\overline{TD}\), when \(t_{ij}\) is lower than \(\overline{TD}\), \(e_i\) may exhibit negative decision-making behaviors. Algorithm 1 is used to improve the trust relationship between \(e_i\) and \(e_j\).
5.2.2 Experts Weight Allocation
If an expert is highly trusted by other experts and has a low unreliability degree of opinions, it indicates that the expert not only has a good reputation in the consensus decision-making process but also possesses abundant information resources [19, 44]. Therefore, the expert should be assigned a higher weight to play an important role in the consensus decision-making. Based on trust relationship matrix and unreliability degree of opinions, the weight \(\omega_j\) of \(e_j\) is determined as:
According to Eq. (11), the set of expert weights \(\omega = \left\{ {\omega_1 ,\omega_2 ,...,\omega_k } \right\}^T\) is obtained, where \(\omega_j \in \left[ {0,1} \right]\), \(\sum_{j = 1}^k {\omega_j = 1}\).
5.2.3 Aggregation of Group Hesitant Fuzzy Decision Matrix
To facilitate the subsequent consensus degree measurement process and selection process, group decision matrix should be obtained. The hesitant fuzzy weighted average operator is used to aggregate individual hesitant fuzzy decision matrices into a group decision matrix. The hesitant fuzzy element \(s_G^{bf}\) of the group for \(x_b\) with respect to \(a_f\) is defined as [52]:
The group decision matrix is denoted as \(S_G^{bf} = \left( {s_G^{bf} } \right)_{m \times n}\).
5.2.4 Measurement of Individual Consensus Degree
After aggregating the group decision matrix, the individual consensus degree of experts is measured to determine if they have reached the individual consensus level. The number \(p_{(s_i^{bf} )}\) of membership degrees in \(s_i^{bf}\) of the individual decision matrix may be smaller than the number \(p_{(s_G^{bf} )}\) of evaluation values in \(s_G^{bf}\) of the group decision matrix, which makes it difficult to measure the individual consensus degree. Therefore, it is necessary to expand the expert individual hesitant fuzzy element [53]. Let \(\beta_{(s_i^{bf} )} = \max \left\{ {p_{(s_i^{bf} )} ,p_{(s_G^{bf} )} } \right\} = p_{(s_G^{bf} )}\), if \(p_{(s_i^{bf} )} < p_{(s_G^{bf} )}\), add the maximum value in \(s_i^{bf}\) to expand it to \(p_{(s_i^{bf} )} = \beta_{(s_i^{bf} )}\). Thus, the consensus degree \(CD_i^{bf}\) of \(s_i^{bf}\) in the decision matrix of \(e_i\) is obtained as:
Let the individual consensus degree threshold be \(\overline{CD}\). When \(CD_i\) is greater than or equal to \(\overline{CD}\), \(e_i\) has reached the individual consensus level. Conversely, when \(CD_i < \overline{CD}\), \(e_i\) has not reached the individual consensus level, he or she need to adjust opinions [60].
5.2.5 Opinions Adjustment Process Considering Unreliability Degree of Opinions
After measurement of individual consensus degree, experts should be judged whether they need to adjust opinions according to \(CD_i\) and \(NRD_i\). Let the threshold of unreliability degree of opinions is \(\overline{NRD}\), if \(CD_i\) is lower than \(\overline{CD}\), or \(NRD_i\) is greater than \(\overline{NRD}\), \(e_i\) needs to adjust opinions. In opinions adjustment process, \(e_i\) tends to refer to the opinions of their trusted experts. At the same time, referring to the opinions of experts with low unreliability is more conducive to obtaining reasonable consensus decision-making results.
Based on whether \(NRD_i\) is greater than \(\overline{NRD}\), experts are divided into subsets: the subset of unreliable opinions experts \(NRE = \left\{ {e_{\tau + 1} ,e_{\tau + 2} ,...,e_k } \right\}\), and the subset of reliable opinions experts \(RE = \left\{ {e_1 ,e_2 ,...,e_\tau } \right\}\), where \(e_v \in NRE\), \(e_u \in RE\), \(e_v ,e_u \in E\), \(NRE \cup RE = E\), \(NRE \cap RE = \emptyset\). Experts who need to adjust their opinions refer to the opinions of experts in \(RE\) based on the trust relationship matrix. Let expert \(e_{i^* }\) be the expert who needs to adjust their opinions, and the \(l_{(\tilde{s}_{i^* }^{bf} )}\) th membership degree \(\tilde{s}_{i^* }^{bfl_{(\tilde{s}_{i^* }^{bf} )} }\) of \(\tilde{s}_{i^* }^{bf}\) in their decision matrix after opinions adjustment is given by:
The hesitant fuzzy decision matrix of \(e_{i^* }\) after opinions adjustment is denoted as \(\tilde{S}_{i^* } = \left( {\tilde{s}_{i^* }^{bf} } \right)_{m \times n}\). If \(RE\) is an empty set, \(e_{i^* }\) directly refers to the group decision matrix.
After adjusting their opinions, reconstruct the group decision matrix, then measure individual consensus degree and unreliability degree of opinions. If \(CD_{i^* }\) is greater than or equal to \(\overline{CD}\) and \(NRD_{i^* }\) is not greater than \(\overline{NRD}\), the selection process is entered. Otherwise, the expert opinions need to be adjusted again.
5.2.6 Selection Process Based on Hesitant Fuzzy Sets
Based on \(S_G\) and the hesitant fuzzy weighted average operator, the hesitant fuzzy element of each alternative is obtained [52]. Assuming equal weights for the attributes of the alternatives, \(s_G^b\) chosen by the group decision for \(x_b\) is given by:
According to Definition 3, the score of each alternative is calculated, and the alternatives are ranked based on the scores to select the best alternative.
6 Application Example
Taking the selection of a cascade utilization scheme for power lithium-ion batteries in a certain region as an example, the feasibility of the proposed trust improvement consensus model is validated.
6.1 Problem Description
In recent years, with the rapid development of the global electric vehicle industry, an increasing number of people are choosing electric vehicles as a fashionable transportation. It is estimated that by 2030, the global total amount of power lithium-ion batteries recycling will reach 1500GWh [61]. Along with this comes the issue of power lithium-ion batteries recycling. One important approach to power lithium-ion batteries recycling is cascade utilization, which can effectively utilize the remaining performance of power lithium-ion batteries and reduce the cost of power lithium-ion batteries in other applications [62]. The selection of cascade utilization alternatives for power lithium-ion batteries not only needs to consider various factors such as battery performance [61, 63], economic factors, technical factors [64], environmental factors [62] and policy factors [64, 65], but also requires a focus on the opinions of relevant stakeholders (experts) [66]. Therefore, it can be seen as a consensus decision-making problem. The experts participating in the consensus decision-making process come from the local government (\(e_1\)), industry association (\(e_2\)), automobile manufacturer (\(e_3\)), power lithium-ion battery manufacturer (\(e_4\)), and cascade utilization enterprise (\(e_5\)), forming an expert set \(E = \left\{ {e_1 ,e_2 ,e_3 ,e_4 ,e_5 } \right\}\). The initial trust relationship matrix of group is \(\Lambda = \left( {t_{ij} } \right)_{5 \times 5}\). The proposed set of cascade utilization alternatives by the relevant department is \(X = \left\{ {x_1 ,x_2 ,x_3 ,x_4 } \right\}\). The evaluation of various alternatives by experts needs to consider battery health (\(a_1\)), technology (\(a_2\)), economy (\(a_3\)), policy (\(a_4\)) and environment (\(a_5\)), which constitute the attribute set \(A = \left\{ {a_1 ,a_2 ,a_3 ,a_4 ,a_5 } \right\}\). The trust degree threshold \(\overline{TD}\) is set to 0.5, the threshold of unreliability degree of opinions \(\overline{NRD}\) is set to 0.05, and the consensus degree threshold \(\overline{CD}\) is set to 0.85.
6.2 Consensus Decision-Making Process
The hesitant fuzzy decision matrices provided by experts are as follows:
Based on hesitant fuzzy decision matrices provided by experts, the hesitancy degree of the experts are calculated from Eq. (6) as \(HD_1 = 0.25\), \(HD_2 = 0.21\), \(HD_3 = 0.23\), \(HD_4 = 0.26\) and \(HD_5 = 0.20\). The unreliability degree of opinions \(NRD_1 = 0.07\), \(NRD_2 = 0.04\), \(NRD_3 = 0.05\), \(NRD_4 = 0.07\) and \(NRD_5 = 0.04\) are calculated according to Eq. (7). Based on \(\overline{NRD}\), the subset of unreliable opinions experts \(NRE = \left\{ {e_1 ,e_4 } \right\}\) and the subset of reliable opinions experts \(RE = \left\{ {e_2 ,e_3 ,e_5 } \right\}\) are determined.
The initial trust relationship matrix of group is:
The initial trust relationships of group are shown in Fig. 2.
Obviously, \(t_{12}\), \(t_{14}\), \(t_{21}\), \(t_{25}\), \(t_{31}\) and \(t_{51}\) have not reached \(\overline{TD}\). Therefore, the involved experts need to undergo trust improvement according to Algorithm 1. The updated trust relationship matrix \(\tilde{\Lambda }\) of group is:
The trust relationships of group after trust improvement are shown in Fig. 3.
The individual consensus degree of experts is measured to determine if they have reached the individual consensus level. The weights of each expert are calculated according to Eq. (11), resulting in \(\omega = \left\{ {0.23,0.18,0.19,0.24,0.16} \right\}^T\). Then, the group decision matrix \(S_G\) is aggregated according to Eq. (12):
According to Eq. (13), the individual consensus degree of \(e_1 , e_5\) is measured, resulting in 0.85, 0.90, 0.90, 0.86, and 0.83, respectively. Based on \(\overline{CD} = 0.85\), it is determined that \(e_5\) has not reached the individual consensus level and needs to adjust his/her opinions. At the same time, \(e_1\) and \(e_4\) in \(NRE\) need to adjust their opinions.
According to Eq. (14), the adjusted decision matrices of the experts are:
The group decision matrix after adjustment is:
The individual consensus degree of \(e_1 , e_5\) are measured according to Eq. (13), resulting in 0.92, 0.91, 0.92, 0.93, and 0.93, respectively. Comparing them with the set consensus degree threshold of 0.85, all experts have reached the individual consensus level. In addition, according to Eq. (7), it is determined that the unreliability degree of opinions of \(e_1\) and \(e_4\) are \(NRD_1 = 0.05\) and \(NRD_4 = 0.05\), respectively, which are not greater than the threshold of unreliability degree of opinions 0.05. Therefore, they enter the selection process.
According to Eq. (3), the scores of the alternatives in the group decision matrix are calculated as \(s\left( {s_G^1 } \right) = 0.6836\), \(s\left( {s_G^2 } \right) = 0.6947\), \(s\left( {s_G^3 } \right) = 0.6211\) and \(s\left( {s_G^4 } \right) = 0.6930\). The alternatives are ranked with \(x_2 > x_4 > x_1 > x_3\), and \(x_2\) is selected as the best cascade utilization alternative for a certain region.
7 Simulation and Comparative Analysis
To verify the effectiveness and advantages of the proposed trust improvement consensus model, this section conducts an analysis of the effectiveness of trust improvement and the effectiveness of opinions adjustment methods. Additionally, the improved hesitancy degree measurement method is compared with existing research method, and the consensus models from existing research are compared with the proposed trust improvement consensus model.
7.1 Analysis of Trust Improvement Effectiveness
To verify that trust improvement can facilitate group consensus, 5 experts' opinions and trust degrees are randomly generated. The group consensus degree in the first round of the consensus process after trust improvement are shown in Fig. 4 for different trust degree thresholds.
As shown in Fig. 4, as the trust degree threshold increases, the group consensus degree in the first round of the consensus process after trust improvement also increases. Therefore, it can be concluded that trust improvement can facilitate group consensus, the higher the number of experts participating in trust improvement and the greater the degree of trust improvement, the higher the efficiency of achieving group consensus.
