Abstract
This chapter is devoted to algorithms that trace the paths a conflict could follow as it evolves from a selected starting state, often the status quo, to a state of interest, such as an attractive resolution. For instance, if a group of decision makers (DMs) could make a sequence of individual unilateral improvements to achieve an outcome they all prefer, it would be a win/win resolution for all of them, and therefore in their interests to do so. Path-following algorithms are developed within logical and two matrix representations of the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution (GMCR) under four different preference structures: simple (Chap. 4), unknown (Chap. 5), three degree (Chap. 6) and hybrid (unknown combined with three degree, Chap. 7). The value of the logical approach is its ability to explain how the evolution can occur, while the matrix approach facilitates the calculations. To illustrate the algorithms, they are applied to graph models of three real-world case studies: a groundwater contamination dispute, a conflict arising over the proposed bulk export of fresh water, and an international conflict over the development of a large-scale irrigation system.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Dieste, R. (1997). Graph theory. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1153-7_402.
Fang, L., Hipel, K. W., Kilgour, D. M., & Peng, X. (2003a). A decision support system for interactive decision making, part 1: Model formulation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews, 33(1), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1109/tsmcc.2003.809361.
Fang, L., Hipel, K. W., Kilgour, D. M., and Peng, X. (2003b). A decision support system for interactive decision making, part 2: Analysis and output interpretation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews, 33(1), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1109/tsmcc.2003.809360.
Godsil, C. & Royle, G. (2001). Algebraic graph theory. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-0163-9.
Gondran, M., & Minoux, M. (1979). Graphs and algorithms. New York: Wiley.
Hoffman, A. J. & Schiebe, B. (2001). The edge versus path incidence matrix of series-parallel graphs and greedy packing. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 113, 275–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0166-218x(00)00294-8.
Kilgour, D. M. & Hipel, K. W. (2010). Conflict analysis methods: The graph model for conflict resolution. In D. M. Kilgour & C. Eden (Eds.), Handbook of group decision and negotiation (pp. 203–222). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9097-3_13.
Li, K. W., Hipel, K. W., Kilgour, D. M., & Fang, L. (2004a). Preference uncertainty in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A, Systems and Humans, 34(4), 507–520. https://doi.org/10.1109/tsmca.2004.826282.
Li, K. W., Kilgour, D. M., & Hipel, K. W. (2004b). Status quo analysis of the Flathead river conflict. Water Resources Research, 40(5). https://doi.org/10.1029/2003wr002596.
Li, K. W., Hipel, K. W., Kilgour, D. M., & Noakes, D. J. (2005a). Integrating uncertain preferences into status quo analysis with application to an environmental conflict. Group Decision and Negotiation, 14(6):461–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-005-9003-9.
Li, K. W., Kilgour, D. M., & Hipel, K. W. (2005b). Status quo analysis in the graph model for conflict resolution. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 56, 699–707. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601870.
Migliore, M., Martorana, V., & Sciortino, F. (1990). An algorithm to find all paths between two nodes in a graph. Journal of Computational Physics, 87, 231–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9991(90)90235-s.
Shiny, A. K. & Pujari, A. K. (1998). Computation of prime implicants using matrix and paths. Journal of Logic and Computation, 8(2), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/8.2.135.
Xia, Y., & Wang, J. (2000). A discrete-time recurrent neural network for shortest-path routing. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 45(11), 2129–2134. https://doi.org/10.1109/9.887639.
Xu, H., Li, K. W., Hipel, K. W., & Kilgour, D. M. (2009a). A matrix approach to status quo analysis in the graph model for conflict resolution. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 212(2), 470–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2009.02.051.
Xu, H., Li, K. W., Kilgour, D. M., & Hipel, K. W. (2009b). A matrix-based approach to searching colored paths in a weighted colored multidigraph. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 215, 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2009.04.086.
Xu, H., Hipel, K. W., Kilgour, D. M., & Chen, Y. (2010a). Combining strength and uncertainty for preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution with multiple decision makers. Theory and Decision, 69(4), 497–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-009-9134-6.
Xu, H., Kilgour, D. M., Hipel, K. W., & Kemkes, G. (2010b). Using matrices to link conflict evolution and resolution in a graph model. European Journal of Operational Research, 207, 318–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2010.03.025.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Xu, H., Hipel, K.W., Kilgour, D.M., Fang, L. (2018). Follow-Up Analysis: Conflict Evolution. In: Conflict Resolution Using the Graph Model: Strategic Interactions in Competition and Cooperation. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, vol 153. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77670-5_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77670-5_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-77669-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-77670-5
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)