Decision SupportA cardinal dissensus measure based on the Mahalanobis distance
Graphical abstract
Introduction
In Decision Making Theory and its applications, consensus measurement and its reaching in a society (i.e., a group of agents or experts) are relevant research issues. Many studies investigating the aforementioned subjects have been carried out under several frameworks (see Cabrerizo, Moreno, Pérez, Herrera-Viedma, 2010, Dong, Xu, Li, 2008, Dong, Xu, Li, Feng, 2010, Dong, Zhang, 2014, Fedrizzi, Fedrizzi, Marques Pereira, 2007, Fu, Yang, 2012, Herrera-Viedma, Herrera, Chiclana, 2002, Liu, Liao, Yang, 2015, Palomares, Estrella-Liébana, Martínez, Herrera, 2014, Wu, Chiclana, 2014a, Wu, Chiclana, 2014b, Wu, Chiclana, Herrera-Viedma, 2015 among others) and based on different methodologies (Chiclana, Tapia García, del Moral, Herrera-Viedma, 2013, Cook, 2006, Eklund, Rusinowska, de Swart, 2008, Eklund, Rusinowska, Swart, 2007, Fedrizzi, Fedrizzi, Marques Pereira, 2007, Fu, Yang, 2011, Fu, Yang, 2010, Gong, Zhang, Forrest, Li, Xu, 2015, González-Pachón, Romero, 1999, Liu, Liao, Yang, 2015, Palomares, Martínez, 2014 among others).
Since the seminal contribution by Bosch (2005) several authors have addressed the consensus measurement topic from an axiomatic perspective. Earlier analyses can be mentioned, e.g., Hays (1960) or Day and McMorris (1985). This issue is also seen as the problem of combining a set of ordinal rankings to obtain an indicator of their ‘consensus’, a term with multiple possible meanings (Martínez-Panero, 2011).
Generally speaking, the usual axiomatic approaches assume that each individual expresses his or her opinions through ordinal preferences over the alternatives. A group of agents is characterized by the set of their preferences – their preference profile. Then a consensus measure is a mapping which assigns to each preference profile a number between 0 and 1. The assumption is made that the higher the values, the more consensus in the profile.
Technical restrictions on the preferences provide various approaches in the literature. In most cases the agents are presumed to linearly order the alternatives (see Bosch, 2005 or Alcalde-Unzu & Vorsatz, 2013). Since this assumption seems rather demanding (especially as the number of alternatives grows), an obvious extension is to allow for ties. This is the case where the agents have complete preorders on the alternatives (e.g., García-Lapresta & Pérez-Román, 2011). Alcantud, de Andrés Calle, Cascón, 2015, Alcantud, de Andrés Calle, Cascón, 2013a take a different position. They study the case where agents have dichotomous opinions on the alternatives, a model that does not necessarily require pairwise comparisons.
Notwithstanding the use of different ordinal preference frameworks, the problem of how to measure consensus is an open-ended question in several research areas. This fact is due to that methodology used in each case is a relevant element in the problem addressed. To date various methods have been developed to measure consensus under ordinal preference structures based on distances and association measures like Kemeny’s distance, Kendall’s coefficient, Goodman-Kruskal’s index and Spearman’s coefficient among others (see e.g., Cook, Seiford, 1982, Goodman, Kruskal, 1979, Kemeny, 1959, Kendall, Gibbons, 1990, Spearman, 1904).
In this paper we first tackle the analysis of coherence that derives from profiles of cardinal rather than ordinal evaluations. Modern convention applies the term cardinal to measurements that assign significance to differences (cf., Basu, 1982, Chiclana, Herrera-Viedma, Alonso, Herrera, 2009, High, Bloch, 1989). In contrast ordinal preferences only permit to order the alternatives from best to worst without any additional information. To see how this affects the analysis of our problem, let us consider a naive example of a society with two agents. They evaluate two public goods with monetary amounts. One agent gives a value of 1€ for the first good and 2€ for the second good. The other agent values these goods at 10€ and 90€ respectively. If we only use the ordinal information in this case, we should conclude that there is unanimity in the society: all members agree that ‘good 2 is more valuable than good 1’. However the agents disagree largely. Therefore, the subtleties of cardinality clearly have an impact when we aim at measuring the cohesiveness of cardinal evaluations.