7.2 Analysis of Effectiveness of Opinions Adjustment Method
To verify that the proposed opinions adjustment method considering unreliability degree of opinions can lead to group consensus and reduce unreliability degree of opinions, 15 experts' opinions and trust degree are randomly generated. The evolution of opinions for the 15 experts is shown in Fig. 5, and the changes in unreliability degree of opinions are shown in Fig. 6.
As seen in Fig. 5, with the increase in consensus rounds, the opinions of the 15 experts converge to the circle area marked in red. Figure 6 shows that with the increase in consensus rounds, the unreliability degree of opinions of the 15 experts gradually decreases. Therefore, it can be concluded that the proposed opinions adjustment method considering unreliability degree of opinions can facilitate group consensus and reduce opinions unreliability.
7.3 Comparison with Existing Hesitancy Degree Measurement Method
In [56], the influence of membership degree discreteness on the hesitancy degree of hesitant fuzzy elements is very small. Based on the measurement method in [56], this paper improves the measurement method to demonstrate the advantages of the improved hesitancy degree measurement method for hesitant fuzzy elements. The hesitancy degree of hesitant fuzzy element \(\left[ {a,0.9} \right]\) is measured using both the hesitancy degree measurement method in [56] and the improved method in this paper, as shown in Fig. 7.
As shown in Fig. 7, when \(a = 0.1\) and \(a = 0.8\), the hesitancy degree measured by the method in [56] decreases from 0.33 to 0.25, with a decrease of only 0.08. The influence of membership degree discreteness on the hesitancy degree is very small. In contrast, the hesitancy degree measured by the improved method in this paper decreases from 0.65 to 0.30, with a decrease of 0.35, indicating a significant influence of membership degree discreteness on the hesitancy degree of hesitant fuzzy elements.
7.4 Comparison with Existing Research
To verify the advantages of the trust improvement consensus model considering unreliability degree of opinions, it is compared with existing research. The consensus models from existing research are applied to the case study in this paper and compared with the proposed trust improvement consensus model, as shown in Table 2.
First, unlike the studies by Zhang et al. [18], Dong et al. [26], and Liu et al. [42], this paper proposes that trust relationships should be improved for all experts who have not reached the trust degree threshold. This results in a larger number of experts reaching the consensus degree threshold in the first round of the consensus process, with a higher degree of trust improvement. Additionally, this paper considers unreliability degree of opinions during the trust improvement process, which is different from the trust degree of experts after trust improvement in Dong et al. [26]. Therefore, the trust improvement method proposed in this paper can effectively facilitate group consensus, with a higher efficiency of trust improvement. Furthermore, unreliability degree of opinions can affect the degree of trust improvement.
Second, compared to the studies by Zhang et al. [18], Dong et al. [26] and Liu et al. [42], this paper achieves a higher group consensus degree and a greater reduction in unreliability degree of opinions after the first opinions adjustment. Thus, the proposed opinions adjustment method can effectively facilitate group consensus and reduce unreliability degree of opinions.
Finally, the studies by Zhang et al. [18] and Dong et al. [26], did not consider unreliability degree of opinions, resulting in different rankings of alternatives in the trust improvement consensus decision-making compared to the studies by Liu et al. [42] and this paper. Therefore, it can be seen that unreliability degree of opinions can affect the ranking of alternatives in trust improvement consensus decision-making.
8 Conclusions
To address the issue of low trust degree among experts hindering group consensus and unreliable opinions leading to unreasonable decision result, this paper constructs a trust improvement consensus model considering unreliability degree of opinions. First, the paper assumes that experts' evaluation opinions may be unreliable and proposes an improved unreliability degree of opinions measurement method. Second, considering unreliability degree of opinions, the paper proposes trust improvement method and opinion adjustment methods for relevant experts. Finally, the feasibility, effectiveness, and advantages of the proposed trust improvement consensus model are validated through a typical case study on the selection of cascade utilization alternatives for power lithium-ion batteries, as well as simulation and comparative analysis.
The main conclusions of this paper are as follows:
-
(1)
Trust improvement should be considered in the consensus decision-making process. Trust improvement can facilitate group consensus. Meanwhile, the score function of trust propagation path can enhance trust among experts more effectively.
