Soft Computing

, Volume 23, Issue 21, pp 11123–11140 | Cite as

Methods for solving matrix games with cross-evaluated payoffs

  • Meimei XiaEmail author
Methodologies and Application


In the traditional fuzzy matrix game, given a pair of strategies, the payoffs of one player are usually associated with themselves, but not linked to the payoffs of the other player. Such payoffs can be called self-evaluated payoffs. However, according to the regret theory, the decision makers may care more about what they might get than what they get. Therefore, one player in a matrix game may pay more attention to the payoffs of the other player than his/her payoffs. In this paper, motivated by the pairwise comparison matrix, we allow the players to compare their payoffs and the other ones to provide their relative payoffs, which can be called the cross-evaluated payoffs. Moreover, the players’ preference about the cross-evaluated payoffs is usually distributed asymmetrically according to the law of diminishing utility. Then, the cross-evaluated payoffs of players can be expressed by using the asymmetrically distributed information, i.e., the interval-valued intuitionistic multiplicative number. Comparison laws are developed to compare the cross-evaluated payoffs of different players, and aggregation operators are introduced to obtain the expected cross-evaluated payoffs of players. Based on minimax and maximin principles, several mathematical programming models are established to obtain the solution of a matrix game with cross-evaluated payoffs. It is proved that the solution of a matrix game with cross-evaluated payoffs can be obtained by solving a pair of primal–dual linear-programming models and can avoid some unreasonable results. Two examples are finally given to illustrate that the proposed method is based on the cross-evaluated payoffs of players, and can directly provide the priority degree that one player is preferred to the other player in winning the game.


Matrix games Cross-evaluated payoffs Regret theory Interval-valued intuitionistic multiplicative set Linear-programming model 



This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Numbers: 71501010, 18ZDA086, 71661167009).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval:

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. Atanassov KT (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 20:87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atanassov KT (1995) Ideas for intuitionistic fuzzy equations, inequalities and optimization. Notes Intuit Fuzzy Set 1:17–24MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Atanassov KT, Gargov G (1989) Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 31:343–349MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aubin JP (1979) Mathematical methods of game and economic theory. North-Holland, AmsterdamzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Aubin JP (1981) Cooperative fuzzy game. Math Oper Res 6:1–13MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bector CR, Chandra S (2002) On duality in linear programming under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 125:317–325MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bector CR, Chandra S (2005) Fuzzy mathematical programming and fuzzy matrix games. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Bector CR, Chandra S, Vijay V (2004a) Matrix games with fuzzy goals and fuzzy linear programming duality. Fuzzy Optim Decis Mak 3:255–69MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bector CR, Chandra S, Vijay V (2004b) Duality in linear programming with fuzzy parameters and matrix games with fuzzy payoffs. Fuzzy Sets Syst 146:253–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bell DE (1982) Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Oper Res 30:961–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Butnariu D (1978) Fuzzy games: a description of the concept. Fuzzy Sets Syst 1:181–192MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Butnariu D (1980) Stability and Shapley value for n-person fuzzy game. Fuzzy Sets Syst 4:63–72MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campos L (1989) Fuzzy linear programming models to solve fuzzy matrix games. Fuzzy Sets Syst 32:275–289MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chakeri A, Sheikholeslam F (2013) Fuzzy Nash equilibriums in crisp and fuzzy games. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 21:171–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Degani R, Bortolan G (1988) The problem of linguistic approximation in clinical decision making. Int J Approx Reason 2:143–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deng W, Zhao HM, Yang XH, Xiong JX, Sun M, Li B (2017a) Study on an improved adaptive PSO algorithm for solving multi-objective gate assignment. Appl Soft Comput 59:288–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Deng W, Zhao HM, Zou L, Li GY, Yang XH, Wu DQ (2017b) A novel collaborative optimization algorithm in solving complex optimization problems. Soft Comput 21(15):4387–4398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Deng W, Yao R, Zhao H, Yang X, Li G (2017c) A novel intelligent diagnosis method using optimal LS-SVM with improved PSO algorithm. Soft Comput 2–4:1–18Google Scholar
  19. Harsanyi JC (1955) Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility. J Polit Econ 63:309–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Martínez L (2008) A fuzzy linguistic methodology to deal with unbalanced linguistic term sets. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 16:354–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ishibuchi H, Tanaka H (1990) Multiobjective programming in optimization of the interval objective function. Eur J Oper Res 48:219–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Li DF (2010) Mathematical-programming approach to matrix games with payoffs represented by Atanassov’s interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 18:1112–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Li DF (2011) Linear programming approach to solve interval-valued matrix games. Omega 39:655–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Li DF, Nan JX (2009) A nonlinear programming approach to matrix games with payoffs of Atanassov’s intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl-Based Syst 17:585–607MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mares M (2001) Fuzzy cooperative games. Physica-Verlag, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nan JX, Li DF (2013) Linear programming approach to matrix games with intuitionistic fuzzy goals. Int J Comput Intell Syst 6:186–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nishizaki I, Sakawa M (2000) Fuzzy cooperative games arising from linear production programming problems with fuzzy parameters. Fuzzy Sets Syst 114:11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Owen G (1982) Game theory, 2nd edn. Academic, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Pap E, Ralević N (1998) Pseudo-Laplace transform. Nonlinear Anal 33:533–550MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Saaty TL (1980) Multicriteria decision making: the analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Sakawa M, Nishizaki I (1994) Max-min solutions for fuzzy multiobjective matrix games. Fuzzy Sets Syst 61:265–75MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sengupta A, Pal TK (2000) Theory and methodology on comparing interval numbers. Eur J Oper Res 127:28–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tong S (1994) Interval number and fuzzy number linear programming. Fuzzy Sets Syst 66:301–306MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Torra V (2000) Knowledge based validation: synthesis of diagnoses through synthesis of relations. Fuzzy Sets Syst 113:167–176MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Vijay V, Cahandra S, Bector CR (2005) Matrix game with fuzzy goals and fuzzy payoffs. Omega 33:425–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Xia MM, Xu ZS, Liao HC (2013) Preference relations based on intuitionistic multiplicative information. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 21:113–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Xu ZS (2007a) Methods for aggregating interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy information and their application to decision making. Control Decis 22:215–219Google Scholar
  38. Xu ZS (2007b) Intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 15:1179–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yu DJ (2015) Group decision making under interval-valued multiplicative intuitionistic fuzzy environment based on Archimedean t-conorm and t-norm. Int J Intell Syst 30:590–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets and systems. In: Proceeding of the symposium on systems theory. Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, New York, pp 29–37Google Scholar
  41. Zhao H, Sun M, Deng W, Yang X (2017) A new feature extraction method based on EEMD and multi-scale fuzzy entropy for motor bearing. Entropy 19(1):14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhao HM, Yao R, Xu L, Li GY, Deng W (2018) Study on a novel fault damage degree identification method using high-order differential mathematical morphology gradient spectrum entropy. Entropy 20(9):682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhou W, Xu ZS (2016a) Asymmetric hesitant fuzzy sigmoid preference relations in the analytic hierarchy process. Inf Sci 358–359:191–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhou W, Xu ZS (2016b) Asymmetric fuzzy preference relations based on the generalized sigmoid scale and their application in decision making involving risk appetites. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 24:741–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Beijing Jiaotong UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations