In today's world, making decisions as a group is common, whether choosing a restaurant or deciding on a holiday destination. Group decision-making (GDM) systems play a crucial role by facilitating consensus among participants with diverse preferences. Discussions are one of the main tools people use to make decisions. When people discuss alternatives, they use natural language to express their opinions. Traditional GDM systems generally require participants to provide explicit opinion values to the system. However, in real-life scenarios, participants often express their opinions through some text (e.g., in comments, social media, messengers, etc.). This paper introduces a sentiment and emotion-aware multi-criteria fuzzy GDM system designed to enhance consensus-reaching effectiveness in group settings. This system incorporates natural language processing to analyze sentiments and emotions expressed in textual data, enabling an understanding of participant opinions besides the explicit numerical preference inputs. Once all the experts have provided their preferences for the alternatives, the individual preferences are aggregated into a single collective preference matrix. This matrix represents the collective expert opinion regarding the other options. Then, sentiments, emotions, and preference scores are inputted into a fuzzy inference system to get the overall score. The proposed system was used for a small decision-making process - choosing the hotel for a vacation by a group of friends. Our findings demonstrate that integrating sentiment and emotion analysis into GDM systems allows everyone's feelings and opinions to be considered during discussions and significantly improves consensus among participants.

Group decision making is an important field with interesting applications in various disciplines, among which environmental economics. Group decision, often requires that all or the majority of agents in the group agree to a single proposal or opinion, i.e. consensus. This is particularly true in cases where there is no coercion involved in the implementation of the decision made, so that the implementation of the decision depends on the good will, or rather the acceptance of the common decision by all members of the group. To make the discussion more concrete we consider the following generic situation: Assume that a group of agents, G, has to reach a common decision concerning policies regarding a future contingency X. Policies may refer for instance to the cost of abatement measures for protection against X, which clearly require the acceptance of a commonly acceptable estimate for the value of X by every member of the group as well as the acceptance of a commonly acceptably discount factor. Typically, different member of the group will have different valuations for X, therefore report different costs for the adverse effects of X. Moreover, different members of the group will have different discount rates for calculating the present value of the future adverse effect X.

The language evaluation information of the interactive group decision method at present is based on the one-dimension language variable. At the same time, multi-attribute group decision making method based on two-dimension linguistic information only use single-stage and static evaluation method. In this paper, we propose a dynamic group decision making method based on two-dimension linguistic information, combining dynamic interactive group decision making methods with two-dimensional language evaluation information The method first use Two-Dimensional Uncertain Linguistic Generalized Weighted Aggregation (DULGWA) Operators to aggregate the preference information of each decision maker, then adopting dynamic information entropy method to obtain weights of attributes at each stage. Finally we propose the group consistency index to quantify the termination conditions of group interaction. One example is given to verify the developed approach and to demonstrate its effectiveness

Previous efforts to support creative problem-solving have included (a) techniques (such as brainstorming and design thinking) to stimulate creative ideas, and (b) software tools to record and share these ideas. Now, generative AI technologies can suggest new ideas that might never have occurred to the users, and users can then select from these ideas or use them to stimulate even more ideas. Here, we describe such a system, Supermind Ideator. The system uses a large language model (GPT 3.5) and adds prompting, fine tuning, and a user interface specifically designed to help people use creative problem-solving techniques. Some of these techniques can be applied to any problem; others are specifically intended to help generate innovative ideas about how to design groups of people and/or computers ("superminds"). We also describe our early experiences with using this system and suggest ways it could be extended to support additional techniques for other specific problem-solving domains.

Finding preferences expressed in natural language is an important but challenging task. State-of-the-art(SotA) methods leverage transformer-based models such as BERT, RoBERTa, etc. and graph neural architectures such as graph attention networks. Since Large Language Models (LLMs) are equipped to deal with larger context lengths and have much larger model sizes than the transformer-based model, we investigate their ability to classify comparative text directly. This work aims to serve as a first step towards using LLMs for the CPC task. We design and conduct a set of experiments that format the classification task into an input prompt for the LLM and a methodology to get a fixed-format response that can be automatically evaluated. Comparing performances with existing methods, we see that pre-trained LLMs are able to outperform the previous SotA models with no fine-tuning involved. Our results show that the LLMs can consistently outperform the SotA when the target text is large -- i.e. composed of multiple sentences --, and are still comparable to the SotA performance in shorter text. We also find that few-shot learning yields better performance than zero-shot learning.

