A Large-Scale Group Decision-Making Method Considering Personalized Individual Semantics in a Probabilistic Linguistic Environment

Xiaoxia Xu et al.

Group Decision and Negotiation2026https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-026-09963-2article
AJG 2ABDC A
Weight
0.50

Abstract

Individual cognitive differences may cause decision makers to interpret the same linguistic terms differently. To address this issue, this paper proposes a novel consensus model for large-scale group decision-making by incorporating personalized individual semantics into a probabilistic linguistic preference framework. A normalization method integrating emotional tone is introduced to refine probabilistic linguistic preference relations, and an additive consistency-based semantic optimization model is developed to assign appropriate linguistic terms to decision makers. To promote interaction among those with similar interests, a weighting method based on semantic similarity and a fuzzy clustering algorithm using personalized individual semantics are employed to form subgroups with similar semantics. A consensus-reaching process, including assessment and feedback stages, is then applied to guide decision makers toward agreement. A case study on environmental project selection verifies the effectiveness and applicability of the proposed approach.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-026-09963-2

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{xiaoxia2026,
  title        = {{A Large-Scale Group Decision-Making Method Considering Personalized Individual Semantics in a Probabilistic Linguistic Environment}},
  author       = {Xiaoxia Xu et al.},
  journal      = {Group Decision and Negotiation},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-026-09963-2},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

A Large-Scale Group Decision-Making Method Considering Personalized Individual Semantics in a Probabilistic Linguistic Environment

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.