Unlike previous references, we adopt the notion of dissensus measure as the fundamental concept. This seems only natural because it resembles more the notion of a “measure of statistical dispersion”, in the sense that 0 captures the natural notion of unanimity as total lack of variability among agents, and then increasingly higher numbers mean more disparity among evaluations in the profile.1
In order to build a particular dissensus measure we adopt a distance-based approach. Firstly, one computes the distances between each pair of individuals. Then all these distances are aggregated. In our present proposal the distances (or similarities) are computed through the Mahalanobis distance (Mahalanobis, 1936). We thus define the class of Mahalanobis dissensus measures.
The Mahalanobis distance plays an important role in Statistics and Data Analysis. It arises as a natural generalization of the Euclidean distance. A Mahalanobis distance accounts for the effects of differences in scales and associations among magnitudes. Consequently, building on the well-known performance of the Mahalanobis distance, our novel proposal seems especially fit for the cases when the measurement units of the issues are different, e.g., performance appraisal processes when employees are evaluated attending to their productivity and their leadership capacity; or where the issues are correlated. For example, evaluation of related public projects. An antecedent for the weaker case of profiles of preferences has been provided elsewhere, cf. Alcantud, de Andrés Calle, and González-Arteaga (2013b), and an application to comparisons of real rankings on universities worldwide is developed. Here we apply our new indicator to a real situation, namely, economic forecasts made by several agencies. Since the forecasts concern economic quantities, they have an intrinsic value which is naturally cardinal and also there are relations among them.
The paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, we introduce basic notation and definitions. In Section 3, we set forth the class of the Mahalanobis dissensus measures and their main properties. Section 4 provides a comparison of several Mahalanobis dissensus measures. Next, a practical application with discussion is given in Section 5. Finally, we present some concluding remarks. Appendices contain proofs of some properties and a short review in matrix algebra.
Section snippets
Notation and definitions
This section is devoted to introduce some notation and a new concept in order to compare group cohesiveness: namely, dissensus measures. Then, a comparison with the standard approach is made. We partially borrow notation and definitions from Alcantud et al. (2013b). In addition, we use some elements of matrix analysis that we recall in Appendix B to make the paper self-contained.
Let be the finite set of k issues, options, alternatives, or candidates. It is assumed that X contains at
The class of Mahalanobis dissensus measures and its properties
In this section we introduce a broad class of dissensus measures that depends on a reference matrix, namely the Mahalanobis dissensus measures. We also give its more prominent properties.
Our interest is to cover the specific characteristics in cardinal profiles, like possible differences in scales, and correlations among the issues. Before providing our main definition, we recover the definition of the Mahalanobis distance on which our measure is based.
Definition 2 Let be a positive definite matrix
Comparison of Mahalanobis dissensus measures
In practical situations we could potentially use various Mahalanobis dissensus measures for profiles of cardinal information.5 Hence it is worth studying the relations among evaluations achieved when we vary the reference matrices. This section addresses this point.
Theorems 1 and 2 below identify conditions on matrices that ensure consistent comparisons between Mahalanobis dissensus measures, whatever the number of agents. Based on these
Discussion on practical application using a real example
In this section we fully develop a real example. It aims at giving an explicit application of our proposal and discussing some of its features.
We are interested in assessing the cohesiveness of the forecasts of various magnitudes for the Spanish Economy in 2014: GDP (Gross Domestic Product), Unemployment Rate, Public Deficit, Public Debt and Inflation. These forecasts have been published by different institutions and organizations, and each one was made at around the same time. Specifically,
Concluding remarks
We explore the problem of measuring the degree of cohesiveness in a setting where experts express their opinions on alternatives or issues by means of cardinal evaluations. We use the general concept of dissensus measure and introduce one particular formulation based on the Mahalanobis distance for numerical vectors, namely the Mahalanobis dissensus measure.