In decision-making methods, it is common to assume that the experts are honest and professional. However, this is not the case when one or more experts in the group decision making framework, such as the group analytic hierarchy process (GAHP), try to manipulate results in their favor. The aim of this paper is to introduce two heuristics in the GAHP, setting allowing to detect the manipulators and minimize their effect on the group consensus by diminishing their weights. The first heuristic is based on the assumption that manipulators will provide judgments which can be considered outliers with respect to those of the rest of the experts in the group. The second heuristic assumes that dishonest judgments are less consistent than the average consistency of the group. Both approaches are illustrated with numerical examples and simulations.

When a business sells to another business (B2B), the buying business is represented by a group of individuals, termed account, who collectively decide whether to buy. The seller advertises to each individual and interacts with them, mostly by digital means. The sales cycle is long, most often over a few months. There is heterogeneity among individuals belonging to an account in seeking information and hence the seller needs to score the interest of each individual over a long horizon to decide which individuals must be reached and when. Moreover, the buy decision rests with the account and must be scored to project the likelihood of purchase, a decision that is subject to change all the way up to the actual decision, emblematic of group decision making. We score decision of the account and its individuals in a dynamic manner. Dynamic scoring allows opportunity to influence different individual members at different time points over the long horizon. The dataset contains behavior logs of each individual's communication activities with the seller; but, there are no data on consultations among individuals which result in the decision. Using neural network architecture, we propose several ways to aggregate information from individual members' activities, to predict the group's collective decision. Multiple evaluations find strong model performance.

Group recommender systems facilitate group decision making for a set of individuals (e.g., a group of friends, a team, a corporation, etc.). Many of these systems, however, either assume that (i) user preferences can be elicited (or inferred) and then aggregated into group preferences or (ii) group preferences are partially observed/elicited. We focus on making recommendations for a new group of users whose preferences are unknown, but we are given the decisions/choices of other groups. By formulating this problem as group recommendation from group implicit feedback, we focus on two of its practical instances: group decision prediction and reverse social choice. Given a set of groups and their observed decisions, group decision prediction intends to predict the decision of a new group of users, whereas reverse social choice aims to infer the preferences of those users involved in observed group decisions. These two problems are of interest to not only group recommendation, but also to personal privacy when the users intend to conceal their personal preferences but have participated in group decisions. To tackle these two problems, we propose and study DeepGroup -- a deep learning approach for group recommendation with group implicit data. We empirically assess the predictive power of DeepGroup on various real-world datasets, group conditions (e.g., homophily or heterophily), and group decision (or voting) rules. Our extensive experiments not only demonstrate the efficacy of DeepGroup, but also shed light on the privacy-leakage concerns of some decision making processes.

Explanations are used in recommender systems for various reasons. Users have to be supported in making (high-quality) decisions more quickly. Developers of recommender systems want to convince users to purchase specific items. Users should better understand how the recommender system works and why a specific item has been recommended. Users should also develop a more in-depth understanding of the item domain. Consequently, explanations are designed in order to achieve specific \emph{goals} such as increasing the transparency of a recommendation or increasing a user's trust in the recommender system. In this paper, we provide an overview of existing research related to explanations in recommender systems, and specifically discuss aspects relevant to group recommendation scenarios. In this context, we present different ways of explaining and visualizing recommendations determined on the basis of preference aggregation strategies.

We study group decision making with changing preferences as a Markov Decision Process. We are motivated by the increasing prevalence of automated decision-making systems when making choices for groups of people over time. Our main contribution is to show how classic representation theorems from social choice theory can be adapted to characterize optimal policies in this dynamic setting. We provide an axiomatic characterization of MDP reward functions that agree with the Utilitarianism social welfare functionals of social choice theory. We also provide discussion of cases when the implementation of social choice-theoretic axioms may fail to lead to long-run optimal outcomes.