Group Decision-Making System with Sentiment Analysis of Discussion Chat and Fuzzy Consensus Modeling

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2503.18765
• Title: Group Decision-Making System with Sentiment Analysis of Discussion Chat and Fuzzy Consensus Modeling
• Authors: Adilet Yerkin, Pakizar Shamoi (Kazakh-British Technical University)
• Classification: cs.HC (Human-Computer Interaction)
• Publication Date: October 14, 2025 (arXiv v2)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.18765

Abstract

Group decision-making (GDM) plays an important role in real-world scenarios, where individuals typically express opinions using natural language rather than structured numerical values. Traditional GDM methods often overlook the subjectivity and fuzziness inherent in human discussions, making it difficult to achieve fair and consensus-based decisions. This paper proposes a fuzzy consensus-based group decision-making system that integrates sentiment and emotion analysis to extract preference values from textual input. The proposed framework combines explicit voting preferences with sentiment scores extracted from chat discussions, then processes these data using a Fuzzy Inference System (FIS) to calculate total preference scores for each alternative and determine the highest-ranked option. To ensure fairness in group decision-making, a consensus measurement model based on fuzzy logic is introduced, which evaluates participants' agreement and confidence levels to assess overall feedback.

Research Background and Motivation

1. Problems to Be Addressed

Traditional group decision-making systems face the following core challenges:

• Absence of Natural Language Processing: Existing GDM systems primarily rely on structured numerical assessments, whereas in reality people express preferences more through natural language
• Insufficient Handling of Subjectivity and Fuzziness: Traditional methods struggle to process the inherent subjectivity and uncertainty in human discussions
• Imperfect Consensus Measurement Mechanisms: Lack of effective mechanisms to assess the degree of consensus among group members
• Limitations of Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC): While online discussions facilitate collaboration, they lack emotional expression, affecting consensus achievement

2. Importance of the Problem

• Practical Application Needs: Modern decision-making increasingly relies on online platforms and digital communication
• Fairness Requirements: Need to ensure that all participants' opinions are fairly considered and integrated
• Efficiency Enhancement: Automated sentiment analysis and preference aggregation can improve decision-making efficiency

3. Limitations of Existing Methods

• Numerical Requirements: Traditional methods require participants to provide explicit numerical assessments, which conflicts with natural communication patterns
• Loss of Emotional Information: Overlooks rich emotional information contained in textual discussions
• Single Consensus Assessment Mechanism: Primarily based on similarity functions, without considering expert satisfaction and confidence levels

Core Contributions

1. Fuzzy Consensus Measurement Model: Develops a consensus measurement model based on fuzzy logic that evaluates participants' agreement and confidence levels, ensuring fair and cognitively aligned decision processes
2. Hybrid Preference Aggregation Framework: The system combines explicit voting preferences with sentiment scores through a Fuzzy Inference System to calculate total preference scores for each alternative
3. Small-Scale Decision Validation: Validates the method's effectiveness through a restaurant selection scenario, achieving high consensus levels in human-involved decision-making
4. Human-Aligned Consensus Metrics: Proposes a consensus assessment method based on expert agreement and confidence levels, rather than relying solely on automatically computed similarity functions

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Inputs:

• Set of alternatives: X = {x₁, x₂, ..., xₙ}
• Set of experts: E = {e₁, e₂, ..., eₘ}
• Set of features: F = {f₁, f₂, ..., fₚ}
• Textual discussion content

Outputs:

• Highest-ranked alternative
• Group consensus level assessment

Constraints:

• Preference assessment value range: {-1, 0, 1} (oppose, irrelevant, support)
• Sentiment score range: -1, 1
• Total preference score range: 0, 10

Model Architecture

1. Preference Acquisition System

Experts provide preference assessments for each feature. The preference value is calculated as:

Prefₑⱼ(xᵢ) = Σᵢ,ⱼ,ₖ fₖ(xᵢ) × zₖ(eⱼ)

where fₖ(xᵢ) is the k-th feature value of alternative xᵢ, and zₖ(eⱼ) is expert eⱼ's preference assessment for the k-th feature.

2. Sentiment and Emotion Analysis Module

• Sentiment Analysis: Uses VADER sentiment analysis tool to extract compound sentiment scores (ranging from -1 to +1)
• Emotion Analysis: Uses Text2Emotion library to identify five emotions (surprise, fear, sadness, happiness, anger)
• Integrated Sentiment Score: SP = αS + βE, where α and β are weights balancing the importance of sentiment and emotion

Emotion score calculation:

Positive Emotion Score (PES) = max('happy', 'surprise')
Negative Emotion Score (NES) = max('angry', 'sad', 'fear')
Integrated Emotion Score = PES - NES
Total Sentiment Score = Sentiment Score × 0.6 + Emotion Score × 0.4

3. Fuzzy Inference System (FIS)

Input Variables:

• Voting Preference (0-100): Experts' explicit voting preferences for alternatives
• Sentiment Preference (-1 to 1): Sentiment assessments extracted from textual discussions

Output Variable:

• Total Preference Score (0-10): Used for ranking all alternatives

Fuzzy Rules: Defines 15 fuzzy rules that produce corresponding total preference scores based on different combinations of voting preference and sentiment preference.

4. Human-Aligned Consensus Measurement

Feedback Score Calculation: Uses a Fuzzy Inference System to process experts' agreement and confidence levels

• Agreement set: AL = {al₁, al₂, ..., alₙ}, where alᵢ ∈ 0, 10
• Confidence set: CL = {cl₁, cl₂, ..., clₙ}, where clᵢ ∈ 0, 10

Trapezoidal Membership Function:

μ(x) = max(min((x-a)/(b-a), 1, (d-x)/(d-c)), 0)

Consensus Level Assessment: Uses Interquartile Range (IQR) to evaluate overall consensus

• High consensus: IQR < 2.0
• Moderate consensus: 2.0 ≤ IQR ≤ 4.0
• Low consensus: IQR > 4.0

Technical Innovations

1. Dual Preference Integration: First to organically combine explicit voting and implicit sentiment preferences through a Fuzzy Inference System
2. Adaptive Sentiment Analysis Strategy: Selects pure sentiment analysis or combined sentiment-emotion analysis based on discussion text length
3. Human-Centered Consensus Assessment: Consensus measurement method based on participants' subjective feedback rather than objective similarity calculations
4. Fuzzy Logic for Uncertainty Handling: Comprehensively uses fuzzy sets and fuzzy inference to handle uncertainty and subjectivity in the decision-making process

Experimental Setup

Dataset

Restaurant Selection Scenario:

• Alternatives: 4 restaurants (alter1-alter4)
• Feature Dimensions: 5 features
  • feat1: Affordability (average bill amount)
  • feat2: Location (distance from city center rating)
  • feat3: Vegetarian Options (binary indicator)
  • feat4: Child-Friendly Area (binary indicator)
  • feat5: Interior Design (average rating)
• Participants: 5 experts (partp1-partp5)
• Discussion Data: Text messages from group chat

Evaluation Metrics

1. Total Preference Score: Comprehensive score within 0-10 range
2. Consensus Level: Classification based on IQR (high/moderate/low)
3. Feedback Score: Expert satisfaction assessment (0-10)
4. Average Feedback Score: Overall group satisfaction

Implementation Details

• Sentiment Weights: Sentiment analysis weight 0.6, emotion analysis weight 0.4
• Feature Normalization: Continuous features booleanized based on mean values
• Fuzzy Inference: Uses trapezoidal membership functions and Mamdani inference method

Experimental Results

Main Results

Restaurant Preference Scores:

• alter1: 5.0 points
• alter2: 5.99 points (highest score, selected as best choice)
• alter3: 5.0 points
• alter4: 5.36 points

Consensus Assessment Results:

• IQR Value: 0.19
• Consensus Level: High (IQR < 2.0)
• Average Feedback Score: ≈8.1 (out of 10)

Individual Feedback Analysis:

Case Analysis

Sentiment Analysis Examples:

• Positive comment: "This restaurant has amazing food!" (sentiment score: 0.81)
• Negative comment: "I don't like the location" (sentiment score: -0.30)

Preference Aggregation Process:

1. Voting preference and sentiment preference are calculated separately
2. Integrated through FIS to obtain total preference score
3. alter2 performs best in both voting preference (62 points) and sentiment preference (0.67)