-
(2)
The unreliability degree of opinions not only affects the degree of trust improvement but also affects the ranking of alternatives. By taking into account the unreliability degree of opinions throughout the process of adjusting opinions, it is possible to promote group consensus and decrease the unreliability degree of opinions.
-
(3)
Compared with the method of measuring the hesitancy degree of hesitant fuzzy elements in [56], the improved method in this paper exhibits a significant impact of the discreteness of membership degree on the hesitancy degree.
Although the trust improvement method proposed in this paper can facilitate group consensus, the cost of trust improvement is not considered. Future research can further explore trust improvement method taking into account cost. Meanwhile, this paper measure unreliability degree of opinions based on hesitant fuzzy sets. Future research can further explore the measurement methods for unreliability degree of opinions in complex and uncertain linguistic environments. Additionally, the paper assumes that experts are willing to undergo trust improvement, and further research is needed to explore trust improvement considering non-cooperative behavior of experts.
Data availability
Not applicable.
References
Wibowo, S., Deng, H.P.: Consensus-based decision support for multicriteria group decision making. Comput. Ind. Eng. 66, 625–633 (2013)
Armisen, A., Sánchez-Hernández, G., Majchrzak, A.: Consensus in innovation contest categorisation by means of fuzzy partitions. Appl. Soft Comput. 35, 921–930 (2015)
Cheng, D., Zhou, Z.Z., Cheng, F.X., Zhou, Y.F., Xie, Y.J.: Modeling the minimum cost consensus problem in an asymmetric costs context. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 270, 1122–1137 (2018)
Cheng, D., Yuan, Y.X., Wu, Y., Hao, T.T., Cheng, F.X.: Maximum satisfaction consensus with budget constraints considering individual tolerance and compromise limit behaviors. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 297, 221–238 (2022)
Hua, Z., Jing, X.C., Martínez, L.: Consensus reaching for social network group decision making with ELICIT information: A perspective from the complex network. Inf. Sci. 627, 71–96 (2023)
Cheng, D., Cheng, F.X., Zhou, Z.L., Wu, Y.: Reaching a minimum adjustment consensus in social network group decision-making. Inf. Fusion. 59, 30–43 (2020)
Wang, S., Wu, J., Chiclana, F., Ji, F.X., Fujita, H.: Global feedback mechanism by explicit and implicit power for group consensus in social network. Inf. Fusion. 104, 102205 (2024)
Xing, Y.M., Wu, J., Chiclana, F., Liang, C.Y., Yager, R.R.: An incentive mechanism-based minimum adjustment consensus model under dynamic trust relationship. IEEE Trans Cybern. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2023.3349257
Hao, T.T., Cheng, D., Cheng, F.X.: A dynamic trust consensus model considering individual overconfidence. Knowl. Based Syst. 269, 110503 (2023)
Sun, X.L., Zhu, J.J.: Large-scale group classification decision making method and its application with trust–interest dual factors in social network. Appl. Soft Comput. 133, 109890 (2023)
Zhang, H.J., Wang, F., Song, X.L.: From collective opinion dependence to personalization: The impacts of social trust relationship in consensus formation. Comput. Ind. Eng. 172, 108541 (2022)
Zhang, H.J., Wang, F., Dong, Y.C., Chiclana, F., Herrera-Viedma, E.: Social trust driven consensus reaching model with a minimum adjustment feedback mechanism considering assessments-modifications willingness. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 30, 2019–2031 (2022)
Yuan, Y.X., Cheng, D., Zhou, Z.L., Cheng, F.X.: A Minimum adjustment cost consensus framework considering harmony degrees and trust propagation for social network group decision making. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. -Syst. 53, 1453–1465 (2023)
Yang, Y.P., Lyu, L.W., Yang, Q.X., Liu, Y.K., An, W.L.: Trust-based consensus reaching process for product design decision-making with heterogeneous information. Adv. Eng. Inform. 56, 101934 (2023)
