Expert Systems With Applications 195 (2022) 116527

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Expert Systems With Applications

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa

A risky large group emergency decision-making method based on topic

sentiment analysis
Jing Cao a, b, Xuanhua Xu a, *, 1, Xuanpeng Yin a, b, *, Bin Pan b, *
a
School of Business, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China
b
Hunan University of Finance and Economics, Changsha, Hunan, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study proposes a decision-making method based on topic sentiment analysis to address the problem of
Topic sentiment analysis completely data-driven attribute information acquisition and risk control of the intuitionistic fuzzy preference in
Large group large group emergency decision-making. First, Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) topic mining is applied to rank
Risky emergency decision
public topics and construct an emergency sentiment dictionary for topic sentiment analysis. The attribute system
structure and weight information of large group emergency decision-making can be obtained by transforming the
high-concern topic sentiment value. Second, with the public attention attribute and public attribute preference as
references for large group emergency decision-making, risk measurement under the intuitionistic fuzzy prefer­
ence model is based on risk credibility. The risk–consensus feedback mechanism of large group emergency
decision-making is designed to obtain the high-consensus and low-risk alternative. Finally, the applicability and
effectiveness of the method are demonstrated using a case study involving a serious explosion accident.

1. Introduction In such an environment, emergency decision-makers need to quickly

With the rapid economic and social development, factors contrib­
uting to increasing social complexity and uncertainty are on the rise.
Various man-made or natural emergencies occur from time to time, such
as the COVID-19 pandemic, earthquakes, fire disasters, extreme
weather, terrorist attacks, and others. In particular, there have been
occurrences of major emergencies, which are often sudden, complex,
highly destructive, and with high time pressure. All kinds of accidents
involve a wide range of scenarios, and the complexity of the event and
the difficulty of coping with it are significantly increased, causing not
only a large number of casualties and property losses but also a
considerably negative social impact. The event thus draws the attention
of the public and government departments (Rexiline Ragini, Rubesh
Anand, & Bhaskar, 2018).
Once such a major emergency occurs, a large amount of information
about disasters, as well as the environment and resources, emerge.
Specifically, prompt public participation in a network to comment on
the incident creates a torrent of data, which creates an opportunity for
driving emergency rescue in the big data environment (Moulik, Misra, &
Obaidat, 2015).
converge and comprehensively analyze all kinds of relevant information
in a very short period. They should, according to the situation at the
scene, utilize limited resources to choose the best emergency alternative
to minimize casualties, property damage, environmental damage, and
social impact (Bose, Reinal, & Marshall, 2017). The amount of decision-
making information is expanding rapidly. With the complexity of events
and information, decision-makers or small groups increasingly struggle
to meet accuracy and objectivity as requirements in decision-making,
which test the technologies and methods of traditional emergency
decision-making in an all-round way, and challenge the accuracy and
scientificity of decision-making. Therefore, large group decision-making
in emergency situations is clearly needed in emergencies and has
become a reliable and efficient mainstream approach to solving complex
emergency problems (Chan, Lizzeri, Suen & Yariv, 2018).
Faced with the huge amount of emergency information and a com­
plex decision-making environment, it is often difficult to make
comprehensive and reasonable judgments due to constraints such as the
cognitive level, knowledge, and experience of the decision-makers. The
organizational structure (Csaszar, 2013), professional background
(Aggarwal, & Woolley, 2013), communication and coordination

* Corresponding authors at: School of Business, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
E-mail addresses: xuxh@csu.edu.cn (X. Xu), yxpbscsu@csu.edu.cn (X. Yin), panbin109@163.com (B. Pan).
1
ORCID: 0000-0001-7340-8902.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.116527
Received 29 March 2020; Received in revised form 21 December 2021; Accepted 7 January 2022
Available online 29 January 2022
0957-4174/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Cao et al.
mechanisms of large groups of emergency decision-makers, there will
inevitably be negative group effects, leading to varying degrees of
explicit and implicit risks of large group emergency decision-making, of
which the impacts cannot be ignored. The risks in diversified large group
decision-making are, among others, mainly due to the characteristics of
the decision-making group and the group decision-making mechanism.
These affect in-depth information sharing and exchanges of opinions
among decision-makers, the efficiency of consensus formation, and the
scientificity and accuracy of decision-making (Borgonovo, Cappelli &
Maccheroni, 2018). If effective measures are not taken to limit these risk
factors within a controllable range, the efficient operation of large group
emergency decision-making is restricted, influencing the results of
decision-making. Consequently, decision-making errors arise, rendering
the emergency rescue inefficient or a failure.
Meanwhile, there are many sources of information related to major
emergencies. Featuring a huge volume of data, diversified data struc­
tures, and an abundance of data types and scales, they contain a large
amount of regular information (Starcke, & Brand, 2016). Especially, the
public’s opinions on the emergency response are educating and highly
valuable. Social platforms, such as Weibo, Wechat, and Facebook, have
become the mainstream way for people to express their opinions and
exchange ideas. Besides, these commentary texts not only reflect public
concerns, but also the public’s emotional responses to the event. With
the users being widely distributed, large in scale, diverse in structure,
and densely linked, these platforms can be sources to mine the public’s
concerns and emotional dynamics, which can be moderately used to
guide the emergency response departments in their decision-making and
resolve public opinion crises (Zavgorodniy, Lukyanov, & Nazarov,
2014).
As a result, several pressing issues need to be solved in large group
emergency decision-making, including finding the methods to improve
support for large group decision-making in emergencies, selecting reli­
able data sources, using commentary data to obtain valuable informa­
tion to assist large group emergency decision-making, effectively cope
with and control the risks of large group emergency decision-making,
and obtain the optimal decision-making solution.
Research on how to use emergency-related data to assist emergency
decision-making, data has become the most important resource, and
increasing attention has been devoted to the acquisition, analysis, and
value realization of accurate information (Hampton et al., 2013).
Obtaining high-value information from massive amounts of data is one
of the important applications of data science. Thus, it is clear that the
commentary data on social platforms have become the most influencing
source for emergency decision-making (Dargin, Fan, & Mostafavi,
2021).
With the rapid development of social media, text topic mining has
been widely used, and it has become a more mature technique in big
data natural language processing, mining public opinions and classi­
fying them from a large number of unstructured texts (Lara, Filippo,
Eleonora, Pietro, Marco, Francesco, & Pier, 2020). Social media such as
Twitter and microblogging have been widely used in various emergency
and disaster scenarios (Xu, Wang, Chen & Liu, 2019). For example,
Twitter data involving emergencies can be used to monitor the public’s
sentiment, develop analytical web platforms that incorporate internal
and external data from the region (Woo, Cho, Shim, Lee, & Song, 2015),
and conduct research on the geographical and temporal distribution of
emergencies, so as to improve the effectiveness and timeliness of
emergency decision-making (Pérez-González, Colebrook, Roda-García,
& Rosa-Remedios, 2019). Meanwhile, given the similarities in the
emergency responses of similar events, historical events can be of
referential value for decision-making on real-time events. Therefore, we
should take historical event data as a source for discovering knowledge
to accurately and objectively discover information related to the attri­
butes of the large-group emergency decision-making from the com­
mentary data on social networking platforms (Romanowski, Raj,
Schneider, Mishra, Shivshankar, Ayengar, & Cueva, 2015). The topic
2
Expert Systems With Applications 195 (2022) 116527
mining can effectively solve the self-classification of public concerned
topics in the commentary data of emergencies on social platforms, and
transform the results of text sentiment analysis into public preference
information, which is an effective way to improve the objectivity of
attribute weight determination and achieve a fully data-driven deter­
mination of the attribute structure of large-group emergency decision-
making.
In terms of risk research, the existing literature rarely covers studies
on decision-making risks caused by decision-makers’ conflicting risk
preferences (Garcia, Obeidi, & Hipel, 2018), decision hesitation
(Schuldt, Chabris, Woolley & Hackman, 2017), knowledge, expertise
(Hertwig, 2012), and others. In addition, the applications of risk mea­
surement and control methods in emergency decision-making are
limited. Therefore, the literature is basically oriented towards the more
common emergency decision-making problems, providing only a
limited reference for the measurement and control of risks in emergency
decision-making (Körte, 2003). Considering that large group emergency
decision-making is more complex and time-consuming, and it is more
difficult to identify and control the decision-making risks than that of the
other types of decision-making, there is still room for further in-depth
research on the measurement methods and control mechanisms for the
risks of large group emergency decision-making.
Hence, this paper attempts to eliminate the negative impact of the
subjective one-sidedness of the large group decision-makers by inte­
grating big data technology with the large group theory and methods to
explore the access to the valuable information of data related to emer­
gencies and its technical implementation, obtain highly valuable infor­
mation relevant to emergencies contained in big data to assist large
group emergency decision-making, and analyze the risk problems in
large group emergency decision-making in the hope of achieving the
goal of transforming the advantage of data into that of decision-making
and to propose targeted large group emergency decision-making
methods.
To achieve this goal, (i) a complete data-driven method for attribute
information acquisition based on topic sentiment analysis is presented;
(ii) a risk measurement method for large group emergency decision-
making based on credibility is designed; and (iii) a mechanism for
controlling decision risk and improving decision consensus is proposed.
This study is structured as follows: Section 2 enumerates the preliminary
steps and the methodological basis. Section 3 discusses the principles of
a risky large group emergency decision-making method. Section 4 pre­
sents a case study to demonstrate the application of the method. Section
5 the methodological contributions are given. Finally, the conclusions
drawn are stated in Section 5.
2. Preliminaries and methodological basis
2.1. Topic sentiment analysis
2.1.1. Topic mining
Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) is a three-layer Bayesian proba­
bility model based on the “document–topic–word” concept proposed by
Blei in 2003. It is a topic generation model for text clustering. The model
considers a document as a mixture of multiple hidden topics and eval­
uates the correlation between morphemes and topics in a corpus by the
probability of words under a topic classification. It is a method to
automatically discover hidden topics in the target text through unsu­
pervised learning; moreover, it possesses an efficient sampling reasoning
algorithm and generalization ability.
2.1.2. Sentiment analysis
Sentiment analysis is a computational study of opinions, emotions,
and attitudes expressed in text number and is a natural language pro­
cessing technology (Serrano-Guerrero, Olivas, Romero, & Herrera-
Viedma, 2015). The existing sentiment analysis technology can be
divided into two categories: (i) affective analysis based on machine
J. Cao et al.
learning and (ii) affective analysis based on the dictionary (Medhat,
Hassan, & Korashy, 2014). The present study selects the sentiment
analysis technology based on the dictionary. The core aim of dictionary-
based sentiment analysis is to construct a sentiment dictionary. In
dictionary-based sentiment analysis, the sentiment words are first
determined manually; the synonyms and antonyms of the sentiment
words are then searched in commonly used corpora, such as BosonNLP,
WordNet, HowNet, or Thesaurus to find new sentiment words and
thereby increase the number of sentiment words. The iterative process is
based on the obtained sentiment words and continues until no new
sentiment words and sentiment dictionary are found.
2.1.3. Process of topic sentiment analysis
To obtain the topic focus and the topic sentiment orientation, the
solution is divided into two parts (Ravi, & Ravi, 2015). First, LDA topic
mining is conducted on the text data, and the sentiment orientation of
each topic is identified based on the sentiment analysis. In public com­
ments on events in social networks, brief sentences or few sentences are
used to express opinions and attitudes about events. Although the
emotion analysis technology based on machine learning is more suitable
for document-level sentiment analysis, dictionary-based sentiment
analysis is more suitable for sentence-level emergency public comment
data (Liu, Bi, & Fan, 2017).
Therefore, the current study chooses dictionary-based sentiment
analysis to identify the positive, neutral, and negative sentiment orien­
tation of comments on social media regarding emergencies. The tech­
nical flow of topic sentiment analysis is presented in Fig. 1:
As shown in Fig. 1, the specific steps of topic sentiment analysis are
as follows:
Data acquisition
After an emergency occurs, network users can acquire all kinds of
consultation and information related to the event via news media,
microblogs, WeChat, Post bar, Forum, and instant communication tools,
among others, and express their feelings, opinions, and views regarding
the event. They can use the software Octopus to crawl public comment
data from various platforms. The data are divided into four categories
based on the type of emergency: natural disaster, social security, acci­
dent disaster, and public health. The public comment database of
emergencies is then established.
Data preprocessing
To facilitate follow-up data mining and improve the accuracy of the
results, the text data requires preprocessing. The text data includes word
segmentation, part-of-speech tagging, and stop-word deletion. By using
Microblog Forum Zhihu
Network environment
Sentiment analysis algorithm
Topic sentiment Sentiment
orientation dictionary
HowNet sentiment dictionary
Fig. 1. Technical process of topic sentiment analysis.
Expert Systems With Applications 195 (2022) 116527
word segmentation, the sentence is divided into several words, and the
part of speech is tagged. For instance, given the comment in the form of a
sentence “向英雄致敬, 也希望伤亡人数不要增加(Salute the hero and
hope the number of casualties will not increase)” after word segmen­
tation and part-of-speech tagging, the output result is 向/p 英雄/n 致敬/
vi , /wd 也/d 希望/v 伤亡/vn 人数/n 不要/v 增加/v. To improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of sentiment analysis, stop words, which
refer to words that often appear in the text but contain no important
information, need to be deleted. The stop words are deleted after seg­
mentation and part-of-speech tagging by using the Chinese stop words
on GitHub. In the aforementioned example, the stop words are “向/p,/
wd也/d不要/v .”
Topic mining
The LDA algorithm in 2.1.1 is used to mine the topic of the pre­
processed historically similar events and real-time data to obtain the
public focus of similar events. Assuming that there are H public con­
cerns, T={T1, T2,…,TH}. The first several topics with high attention are
selected as the alternative topic set for the follow-up sentiment analysis,
and they are recorded as follows: T={TTop 1, TTop 2, …, TTop N}, where N
is the number of topics selected.
Establishment of emergency emotion dictionary
Generally, the positive or negative emotion dictionaries of different
subjects may vary. In reality, a word may belong to a positive sentiment
dictionary of one topic and a negative sentiment dictionary of another
topic. For example, the word “high” belongs to a negative emotion
dictionary of “casualties” and a positive emotion dictionary of “rescue
efficiency.” Therefore, dictionaries of positive and negative emotions
need to be established for emergency response. These dictionaries
should be based on existing emotion dictionaries in accordance with the
characteristics of public concern in emergencies.
T T T T
Suppose Z i = {Z1i , Z2i , ..., Zh i } is a set of sentiment words related to
T
Ti, where h is the number of sentiment words related to Ti, and Z i can be
obtained by extracting adjectives, adverbs, and verbs from the set. In
GT+ GT+ GT+ GT− GT− GT−
addition, ZGT = {Z1 , Z2 , ..., Z4566 } and ZGT = {Z1 , Z2 , ..., Z4370 }
+ −
are the sets of words related to positive and negative emotions in the
HowNet sentiment dictionary, where ZGT includes 4566 positive senti­
+
ment words, and ZGT includes 4370 negative sentiment words. The
−
positive and negative sentiment word sets related to the topic Ti are
(1)
+ + Ti
Z Ti = Z GT ∩ Z
Octopus
software
…
Text data
Jieba(Chinese text
segmentation)
Topic categorization
Preprocessing data
T1, T2, …, TN
LDA(topic mining)
3
J. Cao et al. Expert Systems With Applications 195 (2022) 116527

− −
Z Ti = Z GT ∩ Z
Ti
(2) Intuitionistic fuzzy numbers, which are among the most effective tools
to solve uncertain decision information, is a useful tool for managing
fuzziness, ambiguity, and hesitation. They can simultaneously reflect
where ZTi is the positive sentiment word set of Ti, and ZTi is the negative
+ −
the degrees of support, hesitation, and opposition to the evaluation or
sentiment word set of Ti. For the sentiment orientation of sentiment
judgment of certain events. Therefore, in the present study, an intui­
words that cannot be correctly recognized by the HowNet sentiment
tionistic fuzzy number is chosen as the preferred tool for decision-
dictionary, the positive and negative sentiment orientation of sentiment
makers, and the proportion of topic emotion of public concern is
words related to different topics can be determined by sentiment
transformed into an intuitionistic fuzzy form, so as to measure the risk of
recognition.
decision-making.

Determination of topic sentiment orientation

2.2.1. Definition and operation of an intuitionistic fuzzy set

The sentiment orientation of a topic depends on the sentiments of the Definition 1. ((Atanassov, 1986)) An intuitionistic fuzzy set A in the
sentences, and the sentiment of a sentence depends on the sentiments of universe of discourse X={x1, x2, …, xn} is defined as
the words it contains. Let STj i = (xTj i , yTj i , zTj i ) be the sentiment orientation
A = { < x, uA (x), vA (x) > |x ∈ X} (9)
vector of sentence j in topic Ti, where xTj i ,yTj i ,zTj i represent the percent­
ages of positive, neutral, and negative sentiment words in sentence j, where uA(x) and vA(x) are subsets of [0,1], denoting the membership and
respectively, and xTj i + yTj i + zTj i = 0/1. If a sentence contains only nonmembership of × to A, respectively. For any x ∈ X, 0 ≤ uA(x) + vA(x)
positive sentiment words, the sentiment orientation of the sentence is ≤ 1, the intuitionistic fuzzy index or hesitation is expressed as πA(x) = 1-
positive; that is, STj i = (1,0,0). If there a sentence contains only negative uA(x)-vA(x), π A(x) ∈ [0,1].
sentiment words, the sentiment orientation of the sentence is negative; Definition 2. ((Atanassov, 1986)) Suppose that there are two intui­
that is STj i = (0, 0, 1). If a sentence contains an expressionless word, the tionistic fuzzy sets in the universe of discourse, the relations and oper­
sentence has a neutral sentiment orientation; that is, STj i = (0, 1, 0). ators between them are defined as follows:
When a sentence contains both positive and negative sentiment words,
A ⊂ B iff (∀x ∈ X)(uA(x) ≤ uB(x), 且vA(x) > vB(x));
then STj i = (aj /(aj + bj + cj ),bj /(aj + bj + cj ),cj /(aj + bj + cj )), where aj , bj ,
A = B iff A ⊂ B且B ⊂ A;
cj denote the number of positive, neutral, and negative sentiment words A={<x, vA(x), uA(x)> |x ∈ X };
in sentence j , respectively (Bi, Liu, & Fan, 2019). λA ={<x, 1-(1-uA(x)) λ, (vA(x)) λ> |x ∈ X },λ > 0;
Let STi = (XTi , Y Ti , ZTi ) is the sentiment orientation vector of Ti; thus, A ∩ B={<x, min(uA(x), uB(x)), max(vA(x), vB(x))> |x ∈ X };
J Ti
∑ A ∪ B={<x, max(uA(x), uB(x)), min(vA(x), vB(x))> |x ∈ X };
X Ti = xTj i (3) A + B={<x, uA(x) + uB(x)- uA(x)⋅uB(x), vA(x)⋅vB(x)> |x ∈ X };
j=1 A⋅B={<x, uA(x)⋅uB(x), vA(x) + vB(x)- vA(x)⋅vB(x)> |x ∈ X };

J Ti
∑
Y Ti = yTj i (4)
j=1 Definition 3. The score function and exact function of the intuition­
istic fuzzy set A={<x, uA(x), vA(x) >|x ∈ X} are as follows:
J Ti
∑
Z Ti = zTj i (5)
j=1
S(x) = uA (x) − vA (x) (10)

where XTi , Y Ti and ZTi denote the positive, neutral, and negative senti­ H(x) = uA (x) + vA (x) (11)
ment orientations of Ti, respectively. Thus, the positive, neutral, and Suppose that there are two intuitionistic fuzzy numbers a=(ua, va)
negative sentiment ratios of the topic Ti are and b=(ub, vb); if S(a) > S(b), then a > b; if S(a) < S(b), then a < b; if S
X Ti (a) = S(b), it needs to be determined by the exact functions H(a) and H
Ti
SENTPos = (6) (b); if H(a) > H(b), then a > b; if H(a) < H(b), then a < b; if H(a) = H(b),
X Ti + Y Ti + Z Ti
then a = b.
Y Ti In the emergency decision-making process, the preferences of large
Ti
SENTNeu = (7) group decision-makers for different attributes of each alternative have to
X Ti + Y Ti + Z Ti
be provided; however, owing to the limitations of the decision-making
Z Ti environment, the decision-makers may be uncertain, to a certain
Ti
SENTNeg = (8)
X Ti + Y Ti + Z Ti extent, of the preference information they provide. Therefore, using
intuitive fuzzy values rather than precise values or linguistic variables is
Ti Ti Ti
where SENTPos ,SENTNeu and SENTNeg represent the positive, neutral, and a highly suitable method to express the preferences of decision-makers.
Ti
negative sentiment ratios of the topic Ti, respectively, and SENTPos + The decision preference matrix of an intuitionistic fuzzy set is A ̃m =
Ti Ti Ti Ti Ti
SENTNeu + SENTNeg = 1, and SENTPos ⩾0, SENTNeu ⩾0, SENTNeg ⩾0. m
anp )N×P , where ̃
(̃
m
anp = (um m m m
np ,vnp ), unp andvnp ∈ [0,1] represent the degrees
of satisfaction and dissatisfaction for expert m for the nth attribute of the
pth alternative, and 0⩽um m
np + vnp ⩽1, where n=(1, 2, …, N), p=(1, 2, …,
2.2. Credibility-based risk measurement of large group emergency
decision P). Thus, the intuitionistic fuzzy preference matrix of the decision expert
m is
The process of decision-making involves uncertainty because objec­
tive things are uncertain and complex. Management and modeling of
uncertainty information are crucial to obtain the ideal solution.

