This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal.

Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CYBERNETICS 1

A Dynamic Adaptive Subgroup-to-Subgroup

Compatibility-Based Conflict Detection and
Resolution Model for Multicriteria Large-Scale
Group Decision Making
Ming Tang , Huchang Liao , Senior Member, IEEE, Enrique Herrera-Viedma , Senior Member, IEEE,
C. L. Philip Chen , Fellow, IEEE, and Witold Pedrycz , Fellow, IEEE

Abstract—The current societal demands and technological
developments have resulted in the participation of a large number
of experts in making decisions as a group. Conflicts are immi-
nent in groups and conflict management is complex and necessary
especially in a large group. However, there are few studies that
quantitatively research the conflict detection and resolution in the
large-group context, especially in the multicriteria large-group
decision making (GDM) context. This article proposes a dynamic
adaptive subgroup-to-subgroup conflict model to solve multicrite-
ria large-scale GDM problems. A compatibility index is proposed
based on two kinds of conflicts among experts: 1) cognitive
conflict and 2) interest conflict. Then, the fuzzy c-means cluster-
ing algorithm is used to classify experts into several subgroups.
A subgroup-to-subgroup conflict detection method and a weight-
determination approach are developed based on the clustering
results. Afterward, a conflict resolution model, which can dynam-
ically generate feedback suggestion, is introduced. Finally, an
illustrative example is provided to demonstrate the effectiveness
and applicability of the proposed model.
Manuscript received July 28, 2019; revised December 21, 2019; accepted
February 15, 2020. This work was supported in part by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China under Grant 71771156, and in part by Spanish
Ministry of Science and Universities Funds under Grant TIN2016-75850-R.
This article was recommended by Associate Editor Q. Shen. (Corresponding
authors: Huchang Liao; Enrique Herrera-Viedma.)
Ming Tang is with the Business School, Sichuan University, Chengdu
610064, China (e-mail: tangming0716@163.com).
Huchang Liao is with the Business School, Sichuan University, Chengdu
610064, China, and also with the Faculty of Computing and Information
Technology, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia (e-mail:
liaohuchang@163.com).
Enrique Herrera-Viedma is with the Andalusian Research Institute in
Data Science and Computational Intelligence, University of Granada,
18071 Granada, Spain, and also with the Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, King Abdulaziz University,
Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia (e-mail: viedma@decsai.ugr.es).
C. L. Philip Chen is with the Department of Computer and Information
Science, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Macau, Macau,
China, also with the Navigation College, Dalian Maritime University,
Dalian 116026, China, and also with the Unmanned System Research
Institute, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, China (e-mail:
philip.chen@ieee.org).
Witold Pedrycz is with the Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2R3, Canada, and
also with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia (e-mail:
wpedrycz@ualberta.ca).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this article are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TCYB.2020.2974924
2168-2267 
c 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Index Terms—Compatibility index, conflict, fuzzy c-means
clustering (FCM), multicriteria large-scale group decision making
(LSGDM), subgroup-to-subgroup.
I. I NTRODUCTION
ROUP decision making (GDM) can be defined as a situa-
G tion in which two or more experts make their evaluations
toward a set of possible alternatives and then select the optimal
one [1]. In GDM, experts have their own attitudes, motiva-
tions, and perceptions. Hence, they tend to have different
opinions on available alternatives. Conflicts among experts are
caused because of such discrepancies in opinions. Conflict
is widely defined as a struggle or clash that occurs when
a perceived incompatibility or threat exists in the thoughts,
behaviors, feelings, or attitudes of two or more parties [2].
How to achieve high group effectiveness and obtain high-
quality decision results through effective conflict management
has been a topic of common concern for organizational man-
agers and researchers [3]. However, most existing studies used
empirical research [4] or meta-analysis [5] to test the relation-
ship between conflict and team performance. Few studies built
models to measure the degree of group conflict quantitatively
and introduce interactive feedback methods to solve conflicts
among experts.
With the rapid expansion of technological paradigms, such
as e-democracy [6] and social networks [7], there is a trend
that a larger number of experts are involved in the decision-
making process. Therefore, the large-scale GDM (LSGDM)
becomes a much-talked-about topic. Many challenges stem-
ming from general GDM to LSGDM will arise, such as
the supervision cost [8], social relationship [9], noncoop-
erative behavior [10], minority opinion [11], and conflict
among experts. However, as an important research issue
in the field of GDM, conflict analysis is relatively less
researched by scholars in LSGDM problems. When the
number of experts in a group is large, there will be
many more conflicts than conventional GDM problems.
Consequently, it is difficult to measure and manage con-
flicts in LSGDM problems. If conflicts cannot be coordinated
properly, then the time cost will increase significantly, and

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Electronic Science and Tech of China. Downloaded on March 15,2020 at 11:57:35 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
2 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CYBERNETICS
the decision-making efficiency will decrease, especially in the
LSGDM environment.
To detect and manage conflicts, it is necessary to deter-
mine the types of conflicts. The 2-D model is the most
widely used principle to identify the types of conflicts [4].
Different types under this principle, such as the task rela-
tionship, cognitive relationship, and cognitive interest have
been predominantly researched by scholars [4]. The dimen-
sional of cognitive interest was proposed by Doucet et al.
[12]. Cognitive conflicts appear because different experts have
various knowledge levels or experiences, and therefore make
different evaluations on the same thing. Interest conflicts
appear because different experts represent different interest
groups, and therefore make different evaluations from their
own interests. For a multicriteria LSGDM problem, the cog-
nitive interest is mainly reflected by different evaluation values
of alternatives, while the interest conflict is mainly reflected by
the inconsistency of the importance for each criterion [13]. Let
us use a real-world example to illustrate this issue. The loca-
tion of a large shopping mall is a complex decision-making
problem, which often involves large-scale experts and officials
from multiple fields and departments, such as the municipal
department, land and resources, environmental protection, traf-
fic, and gardening and greening. Multiple criteria should be
considered, such as the cost, economical and population char-
acteristics, environmental consideration, transportation consid-
eration, and investor’s competency. When evaluating possible
alternatives, experts from different departments provide their
evaluation information according to their knowledge. However,
when weighting criteria, different departments may have their
emphases from their interests. For instance, the traffic depart-
ment focuses on transportation consideration since it does not
want the mall to significantly increase the traffic pressure
around it.
To reduce the scale of LSGDM problems, the clustering
process is the most popular [8]. It can classify all experts
into several subgroups, and then the size and complexity
of the problem can be reduced. In such a case, the sub-
group becomes a decision unit in the LSGDM. We can
measure the discrepancy between a subgroup and the collective
group. Most previous LSGDM studies used the centricity-
oriented method of adopting the aggregated group opinion
as a reference point to find incompatible subgroups [13].
However, this method has some limitations. First, the pre-
condition of the centricity-oriented method is that the aggre-
gation function is defined. But there are many aggregation
functions, and different aggregation functions may lead to
different results. In this sense, the robustness of the centricity-
oriented method is weak. Second, the required aggrega-
tion step increases the complexity and cost of LSGDM
problems.
Bearing all aforementioned points in mind, this article
develops a conflict detection and resolution model for mul-
ticriteria LSGDM problems. Theoretically, this article has the
following contributions.
1) Two kinds of conflicts are defined for multicrite-
ria LSGDM problems. The compatibility index is
developed based on these two kinds of conflicts.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Electronic Science and Tech of China. Downloaded on March 15,2020 at 11:57:35 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2) A new integrated weight-determination method, which
combines opinion transition probability of a subgroup
to another and the size of subgroups, is proposed. The
opinion transition probability is calculated based on the
Markov chain.
3) A dynamic adaptive subgroup-to-subgroup conflict
model is developed. The feedback mechanism can gen-
erate suggestions dynamically according to the conflict
degree of each subgroup against other subgroups in each
iterative round.
This article is organized as follows. In Section II, the
description of the multicriteria LSGDM problem is given.
Section III introduces the conflict detection process in detail.
In Section IV, we discuss how to resolve conflicts for
multicriteria LSGDM problems. An illustrative example is
provided to verify the applicability of the proposed model
in Section V. Some discussions regarding the proposed
model are given in Section VI. Conclusions are drawn
in Section VII.
II. D ESCRIPTION OF THE M ULTICRITERIA
LSGDM P ROBLEM
A multicriteria LSGDM problem is defined as a situation in
which at least 20 experts are involved in the decision-making
problem to select an optimal alternative considering multiple
criteria. The main elements of a multicriteria LSGDM problem
include the following:
1) a set of alternatives, X = {x1 , x2 , . . . , xm }, m ≥ 2, which
are selected as possible solutions to the problem;
2) a set of experts, E = {e1 , e2 , . . . , eQ }, Q ≥ 20, which
are invited to evaluate alternatives and give their assess-
ments; in an LSGDM problem, there are two widely
used principles for the number of experts [13]: one is
20 [8]; and the other is 11 [11]; this article uses the
former principle;
3) a set of criteria, C = {c1 , c2 , . . . , cn }, n ≥ 2, and the
 of criteria ω = (ω1 , ω2 , . . . , ωn ) , with
weight vector T
ωj ≥ 0 and nj=1 ωi = 1.
Each expert expresses his/her opinions on alternatives over
q q
criteria by a decision matrix Vq = (vij )m×n , where vij denotes
the assessment of alternative xi on criterion cj . In this arti-
cle, we assume that all experts use the scale 0–1 to provide
evaluation values.
Formally, the solving process for the multicriteria LSGDM
problem usually requires four steps [11].
Step 1: Normalize original decision matrices. To elim-
inate the influence of dimension, all assessments should
be normalized into values in the interval [0, 1]. For
a multicriteria LSGDM problem, generally, the criteria can
be classified into two categories: 1) benefit criteria and
2) cost criteria. In this article, we transform the indi-
q
vidual decision matrix Vq = (vij )m×n into the nor-
q q
malized decision matrix Dq = (dij )m×n , where dij =
q q q q
[(vij − mini {vij })/(maxi {vij } − mini {vij })] for benefit crite-
q q q q q
rion cj , and dij = [(maxi {vij } − vij )/(maxi {vij } − mini {vij })],
for cost criterion cj .
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

TANG et al.: DYNAMIC ADAPTIVE SUBGROUP-TO-SUBGROUP COMPATIBILITY-BASED CONFLICT DETECTION AND RESOLUTION MODEL 3

TABLE I
S YMBOL D ESCRIPTIONS a clustering algorithm is adopted to classify experts into
several subgroups. Based on the clustering results, a subgroup-
to-subgroup conflict detection method and a weight-
determination method are developed.

A. Interpersonal Conflict Measure

Due to various experiences and educational backgrounds,
experts’ assessments on alternatives are usually diverse. This
kind of conflict can be regarded as the cognitive conflict,
which is embodied in the differences of assessments in deci-
sion matrices. The cognitive conflict degree between eq and
es can be defined as
1   q 
m n

CCqs = dij − dijs  (2)
m×n
i=1 j=1
q
where dij and dijs are the assessment values on the ith
alternative regarding the jth criterion given by eq and es ,
respectively.
The interest conflict is mainly embodied in the differences
of the weights of decision criteria. The interest conflict degree
between eq and es can be defined as

1  q 
n

ICqs = ωj − ωjs  (3)
n
j=1
q
where ωj and ωjs are the weights of the jth criterion given by
experts eq and es , respectively.
Both CCqs and ICqs belong to [0, 1]. The larger CCqs or
ICqs is, the greater the cognitive or interest conflict degree
Step 2: Classify experts into several subgroups. In this between eq and es .
step, we use the fuzzy c-means clustering (FCM) algo- We use the 2-D principle to define these two kinds of con-
rithm to classify all experts {e1 , e2 , . . . , eQ } into K subgroups flicts. Note that there may be also other conflicts that cannot
G1 , G2 , . . . , GK . The weight vector of criteria and the decision be included by these two kinds of conflicts such as the incon-
matrix corresponding to the kth subgroup are denoted as ωGk sistency in screening indicators. These conflicts can influence
G
and DGk = (dij k )m×n , respectively. the decision-making process. In this article, only cognitive and
Step 3: Aggregate all subgroups’ decision matrices into interest conflict are considered.
a global decision matrix. Note that this aggregation pro- Inspired by Saaty [14] and Chen et al. [15], we then define
cess is only applied after the conflict threshold is reached. the compatibility index between two experts.
q q q
Suppose that (λ1 , λ2 , . . . , λK )T is the weight vector of all sub- Definition 1: Let ωq = (ω1 , ω2 , . . . , ωn )T and ωs =
groups. The weighted averaging (WA) operator can be used to (ω1 , ω2 , . . . , ωn ) be the weight vectors of criteria given by
s s s T
q
G the experts eq and es , respectively. Let Dq = (dij )m×n and
aggregate DGk = (dij k )m×n into a collective decision matrix
Ds = (dij )m×n be the decision matrices provided by the experts
s
DG = (dijG )m×n , such that
eq and es , respectively. The compatibility index of eq and es
  K is defined as
G ⎛ ⎞
dijG = WA dijG1 , dijG2 , . . . , dijGK = λk dij k (1) n   n  
  1 ζ  m 
 q    q 
k=1 c eq , es = ⎝ dij − dijs  + (1 − ζ ) ωj − ωjs ⎠
n m
where λk is the weight of Gk and satisfies λk ≥ 0,

i=1 j=1 j=1
K
k=1 λk = 1. (4)
Step 4: Select the best alternative. This step obtains the final
where ζ is a parameter to control the attention on the interest
evaluation value of each alternative using the WA operator.
conflict and cognitive conflict. If ζ > 0.5, then (4) pays
For better understanding, we summarize mathematical sym-
more attention to the impact of cognitive conflict; if ζ > 0.5,
bols used in this article in Table I.
then (4) pays more attention to the impact of interest conflict;
ζ = 0.5 denotes that (4) pays equal attention to two kinds of
III. C ONFLICT D ETECTION IN M ULTICRITERIA LSGDM conflicts. In this article, we set ζ as 0.5.
In this section, we introduce the cognitive conflict and Through this process, the discrepancies between experts
interest conflict in multicriteria LSGDM problems. Then, with regard to the weights of criteria and evaluation values in

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Electronic Science and Tech of China. Downloaded on March 15,2020 at 11:57:35 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

4 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CYBERNETICS

Algorithm 1 iterations approach to 0, that is

1) Set the number of clusters, K, and the fuzziness degree b. Q K  
q ) − μ t (eq )
In the FCM clustering algorithm, the fuzziness degree q=1 μ
k=1 G t+1 (e Gk 
b is a parameter to control the sharing extend among
k
≤ξ (6)
Q·K
different clusters. Larger b implies higher fuzziness
degree [16]. In this article, we set b = 2. where ξ is a parameter close to 0.
2) Select K clustering centroids. In the FCM clustering The experts in the same cluster have high-compatibility
algorithm, how to select initial clustering centroids is degrees or low-conflict degrees. In other words, they have sim-
still an open question. A common method is to select ilar opinions. Thus, we average the information of experts in
them randomly. However, this approach may be influ- the same cluster and obtain the cluster’s weight vector of cri-
enced by noisy and isolated points, and consequently teria and the assessments of alternatives under each criterion,
leads to the low quality of the clustering effect [20]. such that
1 k r
Many researchers have developed different methods to #G
Gk
improve the selection approach for initial clustering cen- ωj = ωj (7)
#Gk
troids. In this article, we use the approach proposed by r=1
Katsavounidis et al. [21] to select the initial clustering and
centroids.
1 k r
#G
3) While the termination condition is not reached, do G
dij k = dij (8)
4) Calculate the membership degree μtGk (eq ) of each expert #Gk
r=1
to the selected centroid Gk as follows:
  1/(b−1) where #Gk is the number of experts in Gk , er ∈ Gk .
  1/c etq , Gtk Another important problem for the FCM clustering algo-
μtGk eq =
K   t t 1/(b−1)
(5) rithm is to determine the number of clusters. To find the
k=1 1/c eq , Gk optimal number of clusters, we use the fuzzy validity crite-
rion proposed by Xie and Beni [22] to measure the effect of
where t is the number of iterations. clustering results.
5) Update the clustering centroid Gtk , which can be Suppose that the clustering results are {G1 , G2 , . . . , GK }.
obtained by (7) and (8). Define
6) End while.
Z
L= (9)
Q × dmin