Li, P., Xu, Z.W., Liu, J., Wei, C.P.: Social network group decision-making for probabilistic linguistic information based on GRA. Comput. Ind. Eng. 175, 108861 (2023)
Yuan, Y.X., Cheng, D., Zhou, Z.L.: A minimum adjustment consensus framework with compromise limits for social network group decision making under incomplete information. Inf. Sci. 549, 249–268 (2021)
Gai, T.T., Wu, J., Cao, M.S., Ji, F.X., Sun, Q., Zhou, M.: Trust chain driven bidirectional feedback mechanism in social network group decision making and its application in Metaverse virtual community. Expert Syst. Appl. 228, 120369 (2023)
Zhang, Y.J.J., Chen, X., Gao, L., Dong, Y.C., Pedryczc, W.: Consensus reaching with trust evolution in social network group decision making. Expert Syst. Appl. 188, 116022 (2022)
Zhou, Y.J., Zhou, M., Liu, X.B., Cheng, B.Y., Herrera-Viedma, E.: Consensus reaching mechanism with parallel dynamic feedback strategy for large-scale group decision making under social network analysis. Comput. Ind. Eng. 174, 108818 (2022)
Jin, W.D., Gai, T.T., Cao, M.S., Zhou, M., Wu, J.: A personalized bidirectional feedback mechanism by combining cooperation and trust to improve group consensus in social network. Comput. Ind. Eng. 188, 109888 (2024)
Wu, T., Liu, X.W., Qin, J.D., Herrera, F.: Trust-consensus multiplex networks by combining trust social network analysis and consensus evolution methods in group decision-making. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 30, 4741–4753 (2022)
Liu, B.S., Zhou, Q., Ding, R.X., Palomares, I., Herrera, F.: Large-scale group decision making model based on social network analysis: Trust relationship-based conflict detection and elimination. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 275, 737–754 (2019)
Yuan, Y.X., Wang, C.F., Cheng, D., Zhang, F.M., Zhou, Z.L., Cheng, F.X.: Minimum conflict consensus models for group decision-making based on social network analysis considering non-cooperative behaviors. Inf. Fusion. 99, 101855 (2023)
Ding, R.X., Wang, X.Q., Shang, K., Herrera, F.: Social network analysis-based conflict relationship investigation and conflict degree-based consensus reaching process for large scale decision making using sparse representation. Inf. Fusion. 50, 251–272 (2019)
Dong, Y.C., Zhang, H.J., Herrera-Viedma, E.: Integrating experts’ weights generated dynamically into the consensus reaching process and its applications in managing non-cooperative behaviors. Decis. Support. Syst. 84, 1–15 (2016)
Dong, Y.C., Zha, Q.B., Zhang, H.J., Herrera, F.: Consensus reaching and strategic manipulation in group decision making with trust relationships. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. -Syst. 51, 6304–6318 (2021)
Liu, Z.M., Wang, W.X., Liu, P.D.: Dynamic consensus of large group emergency decision-making under dual-trust relationship-based social network. Inf. Sci. 615, 58–89 (2022)
Wu, J., Xiong, R.Y., Chiclana, F.: Uninorm trust propagation and aggregation methods for group decision making in social network with four tuple information. Knowl. Based Syst. 96, 29–39 (2016)
Gu, Y.Q., Hao, T.T., Cheng, D., Wang, J., Cheng, F.X.: Consensus model with double feedback mechanism based on dynamic trust relationship in social network group decision-making. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst. 14, 491–502 (2021)
Dong, Y.C., Zha, Q.B., Zhang, H.J., Kou, G., Fujita, H.J., Chiclana, F., Herrera-Viedma, E.: Consensus reaching in social network group decision making: Research paradigms and challenges. Knowl. Based Syst. 162, 3–13 (2018)
Lu, Y.L., Liu, G.F., Xu, Y.J.: Distrust behavior in social network large-scale group decision making and its application in water pollution management. Water. 15, 1638 (2023)
Cai, M., Jian, X.L., Wang, Y., Yang, G.: Concept representation and trust relationship modeling in fuzzy social networks. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 25, 2250–2265 (2023)
Tan, X., Zhu, J.J., Palomares, I., Liu, X.: On consensus reaching process based on social network analysis in uncertain linguistic group decision making: Exploring limited trust propagation and preference modification attitudes. Inf. Fusion. 78, 180–198 (2022)
Ma, X.J., Gong, Z.W., Wei, G., Herrera-Viedma, E.: A new consensus model based on trust interactive weights for intuitionistic group decision making in social networks. IEEE T. Cybern. 52, 13106–13119 (2022)
Han, Y.F., García-Zamora, D., Dutta, B., Ji, Y., Qu, S.J., Martínez, L.: Large-scale group decision consensus under social network: A chance-constrained robust optimization-based minimum cost consensus model. Expert Syst. Appl. 231, 120728 (2023)
Xue, M., Fu, C., Yang, S.L.: Group consensus reaching based on a combination of expert weight and expert reliability. Appl. Math. Comput. 369, 124902 (2020)
Mondal, A., Roy, S.K., Zhan, J.M.: A reliability-based consensus model and regret theory-based selection process for linguistic hesitant-Z multi-attribute group decision making. Expert Syst. Appl. 228, 120431 (2023)
Xue, M., Fu, C., Yang, S.L.: Dynamic expert reliability based feedback mechanism in consensus reaching process with distributed preference relations. Group Decis. Negot. 30, 341–375 (2020)
Zhong, X.Y., Xu, X.H., Chen, X.H., Goh, M.: Reliability-based multi-attribute large group decision making under probabilistic linguistic environment. Expert Syst. Appl. 210, 118342 (2022)
Zhou, M., Qiao, Y.K., Yang, J.B., Zhou, Y.J., Liu, X.B., Wu, J.: A three-level consensus model for large-scale multi-attribute group decision analysis based on distributed preference relations under social network analysis. Expert Syst. Appl. 204, 117603 (2022)
Ma, Z.Z., Zhu, J.J., Chen, Y.: A probabilistic linguistic group decision-making method from a reliability perspective based on evidential reasoning. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. -Syst. 50, 2421–2435 (2020)
Liu, X., Xu, Y.J., Montes, R., Ding, R.X., Herrera, F.: Alternative ranking-based clustering and reliability index-based consensus reaching process for hesitant fuzzy large scale group decision making. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 27, 159–171 (2019)
Zou, W.C., Wan, S.P., Dong, J.Y., Martínez, L.: A new social network driven consensus reaching process for multi-criteria group decision making with probabilistic linguistic information. Inf. Sci. 632, 467–502 (2023)
Du, Y.W., Zhong, J.J.: Dynamic multicriteria group decision-making method with automatic reliability and weight calculation. Inf. Sci. 634, 400–422 (2023)
Liu, Y.J., Liang, C.Y., Chiclana, F., Wu, J.: A knowledge coverage-based trust propagation for recommendation mechanism in social network group decision making. Appl. Soft Comput. 101, 107005 (2021)
Xiao, J., Wang, X.L., Zhang, H.J.: Exploring the Ordinal Classifications of Failure Modes in the Reliability Management: An Optimization-Based Consensus Model with Bounded Confidences. Group Decis. Negot. 31, 49–80 (2022)
Zhang, H.J., Wang, X.M., Xu, W.J., Dong, Y.C.: From numerical to heterogeneous linguistic best–worst method: Impacts of personalized individual semantics on consistency and consensus. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 117, 105495 (2023)
Xu, Z.S.: Uncertain linguistic aggregation operators based approach to multiple attribute group decision making under uncertain linguistic environment. Inf. Sci. 168, 171–184 (2004)
You, P., Liu, Z.H., Sun, J.B.: A multi-attribute group decision making method considering both the correlation coefficient and hesitancy degrees under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Appl. Soft Comput. 104, 107187 (2021)
Wu, J., Li, X.H., Chiclana, F., Yager, R.: An attitudinal trust recommendation mechanism to balance consensus and harmony in group decision making. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 27, 2163–2175 (2019)
Mesiar, R., Borkotokey, S., Kalina, M.: Certainty aggregation and the certainty fuzzy measures. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 33, 759–770 (2018)
Xia, M.M., Xu, Z.S.: Hesitant fuzzy information aggregation in decision making. Int. J. Approx. Reasoning. 52, 395–407 (2011)
Xu, Z.S., Xia, M.M.: Distance and similarity measures for hesitant fuzzy sets. Inf. Sci. 181, 2128–2138 (2011)
Li, D.Q., Zeng, W.Y., Zhao, Y.B.: Note on distance measure of hesitant fuzzy sets. Inf. Sci. 321, 103–115 (2015)
Zhang, X.L., Xu, Z.S.: Hesitant fuzzy QUALIFLEX approach with a signed distance-based comparison method for multiple criteria decision analysis. Expert Syst. Appl. 42, 873–884 (2015)
Lin, S., Liu, X.D., Zhu, J.J., Zhang, S.T.: Hesitant fuzzy decision making method with unknown weight information based on an improved signed distance. Control and Decision. 33, 186–192 (2017)
Peng, J.J., Chen, X.G., Tian, C., Zhang, Z.Q., Song, H.Y., Dong, F.: Picture fuzzy large-scale group decision-making in a trust- relationship-based social network environment. Inf. Sci. 608, 1675–1701 (2022)
Wu, J., Chiclana, F., Fujita, H., Herrera-Viedma, E.: A visual interaction consensus model for social network group decision making with trust propagation. Knowl. Based Syst. 122, 39–50 (2017)
Devore, J.L., Berk, K.N.: Modern Mathematical Statistics with Applications. Springer, Chambridge (2012)
Zhang, H.J., Zhu, W.F., Chen, X., Wu, Y.Z., Liang, H.M., Li, C.C., Dong, Y.C.: Managing flexible linguistic expression and ordinal classification-based consensus in large-scale multi-attribute group decision making. Ann. Oper. Res. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-022-04687-3
Lai, X., Huang, Y.J., Gu, H.H., Deng, C., Han, X.B., Feng, X.N., Zheng, Y.F.: Turning waste into wealth: A systematic review on echelon utilization and material recycling of retired lithium-ion batteries. Energy Storage Mater. 40, 96–123 (2021)
Martinez-Laserna, E., Gandiaga, I., Sarasketa-Zabala, E., Badeda, J., Stroe, D.I., Swierczynski, M., Goikoetxea, A.: Battery second life: Hype, hope or reality? A critical review of the state of the art. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 93, 701–718 (2018)
Liao, Q.Q., Mu, M.M., Zhao, S.Q., Zhang, L.Z., Jiang, T., Ye, J.L., Shen, X.W., Zhou, G.D.: Performance assessment and classification of retired lithium ion battery from electric vehicles for energy storage. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy. 42, 18817–18823 (2017)
Hoarau, Q., Lorang, E.: An assessment of the European regulation on battery recycling for electric vehicles. Energy Policy. 162, 112770 (2022)
Choi, Y., Rhee, S.W.: Current status and perspectives on recycling of end-of-life battery of electric vehicle in Korea (Republic of). Waste Manag. 106, 261–270 (2020)
Bhuyan, A., Tripathy, A., Padhy, R.K., Gautam, A.: Evaluating the lithium-ion battery recycling industry in an emerging economy: A multi-stakeholder and multi-criteria decision-making approach. J. Clean. Prod. 331, 130007 (2022)
Acknowledgements
We would like to sincerely express our heartfelt gratitude to the members of our research team for their collaborative efforts and invaluable suggestions throughout this paper. Their contributions have been instrumental in enhancing the quality of this work. Additionally, we would like to extend our deep appreciation to the reviewers and editors for their constructive feedback, which has significantly improved the overall quality of this paper.
Funding
The work did not receive any funding support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Ziwei Tang formulated the research questions, constructed the model, and ultimately resolved it. Tiantian Hao and Dong Cheng contributed valuable suggestions to the development of the model in the study, assisted in choosing suitable methodologies for comparison analysis, and analyzed the findings of the research. Faxin Cheng contributed to the revision of the paper's introduction and conclusion.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
We declare that there is no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Tang, Z., Hao, T., Cheng, D. et al. Trust Improvement Consensus Model Considering Unreliability Degree of Opinions with Hesitant Fuzzy Sets. Int J Comput Intell Syst 17, 116 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44196-024-00507-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44196-024-00507-7