4
J. Cao et al. Expert Systems With Applications 195 (2022) 116527

a1 a2 ... aP acceptance, and preference hesitation are shown in Fig. 2, which reflects
⎛ ⎞
( ) ( ) ( ) the relationship between expert preference hesitation and reference
( m) c1 ⎜ um , vm11 um , vm12 ... um1P , vm1P ⎟ preference hesitation. The smaller the difference between expert
⎜ ( 11 ) ( 12 ) ( ) ⎟
A
m
̃ = ̃
a = c2 ⎜
⎜ um21 , vm21 um22 , vm22 ... um2P , vm2P ⎟⎟ decision-making preference and reference decision-making preference,
np N×P
⋮
⎜
⎜
⎟
⎟ the higher the risk credibility of expert decision-making; otherwise, the
⎜( ⋮ ) (
⋮
)
⋱ ⋮
( m m )⎟ larger the difference, the lower the risk credibility of decision-making.
cN ⎝ um , vm umN2 , vmN2 ... uNP , vNP ⎠
N1 N1

Support function of intuitionistic fuzzy preference

(12)

Generally, the lower the decision risk, the higher the likelihood that
2.2.2. Risk measurement of intuitionistic fuzzy information
the decision preference will gain support from decision experts; the
higher the decision risk is, the lower the likelihood for the decision
Risk credibility function of the intuitionistic fuzzy preference
preference to get the support of experts. To reflect the relationship be­
tween the decision risk and decision support, the parameter of the
By considering the differences in attributes, an intuitionistic fuzzy
support degree (qj) and the risk preference (pj) are established, and the
preference risk credibility function, which consists of the degree of
support function of the intuitionistic fuzzy preference is constructed
discrepancy (fj) and the degree of acceptance (gj), is constructed based
based on the intuitionistic fuzzy score function.
on the degree of hesitation. The purpose is two-fold: (i) to show the
deviation in the expert assessment of the attributes of the alternatives Definition 5. Suppose that there are two interval fuzzy numbers a=
and (ii) to reveal the gap in breadth (comprehensiveness) between (ua,va) and b=(ub,vb), where a is the intuitionistic fuzzy preference value
expert judgment and public judgment. The degree of discrepancy is of an expert decision under the attribute j of an alternative, and b is the
expressed as the acceptable degree of deviation between the degrees of reference decision preference value under the same attribute, then under
hesitation. The smaller the degree of discrepancy, the easier it is for the one attribute of an alternative, the support function of the intuitionistic
decision risk to reach the tolerance threshold and the narrower the range fuzzy preference of the expert decision is expressed as follows:
of reliability of the decision. The degree of acceptance is the lowest
degree of recognition between the degrees of hesitation. The greater the ⎧
degree of acceptance, the lower the risk of decision-making and the ⎪
⎪
⎪
if Sa + qj > Sb ,
⎪ 1
wider the range of decision-making credibility. ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
Definition 4. Suppose that there are two interval fuzzy numbers a= ⎨ if Sa + pj < Sb ,
(ua, va) and b=(ub, vb), where a is the intuitionistic fuzzy preference ψ (a, b) = 0 (14)
⎪
⎪
⎪
value of the expert decision under the attribute j of an alternative, and b ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
is the reference decision preference value under the same attribute, then ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
pj − (Sb − Sa )
other.
⎩
under one attribute of an alternative, the risk credibility function of the pj − qj
intuitionistic fuzzy preference of the expert decision is expressed as
follows:
where Sa is the score function of expert judgment, Sb is the score function
⎧ of the reference decision preference, and 0 ≤ qj ≤ pj ≤ 1.
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0 if πa < πb + fj ; The support degree of the decision is closely related to the intui­
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ tionistic fuzzy score function. The closer the score function, the higher
⎪
⎪
⎨ the similarity of the decision preference is; the closer the decision to the
τ(a, b) = 1 if π a > πb + gj ; (13) current choice, the smaller the difference in the decision risk. By
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ comparing the intuitionistic fuzzy score functions, the changing rela­
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ (πa − π b ) − fj tionship of decision support degree is shown in Fig. 3:
⎪
⎩ other.
gj − fj
Risk function of intuitionistic fuzzy preference
where πa is the degree of hesitation of expert judgment, πb is the degree
of hesitation of reference decision preference, and 0 ≤ fj ≤ gj ≤ 1. The decision preference of each decision-making alternative is
The relationship among the degree of discrepancy, the degree of determined by the decision-making attribute judgment of large group
decision-makers. The levels of mastery, understanding, and processing
of the decision-making information are limited because of the short

Fig. 2. Graph of the risk credibility function of intuitionistic fuzzy preference. Fig. 3. Graph of the support function of intuitionistic fuzzy preference.

5
J. Cao et al. Expert Systems With Applications 195 (2022) 116527

decision-making time, relatively high decision-making pressure, and ⎡ l

⎤
factors such as the professional background, knowledge level, risk [ ] MG
∑ ′

(17)
Gl l m
R− I : R = RGnp =⎣ wi × Rnpi ⎦
preference, and judgment ability of the decision-maker. Thus, the N×P
i=1
decision-making preference of the decision-maker under different at­ N×P

tributes of different alternative schemes cannot be 100% accurate and [ ( Gl )]

can have certain risks. In the intuitionistic fuzzy preference environ­ l
R − II : RG = ρm ̃
a , bn (18)
ment, on the basis of the aforementioned risk credibility function and np N×P

support function of intuitionistic fuzzy preference, the risk function of

intuitionistic fuzzy preference is constructed as follows (Shen, Xu, & Xu,
l
MG
1 ∑
(19)
l l

2016): R − III : RG = G l R mi
M i=1
ρ(a, b) = τ(a, b) × ψ (a, b) (15)
l
where wi(i = 1, 2, …, MG ) is the weight of the decision-maker in cluster
That is, the intuitionistic fuzzy risk is the product of the risk credi­ ∑ Gl
bility of the intuitionistic fuzzy preference and the support degree of Gl, and M i=1 wi = 1.
intuitionistic fuzzy preference. The decision risk is related to the deci­
sion risk credibility and decision support. Risk measurement of the group decision
Through the risk function of intuitionistic fuzzy preference, the de­
l l
gree of hesitation of the fuzzy set and the score function are transformed Suppose that RG = [RGnp ]N×P is the decision risk matrix of the ith
into intuitionistic fuzzy risk, which considers not only the comprehen­ cluster, where l = 1, 2, …, L; L is the number of clusters of the decision
siveness of the decision preference information but also the reliability of group; and A
̃ = (̃anp )N×P is the decision preference of the decision group.
decision information, rendering the decision risk more objective and
Thus, the group decision risk matrix is
accurate.
[ ]
[ ] ∑L
(20)
l

2.2.3. Risk measurement of group decision R − I : RG = RGnp = wl × RGnp

N×P
Individual factors affecting decision-makers inevitably lead to indi­
l=1 N×P

vidual decision-making risks, which then confer risk on group decision- [ ( )]

making. In accordance with the risk function of intuitionistic fuzzy RG = R − II : ρ ̃
a , bn (21)
preference given in Section 2.2.2, combined with the characteristics of np N×P

the intuitionistic fuzzy preference matrix of the decision-making in­ [ ]

dividuals, a risk measurement model of a group decision is presented in 1∑ L
(22)
l
R− III : RG = RG
this section. Three kinds of group decision-making risk measurement L l=1 np
N×P
models are given under different fusion methods of decision risk mea­
∑L
surement, as follows: where wl(l = 1, 2, …, L) is the weight of cluster Gl, and l=1 wl = 1.
Type- I risk of group decision (R-I): Decision risk fusion after indi­ The decision risks of the group are
vidual risk measurement;
Type-II risk of group decision (R-II): Risk measurement of group 1∑ P ∑ N
R− I : R = Wn × RGnp (23)
decision after individual preference fusion; P p=1 n=1
Type-III risk of group decision (R-III): Average individual decision
( )
risk as group decision risk. 1∑ P ∑ N
R − II : R = Wn × ρ ̃anp , bn (24)
P p=1 n=1
Risk measurement of individual decision-makers
1 ∑N ∑ P ∑ L
The risk of an individual decision is determined by using the risk (25)
l
R − III : R = RG
L × N × P n=1 p=1 l=1 np
function of intuitionistic fuzzy preference to measure the risk between
the expert preference matrix in the form of an intuitionistic fuzzy set and ∑N
the public intuitive attribute preference matrix transformation by public where wl(l = 1, 2, …, L) is the weight of the attribute, and n=1 Wn = 1.
topic sentiment.
Suppose that the decision matrix of the decision-maker em is A ̃ em = 3. Method principle
e
anpm )N×P . The public attribute preference matrix is B = (bn )N×1 , where .
(̃
3.1. Outline of the proposed approach
Thus, the decision risk matrix of the decision-maker em is
[ ( em )]
One of the core ideas of this study is the application of mature text
Rem = ρem ̃ a , bn (16)
np N×P topic mining technology in natural language processing for big data to
classify public opinions from a large number of unstructured texts. The
e e e
where ρem (̃
anpm ,bn ) = τ(̃
anpm ,bn ) × ψ (̃
anpm ,bn ), and n = 1, 2, … , N, p = 1, 2, purpose is to realize the complete data-driven determination of an
… , P. attribute structure for large group emergency decision-making. The
public attention attribute and public attribute preference are then
Risk measurement of the cluster decision considered as the reference for large group emergency decision-making.
Another idea is the development of a risk measurement method for large
l ml
mli group emergency decision-making to quantify the decision-making risk
Suppose that Rmi = [ρnpi (̃
anp , bn )]N×P is the decision risk matrix of the contributed by individual factors of a decision-making agent based on
ith member in cluster Gl, where i = 1, 2, …, MG ,
l
and MG
l
is the number of
credibility. The last is the design of a risk-consensus feedback mecha­
Gl Gl nism to allow the large group to reach an alternative selection with a
decision-makers in the cluster. A
̃ anp )N×P
= (̃ is the decision preference of cluster Gl. higher level of consensus and a lower decision-making risk. The pro­
Thus, the cluster decision risk is posed method consists of stages, as shown in Fig. 4.
In the aforementioned context, this study focuses on a large group

6
J. Cao et al. Expert Systems With Applications 195 (2022) 116527

Fig. 4. Risky large group emergency decision-making process based on topic sentiment analysis.

emergency decision-making method based on topic sentiment analysis.
The specific parameters are described as follows:
The public has a high degree of concern about emergencies and vary
in their views and opinions, which can be classified into different
topics. Supposing that the public has H topics, these topics are
recorded as T={T1,T2,…,TH}.
For different topics of concern, public emotions are classified into
three categories—positive, neutral, and negative emotions—by
sentiment analysis. The emotional markers under each topic are as
follows:SENT Ti = {SENTPosTi Ti
, SENTNeu Ti
, SENTNeg }, where SENTPosTi
, stream sentiment trend of the subject Ti. The mainstream sentiment
Ti
SENTNeu Ti
and SENTNeg are the proportions of positive, neutral, and
negative emotions under Ti.
Emergency response is generally determined by decision-making
groups composed of different departments and fields, under the
assumption that the decision-making group is Ω={e1, e2, …, eM}(M
≥ 2). When the number of decision-makers exceeds 11 (i.e., M ≥ 11),
the decision-making group is regarded as a large group.
To effectively control the emergency and ensure that the loss of the
event is within a tolerable range, the emergency decision-making
group presents a group of discrete and limited alternative sets
based on the information and characteristics of the event, which is
recorded as A={a1, a2, …, aP}(P ≥ 2).
Large group emergency decision-making determines the attributes
from the topic sentiment analysis to conduct an objective, compre­
hensive, and effective comparative selection of the emergency
alternative. The attribute set is as follows: C={c1, c2, …, cN}(N ≥ 2),
and the attribute weight set is W=(W1, W2,…, WN)T, where WN ≥ 0
∑
(n = 1, 2, …, N) and Nn=1 Wn = 1
The decision group presents the judgment and decision preference
for different decision alternatives based on the decision attribute.
3.2. Determination of the public intuition fuzzy attribute preference
The positive emotional orientation gathered from the opinions and
emotions expressed by the public after an emergency does not indicate
the recognition of the topic; similarly, the negative emotional orienta­
tion does not indicate the negation of the topic. Neither the positive nor
the negative emotional orientation can accurately express the impor­
tance of the topic in an emergency. Therefore, this study uses the high
proportion of emotional polarity as the mainstream emotional trend of
the subject. The low proportion of sentiment polarity as the nonmain­
trend is regarded as the upper limit of public attribute attention, and the
nonmainstream sentiment trend is considered as the lower limit of
public attribute attention to determine the range of public attribute
attention, which is in the form of an interval. Following the physical
interpretation of an intuitionistic fuzzy number, we can construct an
intuitionistic fuzzy preference matrix as a public intuitionistic fuzzy
preference.
Under the topic sentiment analysis model given in Section 2.1.3, the
proportions of positive, neutral, and negative sentiments under each
topic are calculated (SENT Ti = {SENTPosTi Ti
, SENTNeu Ti
, SENTNeg }). Thus, the
preference of the public intuition fuzzy attribute is
(26)
′
W = [(u1 , v1 ), (u2 , v2 ), ..., (uN , vN )]T
T1 Ti T1
where ui = max{SENTPos ,SENTNeu ,SENTNeg } andvi = min
T1 T1 T1
{SENTPos ,SENTNeu ,SENTNeg }, i = 1, 2, …, N.
The higher the public attention devoted to a topic, the greater the
importance of the topic. The importance of the attribute can be reflected
by the number of sentences related to the topic. The weight of the
attribute is given by

The decision matrix is as follows: A ̃ m = (̃m

a ) , where ̃
m
a is the
( )T
np N×P np J T1 J T2 J TN
evaluation of the interval number form of the nth attribute of the pth W = ∑N , ∑N , ..., ∑N (27)
Ti Ti Ti
i=1 J i=1 J i=1 J
alternative by the mth decision expert.
where JTi is the number of documents related to Ti.

7
J. Cao et al. Expert Systems With Applications 195 (2022) 116527

3.3. Risk-consensus control mechanism b.Sij (Ã ei , A

̃ ej ) = 1, if i = j;
ei
c. Sij (A
̃ ,A ̃ ej )=Sji (A
̃ ej , A
̃ ei ), i, j = 1, 2, …, M.
To choose the best alternative, large group emergency decision-
making requires the participation and cooperation of a large number
Step 2 Cacluate the equivalent incidence matrix
of people. When a choice emerges, a risk exists; when collaboration
occurs, the divergence of opinions is present. The decision group should
The similarity matrix of the decision group can be referred to as the
reach the best decision not only to control the risk of the decision but
correlation matrix. SF is transformed into the equivalent correlation
also to ensure that the group maintains a high level of consensus in its r r+1 r

decisions. In addition, the decision group should obtain decision results matrix S2F by using Eq. (31), which satisfies S2F = S2F .
that are low-risk and with a high level of consensus. A two-step control { { r ( e e ) r ( e e )}}
(33)
r+1
Sij2 = max min Sik2 Ã i,A
̃ k , S2 A ̃j
̃ k,A
mechanism is designed, considering the possibility of the decision risk k
kj

exceeding the acceptable threshold and the consensus being insuffi­

ciently high. First, the decision risk is measured, and the risk resolution where i, j = 1, 2, …, M.
model is constructed to limit the decision risk within an acceptable
range. We then judge the consensus of the decision-making group at low Step 3 Obtain the clustering results
risk. For low-consensus decisions, we use the risk–consensus optimiza­
tion model to ensure that the decision-making risk remains low while By using the equivalent correlation matrix with the λ intercept, the λ
the consensus is high to achieve the high-consensus low-risk decision- intercept matrix S = [Sij]M×M, as well as the clustering result, is
making goal required in large group emergency decision-making. obtained.
( e e)
{ S A ̃i ̃j
Large group clustering 0 ij ( , A )< λ
Sij = (34)
1 Sij A ̃ ei , A
̃ ej ⩾λ
The decision-making makers with the same or similar preferences
can be divided into a kind of aggregation, which can reduce the diffi­ where λ is the aggregation similarity threshold, i, j = 1, 2, …, M.
culty of fusing preferences, reduce the calculated dimension, simplify The matrix S is a matrix with only 0 and 1 elements. If duplicate rows
decision-making problems, and improve the accuracy of decisions. In are deleted, the number of remaining rows is the number of clusters,
large group emergency decision-making, the preferences of decision- denoted as L. In each row, the column with the element 1 is composed of
makers in the same cluster are highly similar, whereas those in aggregation members, and the clustering result is G={G1, G2, …, GL}.
different clusters are hardly similar. Therefore, large groups are clus­
tered based on the similarity of intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Risk resolution mechanism
Definition 6. ((Nguyen, 2015)) The similarity of any two intuition­
istic fuzzy sets A and B in a finite set X={x1, x2, …, xn} is given by Under the risk measurement model for large group emergency
decision-making in Section 2.2 and based on the public intuitive fuzzy
attribute preference W , the decision-making risk is measured, entering
′

S(A, B) = 1 − |K(A) − K(B)| (28)

the stage where the decision-making risk is assessed after large group
where K(A) and K(B) are information measures of fuzzy sets A and B, clustering. When R ≤ γ, the decision-making risk is low, and the
respectively: decision-making enters the stage of consensus measurement and judg­
ment; however, whenR > γ, the decision-making risk is high, and the
n √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
1 ∑ decision-making enters the stage of risk elimination and adjustment. At
K(A) = √̅̅̅ (uA (xi ))2 + (vA (xi ))2 + (1 − π A (xi ))2 (29)
n 2 i=1 this stage, the high-risk clusters, decision-makers, and decision-making
elements need to be accurately identified, and the target elements need
n √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
1 ∑ to be modified appropriately to reduce the risk of decision-making.
K(B) = √̅̅̅ (uB (xi ))2 + (vB (xi ))2 + (1 − π B (xi ))2 (30)
n 2 i=1
a. Identify high-risk subclusters
Following definition 6, the steps in large group clustering are as
follows: To evaluate the decision risk of each cluster Gl(l = 1, 2, …, L), the
aggregation with a decision risk higher than the risk threshold γ is
Step 1 Calculating the similarity matrix of the decision group classified as the set CLU, and the elements of CLU are the clusters that
need to be corrected.
ei ej
The similarity of two decision-makers Sij (A
̃ ,Ã ) is calculated using { ⃒ l }
⃒
̃ ei and A
̃ ej are the decision preference matrices of CLU = Gl ⃒RG > γ, l = 1, 2, …, L (35)
Eq. (28), where A
decision-makers ei and ej, respectively. Thus,
( e e) 1 ∑ P ∑ N ( ) b. Identify high-risk decision-makers
̃ i, A
Sij A ̃j = aenpi , ̃
Sij ̃ aenpj (31)
N × P p=1 n=1
For the aggregation Gl ∈ CLU in the conditional set CLU, the high-risk
e e e e decision-makers in the cluster are identified to accurately identify and
anpi = (uenpi , venpi ) and ̃
where ̃ anpj = (unpj , vnpj ).
control the subsequent high-risk elements. The largest decision risk
The similarity matrix of the decision group is given by maker in the high-risk cluster is recorded as the set ALU.
[ ( e e )]
̃ i, A
̃j (32) { ′⃒ ′ }
S = Sij A
M×M ALU = Ami ⃒Gl ∈ CLU ∧ max{Rmi } (36)

where i, j = 1, 2, …, M. wheremi = 1, 2, … , MG .
′ l

The similarity matrix of the decision group satisfies the following

properties: c. Identify the locations of high-risk elements
̃ ei , A
a. 0≤Sij (A ̃ ej ) ≤ 1,i = 1, 2, …, M, j = 1, 2, …, M;

8
J. Cao et al. Expert Systems With Applications 195 (2022) 116527

Determine the elements corresponding to the decision-makers in then set; when CI ≥ ε, the minimum consensus requirements are met,
ALU to modify their preferences, and set the high-risk elements into PLU. and the decision-making process advances to the alternative selection
{ ⃒ { m′ ( m ′ )}} stage; when CI < ε, the minimum consensus level is not reached, and the
PLU = (em n, p)⃒max ρnpi anpi , bn (37) decision-making process enters the consensus adjustment stage. To
ensure that the consensus adjustment process maintains a low decision
where m = 1, 2, …, M; n = 1, 2, … , N; and p = 1, 2, … , P. risk, the risk–consensus optimization model is constructed:

d. Risk feedback minR, maxCI

{
R⩽γ (42)
Risk feedback provides suggestions for decision-makers to modify s.t.
CI > ε
their preferences. The target element is modified and refers to public
preference. This method is simple, easy to operate and calculate, and is Eq. (42) is a double-objective optimization model, which solves the
widely used. minimum value of the decision risk R and the maximum value of the
′ ′
decision consensus CI, and 0 ≤ R, CI ≤ 1. The double-objective opti­
(38) mization model can thus be transformed into a single-objective opti­
m (t+1) m (t)
anpi = ηanpi + (1 − η)bn
mization model, which is equivalent to the minimum or maximum value
where η is the adjustment coefficient. The value of η is mainly deter­ of the difference between decision risk and decision consensus, that is,
mined by the decision-makers depending on the situation of decision- min (R-CI) or max (CI- R). Further, the type-I risk of a group decision can
making. No authoritative method exists to determine its value, and its be associated with decision consensus through the cluster weight. Thus,
value is highly subjective. When η > 0.5, the adjustment of high-risk the risk–consensus optimization model after an equivalent trans­
elements is more acceptable than the decision-making reference, and formation becomes
the decision-making preference tends to be the public attribute prefer­ ( )
ence; when η < 0.5, the adjustment and selection of high-risk elements 1∑ P ∑ ∑
N L
l 1∑ L
minR − CI = Wn w l × RG − wl × CIl
retain a large proportion of the original preference information; when η P p=1 n=1 l=1
L l=1
= 0.5, the importance of retaining the original preference information is ⎧
the same as receiving the reference information. To effectively reduce ⎪
⎪
⎪
the influence of η on decision-making and improve the feedback effi­ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
0⩽wl ⩽1
⎪
ciency, the η value with the lowest feedback regulation time is generally ⎪
⎪
⎪ ∑L (43)
⎪
selected as the adjustment coefficient. ⎨ wl = 1
l=1
s.t.
⎪
⎪
⎪ R⩽γ
Risk–consensus optimization model ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ CI⩾ε
G
⎪
⎩
G
The group preference matrix A ̃ = (̃anp )N×P can be obtained by
clustering decision-makers into large groups. The preferences within the
same cluster are highly similar, and the level of consensus is relatively 3.4. Selection of an alternative
high; meanwhile, the level of consensus between clusters is relatively
low. Therefore, the level of consensus among decision-making groups The group preference matrix with low decision risk and high
can objectively be determined by measuring the level of consensus be­ consensus can be obtained using risk resolution and risk–consensus
tween clusters. In accordance with Eq. (28), the similarity matrix be­ optimization previously mentioned.
tween the preference matrix of cluster Gl, l = 1, 2, …, L and the group
[ G]
preference matrix is ̃G = ̃
A a (44)
( Gl G ) [ ⃒ ( Gl ) ( G )⃒] np N×P
⃒ ⃒
̃ ,A
S A ̃ = 1− ⃒K ̃
⃒ a a ⃒⃒
− K ̃ (39)
G Gl
np np N×P
where ̃
anp = wl ̃
anp , l = 1, 2, …, L, n = 1, 2, … , N,p = 1, 2, … , P.
The aforementioned equation is used to solve the similarity matrix In accordance with the group preference matrix A
C
̃ , the intuitionistic
between each cluster preference matrix and group preference matrix. fuzzy set of alternative selection in decision-making is
The level of consensus between cluster Gl, l = 1, 2, …, L and the group is [ ]
1 ∑ N ∑ P [ ⃒ ( )
⃒
( G )⃒]
⃒ ̃= ̃
A ap (45)
(40)
l
CIl = 1 − ⃒⃒K ̃ a ⃒⃒
aGnp − K ̃ 1×P
N × P n=1 p=1 np
∑ G
where ̃ap = Nn=1 Wn ̃anp is the intuitionistic fuzzy preference information
The level of group consensus is
when the decision-making group selects alternative ap, and Wn is the
1∑ L
attribute weight.
CI = wl CIl (41)
L l=1 Finally, the score function and accurate function of the alternative
are evaluated following the method in Definition 3. The alternative is
∑
where wl(l = 1, 2, …, L) is the weight of cluster Gl, and Ll=1 wl = 1. then identified in large group emergency decision-making.
The CI value indicates the level of consensus of a large group. CI = 1
means that decision-makers have reached a consensus without any ob­ 3.5. Details of the decision-making steps
jection, and the opinions are highly unified. The higher the CI, the lower
the level of conflict and the higher the level of consensus within the Consistent with Fig. 4 and the models presented before, the specific
decision-making group; the lower the CI, the higher the level of conflict steps of the decision-making method are as follows:
and the lower the level of consensus within the decision-making group.
When the level of consensus is lower, the credibility of the decision- Step 1 After an emergency occurs, the type of event is immediately
making results of the decision-making group with a high level of con­ assessed, and the topic sentiment of a similar event is analyzed based
flict is not high. The minimum consensus acceptance level ε = 0.88 is on public text and comments, as well as real-time crawling network