decision matrices can be aggregated into a compatibility index. K Q 1, if eq ∈ Gk ,
where Z = q=1 uqGk cqGk , uqGk =
As a result, the calculation process is greatly simplified. k=1 0, if eq ∈
/ Gk .
Here, cqGk is the compatibility degree of eq correspond-
B. Classifying Experts ing to the cluster Gk . The weight vector of criteria and
the decision matrix of Gk can be obtained by (7) and (8).
This section uses the FCM clustering algorithm [16] to dmin = mink,l cGk Gl , where cGk Gl is the compatibility degree
classify experts based on the compatibility index defined between Gk and Gl .
as (4). The FCM clustering algorithm is an unsupervised clus- In (9), dmin is an additional factor to measure the separation
tering technique that has been successfully used in many degree of clusters. A larger value of dmin implies a higher
fields [17]. It provides a method to classify data points in separation degree of clusters. A small value of L denotes that
multidimensional space into several clusters. The main advan- the clusters are compact. Therefore, the smallest L corresponds
tage of the FCM clustering algorithm is that it allows the to an optimal clustering result.
membership degrees of points to clusters measured as degrees The clustering process can reduce the dimension of problem,
in [0, 1]. Therefore, the FCM clustering algorithm provides based on which the cost and complexity of multicrite-
the flexibility in explaining that a point belongs to multiple ria LSGDM problems can be reduced. Subgroups serve as
clusters. It is easily implemented and has been widely used decision-making units and participate in subsequent decisions.
in various fields with satisfactory results [18]. Furthermore, It can also search common opinions patterns, based on which
using the FCM clustering algorithm can obtain good effect a spokesman who represents a subgroup can be identified [13].
with noisy points, and the computational time is low when
the dataset is small [19].
The FCM clustering algorithm is achieved by minimiz- C. Subgroup-to-Subgroup Conflict Measure
ing an objective function dependent on the distances of After obtaining the clustering results, the weight vector of
objects to the clustering centroid in the feature domain. criteria and the decision matrices of each subgroups can be
The main steps of this clustering algorithm are presented obtained based on (7) and (8), respectively. Next, we define
as follows. the compatibility index of two subgroups.
G G G
The FCM clustering algorithm executes the termination con- Definition 2: Let ωGk = (ω1 k , ω2 k , . . . , ωn k )T and ωGl =
Gl Gl Gl T
dition when all clusters are stable. This occurs when the (ω1 , ω2 , . . . , ωn ) be the weight vector of criteria corre-
differences in membership degrees between two consecutive sponding to subgroups Gk and Gl , respectively. Let DGk =

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Electronic Science and Tech of China. Downloaded on March 15,2020 at 11:57:35 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
TANG et al.: DYNAMIC ADAPTIVE SUBGROUP-TO-SUBGROUP COMPATIBILITY-BASED CONFLICT DETECTION AND RESOLUTION MODEL
G G
(dij k )m×n and DGl = (dij l )m×n be the decision matrix of sub-
group Gk and Gl , respectively. The compatibility index of Gk
and Gl can be defined as
⎛ opinion transitions from one subgroup to another. Generally,
1 ⎝ ζ   Gk 
m n
G
c(Gk , Gl ) = dij − dij l 
n m
i=1 j=1
⎞ its opinion more similar to Gl ’s opinion than to Gp ’s because
 n  
 Gk G
+ (1 − ζ ) ωj − ωj l ⎠. (10)
j=1
According to (10), we have c(Gk , Gl ) ∈ [0, 1] and
c(Gk , Gl ) = 0 if and only if DGk = DGl and ωGk = ωGl .
Next, we can define the subgroup conflict index.
Definition 3: Let ωGk , ωGl , DGk , and DGl be as before.
The subgroup conflict index (SCI) between Gk and Gl is
defined as
SCIkl = c(Gk , Gl ).
SCI holds: 1) SCIkl ∈ [0, 1]; 2) SCIkl = SCIlk (symme-
try); and 3) SCIkk = 0 (reflexivity). Based on (11), we can
obtain the subgroup conflict matrix O = (SCIkl )K×K , where
the elements are conflict degrees between pairwise subgroups.
A reasonable threshold ψ(0 < ψ < 1) should be set to
confirm whether there is a conflict between two subgroups.
For Gk and Gl , if SCIkl > ψ, then they are in conflict.
Otherwise, if SCIkl ≤ ψ, then the divergences of assess-
ments between Gk and Gl are not enough to create a conflict.
Obviously, it is unrealistic and unnecessary to let SCIkl = 0
in real-world decision-making problems. A certain degree of
conflict can be beneficial for group performance because it
promotes the exploration and exchanging of different ideas,
stimulates in-depth analysis of alternative action plans, and
effectively inhibits groupthink [23], [24]. The value of ψ can
be determined according to specific situations. A vital and
major problem should set a low conflict threshold such as 0.1.
At the other extreme, such as urgent problems, the conflict
threshold should be high because of the time limitation. The
conflict threshold should also take into account the group size.
An LSGDM problem should have a higher conflict threshold
than a small-scale GDM problem since more conflicts exist in
LSGDM problems.
D. Weight Determination for Subgroups
The conflict detection and resolution model proposed in
this article does not have the aggregation process. It relies
on pairwise comparisons between subgroups, instead of the
general centricity-oriented weight determination method that
computes the similarity degree between subgroups and the
aggregated group. Therefore, it seems of interest to develop
a weight determination method that adapts to the context of
the subgroup-to-subgroup conflict model. In this regard, this
article proposes an integrated method combining the Markov
chain and the size of subgroups.
Based on (10), we can obtain the degree of conflict
for each pair of subgroups. Then, their opinion transition
probabilities [25] can be derived. For a large group of experts,
there is usually a diversity of assessments. However, subgroup
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Electronic Science and Tech of China. Downloaded on March 15,2020 at 11:57:35 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
5
Gk may have a similar opinion with subgroup Gl and have
a diverse opinion from subgroup Gp . The differences in the
closeness degrees between subgroups reveal the possibilities of
people do the same thing with other people who have similar
opinions with them [26]. Thus, it is easier to let Gk modify
of the higher closeness degree of their opinions.
Moreover, opinion transition probabilities reveal the agree-
ment level between one subgroup to another. This pro-
cess of opinion transition can be regarded as a finite
state space Markov chain [27]. Inspired by Ross [28] and
Dong et al. [25], we develop a method to obtain the weight
vector based on opinion transition probabilities. We define the
opinion transition probability from one subgroup to another
based on the subgroup conflict index SCI
1/SCIkl
(11) pkl = K 1
(12)
l=1 SCIkl
K
where l pkl = 1, pkl > 0. A Markov chain matrix
P = (pkl )K×K can be derived by computing opinion transi-
tion probabilities between any pair of subgroups. The weight
distribution of subgroups can be obtained by the limiting distri-
bution which is the only stationary distribution of the Markov
chain. Ross [28] provided a method to calculate the limiting
distribution π
πTP = π (13)
 K
where π = (π1 , π2 , . . . , πK )T , k πk = 1, πk ≥ 0. Let
γk = πk , then the weight vector γ 1 = (γ11 , γ21 , . . . , γK1 )T
1
can be derived.
The size is also considered regarding the importance of
a subgroup. Let γk2 = #Gk /Q, then the weight vector
γ 2 = (γ12 , γ22 , . . . , γK2 )T can be derived. The final weight of a
subgroup is
γ1 × γ2
γk = K k 1 k 2 . (14)
k=1 γk × γk
The final weight vector of subgroups is γ = (γ1 , γ2 , . . . , γK )T .
Next, we analyze the time complexity of the conflict detec-
tion process. First, we calculate the compatibility degree
between each pair of experts based on (2)–(4). The time com-
plexity is O((mn+n+1)×Q(Q − 1)/2), where Q is the number
of experts involved in the problem, m is the number of alter-
natives, and n is the number of criteria. The time complexity
of the FCM clustering algorithm is O(2Q2 K 2 i) [29], where 2
is the dimension of data and i is the number of iterations. In
the clustering process, we added a selection method for initial
clustering centroids. We select the point that has the smallest
average distance with other points as the first clustering cen-
troid. Then, K points can be selected using this method. The
time complexity is no more than O(KQ). Similar to (4), the
time cost of (10) is O((mn + n + 1) × K(K − 1)/2). The time
cost of (12) and (14) is O(K(K −1)/2+K +1) and O(2K +1),
respectively. There are also other calculation processes, which
can be implemented offline. Therefore, the time complexity of
these processes is ignored.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

6 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CYBERNETICS

IV. A DAPTIVE C ONFLICT R ESOLUTION M ODEL more changes should be made in its opinions. K Furthermore,
The conflict coordination and resolution is an important αkt = αlt , if and only if K y=1,y=k,l SCIky = y=1,y=k,l SCIly .
research topic in LSGDM. If there are pairs of subgroups The subgroup conflict index can only reveal the undi-
that do not reach the conflict threshold, then, the feedback rected relations between pairs of subgroups for the reason that
mechanism should be applied to reduce the conflict degree. SCIkl = SCIlk (symmetry). However, for a pair of subgroups
{Gk , Gl }, there may be different adoption directions between
these two subgroups because they can take different attitudes
A. Adaptive Mechanism to Reduce the Conflict Degree of toward the adjusted suggestions. Therefore, the ordered pair
Subgroups of subgroups are defined to clarify the direction between two
Suppose that Gk and Gl are selected in the t-th iteration to subgroups.
make modifications according to feedback suggestions. The Definition 4: Let G = {G1 , G2 , . . . , GK } be a set of K sub-
t+1
new weight vector ωG k
and the decision matrix Dt+1
Gk can be groups. An ordered pair of subgroups is defined as (Gk , Gl ).
modified by the following strategies: (Gk , Gl ) denotes that subgroup Gk may revise its opinions
 α t  1−α t according to subgroup Gl .
ωG t+1
= ω t
Gk
k
ωGt k
(15) Based on Definition 4, we can find that (Gk , Gl ) = (Gl , Gk ).
k l
 α t  1−α t The details of the conflict resolution model are described as
t+1 l l
ωG l
= ω t
Gl ω t
Gk (16) follows.
 α t  1−α t Note: There are two strategies to revise experts’
t+1 k k
dij(G k)
= d t
ij(Gk ) d t
ij(Gl ) (17) opinions [20]: one is the automatic strategy [30], which mod-
 α t  1−α t ifies assessment values automatically without experts’ inter-
t+1 l l
dij(G l)
= d t
ij(Gl ) d t
ij(Gk ) (18) actions. The other is the feedback strategy which provides
suggestions by a moderator for experts and requires them to
where αkt is a parameter that determines what amounts of make modifications. The automatic strategy is time consum-
t+1 t+1 ing because it does not have the interactive process between
new opinions (ωG k
and dij(G k)
) of Gk are from original opin-
t t
ions (ωGk and dij(Gk ) ). As we can see from (15)–(18), each experts and the moderator. However, the automatic strategy
new opinion of a subgroup contains two parts: its own orig- makes the decision-making result only a calculated one. One
inal opinion and the original opinion of another subgroup main problem of the feedback strategy is that experts may
who is the most compatible one with it in the entire group. reject suggestions. Furthermore, the moderator may bring sub-
After this process, the opinions of two subgroups will come jectivity. The proposed approach is a comprehensive method
closer in the next iteration. The new weight vector is ωG t+1
= that combines two strategies. The experts only provide their
t+1 t+1 t+1  n t+1
k
initial judgments in the initial iterative round, and the mecha-
(ω1(Gk ) , ω2(Gk ) , . . . , ωn(Gk ) ). Note that j=1 ωj(Gk ) = 1.
nism generates suggestions automatically in the next iterative
Therefore, we need to normalize it.The normalized weight
n rounds. The experts only need to determine to accept the
vector of criteria is ωt+1 t+1
j(Gk ) = ωj(Gk ) /
t+1
j=1 ωj(Gk ) .
suggestions or not.
It is important to determine the value of αkt because it
Theorem 1: In the t-th round of CRP, 0 ≤ t ≤ t∗ − 1, if
reflects the portion of opinion preservation in each iterative
SCItkl ≥ ψ ∀ ∈ k, l ∈ E, we have
round. αkt can be set in advance or determined dynamically
   
according to the specific situation of each iteration. In this max SCIt+1 ≤ max SCItkl . (25)
kl
article, we determine αkt dynamically. k,l∈E k,l∈E
In the conflict resolution process (CRP), it is reasonable The proof of Theorem 1 is given in the Appendix.
that the subgroups with higher incompatibility with other sub-
groups need to make more modifications than those subgroups
B. Algorithm of the Adaptive Conflict Resolution Model for
that with lower conflict degrees. Therefore, for each subgroup,
Multicriteria LSGDM Problems
the conflict resolution model provides a dynamic αkt changing
according to the conflict degree with unselected subgroups, Next, we present the algorithm of the proposed adaptive
such that conflict resolution model, which is summarized as follows.
K The flow of Algorithm 3 is displayed in Fig. 1.
y=1,y=k,l SCIky For Algorithm 3, we have analyzed the main computational
αk = 1 − 
t
K  (19)
K cost of steps 1–3 and 5 in Section III. For the CRP, the
2 y=1,y=k,l SCIky + y=1,y=k,l SCIly
K computational cost in the worst case is O(2(n + mn)T).
y=1,y=k,l SCIly
αl = 1 − 
t
K  . (20)
2 K
SCI + SCI V. I LLUSTRATIVE E XAMPLE : E NERGY C ENTER
y=1,y=k,l ky y=1,y=k,l ly
S ELECTION OF THE D ISTRIBUTED E NERGY S YSTEM
We can see that αkt , αlt ∈ (0.5, 1). This can avoid exces- A. Example Description
sive changes of original opinions andenhance the cred- The distributed energy system (DES) is relative to the
K
ibility of decision-making results. If
K y=1,y=k,l SCIky ≥ traditional centralized energy supply system. The traditional
y=1,y=k,l SCI ly , then αk
t ≤ αl
t . It denotes that if a subgroup centralized energy supply system adopts large capacity equip-
has a higher conflict degree with unselected subgroups, then ment and centralized production, and then transmits various

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Electronic Science and Tech of China. Downloaded on March 15,2020 at 11:57:35 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

