Advertisement

Probabilistic Option Prioritizing in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution

  • Leandro Chaves RêgoEmail author
  • Giannini Italino Alves Vieira
Article
  • 2 Downloads

Abstract

Probabilistic preferences have been proposed in the graph model for conflict resolution (GMCR) to accommodate both situations in which a decision maker (DM) vacillates in which criteria to use when comparing two scenarios and also situations in which there is uncertainty regarding who will act as a DM representative. In this paper, we propose two option prioritizing techniques to obtain probabilistic preferences in the GMCR more efficiently. The crisp preference option prioritizing relies on an ordered sequence of preference statements that determines the crisp preference relation. In the first proposed technique, a probability distribution is associated with a class of ordered sequences of preference statements of the DM, where the probability of state s being preferred to state t by the DM consists of the sum of the probabilities of the ordered sequences of preference statements where s is preferred to t according to the crisp preference based on the corresponding ordered sequence of preference statements. In the second technique proposed, we allow for uncertainty both on the set of preference statements considered by a DM and also on which preference statement within the set is the most important one for him. An application is provided to illustrate the use of these techniques.

Keywords

Graph model Probabilistic preferences Option prioritizing Preference elicitation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank anonymous referees for helpful comments in a previous version of this paper.

Funding

Funding was provided by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (307556/2017-4, 428325/2018-1) and Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (001).

References

  1. Bashar MA, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2012) Fuzzy preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 20(4):760–770.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2012.2183603 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bashar MA, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2014) Fuzzy option prioritization for the graph model for conflict resolution. Fuzzy Sets Syst 246:34–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2014.02.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bashar MA, Obeidi A, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2015) Modeling fuzzy and interval fuzzy preferences within a graph model framework. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 24(4):765–778.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2015.2446536 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (1993) Interactive decision making: the graph model for conflict resolution, vol 11. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Fishburn PC, Gehrlein WV (1977) Towards a theory of elections with probabilistic preferences. Econometr J Econ Soc 45(8):1907–1924.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1914118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fraser NM, Hipel KW (1979) Solving complex conflicts. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 9(12):805–816.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1979.4310131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hamouda L, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2006) Strength of preference in graph models for multiple-decision-maker conflicts. Appl Math Comput 179(1):314–327.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2005.11.109 Google Scholar
  8. Hou Y, Jiang Y, Xu H (2015) Option prioritization for three-level preference in the graph model for conflict resolution. In: International conference on group decision and negotiation. Springer, pp 269–280.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19515-5-21
  9. Howard N (1971) Paradoxes of rationality: games, metagames, and political behavior. MIT press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2005) The graph model for conflict resolution: past, present, and future. Group Decis Negot 14(6):441–460.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-005-9002-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kilgour DM, Hipel KW, Fang L (1987) The graph model for conflicts. Automatica 23(1):41–55.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-1098(87)90117-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kreps D (1988) Notes on the theory of choice. Westview, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  13. Kuang H, Bashar MA, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2015) Grey-based preference in a graph model for conflict resolution with multiple decision makers. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 45(9):1254–1267.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2014.2387096 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Li KW, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L (2004) Preference uncertainty in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cyber Part A Syst Hum 34(4):507–520.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCA.2004.826282 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Luce RD (1958) A probabilistic theory of utility. Econometr J Econometr Soc 26(2):193–224.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1907587 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nash JF (1950) Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proc Nat Acad Sci 36(1):48–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. O’Hagan A, Buck CE, Daneshkhah A, Eiser JR, Garthwaite PH, Jenkinson DJ, Oakley JE, Rakow T (2006) Uncertain judgements: eliciting experts’ probabilities. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Peng X, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L (1997) Representing ordinal preferences in the decision support system GMCR II. In: 1997 IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics. Computational cybernetics and simulation, vol 1. IEEE, pp 809–814.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSMC.1997.626196
  19. Rêgo LC, Santos AM (2015) Probabilistic preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 45(4):595–608.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2014.2379626 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rêgo LC, Santos AM (2018) Upper and lower probabilistic preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution. Int J Approx Reason 98:96–111.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2018.04.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rêgo LC, Vieira GIA (2017) Symmetric sequential stability in the graph model for conflict resolution with multiple decision makers. Group Decis Negot 26(4):775–792.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-016-9520-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rêgo LC, Vieira GIA (2019) \({M}aximin_h\) stability in the graph model for conflict resolution for bilateral conflicts. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2019.2917824 Google Scholar
  23. Renooij S (2001) Probability elicitation for belief networks: issues to consider. Knowl Eng Rev 16(3):255–269.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269888901000145 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wilcox NT (2008) Stochastic models for binary discrete choice under risk: a critical primer and econometric comparison. In: Risk aversion in experiments. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp 197–292Google Scholar
  25. Xu H, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2009) Multiple levels of preference in interactive strategic decisions. Discrete Appl Math 157(15):3300–3313.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2009.06.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Xu P, Xu H, Ke GY (2018) Integrating an option-oriented attitude analysis into investigating the degree of stabilities in conflict resolution. Group Decis Negot 27(6):981–1010.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-018-9585-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Yu J, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Zhao M (2016) Option prioritization for unknown preference. J Syst Sci Syst Eng 25(1):39–61.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-015-5282-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yu J, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L (2017) Fuzzy strength of preference in the graph model for conflict resolution with two decision makers. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), IEEE, pp 3574–3577,  https://doi.org/10.1109/SMC.2017.8123186
  29. Yu J, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L (2018) Fuzzy levels of preference strength in a graph model with multiple decision makers. Fuzzy Sets Syst.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2018.12.016 Google Scholar
  30. Zeng DZ, Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2006) Generalized metarationalities in the graph model for conflict resolution. Discrete Appl Math 154(16):2430–2443.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2006.04.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zhao S, Xu H (2017) Grey option prioritization for the graph model for conflict resolution. J Grey Syst 29(3):14–26Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Statistics and Applied Math DepartmentUniversidade Federal do CearáFortalezaBrazil
  2. 2.Graduate Programs in Statistics and Management EngineeringUniversidade Federal de PernambucoRecifeBrazil
  3. 3.Universidade Federal do CearáCrateúsBrazil

Personalised recommendations