9
J. Cao et al.
comments, on the database. Public sentiments on a topic related to
the event are collected: T={T1, T2, …, TH}, including the proportions
of positive, neutral, and negative emotions toward the topic
SENT Ti = {SENTPosTi Ti
, SENTNeu Ti
, SENTNeg }, as described in Section 2.1.
The preference of the fuzzy attribute of public intuition W =
′ guishing method. The fire rescue team in the nearby area is dispatched
T to search and rescue the trapped people within 1 km2, organize the
[(u1 , v1 ), (u2 , v2 ), ..., (uN , vN )] is then determined in accordance with
the mothod presented in Section 3.2.
Step 2 Depending on the actual status of the emergency event, the
decision-makers determine the attribute of the alternative with
reference to public concern about the topic, and provide the decision
preference in the form of an intuitionistic fuzzy set A ̃ m = (̃m
a )
np N×P
Step 3 The decision-making groups are clustered by using the large
group clustering method in Part (1) of Section 3.3 to obtain the
clustering results G={G1, G2, …, GL}.
Step 4 The decision-making risk R is determined using the large
group decision-making risk measurement method in Section 2.2.
When R ≤ γ, Step 6 is skipped; when R > γ, Step 5 is executed.
Step 5 The decision risk is limited in accordance with the risk res­
olution mechanism mentioned in Part (2) of Section 3.3. Step 2 is
then repeated;
Step 6 The decision consensus (CI) within the large group is
measured using Eq. (41). When CI ≥ ε, Step 8 is performed; when CI
< ε, Step 7 is executed.
Step 7 The risk–consensus optimization is solved using Eq. (43).
Under the condition of low risk and high consensus, the optimal
centralization weight wl is calculated. Step 3 is then repeated;
Step 8 The score function and accurate functions of the final intui­
tionistic fuzzy preference information of the decision-making alter­
native are calculated using the method described in Section 3.4. The
decision-making alternative is then selected based on the relation­
ship between the score and accurate functions.
4. Case analysis
4.1. Case background
At about 14:48 on March 21, 2019, a particularly serious explosion
accident occurred in Tianjiayi Chemical Plant in Chenjiagang Chemical
Park, Xiangshui County, Yancheng City, Jiangsu Province. After the
accident, Xiangshui County, Yancheng City, Jiangsu Province immedi­
ately launched an emergency plan. Relevant working groups and expert
groups of the state emergency management department immediately
rushed to the scene to perform the following, among other tasks: acci­
dent rescue, fire fighting, personnel rescue, site investigation, and order
maintenance. After the explosion, two benzene tanks and two methanol
tanks on the site combusted. More than a dozen kinds of dangerous
chemicals were constantly volatilized. The yellow smoke and black
smoke generated by the hazardous substances rapidly spread. The on-
site situation was extremely complex, and the rescue was difficult. If
not handled properly, it would cause severe consequences. The on-site
headquarters organized 15 experts to form an on-site expert rescue
decision-making team. The following three rescue alternatives were
determined based on the real-time situation after the discussion:
a1: Extinguishing the oil tank fire by cooling. The fire rescue team in
the nearby area is dispatched to search and rescue the trapped people
within 2 square kilometers, organize the evacuation of the surrounding
people, observe interception and blocking measures to prevent the
polluted water from flowing into the river, monitor the ambient air in­
dicators, and strictly prevent all kinds of secondary disasters.
a2: Extinguishing the oil tank fire by cooling. The dangerous cargo is
buried in sand, the fire rescue team in the nearby area is dispatched to
search and rescue the trapped people within 3 square kilometers, the
surrounding people are organized to evacuate, observe interception and
blocking measures to prevent the polluted water from flowing into the
river, monitor the ambient air indicators, and strictly prevent all kinds of
Expert Systems With Applications 195 (2022) 116527
secondary disasters.
a3: To avoid secondary explosions and suspend large-scale fire­
fighting, professional personnel shall be organized to collect samples of
dangerous chemicals, determine the composition and the fire extin­
evacuation of the surrounding people, monitor the ambient air in­
dicators, and strictly prevent all kinds of secondary disasters.
4.2. Calculation process
.
In accordance with the decision process given in Fig. 4 and the de­
cision steps in Section 3.5 and combined with the decision-making
process in Sections 2 and 3, the decision-making process of the case
can be simplified as the flow-process diagram shown in Fig. 5.
Each decision-making step is described below.
Step 1 Data selection and processing
Given the common characteristics of emergency responses to similar
events, historical events can provide decision-making references for
real-time events. Therefore, this case uses historical event data as a
source of knowledge discovery. Relevant information on the emergency
decision-making attributes of large groups is accurately and objectively
identified from the big data of Weibo comment text, which serves as the
basis for the preference judgment and decision-making risk of large
groups of decision-makers. In recent years, fire and explosion accidents
have frequently occurred in the petrochemical industry in China. Fire
and explosion accidents similar to the case described include the
following: the “8 ⋅ 12′′ major fire and explosion accident in Tianjin Port
in 2015; the ”6 ⋅ 5′′ major fire and explosion accident in Linyi, Shandong
Province in 2017; the “7 ⋅ 12′′ major fire and explosion accident in Yibin,
Sichuan Province in 2018; and the ”11 ⋅ 28′′ major fire and explosion
accident in Zhangjiakou, Hebei Province. Therefore, this study chooses
three similar accidents in Tianjin, Yibin, and Zhangjiakou ports, which
have more losses and strong social reflection as the historical data source
of public evaluation of similar events to form the accident disaster
database.
First, by using the software octopus, the Weibo comments related to
the aforementioned event are captured. The grabbing fields include the
blogger ID, blog content, publishing time, and comment content. The
captured text content is subjected to data cleaning, which includes
eliminating error fields, invalid fields and URLs, abnormal values, time
field simplification, text event integration, and so on. >200,000 pieces
of microblog text information are obtained. The Python-jieba tool is then
used to segment and extract words and sentences from the text infor­
mation, and invalid keywords, such as stop words, are removed. To
avoid the influence of the region, name, and professional words of the
chemical industry in the classification results, 21 keywords of the region
and name of the chemical industry are excluded, such as Tianjin,
Tanggu, Binhai, Ruihai, Sichuan, Shenghua, Cyanide, Benzene, Butyla­
mide, and Vinyl chloride. The number of topics ranges from 10 to 15.
The topics with a clear meaning and classification are determined by
manual analysis of keyword content, and the first five topics with a large
number of texts are selected to obtain the final topic mining results. The
proportion of the number of comments belonging to each topic is listed
in Table 1.
According to Table 1, by analyzing the characteristics of the key­
words, topics T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5 are found to be about “Casualties,”
“Environmental pollution,” “Secondary injury,” “Accident cause and
accountability,” and “Rescue efficiency,” respectively. It covers various
aspects and perspectives of the public attention toward emergency
response, which is related to professional search and rescue, as well as
follow-up scientific disposal. Therefore, the aspects to be considered in
the selection of emergency alternatives are all-round and multi­
perspective; however, the topic T4 is accident investigation and
10
J. Cao et al. Expert Systems With Applications 195 (2022) 116527

Fig. 5. Decision-making process of the case.

Table 1 Table 2
Results of LDA topic mining. Part of the revised words in the topic sentiment dictionary.
Topics Proportion Part of keywords Topics Positive-sentiment words Negative-sentiment words

T1 31.87% 平安(safety), 安息(rest), 生命(life), 救助(rescue), 死亡 T1 少(little), 光荣(glorious), 感动 再有(another), 多(more), 真实

(death), 搜救(search and rescue), 遇难(death), 逝者(the (moving), 第一(first), 致敬 (authentic), 草率(perfunctory), 大
dead), 牺牲(sacrifice), 遗体(remains)… (saluting)… 量(a large number), 非常
T2 26.33% 监测(monitoring), 浓烟(smoke), 大气(atmosphere), 水源 (extraordinary)…
(water source), 风向(wind direction), 泄漏(leakage), 检测 T2 少量(a few), 不快(not fast), 稍微(a 大量(a great quantity), 极为
(detection), 环境(environment), 污染(pollution), 暴露 bit), 不大(rarely), 轻度(mild), 相对 (extremely), 异常(exceptions), 多
(exposure)… (relatively)… (more), 愈(increasingly)…
T3 21.82% 隐患(hidden danger), 措施(measure), 疏散(evacuation), 撤 T3 封锁(blockade), 干净(neat and 高(high), 不要(Don’t), 肯定(regard
离(disposal), 科学(science), 防范(prevention), 研判(judged), tidy), 没有(without), 相对 as positive), 还要(even/still more),
次生(secondary), 潜在(potential)… (relatively), 不会(incapable), 拦截 强(slightly more than), 超过
T4 11.34% 负责(responsible), 原因(reason), 问责(accountability), 严惩 (intercept)… (exceed)…
(severe punishment), 清查(inventory), 调查(investigation), T5 妥善(appropriate), 减轻(alleviate), 愈加(further), 抓紧(pay close
责任(responsibility),失职(dereliction of duty), 监管 切实(feasible), 减缓(retard), 推进 attention to), 赶赴(rushed), 持续
(supervision)… (push on)… (continued)…
T5 10.64% 困难(difficulty), 控制(control), 有效(effective), 时间(time),
复杂(complex), 迅速(prompt), 抓紧(grasp), 全力(effort), 代
价(cost), 调派(dispatch)…
Table 3
Topic sentiment ratio.
accountability, which belongs to the category of post-accident liability Topics SENTPos SENTNeu SENTNeg
identification; meanwhile, the assessment of an alternative rescue in
T1 0.16 0.29 0.55
emergency decision-making does not need to consider these factors and T2 0.38 0.28 0.41
thus should be excluded from the alternative attribute system. Finally, T3 0.42 0.13 0.45
T1, T2, T3, and T5 are attributes of public concern, as determined from T5 0.43 0.24 0.33
the topic receiving high public attention, and they are regarded as the
attribute set of scheme selection, that is, C={c1, c2, …, c4={“Casualties,”
casualties, environmental pollution, secondary injury, and rescue effi­
“Environmental pollution,” “Secondary injury,” “Rescue efficiency”}.
ciency. The specific decision preference information of the large group is
After normalizing its proportion, the attribute weight is determined as
listed in Table 4.
W=(W1,W2,…,WN)T =(0.36, 0.3, 0.22, 0.12)T.
On the basis of the HowNet sentiment dictionary, the positive and
Step 3 Large group clustering
negative orientations of some sentiment words are determined from the
topic words by artificial recognition. The positive and negative senti­
The large group clustering algorithm in Section 3.3 is combined with
ment word sets of each topic in the HowNet sentiment dictionary are
Eq. (32) to calculate the similarity matrix of the large group. Eq. (33) is
added, deleted, and modified based on the method described in Part (4)
then used to obtain the equivalent correlation matrix. With λ = 0.9 as the
of Section 2.1.3. Some of the words added and replaced words are listed
aggregation similarity threshold (the change in λ is discussed in Part (2)
in Table 2.
of Section 5.3), the original clustering result of the large group is
The proportions of positive, neutral, and negative emotional orien­
determined. The clustering result is G(0)={G1(0), G2(0), G3(0), G4(0)}={ e1,
tation under each topic are calculated using Equations (6), (7), and (8),
e7, e8, e10, e11},{ e2, e3, e9, e12},{ e4, e5, e13, e14},{ e6, e15}.
and the results are listed in Table 3. The preference of public intuition
fuzzy attribute is W = [(0.55,0.16), (0.41,0.38), (0.45,0.42),
′

T Step 4 Decision risk measurement

(0.43,0.33) ] , as determined using Eq. (26).