TANG et al.: DYNAMIC ADAPTIVE SUBGROUP-TO-SUBGROUP COMPATIBILITY-BASED CONFLICT DETECTION AND RESOLUTION MODEL 7

Algorithm 2 Adaptive Conflict Revising Method

Input: Initial weight vectors ωGk and decision matrices DGk , for k = b) If Gy rejects and Gz accepts feedback suggestions, the new
1, 2, . . . , K. The conflict threshold ψ, and the maximum number of iterations opinions are constructed as
T.
∗ and decision matrix D∗ . ⎧
Output: Final weight vector ωG ⎨ t αk  t 1−αk
t t
Gk
k
Step 1: Let Gt be a set of all ordered pairs in which the first subgroup does t+1 ωG ωG , k=y
ωG = y z (23)
not reject the modified recommendation before the t-th iteration. Let G0 = k ⎩ ωt , k = y
Gk
{(G1 , G2 ), . . . , (G1 , Gm ), . . . , (Gm , G1 ), . . . , (Gm , Gm−1 )}, t = 0, D0G = ⎧ α t  1−α t
k ⎨ t
0
(dij(G
G 0 0 0 0 )T = t+1 dij(G ) k dij(G t k
, k=y
) )m×n = (dij )m×n and ωG = (ω1(G , ω2(G , . . . , ωn(G
k
dij(G = y z) (24)
k k k) k) k) k) ⎩ dt
G G G ,
ij(Gk ) k  = y.
(ω1 k , ω2 k , . . . , ωn k )T .
Step 2: Calculate the subgroup conflict index SCItkl for all (Gk , Gl ) ∈ Gt .
If t ≥ T, or Gt = ∅, or ∀(Gk , Gl ) ∈ Gt , SCItkl ≤ ψ, then, go to Step 4; Then, set t = t + 1, Gt+1 = Gt − (Gy , Gz ), and return to Step 2.
otherwise, continue. This scenario is similar to the case in which Gy accepts and Gz
Step 3: Identify the most incompatible subgroups Gy and Gz with SCItyz = rejects. Note that the feedback suggestions are communicated
maxGt {SCItkl }. It is a natural way to decrease the conflict degree by selecting with each member of the subgroup. If no less than two-thirds of
the most incompatible subgroups since their potential for conflict resolution the members of the subgroup accept, then, we consider that the
is the greatest. At least one of the ordered pairs (Gy , Gz ) and (Gz , Gy ) should whole subgroup accepts.
be in Gt . We have the following three cases. c) If both subgroups reject feedback suggestions, then, we can
t+1 t , d t+1 t t+1 =
1) Both (Gy , Gz ) and (Gz , Gy ) are in Gt , that is, both Gy and Gz set ωG = ωG ij(Gk ) = dij(Gk ) , t = t + 1, G
k k
need to update their weights on criteria and the decision matrices Gt − (Gy , Gz ) − (Gz , Gy ), and return to Step 2.
using (15)–(18). Three possible scenarios can be yielded as: 2) (Gz , Gy ) is in Gt while (Gy , Gz ) is not. Feedback suggestions are pro-
a) If both subgroups agree to accept feedback suggestions, the new vided to Gz by (15) and (17). If Gz accepts, then we have the same
opinions are constructed as situation as (23) and (24). Then, we set t = t+1, Gt+1 = Gt and return
⎧ α t  1−α t to Step 2. If Gz rejects, then, we set t = t + 1, Gt+1 = Gt − (Gz , Gy ),
⎪
⎪ ω t k
ω t k
, k=y
⎪
⎨ G k G z
and return to Step 2.
t+1  α t  1−α t 3) (Gy , Gz ) is in Gt but (Gz , Gy ) is not. In this case, feedback sugges-
ωG = t k t k (21)
k ⎪ ωGk
⎪
⎪
ωG
y
, k=z tions are provided to Gy according to (15) and (17). Similarly, if Gy
⎩ t rejects, we have Gt+1 = Gt − (Gy , Gz ). Set t = t + 1 and return to
ωG , k  = y, z
k Step 2. If Gy accepts, the situation is the same as (23) and (24). Then,
⎧ α t  1−α t
⎪
⎪ t k t k
, k=y set t = t + 1, Gt+1 = Gt , and return to Step 2.
⎪
⎨ dij(Gk ) dij(G
z)
t+1  α t  1−α t Step 3 includes all three possible scenarios as well as the situation in which
dij(G ) = k k (22) subgroups may reject the feedback suggestions.
k ⎪
⎪ dt t
dij(G , k=z
⎪ t ij(Gk )
⎩ y) Step 4: If SCItkl ≤ ψ or t > T or Gt = ∅, let ωG ∗ = ωGt and
dij(G ) , k  = y, z ∗ t ∗
k k
k dij(G ) = dij(G ) , and then the aggregated weight vector ωG and the decision
k k
∗
Then, set t = t + 1, Gt+1 = Gt , and return to Step 2. matrix dij(G) for the global group can be obtained by (1).

Algorithm 3 Adaptive Conflict Resolution Model for

Multicriteria LSGDM Problems
Input: The original weight vectors of criteria ωq (q = 1, 2, . . . , Q)
q
and the decision matrices Dq = (dij )m×n (i = 1, 2, . . . , m, j =
1, 2, . . . , n).
Output: The number of iterations, t∗ , the final global group deci-
∗
sion matrix, DG = (dijG )m×n , and the final weight vector of
criteria, ω . G∗
Step 1: Calculate the compatibility degree c(eq , es ) between each
pair of experts by (4).
Step 2: Use the FCM clustering algorithm to classify experts into
several subgroups {G1 , G2 , . . . , GK } and use (9) to determine the
optimal number of subgroups.
Step 3: Calculate the compatibility degree c(Gk , Gl ) between each
pair of subgroups by (10) and construct the subgroup conflict matrix
O = (SCIkl )K×K . If max{SCIkl } < ψ, go to Step 5. Otherwise, go
to the next step.
Step 4: Use Algorithm 2 to decrease the conflict degree of sub- Fig. 1. Framework of the conflict resolution model.
groups. If max{SCIkl } ≥ ψ, let t = t + 1, and then return to Step 3;
otherwise, go to the next Step.
Step 5: Calculate the weights of subgroups by (14). users, produces and local energy supplies according to users’
Step 6: Let t∗ = t. Output the final weight vector ωG∗ of criteria requirements, has multiple functions and can meet multiple tar-
and the final decision matrix DG∗ . gets. The DES is born under the environment of increasingly
Step 7: Derive the ranking of alternatives. serious energy problems in the world. The distributed energy
has advantages of high-energy utilization efficiency, environ-
mental protection, and high reliability, which is the key to the
energies to a large range of users through special transmis- sustainable development of energy.
sion facilities. The DES, as a medium-sized or small-sized There is a new-built campus in Chengdu which needs to
energy conversion and utilization system that directly faces build a natural gas regional DES. The DES uses natural gas

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Electronic Science and Tech of China. Downloaded on March 15,2020 at 11:57:35 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

8 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CYBERNETICS

TABLE II
O RIGINAL W EIGHTS OF C RITERIA AND D ECISION M ATRICES

Fig. 2. Relationship between the number of clusters (horizontal axis) and

the value of L (vertical axis).

as the primary energy source for power generation, and uses

the waste heat of power generation to realize refrigeration and
heat supply. It can achieve the cascade utilization of energy
through the combined supply of cooling, heat, and electric-
ity. The campus needs to select a location as the cold/heat
source (energy center). A good location can simplify the link
of energy delivery for users, thereby reducing energy loss and
delivery cost in the energy delivery process and increasing
the safety of energy supply for users. After a pre-evaluation,
three alternatives {x1 , x2 , x3 } are selected. Twenty experts eq
(q = 1, 2, . . . , 20) from different departments are invited to
evaluate these three alternatives. We consider three criteria for
each alternative: 1) security c1 (benefit criterion); 2) cost c2
(cost criterion); and 3) applicability c3 (benefit criterion). The
original weights of criteria and decision matrices are presented
in Table II.