Experimental Findings

1. High Consensus Achievement: IQR=0.19 indicates high agreement among participants on the final decision
2. Value of Sentiment Information: Sentiment analysis effectively supplements explicit voting information
3. System Effectiveness: Average feedback score of 8.1 shows high participant satisfaction with decision results
4. Method Applicability: Performs well in small-scale rapid decision-making scenarios

Related Work

Main Research Directions

1. Traditional GDM Methods: Based on numerical preference aggregation and structured voting mechanisms
2. Fuzzy GDM Systems: Using fuzzy sets and logic to handle uncertainty
3. Sentiment Analysis Applications in Decision-Making: Integrating NLP techniques into decision support systems
4. Consensus Achievement Mechanisms: Consensus models in large-scale group decision-making

Advantages Over Related Work

1. Comprehensive Approach: Simultaneously integrates explicit preferences and implicit sentiment information
2. Human-Centered Design: Consensus assessment based on participants' subjective feedback
3. Practical Orientation: Designed for real-world natural language communication scenarios
4. Comprehensive Application of Fuzzy Logic: Systematic use of fuzzy inference in both preference aggregation and consensus measurement

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Method Effectiveness: The proposed fuzzy consensus GDM system can effectively integrate multi-source information and achieve high consensus
2. Value of Sentiment Analysis: Emotional information in textual discussions significantly contributes to decision quality
3. Superiority of Consensus Mechanism: Consensus measurement based on human feedback better aligns with practical needs than traditional similarity calculations
4. Success in Small-Scale Applications: Validates the practical utility of the method in rapid decision-making scenarios such as restaurant selection

Limitations

1. Text Dependency: Method effectiveness depends on the quality and quantity of discussion text; performance may decline with limited text
2. Scale Limitations: Currently validated only in small-scale decisions; effectiveness in large-scale applications remains to be verified
3. Domain Specificity: Weight settings (e.g., sentiment 0.6, emotion 0.4) may require adjustment based on specific application scenarios
4. Language Limitations: Sentiment analysis tools primarily target English; multilingual support needs improvement

Future Directions

1. Adaptive Weight Mechanisms: Develop context-based adaptive weight adjustment algorithms
2. Large-Scale Validation: Test system performance on more complex decision-making tasks
3. Multimodal Extension: Integrate multimodal information such as speech and images
4. Cross-Cultural Adaptation: Research emotional expression differences across cultural backgrounds

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Strong Innovation: First systematic combination of sentiment analysis, fuzzy logic, and group decision-making
2. High Practical Value: Addresses decision-making problems in real-world natural language communication scenarios
3. Complete Methodology: Forms a comprehensive technical framework from preference acquisition to consensus assessment
4. Sufficient Validation: Detailed demonstration of method operability through concrete cases

Weaknesses

1. Limited Experimental Scale: Validation uses only a single scenario and small-scale data
2. Lack of Theoretical Basis for Parameter Settings: Parameter choices such as sentiment-emotion weights lack sufficient theoretical or experimental support
3. Insufficient Comparative Experiments: Lacks systematic comparison with other advanced GDM methods
4. Unknown Generalization Ability: Applicability across different types of decision-making tasks remains to be verified

Impact

1. Academic Contribution: Introduces new technical pathways and assessment mechanisms to the GDM field
2. Application Prospects: Broad application potential in online collaboration, e-commerce recommendations, and other domains
3. Methodological Inspiration: Provides new insights for subsequent research on sentiment analysis and decision-making integration

Applicable Scenarios

1. Small-Scale Rapid Decision-Making: Such as restaurant selection, activity planning, and other everyday group decisions
2. Online Collaboration Platforms: Remote team decision-making based on chat discussions
3. Consumer Group Selection: Product/service selection based on reviews and discussions
4. Educational Training Scenarios: Student groups' learning resource selection and evaluation

References

The paper cites 51 related references, primarily including:

• Classical theories and methods of group decision-making
• Applications of fuzzy logic in decision-making
• Sentiment analysis and natural language processing techniques
• Research on computer-mediated communication
• Latest developments in consensus achievement mechanisms

Overall Assessment: This paper proposes an innovative group decision-making framework that successfully integrates sentiment analysis and fuzzy logic techniques. While there is room for improvement in the breadth and depth of experimental validation, its technical approach is novel and its practical value is evident, providing valuable contributions to the development of the GDM field.