The measurement method of the type-I group decision risk is chosen,

Step 2 The large group preference information is obtained.
with fj = 0.05, gj = 0.2, qj = 0.2, pj = 0.5 (the effects of fj, gj, qj and pj on
the decision risk measurement results, as well as the comparison of the
After the topic mining and sentiment analysis of the public comment
type-I, type-II, and type-III group decision risk measurement methods,
texts of similar events, the large group emergency decision-makers refer
are in Part (3) of Section 5.3). Eq. (16) is used to solve the individual
to the topic classification of public concern. They present three intuitive
decision risk of the large group decision-makers. The decision risk ma­
fuzzy judgment matrices of rescue alternatives from four attributes:
trix of each aggregation is then obtained using Eq. (17). The group

11
J. Cao et al. Expert Systems With Applications 195 (2022) 116527

Table 4
Preference information of large group decision-makers.
ei a1 a2 a3 ei a1 a2 a3 ei a1 a2 a3

e1 c1 (0.5,0.1) (0.5,0.2) (0.4,0.2) e2 (0.7,0.1) (0.4,0.1) (0.6,0.3) e3 (0.5,0.2) (0.6,0.1) (0.7,0.3)

c2 (0.4,0.1) (0.4,0.3) (0.7,0.1) (0.8,0.1) (0.5,0.2) (0.8,0.2) (0.4,0.3) (0.4,0.3) (0.5,0.2)
c3 (0.6,0.2) (0.6,0.1) (0.6,0.2) (0.7,0.2) (0.6,0.3) (0.5,0.1) (0.7,0.1) (0.5,0.2) (0.6,0.1)
c4 (0.3,0.1) (0.4,0.1) (0.5,0.1) (0.6,0.3) (0.7,0.1) (0.4,0.2) (0.6,0.2) (0.4,0.2) (0.8,0.1)

e4 c1 (0.9,0.1) (0.7,0.3) (0.4,0.2) e5 (0.4,0.1) (0.4,0.2) (0.5,0.1) e6 (0.6,0.1) (0.6,0.3) (0.4,0.1)

c2 (0.7,0.1) (0.5,0.2) (0.6,0.1) (0.5,0.2) (0.4,0.3) (0.6,0.1) (0.4,0.3) (0.8,0.2) (0.5,0.2)
c3 (0.8,0.2) (0.6,0.1) (0.5,0.3) (0.6,0.3) (0.5,0.1) (0.5,0.2) (0.5,0.2) (0.5,0.1) (0.6,0.3)
c4 (0.4,0.1) (0.8,0.1) (0.7,0.2) (0.7,0.1) (0.6,0.1) (0.6,0.3) (0.4,0.2) (0.4,0.2) (0.7,0.1)
e7 c1 (0.7,0.3) (0.4,0.2) (0.7,0.1) e8 (0.4,0.2) (0.7,0.1) (0.7,0.1) e9 (0.6,0.3) (0.5,0.1) (0.4,0.2)
c2 (0.5,0.2) (0.6,0.1) (0.4,0.2) (0.4,0.3) (0.8,0.2) (0.8,0.1) (0.8,0.2) (0.6,0.1) (0.4,0.3)
c3 (9.6,0.1) (0.5,0.3) (0.5,0.3) (0.5,0.1) (0.5,0.1) (0.7,0.2) (0.5,0.1) (0.5,0.2) (0.5,0.1)
c4 (0.8,0.1) (0.7,0.2) (0.9,0.1) (0.7,0.1) (0.6,0v) (0.6,0.3) (0.4,0.2) (0.4,0.4) (0.7,0.1)

e10 c1 (0.4,0.2) (0.8,0.1) (0.5,0.2) e11 (0.7,0.1) (0.7,0.1) (0.3,0.3) e12 (0.5,0.1) (0.3,0.3) (0.7,0.1)
c2 (0.6,0.1) (0.9,0.1) (0.4,0.3) (0.8,0.2) (0.4,0.2) (0.4,0.1) (0.6,0.1) (0.4,0.1) (0.8,0.2)
c3 (0.5,0.3) (0.7,0.2) (0.7,0.1) (0.5,0.1) (0.5,0.3) (0.5,0.1) (0.5,0.2) (0.5,0.1) (0.5,0.1)
c4 (0.7,0.2) (0.6,0.2) (0.6,0.2) (0.6,0.1) (0.8,0.1) (0.6,0.1) (0.4,0.4) (0.6,0.1) (0.6,0.1)

e13 c1 (0.8,0.1) (0.7,0.1) (0.6,0.1) e14 (0.7,0.1) (0.5,0.2) (0.9,0.1) e15 (0.3,0.3) (0.9,0.1) (0.5,0.1)
c2 (0.9,0.1) (0.8,0.1) (0.4,0.3) (0.4,0.2) (0.4,0.3) (0.7,0.1) (0.4,0.1) (0.7,0) (0.6,0.1)
c3 (0.7,0.2) (0.7,0.2) (0.5,0.2) (0.5,0.3) (0.7,0.1) (0.8,0.2) (0.5,0.1) (0.8,0.2) (0.5,0.2)
c4 (0.6,0.2) (0.6,0.3) (0.4,0.2) (0.9,0.1) (0.6,0.2) (0.4,0.1) (0.6,0.1) (0.4,0.1) (0.4,0.4)

decision risk is then calculated after solving the group risk matrix by
using Equations (20) and (23). The specific results are listed in Table 5.
Step 5 Risk control of decision-making
The decision risk threshold γ = 0.25 and the adjustment coefficient η
= 0.5 are determined by expert discussion (the roles of γ and η in de­
cision risk resolution are discussed in Part (4) of Section 5.3). As shown
in Table 5, R(0) = 0.2737 > 0.25 indicates that group decision risk is
c. The location of high-risk elements are identified using Eq. (37):
PLU(0)={ (e1, 2, 1), (e7, 2, 3), (e11, 2, 2), (e9, 2, 2), (e12, 3, 1), (e6, 1, 3),
(e15, 3, 3) (e15, 4, 2)}. Two highest risk elements are found in the
decision-maker e15, which need to be adjusted simultaneously.
d. By using Eq. (38), the preference information of the decision-makers
is adjusted based on the public intuitive fuzzy attribute preference
W = [(0.55,0.16), (0.41,0.38), (0.45,0.42), (0.43,0.33) ]T. The
′

higher than the maximum allowable risk, and decision-making enters preference information before and after adjustment is as follows:
the stage of risk elimination and adjustment to identify the high-risk
clusters, decision-makers, and decision elements. (e1, 2, 1): (0.4, 0.1)→(0.405, 0.1949); (e7, 2, 3): (0.4, 0.2)→(0.405,
0.2756); (e11, 2, 2): (0.4, 0.2)→(0.405, 0.2756); (e9, 2, 2): (0.6, 0.1)→
a. Eq. (35) is used to identify high-risk subclusters for adjustments (0.5142, 0.1949); (e12, 3, 1): (0.5, 0.2)→(0.4661, 0.2569); (e6, 1, 3):
(indicated in black in Table 5): (0.4, 0.1)→(0.4804, 0.0.1265); (e15, 3, 3): (0.5, 0.2)→(0.4756, 0.2898);
(e15, 4, 2): (0.4, 0.1)→(0.4152, 0.1817).
CLU(0)={ Gl(0) |RG > γ, l = 1, 2, … , L}={ G1(0), G2(0), G4(0)}.
l
After the first round of preference modification, Step 3 is repeated.
The modified large group preference is again clustered, the new risk
b. High-risk decision-makers are identified using Eq. (36): measure is recalibrated, and R(1) = 0.2574 > 0.25 is determined. The
decision again enters the stage of risk elimination and adjustment, and
ALU(0)={ G1(0)(1, 2, 5), G2(0)(3, 4)G4(0) (1, 2) }. the position of high-risk elements is identified as PLU(1)={ (e9, 3, 1), (e9,
3, 3), (e12, 3, 2), (e12, 3, 2), (e6, 3, 2), (e15, 3, 1) }. The preference in­
Table 5 formation is adjusted using Eq. (38), and the adjusted decision risk is
Results of type-I group decision risk measurement. R(2) = 0.2449 < 0.25. At this point, the decision risk resolution control is
completed. The group cluster preference and cluster risk matrix results
Clusters Risk matrix of clusters Clusters’ Risk matrix of Group
Gl(0) l Gl (0) l
risk RG (0) group RG(0) risk R(0) are listed in Table 6.
RG (0) = [Rnp ]N×P

G1(0) [0.24, 0.08, 0.16; 0.3, 0.2547 [0.1978, 0.2737 Step 6 Decision consensus measurement
0.2933, 0.38; 0.1711,
0.52,0.3667,0.2333; 0.2244; 0.28,
0.1067, 0.1733, 0.16] 0.2955, The initial weight of the cluster is assumed to be the proportion of the
G2(0) [0.1, 0.4417, 0.1; 0.1333, 0.3126 0.2511; 0.4, cluster members; that is wl = [0.4, 0.3333, 0.2667]T . By using Eq. (41),
(0)
0.5417, 0.1333; 0.425, 0.4444,
0.5917, 0.775; 0.1833, 0.4533;
the level of consensus between the cluster and the group is calculated as
0.2, 0.2] 0.1911, CI1 = 0.8764, CI2 = 0.8835, and CI3 = 0.8798. Intuitively, CI1 < 0.88
G3(0) [0.2417, 0.1, 0.2; 0.3, 0.2, 0.2243 0.2178, and CI3 < 0.88, and the decision initiates the risk control mechanism.
0.2; 0.0333, 0.425, 0.2088]
0.4333; 0.2, 0.0167,
Step 7 Control of risk–consensus
0.3833]
G4(0) [0.2, 0, 0, 0.6833; 0.4833, 0.3426
0, 0.2667; 0.7833, According to the cluster risk matrix in Table 6, the decision risks of
0.3833, 0.4; 0.4, 0.7667, 1 2 3
each cluster areRG = 0.2359, RG =0.2497, andRG = 0.2389. The risk-
0]
consensus optimization equation is constructed based on Eq. (43), as

12
J. Cao et al. Expert Systems With Applications 195 (2022) 116527

Table 6 4.3. Comparative analysis and parameter selection

Results of large group clustering.
Gk(2) Cluster l l Comparison of the acquisition methods of attribute information in
̃ G (2)
A Cluster risk matrix RG (2) =
members
Cluster preference
Gl (2) the big data environment
[Rnp ]N×P

G1 e1, e2, e5, [(0.6153, 0.1348), (0.5380, [0.2944, 0.2944, 0.1333;