B. Solution Process
To obtain the optimal alternative, the following steps are
given based on the proposed adaptive conflict resolution
model. In this article, we set ψ = 0.1, T = 10, and ξ = 0.001.
Step 1: Calculate the compatibility degree of experts. To
save space, the compatibility matrix is presented in the
Appendix.
Step 2: Use the FCM clustering algorithm to classify
experts. By (9), we can obtain the relationship between
the number of clusters and value of L, which is shown in
Fig. 2. Therefore, the optimal number of clusters is 4. The
clustering result is provided in Table III.
The subgroup conflict matrix is
⎛ ⎞
− 0.1528 0.1671 0.2181
  ⎜ 0.1528 − 0.1153 0.1403 ⎟
O0 = SCI0kl =⎜ ⎝
⎟.
K×K 0.1671 0.1153 − 0.1759 ⎠
0.2181 0.1403 0.1759 −

Since the threshold of the conflict degree is not reached, a subgroup accept). Then, we have
the CRP is adopted to decrease the conflict degree. We have ω1G1 = (0.2782, 0.4326, 0.2892)T
SCI014 = maxG0 {SCI0kl }. Based on (19) and (20), we have
α10 = 0.7485 and α40 = 0.7515. Then, the automatic feedback ω1G4 = (0.3284, 0.4826 , 0.1890)T
⎛ ⎞
mechanism is used to generate modification suggestions for 0.5341 0.4511 0.5239
G1 and G4 based on (15)–(18). Suppose that both subgroups dG1
1
= ⎝ 0.5563 0.6000 0.2320 ⎠
accept the suggestions (no less than two thirds of experts in 0.5926 0.6037 0.1786

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Electronic Science and Tech of China. Downloaded on March 15,2020 at 11:57:35 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

TANG et al.: DYNAMIC ADAPTIVE SUBGROUP-TO-SUBGROUP COMPATIBILITY-BASED CONFLICT DETECTION AND RESOLUTION MODEL 9

TABLE III
S TRUCTURE OF S UBGROUPS The threshold of the conflict level is still not reached with
t = 2 < T and G2 = ∅. From O2 , we have SCI213 =
maxG2 {SCI2kl }. Based on (19) and (20), we have α12 = 0.7437
and α32 = 0.7563. Then, the automatic feedback mechanism is
implemented to provide modification suggestions for G2 and
G3 based on (15)–(18). Suppose that both subgroups accept
the suggestions. Then, we have
ω3G1 = (0.3046, 0.4084, 0.2808)T
ω3G3 = (0.3659, 0.3674, 0.2667)T
⎛ ⎞
0.5201 0.4570 0.4945
dG3
1
= ⎝ 0.5057 0.5374 0.2808 ⎠
0.5614 0.5702 0.2290
⎛ ⎞
0.4937 0.4686 0.4418
dG3
3
= ⎝ 0.4200 0.4333 0.4073 ⎠
0.5051 0.5100 0.3718
 
O3 = SCI3kl
⎛ K×K
⎞
− 0.1042 0.0564 0.0950
⎜ 0.1042 − 0.1001 0.1075 ⎟
=⎜⎝ 0.0564 0.1001
⎟.
− 0.0938 ⎠
0.0950 0.1075 0.0938 −

Again none condition is satisfied. From O3 , we have

⎛ ⎞ SCI324 = maxG3 {SCI3kl }. Based on (19) and (20), we have
0.6090 0.3041 0.4002 α23 = 0.7401 and α43 = 0.7599. Then, the automatic feed-
1
dG 4
= ⎝ 0.4082 0.6000 0.5524 ⎠. back mechanism is implemented to provide suggestions for
0.4931 0.2886 0.2525 G2 and G4 . In this round, G4 rejects the feedback suggestion.
Set G4 = G3 − (G4 , G2 ). G2 accepts the feedback suggestion.
For G2 and G3 , we have ωG 1 = ω0 , d 1 = d 0 , ω1 =
2 G2 G2 G2 G3 Thus, we have
ωG
0 ,and dG3 = dG3 . Set G = G0 . Then, we have
1 0 1
3
⎛ ⎞ ω̄G
4
= (0.3443, 0.4583, 0.1971)T
2
⎛ ⎞
− 0.1135 0.1313 0.1058 0.5836 0.5932 0.2613
  ⎜ 0.1135 − 0.1153 0.1075 ⎟
O1 = SCI1kl =⎜ ⎟. dG4
= ⎝ 0.5595 0.5435 0.4940 ⎠
K×K ⎝ 0.1313 0.1153 − 0.1433 ⎠ 2
0.5877 0.4651 0.4643
0.1058 0.1075 0.1433 −  
O4 = SCI4kl
The threshold of the conflict level is still not reached ⎛ K×K
⎞
with t = 1 < T and G1 = ∅. Therefore, the CRP is − 0.0885 0.0564 0.0950
⎜ 0.0885 − 0.0832 0.0749 ⎟
adopted to decrease the conflict degree. From O1 , we have =⎜⎝ 0.0564 0.0832
⎟.
SCI134 = maxG1 {SCI1kl }. Based on (19) and (20), we have − 0.0938 ⎠
α31 = 0.7319 and α41 = 0.7681. Then, the automatic feedback 0.0950 0.0749 0.0938 −
mechanism is implemented to provide suggestions for G3 and From O4 , we have maxG4 {SCI4kl } < ψ. Thus,
G4 . Suppose that G4 rejects the feedback suggestion (less than the predefined threshold is achieved. Using the
two thirds of experts in G4 accept). Set G2 = G1 − (G4 , G3 ). proposed weight-determination method, we have
Suppose that G3 accepts the feedback suggestion. Then, γ1 = (0.2690, 0.2374, 0.2468, 0.2468)T . Furthermore,
we have γ 2 = (0.1, 0.2, 0.6, 0.1)T . Then, the weight vector of
ω2G3 = (0.3965, 0.3457, 0.2578)T subgroups is γ = (0.1088, 0.1921, 0.5992, 0.0999)T . The
⎛ ⎞ final weight vector of criteria regarding the global group
0.4814 0.4744 0.4182 is ω∗ = (0.3533, 0.3905, 2652)T , and the final decision
dG2
3
= ⎝ 0.3836 0.3902 0.4883 ⎠. matrix is
0.4798 0.4830 0.4709 ⎛ ⎞
0.5254 0.4748 0.4087
Then, we have dG∗ = ⎝ 0.4549 0.4824 0.4247 ⎠.
⎛ ⎞ 0.5259 0.4858 0.3621
− 0.1135 0.1142 0.1058
  ⎜ 0.1135 − 0.1052 0.1075 ⎟ The final ranking of alternatives can be derived easily by
O2 = SCI2kl =⎜
⎝ 0.1142
⎟.
K×K 0.1052 − 0.1034 ⎠ multiplying the assessment of alternatives on each criterion
0.1058 0.1075 0.1034 − with its corresponding weight and thus we have x1 > x3 > x2 .