We provide some properties which make our proposal appealing. We emphasize that the Mahalanobis dissensus measure on the profiles with k
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the three anonymous reviewers and Roman Slowinski (handling editor) for their valuable comments and recommendations. T. González-Arteaga acknowledges financial support by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (Project ECO2012-32178). J. C. R. Alcantud acknowledges financial support by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (Project ECO2012-31933). R. de Andrés Calle acknowledges financial support by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad
References (44)
- et al.
On measures of cohesiveness under dichotomous opinions: Some characterizations of approval consensus measures
Information Sciences
(2013) - et al.
A statistical comparative study of different similarity measures of consensus in group decision making
Information Sciences
(2013) Distance-based and ad hoc consensus models in ordinal preference ranking
European Journal of Operational Research
(2006)- et al.
A formalization of consensus index methods
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
(1985) - et al.
On consistency measures of linguistic preference relations
European Journal of Operational Research
(2008) - et al.
The owa-based consensus operator under linguistic representation models using position indexes
European Journal of Operational Research
(2010) - et al.
Multiperson decision making with different preference representation structures: A direct consensus framework and its properties
Knowledge-Based Systems
(2014) - et al.
Consensus reaching in committees
European Journal of Operational Research
(2007) - et al.
An attribute weight based feedback model for multiple attributive group decision analysis problems with group consensus requirements in evidential reasoning context
European Journal of Operational Research
(2011) - et al.
The group consensus based evidential reasoning approach for multiple attributive group decision analysis
European Journal of Operational Research
(2010)
An evidential reasoning based consensus model for multiple attribute group decision analysis problems with interval-valued group consensus requirements
European Journal of Operational Research
Distance-based consensus methods: a goal programming approach
Omega
Measures of association for cross classifications
Measures of association for cross classifications
Consensus perspectives: Glimpses into theoretical advances and application
The proof and measurement of association between two things
American Journal of Psycology
Trust based consensus model for social network in an incomplete linguistic information context
Applied Soft Computing
Measuring the cohesiveness of preferences: An axiomatic analysis
Social Choice and Welfare
Pairwise dichotomous cohesiveness measures
Group Decision and Negotiation
Codifications of complete preorders that are compatible with Mahalanobis consensus measures
On the measurement of inequality
Review of Economic Studies
Characterizations of voting rules and consensus measures
Analyzing consensus approaches in fuzzy group decision making: Advantages and drawbacks
Soft Computing
Cited by (11)
Consensus measures based on a fuzzy concept
2024, European Journal of Operational ResearchGroup hierarchical DEMATEL method for reaching consensus
2023, Computers and Industrial EngineeringCitation Excerpt :One topic is the standard of consensus. Many scholars have used consistency to measure group consensus, such as Kemeny (Cook, 2006), Maha-Lanobis (González-Arteaga et al., 2016), Manhattan (Alcantud et al., 2013), and Jacard, Dice, and Cos (Chiclana et al., 2013). Another topic is the feedback mechanism.
Minimum deviation ordinal consensus reaching in GDM with heterogeneous preference structures
2018, Applied Soft Computing JournalCitation Excerpt :Chiclana et al. [11] provided an interesting comparative study for the uses of different distance functions to measure consensus. Recently, González-Arteaga et al. [26] defined a new cardinal consensus measure based on the mahalanobis distance. Besides, another class of consensus model is based on the ordinal consensus measure [1,7,8,12–14,32].
A new consensus ranking approach for correlated ordinal information based on Mahalanobis distance
2016, Information SciencesCitation Excerpt :Generally speaking, experts can express their opinions by means of ordinal or cardinal information, the former being more extensively used in the research issue addressed in this work. Nonetheless, contributions dealing with cardinal information include the approaches proposed by Herrera-Viedma, Herrera and Chiclana [36], González-Pachón and Romero [30] and González-Arteaga, Alcantud and de Andrés Calle [26]. The representation of ordinal information has been a subject of study for over two centuries for linear orders (see e.g., [3,9]), weak orders(see e.g., [4,16,24]) and fuzzy preferences (see e.g., [12,22,51,56], among others).
A new measure of consensus with reciprocal preference relations: The correlation consensus degree
2016, Knowledge-Based SystemsEvaluation of the business environment of participating countries of the belt and road initiative
2020, Technological and Economic Development of Economy