(2) This study uses the topic mining and sentiment analysis technology
e7, e8, e13 0.1414), (0.5964, 0.1348); 0.2889, 0.1778, 0.1548;
(0.6517, 0.1691), (0.6228, 0.2833, 0.4111, 0.4388;
in big data analysis technology to mine the public attention theme
0.1817), (0.6541, 0.1596); 0.0778, 0.1556, 0.3667;] (opinion or viewpoint) from a historical similar emergency microblog
(0.6228, 0.1698), (0.5737, text. This study also analyzes the sentiment orientation of each topic
0.1619), (0.5576, 0.1906); classification. Finally, the method of sentiment proportion trans­
(0.6446, 0.1348), (0.6294,
formation is provided in this study to obtain the intuitionistic fuzzy
0.1348), (0.6964, 0.1906);]
G2 e3, e6 e9, [(0.5584, 0.1783), (0.7007, [0.08, 0.08, 0.24; 0.2467, preference of the public concerning the topic sentiment, as well as
(2)
e11, e15 0.1246), (0.4953, 0.222); 0.1324, 0.0533; 0.4584, provide a reference for current emergency decision-making. The method
(0.6134, 0.2048), (0.5987, 0.4059, 0.5885; 0.32, of obtaining public attributes and attribute weights in this study varies
0.2183), (0.4856, 0.1644); 0.4441, 0.0133; ] from the approach described in Xu, Wang, Chen, & Liu (2019) and Xu,
(0.5399, 0.1783), (0.5797,
0.2352), (0.5339, 0.1791);
Yin, & Chen (2019). The details are given in Table 7.
(0.5296, 0.1516), (0.5208, As shown in Table 7, each of the three methods has its advantages
0.1962), (0.6634, 0.132);] and disadvantages, and the methods for determining attributes and
G3 e4, e10 e12, [(0.692, 0.1189), (0.6193, [0.2, 01, 0.1; 0.3667, attribute weights vary, generating different results. The TF-IDF method
(3)
e14 0.206), (0.692, 0.1414); 0.3083, 0.1333; 0.1564,
of Xu, Wang, Chen, & Liu (2019) determines the importance of words by
(0.588, 0.1189), (0.6337, 0.4658, 0.2991; 0.2,
0.1565), (0.6536, 0.1565); 0.01667, 0.2167; ] word frequency. The results of attribute mining are as follows: “Casu­
(0.5958, 0.2711), (0.6293, alties,” “Cause investigation and accountability,” “On-site and sur­
0.1423), (0.6458, 0.1873); rounding situation monitoring,” and “Environmental pollution and
(0.6776, 0.1682), (0.6636, derivative disasters.” The following are the results of Xu, Yin, & Chen
0.1414), (0.588, 0.1414);]
(2019), which consider attribute association: “Environmental pollution
control,” “Secondary injury control,” “Rescue speed,” and “Rescue ef­
follows: fect.” Among the results, “Casualties,” “Property loss,” and other attri­
butes are highly related, which can easily reduce the importance of other
maxCI − R terms with weak associations. The method used in this study is auto­
⎧
⎪ matic topic classification. The determined topic is not related to the
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0⩽wl ⩽1 selected method of emergency rescue, and the alternative attributes
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ∑3 identified by discrimination are “Casualties,” “Environmental pollu­
⎨
l=1
wl = 1 tion,” “Secondary injury,” and “Rescue efficiency.” Although the attri­
s.t.
⎪
⎪
⎪ R = 0.2359w1 + 0.2497w2 + 0.2389w3 ⩽0.25 butes selected using different approaches vary, the initial results of big
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ data analysis and mining are similar. However, the topic sentiment
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩
CI = 0.8764w1 + 0.8835w2 + 0.8798w3 ⩾0.88 analysis developed in this study can realize the highest value utilization
of social media data related to emergencies and complete data-driven
attribute information acquisition.
The results show that w1 = 0.3729, w2 = 0.3967, and w3 = 0.2304.
The decision risk level is lower than 0.25, and the consensus level ex­
Sensitivity analysis of λ
ceeds 0.88. The decision risk–consensus control is completed within the
thresholds of the decision risk and decision consensus level. The decision
The value of the aggregation similarity threshold λ affects not only
group reaches the stage of optimal decision selection and advances to
the clustering results but also the subsequent group decision-making and
the stage of final decision alternative selection.
decision risk control. Member clustering can be realized by assigning
different aggregate similarity thresholds. The results, with respect to
Step 8 Determination of alternatives
change in λ, are listed in Table 8.
Analysis and comparison of the results with different values of λ (λ =
On the basis of the cluster preference obtained in Table 6 and the
0.95, 0.9, 0.85) reveal that fewer clusters are formed when the threshold
cluster weights calculated in Step 7, the group decision preference is
λ is small, and the clustering number increases as λ increases. Precise
determined using Eq. (44), as follows:
adjustment of the threshold λ can control the fineness of group member
⎡ ⎤ clustering; meanwhile, the different clustering results for decision-
(0.614, 0.1463), (0.6281, 0.1467), (0.5856, 0.1661);
makers can ultimately lead to differences in decision-making recom­
̃G = ⎣
⎢ (0.632, 0.1613), (0.6248, 0.1813), (0.6051, 0.1539); ⎥ mendations. According to the results presented in Table 8, the value of λ
A
(0.5948, 0.1849), (0.5977, 0.1745), (0.5791, 0.1781);
⎦ can be set within the interval [0.85, 0.95]. The decision-making rec­
ommendations closely matched the actual situation when λ = 0.9, and
(0.6116, 0.1486), (0.5987, 0.1582), (0.6227, 0.1538)
the number of clusters is 3. Thus, we can gather superior decision-
Using Eq. (45), we determine the group intuitionistic fuzzy prefer­ making recommendations by continuously regulating the clustering
ence information of each alternative: A ̃ = [(0.6151, 0.1589), (0.6172, threshold λ to achieve the optimal number of clusters in the M/5–M/3
0.1639), (0.5948, 0.1633)]. The score functions of each alternative are range.
then calculated using Eq. (10): S(a1) = 0.4562, S(a2) = 0.4533, and S
(a3) = 0.4314, respectively. As shown, S(a1) > S(a2) > S(a3); thus, the Analysis of the decision risk measurement method and influence of
final alternative order is a1 ≻ a2 ≻ a3. Alternative a1 is ultimately parameter change
selected as the best altenative, concluding the decision-making process.
The intuitionistic fuzzy risk measurement model constructed in this
study is the product of the intuitionistic fuzzy risk confidence function
(Constructed by the degree of discrepancy (fj) and the degree of

13
J. Cao et al. Expert Systems With Applications 195 (2022) 116527

Table 7
Comparison of methods for mining public preference information.
Technical details Preference classification Preference Value Reference for Advantages Disadvantages
Method(Attribute determination method decision risk
determination approach) (Attribute weight) measurement

Xu, Wang, TF-IDF Attribute lexicon Word frequency No Simple and Easy to ignore the
Chen, & convenient important words with
Liu (2019) few occurrences
Xu, Yin, & Text mining, Fuzzy Attribute lexicon Attribute centrality No Considers the Take no account of
Chen association rule mining, relationship between unrelated words
(2019) fuzzy cognitive map attributes
This paper Topic mining and Topic classification Topic sentiment ratio Yes Automatic The relevance of topics
Sentiment analysis classification to needs to be judged
reduce workload

The intuitionistic fuzzy risk established in this study results from the
Table 8 intuitionistic fuzzy risk confidence function derived from the degree of
Results with respect to change in λ.
discrepancy (fj) and degree of acceptance (gj) as well as the degree of
λ Gl Members λ Gl Members intuitionistic fuzzy support derived from the support degree (qj) and risk
0.95 G1
e5 0.9 G 1
e1, e2, e5, e7, e8, e13 preference (pj). Thus, changes in fj, gj, qj, and pj can cause the fluctuation
G2 e1, e2 G2 e3, e6, e9, e11, e15 of risk measurement results in decision-making. Simultaneously, for the
G3 e6, e10 G3 e4, e10, e12, e14 type-I, type-II, and type-III measurement methods of decision risk, the
G4 e4, e12, e14 0.85 G1 e1, e2, e3, e5, e7, e8, e9, e11, e13,
G5 e7, e13, e15
variations in approaches to fusion of group decision risk can also lead to
G6 e3, e8, e9, e11 G3 e4, e6, e10, e12, e14, e15 differences in measurement results. Therefore, the influence of param­
eter changes and the choice of decision risk measurement methods need
to be discussed.
acceptance (gj)) and the intuitionistic fuzzy support degree (Constructed In this section, different values of fj, gj, qj, and pj are selected to
by the support degree (qj) and the risk preference (pj)). Therefore, the summarize the results of type-I, type-II, and type-III risk measurement
changes in fj, gj, qj, and pj can cause fluctuations in the risk measurement methods in decision-making. The four-dimensional analysis of
results in decision-making.

Fig. 6. Effects of changes in fj and gj on group decision risk (qj = 0.2, pj = 0.5).

14
J. Cao et al.
parameter change is more complex because four parameters are
considered. Thus, in this section, the values of qj and pj are initially fixed
(qj = 0.2, pj = 0.5), and those of fj and gj vary from 0 to 1 in the order of
0.05. The results of type-I, type-II, and type-III decision-making risk
measurement are given in Fig. 6. The values of fj and gj (fj = 0.05, gj =
0.2) are fixed, whereas qj and pj vary from 0 to 1 in the order of 0.05. The
results of type-I, type-II, and type-III decision-making risk measurement
are shown in Fig. 7.
As indicated in Fig. 6, when fj = 0, the decision risk of the three
measurement methods reaches the maximum, and the group decision
risk decreases with increases in fj and gj. Among them, the overall risk
level of type-I decision risk is the highest, that of type-III decision risk is
the lowest, and that of type-II decision-making risk has the highest
likelihood of reaching the risk-free level. In Fig. 6, the red line denotes
the critical position where the type-II decision risk decreases to 0; the
intersection is located at fj = 0.15, gj = 0.2. Meanwhile, the type-I and
type-III decision risk level decreases to 0 when fj = 0.4, gj = 0.4. When fj
≥ 0.4, the group decision risk level is 0 regardless of the change in gj.
Analysis of the regular pattern of the above figures leads to the following
conclusions:
a. The decision risk level is related to the maximum allowable de­
viation (fj). When the group does not allow deviations in decision-
making, the group decision risk easily tends to be high;
b. The decision group allows an extreme value as the maximum de­
gree of discrepancy, which changes with the difference in the reference
value and the decision risk fusion path. Even if the acceptability of the
Fig. 7. Effect of changes in qj and pj on group decision risk (fj = 0.05, gj = 0.2).
15
Expert Systems With Applications 195 (2022) 116527
decision-making group is high, when the decision preference exceeds
the aforementioned extreme value, the risk level in decision-making
does not change with the change in acceptability;
c. The risk level in group decision-making of individual preference
fusion is lower, compared with that in individual decision risk fusion,
and the decision risk level of the weighted average individual preference
is the lowest;
d. In large group emergency decision-making, the fusion of the
preferences of different decision-makers can effectively control the level
of risk in group decision-making, and the fusion of preferences after
considering the weight of an attribute exerts the most noticeable
reducing effect on the risk level in group decision-making. Thus, the
fusion of preferences is a risk neutralization process in large group de­
cision-making.
Fig. 7 indicates that the group decision risk increases with increases
in qj and pj. When qj and pj increase to a certain extent, the decision risk
does not change; when type-I and type-III decision risks reach the
maximum value, qj remains the same (the red dotted line in Fig. 7, qj =
0.4). However, the qj value of the maximum risk of type-II decision-
making is significantly lower than that of type-I and type-II decision-
making (qj = 0.15). Simultaneously, the relationship between type-I,
type-II, and type-III decision risks is fully consistent with that shown
in Fig. 6. Analysis of the laws reflected in the aforementioned figures
verifies the conclusions in Fig. 6 and further leads to the following
conclusions:
a. Group decision risk increases with an increase in the support range
J. Cao et al. Expert Systems With Applications 195 (2022) 116527

of the decision group; thus, a suitable support range for decision-makers

should be maintained to control decision risk;
b. The higher the risk preference of the group decision-makers, the
higher the group decision risk; by contrast, the risk preference of the
group decision tends is characterized by risk aversion, keeping the group
decision risk low;
c. If the degree of discrepancy and acceptance remain unchanged, the
highest group decision risk may be extreme. Table 9 lists the statistics of
maximum group decision risk under different degrees of discrepancy
and acceptance.
In Table 9 under the given group decision preference, when a group
decision is made, the support degree is assigned a specific value, and the
decision risk is kept at the highest level. Under the initial preference
information, the support degree of type-I and type-III decision-making is
0.4, and that of type-II decision-making is 0.15. Under the same degree
of discrepancy and acceptance, the risk in group decision-making rea­
ches the maximum, and when the degrees of discrepancy and acceptance
are zero, the risk in group decision-making reaches the maximum value.
In summary, the aforementioned methods of measuring risk in
decision-making and the analysis of the effect of a parameter change can
provide a basis for selecting the risk measurement method and param­ Fig. 8. Influence of the γ, η values on decision risk adjustment.
eter setting. When group decision requires the maximum risk aversion,
the risk measurement method applicable for type-I group decision can
be selected, and the parameters fj = 0, gj = 0, and qj = 0.4 can be set; Table 10
when group decision chooses the minimum risk aversion, that applicable Adjustment times of γ, η value changes.
for type-III decision can be chosen. The risk measurement method for γ Н
type-II decision can be selected, and the parameter qj = 0.15 can be set, 0.7 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35
which is a compromise strategy.
0.26 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
0.255 4 4 3 2 2 1 1 1
Value analysis of the decision risk threshold (γ) and the adjustment 0.25 6 5 4 3 2 2 1 1
coefficient (η) 0.245 7 6 5 4 2 2 2 1
0.24 8 7 7 5 3 2 2 1
The decision risk threshold selected affects the evaluation of decision Note: The elements in the table are adjustment times.
risk and determines whether the decision risk needs to be controlled.
When the decision enters the stage of risk resolution, the size of the the risk resolution, and the lower the degree of acceptance, the slower
adjustment coefficient determines the range of change in preference the risk resolution;
information of the decision-makers and affects the efficiency of prefer­ b. The low risk in decision-making and the decision risk has a reverse
ence adjustment. Different values of γ and η are selected, and the effect—that is, the pursuit of low risk in group decision-making is at the
changes in the risk level of the group decision and adjustment times are expense of group decision efficiency.
shown in Fig. 8.
As shown in Fig. 8, with a decrease in η, the reduction in decision risk 5. Methodological contribution
during decision risk adjustment increasingly grows. The time of decision
risk adjustment is affected by the decision risk threshold (γ) and This paper takes the social media comment data as the basis for the
adjustment coefficient (η). When γ is constant, the number of adjust­ construction of attribute system and attribute weight determination of
ments decreases as the adjustment coefficient decreases; when η is large group emergency decision-making, and gives an effective way for
constant, the number of adjustment times increases as the decision risk the construction of attribute system and attribute weight determination.
threshold decreases. The changes in the adjustment times of γ and η are In addition, aiming at the credibility of decision-makers’ preference
shown in Table 10. information, a risk consensus control mechanism of reference preference
Consistent with Fig. 8 and Table 10, the following conclusions can be information mining based on subject thematic emotion analysis is pro­
drawn: posed, which integrates decision-making risk resolution into the process
a. In large group risk resolution, the degree of acceptance of refer­ of reaching consensus in large group emergency decision-making. The
ence information by decision-makers positively affects the efficiency of major contributions of this study are as follows:
the risk resolution; that is, the higher the degree of acceptance, the faster
This study proposes a method for determining public intuitionistic
fuzzy attribute preference based on topic sentiment analysis; realizes
Table 9 the self-classification of big data attributes from comments, micro­
Statistics for large group decision risk.
blogging, and text by topic mining; and acquires intuitionistic fuzzy
fj gj Maximum group decision risk qj value (maximum decision risk) attribute preference information of topics drawing public concern by
Type-I Type- II Type- III Type-I Type- II Type- III sentiment analysis. With topic mining and sentiment analysis as the
0 0 0.6169 0.42 0.1619 0.4 0.15 0.4
basis of attribute information and the standard for evaluating expert
0 0.05 0.5721 0.37 0.1535 0.4 0.15 0.4 preference risk, attribute structure determination is more objective,
0.05 0.05 0.5609 0.32 0.1514 0.4 0.15 0.4 and attribute weight acquisition is more accurate in large group
0.05 0.1 0.4844 0.2232 0.1286 0.4 0.15 0.4 decision-making.
0.05 0.15 0.365 0.1548 0.1029 0.4 0.15 0.4
Aimed at addressing the problem related to risk measurement in an
0.1 0.15 0.2458 0.0843 0.0771 0.4 0.15 0.4
0.1 0.2 0.2075 0.0421 0.0643 0.4 0.15 0.4 intuitionistic fuzzy preference environment, this study proposes a

16
J. Cao et al.
method based on credibility to measure the risk of large group
emergency decision-making. This method considers not only the
credibility but also the support degree of preference information. The
approach can also maintain the comprehensiveness of preference
information risk measurement and objectively and accurately mea­
sure the risk of intuitionistic fuzzy decision preference.
A risk–consensus control mechanism, including the risk resolution
mechanism and the risk–consensus optimization model, is proposed
to effectively control and eliminate the risk in large group emergency
decision-making and maintain a high degree of consensus in large
group decision-making to find decision alternatives with low risk and
high consensus.
The proposal of these methods, on the one hand, realizes the value
utilization of social media comment data related to emergencies and the
complete data-driven acquisition of attribute information, on the other
hand, realizes the organic combination of large group emergency
decision-making methods and decision-making risk measurement, res­
olution and control, and enriches the theory and method system of large
group emergency decision-making and risk decision-making. In other
words, the method proposed in this paper can reduce the disadvantages
of traditional emergency decision-making experts’ analysis and judg­
ment, and improve the objectivity and scientificity of large group
emergency decision-making.
6. Conclusions
In this study, the construction of an attribute system and determi­
nation of attribute weights in a big data environment are investigated.
Risk measurement in decision-making and the resolution of an intui­
tionistic fuzzy preference environment are also studied. A large group
emergency decision-making technique based on topic sentiment analysis
is thus proposed. The proposed method integrates data processing
technology into risky large group emergency decision-making. This
approach contributes to the theory and methods of large group decision-
making and risky decision-making and helps expand the application of
big data technology in risky large group emergency decision-making and
improve the scientificity and applicability of large group emergency
decision-making. Meanwhile, certain limitations exist:
Acquisition of attribute information in large group emergency
decision-making from social media comment and big data analysis
can effectively improve the objectivity of attribute information
determination; however, the results of this study are obtained via the
network. In future research, we intend to expand the data source
channel, seek the cooperation of professional data providers,
improve the application scope of big data analysis in large group
emergency decision-making to maximize the value of emergency big
data.
The risk factors in the risk system of large group emergency decisions
are only partly analyzed, and a targeted method of risky large group
emergency decision-making is proposed. Meanwhile, the measure­
ment and control methods of other risk factors are not involved, such
as extreme preference risk, noncooperative behavior risk, irrational
behavior risk, and so on, which are highly valuable in research.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science
17
Expert Systems With Applications 195 (2022) 116527
Foundation of China (71971217, 72073041), the Key Project of Natural
Science Foundation of China (71790615, 72091515), Key R&D Project
of Hunan Province (2019GK2131).
References
Aggarwal, I., & Woolley, A. W. (2013). Do you see what I see? The effect of members’
cognitive styles on team processes and errors in task execution. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(1), 92–99.
Atanassov, K. T. (1986). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 20(1), 87–96.
Bi, J., Liu, Y., & Fan, Z. (2019). Representing sentiment analysis results of online reviews
using interval type-2 fuzzy numbers and its application to product ranking.
Information Sciences, 504, 293–307.
Borgonovo, E., Cappelli, V., & Maccheroni, F. (2018). Risk analysis and decision theory:
A bridge. European Journal of Operational Research, 264(1), 280–293.
Bose, T., Reinal, A., & Marshall, J. A. R. (2017). Collective decision-making. Current
Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 16, 30–34.
Chan, J., Lizzeri, A., Suen, W., & Yariv, L. (2018). Deliberating collective decisions.
Review of Economic Studies, 85(2), 929–963.
Csaszar, F. A. (2013). An efficient frontier in organization design: Organizational
structure as a determinant of exploration and exploitation. Organization Science, 24
(4), 1083–1101.
Dargin, J. S., Fan, C., & Mostafavi, A. (2021). Vulnerable populations and social media
use in disasters: Uncovering the digital divide in three major u.s. hurricanes.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 102043.
Garcia, A., Obeidi, A., & Hipel, K. W. (2018). Strategic advice for decision-making under
conflict based on observed behaviour. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 332,
96–104.
Hampton, S. E., Strasser, C. A., Tewksbury, J. J., Gram, W. K., Budden, A. E.,
Batcheller, A. L., … Porter, J. H. (2013). Big data and the future of ecology. Frontiers
in Ecology and the Environment, 11(3), 156–162.
Hertwig, R. (2012). Tapping into the wisdom of the crowd-with confidence. Science, 336
(6079), 303–304.
Körte, J. (2003). Risk-based emergency decision support. Reliabitity Engineering & System
Safety, 82(3), 235–246.
Lara, T., Filippo, Q., Eleonora, D. A., Pietro, D., Marco, V., Francesco, M., & Pier, L. L.
(2020). Twitter as a sentinel tool to monitor public opinion on vaccination: An
opinion mining analysis from september 2016 to august 2017 in italy. Human
Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics, 16(5), 1–8.
Liu, Y., Bi, J., & Fan, Z. (2017). Ranking products through online reviews: A method
based on sentiment analysis technique and intuitionistic fuzzy set theory. Information
Fusion, 36, 149–161.
Medhat, W., Hassan, A., & Korashy, H. (2014). Sentiment analysis algorithms and
applications: A survey. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 5(4), 1093–1113.
Moulik, S., Misra, S., & Obaidat, M. S. (2015). Smart-Evac: Big Data-Based Decision
Making for Emergency Evacuation. IEEE Cloud Computing, 2(3), 58–65.
Nguyen, H. (2015). A new knowledge-based measure for intuitionistic fuzzy sets and its
application in multiple attribute group decision making. Expert Systems with
Applications, 42(22), 8766–8774.
Pérez-González, C. J., Colebrook, M., Roda-García, J. L., & Rosa-Remedios, C. B. (2019).
Developing a data analytics platform to support decision making in emergency and
security management. Expert Systems with Applications, 120, 167–184.
Ravi, K., & Ravi, V. (2015). A survey on opinion mining and sentiment analysis: Tasks,
approaches and applications. Knowledge-Based Systems, 89, 14–46.
Rexiline Ragini, J., Rubesh Anand, P. M., & Bhaskar, V. (2018). Mining crisis
information: A strategic approach for detection of people at risk through social
media analysis. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 27, 556–566.
Romanowski, C., Raj, R., Schneider, J., Mishra, S., Shivshankar, V., Ayengar, S., &
Cueva, F. (2015). Regional response to large-scale emergency events: Building on
historical data. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, 11, 12–21.
Schuldt, J. P., Chabris, C. F., Woolley, A. W., & Hackman, J. R. (2017). Confidence in
dyadic decision making: The role of individual differences. Journal of Behavioral
Decision Making, 30(2), 168–180.
Serrano-Guerrero, J., Olivas, J. A., Romero, F. P., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2015).
Sentiment analysis: A review and comparative analysis of web services. Information
Sciences, 311, 18–38.
Shen, F., Xu, J., & Xu, Z. (2016). An outranking sorting method for multi-criteria group
decision making using intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Information Sciences, 334–335,
338–353.
Starcke, K., & Brand, M. (2016). Effects of stress on decisions under uncertainty: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 142(9), 909–933.
Woo, H., Cho, Y., Shim, E., Lee, K., & Song, G. (2015). Public trauma after the sewol ferry
disaster: The role of social media in understanding the public mood. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(9), 10974–10983.
Xu, X., Wang, L., Chen, X., & Liu, B. (2019). Large group emergency decision-making
method with linguistic risk appetites based on criteria mining. Knowledge-Based
Systems, 182, Article 104849.
Xu, X., Yin, X., & Chen, X. (2019). A large-group emergency risk decision method based
on data mining of public attribute preferences. Knowledge-Based Systems, 163,
495–509.
Zavgorodniy, V., Lukyanov, P., & Nazarov, S. (2014). The selection algorithm of
mechanisms for management of information risks. Procedia Computer Science, 31,
440–448.