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Electronic Science and Tech of China. Downloaded on March 15,2020 at 11:57:35 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
10
TABLE IV
C OMPARISON A MONG T HREE M ETHODS
C. Comparative Study
To clearly differentiate our model from others, in this sec-
tion, we provide a comparative study from three perspectives:
1) weight determination method; 2) conflict measure; and
3) adaptive CRP.
1) Weight Determination Method: Many existing studies
used the majority principle [11]. The weight of a subgroup
is determined by its size. However, this principle has limi-
tations. Two subgroups with the same number of members
but different inner characteristics will have the same weight.
To overcome this limitation, Rodríguez et al. [31] provided
an integrated method that combines the size and cohesion of
a subgroup. Our method combines the majority principle and
the degree of conflict. A subgroup with a low degree of conflict
with other subgroups will be given a large weight. Therefore,
it can accelerate the decision-making process to some extent.
2) Conflict Measure: There are two widely used methods
to measure the degree of discrepancy of a group. The first
(M1) is based on the distance to the collective opinion, that
is, the centricity-oriented method. This method first aggregates
all subgroups’ opinions into a group collective opinion. Then,
each subgroup’s discrepancy degree can be obtained by cal-
culating the distance between a subgroup and the collective
group. The limitations of this method have been analyzed in
Section I. The second method is based on the distance of
subgroups. This method (M2) calculates the similarity degree
and obtains the similarity matrices of each pair of subgroups.
Afterward, the consensus matrix is generated by aggregating
all similarity matrices. The discrepancy degree in the level
of alternatives and subgroups can be obtained according to
the consensus matrix. Our proposed method does not need
to generate the consensus matrix and analyze the discrepancy
for pairs of subgroups directly. Therefore, the computational
process is simplified. A brief summarization of these three
methods is given in Table IV.
3) Adaptive CRP: There are also other adaptive models.
For instance, Mata et al. [32] distinguished the level of con-
sensus into three situations: very low, low, and medium, and
then proposed different strategies to deal with these situations.
The number of experts that need to make modifications and
the number of changes on opinions were adaptively different
in three situations. Rodríguez et al., [31] applied this idea to
the LSGDM context. Pérez et al. [33] distinguished experts
into three categories with respect to their weights: 1) high-
importance experts; 2) medium-importance experts; and 3)
low-importance experts, and then generated different feed-
back strategies adaptively according to experts’ weights. As
we can see, these models only distinguished several situations,
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Electronic Science and Tech of China. Downloaded on March 15,2020 at 11:57:35 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CYBERNETICS
such as “low,” “medium,” or “high,” and generated feedback
suggestions. Our proposed model can provide feedback sug-
gestions according to specific values of conflict degrees. This
mechanism is achieved based on the dynamic parameter α.
VI. D ISCUSSION
In this section, we provide some discussions regarding the
proposed conflict model. The main features of this model can
be summarized as follows.
1) Unlike most existing LSGDM models, the proposed con-
flict resolution model is constructed based on subgroup-
to-subgroup comparisons. Our model does not need
the reference point. The centricity-oriented method may
lead to biases because different aggregation functions
may cause different results. Furthermore, in the multi-
criteria LSGDM environment, it is an arduous task to
aggregate all experts’ opinions in each iterative round.
Therefore, our proposed model provides a new frame-
work to solve multicriteria LSGDM problems. The
biases and costs in the aggregation process can be
reduced.
2) In each iterative round, the experts involved in the
feedback mechanism and the amount of adjusted opin-
ions are different. These two points correspond to the
word “dynamic” in the title. Furthermore, if a subgroup
has a higher conflict degree with other subgroups, then
more changes will be made in its opinions. This point
corresponds to the word “adaptive” in the title.
3) The feedback mechanism considers the situation in
which experts may reject the modification suggestions.
The feedback suggestions are generated automatically
without the participation of experts. However, the gen-
erated suggestions will return to experts to keep them
informed. The subgroup can choose to accept or reject
the suggestions. In other words, this mechanism can
guarantee the rights of rejection of experts.
In addition to these advantages, we can also find limitations,
which require future research efforts.
1) The accuracy of the FCM clustering algorithm remains
an issue. A good clustering result usually means a high
degree of intracluster similarity and a low degree of
intercluster similarity. Many external and internal cri-
teria have been developed to evaluate the accuracy of
clustering results [34]. It seems of interest to research
this issue and use these criteria to investigate the struc-
tures of subgroups.
2) In some extreme situations, experts could not find one or
more suitable criteria. In such a case, they may prefer
not to provide assessment information on the weights
of criteria. Thus, managing incomplete information
and implementing psychology concepts or persuasion
principles to convince experts to provide assessment
information are promising topics. Furthermore, it is
also possible that a subgroup has a significant conflict
with other subgroups. This involves the topic of minor-
ity opinions, as mentioned in Section I. Some studies
have focused on minority opinions [10], [11]. How to
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

TANG et al.: DYNAMIC ADAPTIVE SUBGROUP-TO-SUBGROUP COMPATIBILITY-BASED CONFLICT DETECTION AND RESOLUTION MODEL 11

TABLE V
C OMPATIBILITY M ATRIX

maintain the credibility of decision-making results when A PPENDIX

minority opinions appear is also a research challenge. See Table V.
Proof of Theorem 1: Suppose that Gy and Gz have the max-
imum SCI in the t-th iteration. In the t + 1th iteration, there
VII. C ONCLUSION are three cases.
This article developed a dynamic adaptive subgroup-to- 1) If both Gy and Gz agree to accept feedback suggestions,
subgroup conflict detection and resolution model within the then, we have
⎛
α   t+1 
multicriteria LSGDM context. The main contributions of the m n
1 ⎝ t+1 
proposed model are listed as follows. SCIyz =
t+1
dij(G ) − dij(G ) 
1) This article defined two kinds of conflicts for multicri- n m y z
i=1 j=1
teria LSGDM problems. Then, the degrees of conflict ⎞
 n  
at the interpersonal level and intersubgroup level are  t+1 t+1 ⎠
+ (1 − α) ωj(G ) − ωj(G z)

provided. y
j=1
2) The model did not need the aggregated group opinion as
 
m n   αyt  1−αyt
a reference point when measuring the conflict degree of 1 α  dt
= · ·  ij(Gy ) d t
ij(Gz )
subgroups’ opinions and determining the weights of sub- n m
i=1 j=1
groups. A subgroup-to-subgroup model was introduced,  αzt  1−αzt 
which could reduce biases and costs in the aggregation − dij(G
t
d t 
z) ij(Gy ) 
process. n 
3) An integrated weight-determination method for sub- 1  t αyt  t 1−αyt
+ (1 − α) · ·  ωGy ωGz
groups was developed by using the concept of Markov n
j=1
chain and the size of subgroups.  αzt  1−αzt 
4) The model can generate feedback suggestions dynami- − ωGz t
ωGyt 

cally according to the conflict degree of a subgroup with ⎛
other subgroups in each iterative round. Furthermore, the 1 α   Gy (t) 
m n
G (t) 
right to reject feedback suggestions was reserved. ≤ ⎝ dij − dij z 
n m
In the future, we will investigate the applicability of the i=1 j=1
⎞
proposed model in the social network. In addition, it seems  n  
 Gy (t) Gz (t) ⎠
of interest to deal with the situation in which experts use + (1 − α) ωj − ωj 
other representation forms, such as hesitant fuzzy linguistic j=1
terms [35] and probabilistic linguistic term sets [36] to express = SCItyz .
opinions. The minimum cost problem about CRP is also an
interesting topic. Then, k ∈ E, k = z, we have SCIt+1 t+1
yk , SCIzk < SCIyz .
t

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Electronic Science and Tech of China. Downloaded on March 15,2020 at 11:57:35 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

12 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CYBERNETICS

Thus [13] M. Tang, and H. C. Liao, “From conventional group decision making
     to large-scale group decision making: What are the challenges and how

to meet them in big data era? A state-of-the-art survey,” Omega, to be
max SCIt+1 kl = max max SCI t+1
kl , max SCI t+1
yk , published, doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2019.102141.
k,l∈E k,l∈E,k,l=y,z k∈E,k=y
   [14] T. L. Saaty, “A ratio scale metric and the compatibility of ratio scales:
max SCIt+1 zk , SCIt+1
yz
The possibility of arrow’s impossibility theorem,” Appl. Math. Lett.,
k∈E,k=z vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 45–49, Nov. 1994.

  [15] H. Y. Chen, L. G. Zhou, and B. Han, “On compatibility of uncertain
< max max SCItkl , SCItyz additive linguistic preference relations and its application in the group
k,l∈E,k,l=y,z decision making,” Knowl. Based Syst., vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 816–823,
 
= SCItyz = max SCItkl . Aug. 2011.
k,l∈E [16] J. C. Bezdek, R. Ehrlich, and F. Wull, “FCM: The fuzzy c-means
clustering algorithm,” Comput. Geosci., vol. 10, nos. 2–3, pp. 191–203,
2) One subgroup accepts while the other rejects. We 1984.
assume that Gy accepts. We have [17] H.-X. Pei, Z.-R. Zheng, C. Wang, C.-N. Li, and Y.-H. Shao, “D-FCM:
Density based fuzzy c-means clustering algorithm with application
      in medical image segmentation,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 122,
max SCIt+1 kl = max max SCIt+1
kl , max SCIt+1 yk
pp. 407–414, 2017.
k,l∈E k,l∈E,k,l=y k∈E [18] Z. Cebeci and F. Yildiz, “Comparison of k-means and fuzzy c-means

  algorithms on different cluster structures,” J. Agr. Inf., vol. 6, no. 3,
< max max SCItkl , SCItyz pp. 13–23, 2015.
k,l∈E,k,l=y [19] N. R. Pal and J. C. Bezdek, “On cluster validity for the fuzzy c-means
 
= SCIyz = max SCItkl .
t model,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 370–379, Aug. 1995.
k,l∈E [20] M. Tang, X. Y. Zhou, and H. C. Liao, “Ordinal consensus measure
with objective threshold for heterogeneous large-scale group decision
t+1
3) Both Gy and Gz reject. Then, we have ωG = making,” Knowl. Based Syst., vol. 180, pp. 62–74, Sep. 2019.
k [21] I. Katsavounidis, C. C. J. Kuo, and Z. Zhang, “A new initialization
t+1 t+1
ωGk and dij(Gk ) = dij(Gk ) . Thus, maxk,l∈E {SCIkl } ≤
t t
technique for generalized Lloyd iteration,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett.,
maxk,l∈E {SCItkl }. This completes the proof. vol. 1, no. 10, pp. 144–146, Oct. 1994.
[22] X. L. Xie and G. Beni, “A validity measure for fuzzy clustering,”
IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 841–847,
Aug. 1991.
[23] M. Loughry and A. C. Amason, “Why won’t task conflict cooperate?
R EFERENCES Deciphering stubborn results,” Int. J. Conflict Manag., vol. 25, no. 4,
pp. 333–358, 2014.
[1] J. D. Qin, X. W. Liu, and W. Pedrycz, “An extended TODIM multi- [24] L. Pelled, K. M. Eisenhardt, and K. R. Xin, “Exploring the black box: An
criteria group decision making method for green supplier selection in analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance,” Administ.
interval type-2 fuzzy environment,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 258, no. 2, Sci. Quart., vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 1–28, Mar. 1999.
pp. 626–638, Apr. 2017. [25] Q. X. Dong and O. Cooper, “A peer-to-peer dynamic adaptive consensus
[2] M. Deutsch, The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive reaching model for the group AHP decision making,” Eur. J. Oper. Res.,
Processes, New Haven, CT, USA: Yale Univ. Press, 1973. vol. 250, no. 2, pp. 521–530, Apr. 2016.
[3] A. C. Amason, K. R. Thompson, W. A. Hochwarter, and A. W. Harrison, [26] I. J. Pérez, F. J. Cabrerizo, A. Alonso, Y. C. Dong, F. Chiclana, and
“Conflict: An important dimension in successful management teams,” E. Herrera-Viedma, “On dynamic consensus processes in group decision
Organ. Dyn., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 20–35, Aug. 1995. making problems,” Inf. Sci., vol. 459, pp. 20–35, Aug. 2018.
[4] T. A. O’Neill and M. J. W. McLarnon, “Optimizing team conflict [27] G. Tauchen, “Finite state markov-chain approximations to univariate and
dynamics for high performance teamwork,” Human Resour. Manag. Rev., vector autoregressions,” Econ. Lett., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 177–181, 1986.
vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 378–394, Dec. 2018. [28] S. M. Ross, Introduction to Probability Models. Boston, MA, USA:
[5] C. K. W. De Dreu and L. R. Weingart, “Task versus relationship conflict, Academic, 2014.
team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis,” [29] A. Rui and J. M. C. Sousa, “Comparison of fuzzy clustering algorithms
J. Appl. Psychol., vol. 88, no. 4, pp. 741–749, Aug. 2003. for classification,” in Proc. Int. Symp. Evolving Fuzzy Syst., Sep. 2006,
[6] R. Efremov, D. R. Insua, and A. Lotov, “A framework for participatory pp. 112–117.
decision support using Pareto frontier visualization, goal identifica- [30] Z. M. Zhang and W. Pedrycz, “A consistency and consensus-based goal
tion and arbitration,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 199, no. 2, pp. 459–467, programming method for group decision-making with interval-valued
Dec. 2009. intuitionistic multiplicative preference relations,” IEEE Trans. Cybern.,
[7] B. S. Liu, Q. Zhou, R.-X. Ding, I. Palomares, and F. Herrera, “Large- vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 3640–3654, Oct. 2019.
scale group decision making model based on social network analysis: [31] R. M. Rodríguez, Á. Labella, G. D. Tré, and L. Martínez, “A large scale-
Trust relationship-based conflict detection and elimination,” Eur. J. Oper. consensus reaching process managing group hesitation,” Knowl. Based
Res., vol. 275, no. 2, pp. 737–754, Jun. 2019. Syst., vol. 159, pp. 86–97, Nov. 2018.
[8] M. Tang, H. C. Liao, J. P. Xu, D. Streimikiene, and X. S. Zheng, [32] F. Mata, L. Martínez, and E. Herrera-Viedma, “An adaptive consensus
“Adaptive consensus reaching process with hybrid strategies for large- support model for group decision-making problems in a multigranu-
scale group decision making,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 282, no. 3, lar fuzzy linguistic context,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 17, no. 2,
pp. 957–971, May 2020. pp. 279–290, Apr. 2009.
[9] R. X. Ren, M. Tang, and H. C. Liao, “Managing minority opinions in [33] I. J. Pérez, F. J. Cabrerizo, A. Alonso, and E. Herrera-Viedma,
micro-grid planning by a social network analysis-based large scale group “A new consensus model for group decision making problems with non-
decision making method with hesitant fuzzy linguistic information,” homogeneous experts,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern., Syst., vol. 44,
Knowl. Based Syst., vol. 189, Feb. 2020, Art. no. 105060. no. 4, pp. 494–498, Apr. 2014.
[10] I. Palomares, L. Martínez, and F. Herrera, “A consensus model to [34] M. Halkidi, Y. Batistakis, and M. Vazirgiannis, “On clustering valida-
detect and manage noncooperative behaviors in large-scale group deci- tion techniques,” J. Intell. Inf. Syst., vol. 17, nos. 2–3, pp. 107–145,
sion making,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 516–530, Dec. 2001.
Jun. 2014. [35] H. C. Liao, Z. S. Xu, E. Herrera-Viedma, and F. Herrera, “Hesitant fuzzy
[11] X. H. Xu, Z. J. Du, and X. H. Chen, “Consensus model for linguistic term set and its application in decision making: A state-of-the
multi-criteria large-group emergency decision making considering non- art survey,” Int. J. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 2084–2110, 2018.
cooperative behaviors and minority opinions,” Decis. Support Syst., [36] H. C. Liao, X. M. Mi, and Z. S. Xu, “A survey of decision-
vol. 79, pp. 150–160, Nov. 2015. making methods with probabilistic linguistic information: Bibliometrics,
[12] O. Doucet, J. Poitras and D. Chénevert, “The impacts of leadership on preliminaries, methodologies, applications and future directions,”
workplace conflicts,” Int. J. Conflict Manag., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 340–354, Fuzzy Optimi. Decis. Making, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 81–134, 2020,
2009. doi: 10.1007/s10700-019-09309-5.

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Electronic Science and Tech of China. Downloaded on March 15,2020 at 11:57:35 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.