Measurements of Consensus in Multi-granular Linguistic Group Decision-Making

  • Enrique Herrera-Viedma
  • Francisco Mata
  • Luis Martínez
  • Francisco Chiclana
  • Luis G. Pérez
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3131)


The reaching of consensus in group decision-making (GDM) problems is a common task in group decision processes. In this contribution, we consider GDM with linguistic information. Different experts may have different levels of knowledge about a problem and, therefore, different linguistic term sets (multi-granular linguistic information) can be used to express their opinions.

The aim of this paper is to present different ways of measuring consensus in order to assess the level of agreement between the experts in multi-granular linguistic GDM problems. To make the measurement of consensus in multi-granular GDM problems possible and easier, it is necessary to unify the information assessed in different linguistic term sets into a single one. This is done using fuzzy sets defined on a basic linguistic term set (BLTS). Once the information is uniformed, two types of measurement of consensus are carried out: consensus degrees and proximity measures. The first type assesses the agreement among all the experts’ opinions, while the second type is used to find out how far the individual opinions are from the group opinion. The proximity measures can be used by a moderator in the consensus process to suggest to the experts the necessary changes to their opinions in order to be able to obtain the highest degree of consensus possible. Both types of measurements are computed in the three different levels of representation of information: pair of alternatives, alternatives and experts.


Consensus multi-granular linguistic information group decision-making linguistic modelling fuzzy preference relation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bonissone, P.P., Decker, K.S.: Selecting Uncertainty Calculi and Granularity: An Experiment in Trading-off Precision and Complexity. In: Kanal, L.H., Lemmer, J.F. (eds.) Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence,North-Holland, pp. 217–247 (1986)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bryson, N.: Group decision-making and the analytic hierarchy process: exploring the consensus-relevant information content. Computers and Operational Research 23, 27–35 (1996)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fodor, J., Roubens, M.: Fuzzy Preference Modelling and Multicriteria Decision Support .Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E., Mart´ınez, L.: A fusion aproach for managing multi-granularity linguistic term sets in decision making. Fuzzy Sets and System 114, 43–58 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E., Verdegay, J.L.: Linguistic Measures Based on Fuzzy Coincidence for Reaching Consensus in Group Decision Making. Int. J. of Approximate Reasoning, 309–334 (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Herrera-Viedma, E.: Modeling the retrieval process for an information retrieval system using an ordinal fuzzy linguistic approach. J. of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 52(6), 460–475 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Herrera-Viedma, E., Cordon, O., Luque, M., Lopez, A.G., Muñoz, A.N.: A Model of Fuzzy Linguistic IRS Based on Multi-Granular Linguistic Information. Int. J. of Approximate Reasoning 34(3), 221–239 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F., Chiclana, F.: A Consensus Model for Multiperson Decision Making with Different Preference Structures. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans 32, 394–402 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kacprzyk, J., Nurmi, H., Fedrizzi, M. (eds.): Consensus under Fuzziness. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marimin, Umano, M., Hatono, I., Tamure, H.: Linguistic labels for expressing fuzzy preference relations in fuzzy group decision making. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics-Part B: Cybernetics 28, 205–218 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Miller, G.A.: The magical number seven or minus two: some limits on our capacity of processing information. Psychological Rev. 63, 81–97 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Torra, V.: Aggregation of linguistic labels when semantics is based on antonyms Int. J. of Intelligent System 16, 513–524 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yager, R.R.: An Approach to Ordinal Decision Making. Int. J. of Approximate Reasoning 12, 237–261 (1995)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zadeh, L.A.: The Concept of a Linguistic Variable and Its Applications to Approximate Reasoning. Part I, Information Sciences 8, 199–249 (1975) , Part II, Information Sciences  8 ,301-357(1975) , Part III, Information Sciences  9 ,43-80 (1975)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zadrozny, S.: An Approach to the Consensus Reaching Support in Fuzzy Environment. In: Kacprzyk, J., Nurmi, H., Fedrizzi, M. (eds.) Consensus under Fuzziness, pp. 83–109. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Enrique Herrera-Viedma
    • 1
  • Francisco Mata
    • 2
  • Luis Martínez
    • 2
  • Francisco Chiclana
    • 3
  • Luis G. Pérez
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer Science and A.I.University of GranadaGranadaSpain
  2. 2.Dept. of Computer ScienceUniversity of JaénJaénSpain
  3. 3.Centre for Computational Intelligence, School of ComputingDe Montfort UniversityLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations