Conflict Analysis

  • Rafal Deja
Part of the Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing book series (STUDFUZZ, volume 56)


Computer support for different human activities has grown up in the latest years. Actually the researchers in Artificial Intelligence benefit from this fact in many fields not considered some years ago. Conflict analysis is one of the fields whose importance is increasing nowadays as distributed systems of computers are starting to play a significant role in the society. The computer aided conflict analysis must be applied when intelligent machines (agents) interact. However this is only one from many different areas where a conflict can arise like business, government, political or military operations, labour-management negotiations etc.etc.


Multiagent System Local Goal Boolean Formula Consensus Problem Agent Preference 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Angur, M. (1996). A Hybrid Conjoint-Measurement and Bi-Criteria Model for a 2 Group Negotiation Problem. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 30(3), pp. 195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Avouris, M and Gasser, L (1992). Distributed Artificial Intelligence: Theory and Praxis. Boston, Mass.: Kluwer Academic.MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beringer, B. and De Backer, B. (1998). Combinatorial problem solving in Constraint Programming with cooperating Solvers. Logic Programming: Formal Methods and Practical Applications. C Beirle and L. Palmer editors, North Holland.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Botelho, S.S.C. (1998). A distributed scheme for task planning and negotiation in multi-robot systems. 13th ECAI. Edited by Henri Prade. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brown, F. N. (1990). Boolean Reasoning, Kluwer, Dordrecht.MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bui, T. (1994). Software Architecture for Negotiator Support: Co-op and Negotiator. Computer-Assisted Negotiation and Mediation Symposium, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chmielewski, M. and Grzymala-Busse, J. (1992). Global Discretization of Continuous Attributes as Pre-processing for Inductive Learning. Department of Computer Science, University of Kansas, TR-92–7.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deja, R. (1996). Conflict Analysis. Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Rough Sets, Fuzzy Sets and Machine Discovery. The University of Tokyo, 6–8 November, pp. 118–124.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deja, R. (1996). Conffict Model with Negotiation. Bulletin of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Technical Sciences, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 475–498.MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Everitt, B. (1980). Cluster Analysis. London, United Kingdom: Heinmann Educational Books, Second Edition.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fang, L., Hipel, K.W. and Kilgour, D.M. (1993). Interactive Decision Making: the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fraser, N.M. and Hipel, K.W.(1984). Conflict Analysis: Models and Resolutions North-Holland, New York.MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fraser, N. M and Hipel, K. W. (1983). Dynamic modeling of the Cuba missile crisis. Journal of the Conflict Management and Peace Science 6 (2), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grzymala-Busse, J. (1992). LERS — a System for Learning from Examples Based on Rough Sets. In Slowiński R. [ed.] Intelligent Decision Support. Handbook of Applications and Advances of the Rough Sets Theory. Kluwer, 3–18.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hipel, K.W. and Meiser, D.B.(1993). Conflict analysis methodology for modeling coalition formation in multilateral negotiations. Information and Decision Technologies.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Howard, N. (1975). Metagame analysis of business problems. INFOR 13, pp. 48–67.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Howard, N. and Shepanik, I. (1976). Boolean algorithms used in metagame analysis. Univeristy of Ottawa. Canada.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kersten, G.E. and Szpakowicz, S. (1994). Negotiation in Distributed Artificial Intelligence: Drawing from Human Experiences, Proceedings of the 27th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Volume IV, J.F. Nunamaker and R.H. Sprague, Jr. (eds.), Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press (pp. 258–270).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kersten, G.E., Rubin, S and Szpakowicz, S. (1994). Medical Decision Making in Negoplan. Moving Towards Expert Systems Globally in the 21st Century. Proceedings of the Second World Congress on Expert Systems, J. Liebovitz (ed.) Cambridge, MA: Macnillan (pp. 1130–1137).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Komorowski, J., Pawlak, Z., Polkowski, L., Skowron, A., (1999). Rough sets: A tutorial. in: S.K. Pal and A. Skowron (eds.), Rough fuzzy hybridization: A new trend in decision making, Springer-Verlag, Singapore, pp. 3–98.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nęcki, Z. (1994). Negotiations in business. Professional School of Business Edition. (The book in Polish). Krakow 1994.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nguyen S. H.; Skowron A., 1997, “Searching for Relational Pattern on Data”, Proceedings of The First European Symposium on Principles of Data mining and Knowledge Discovery, Trondheim, Norway, June 25–27, pp. 265–276.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pawlak, Z. (1981). Information Systems — Theoretical Foundations. (The book in Polish). PWN Warsaw.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pawlak, Z. (1984). On Conflicts. Int. J. of Man-Machine Studies. 21, pp. 127–134.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pawlak, Z. (1991). Rough Sets — Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Data. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.MATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pawlak, Z. (1993). Anatomy of Conflicts. Bull. EATCS, 50, pp. 234–246.MATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pawlak, Z. (1993). On Some Issues Connected with Conflict Analysis. Institute of Computer Science Reports, 37/93, Warsaw University of Technology.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pawlak, Z. (1998). An Inquiry into Anatomy of Conflicts. Journal of Information Sciences 109 pp. 65–78.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pawlak, Z. and Skowron, A. (1993). A Rough Set Approach to Decision Rules Generation. Institute of Computer Science Reports, 23/93, Warsaw University of Technology.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Polkowski, L. and Skowron, A. (Eds.) (1998). Rough Sets in Knowledge Discovery 1: Methodology and Applications, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg.MATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Polkowski, L. and Skowron, A. (Eds.) (1998). Rough Sets in Knowledge Discovery 2: Applications, Case Studies and Software Systems, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg.MATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Puget, J-F. (1998). Constraint Programming: A great AI Success. 13th ECAI 98. Edited by Henri Prade. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rosenheim, J.S. and Zlotkin, G. (1994). Designing Conventions for Automated Negotiation. AI Magazine 15(3) pp. 29–46. American Association for Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rosenheim, J.S. and Zlotkin, G. (1994). Rules of Encounter: Designing Conventions for Automated Negotiations among Computers. The MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sandholm, T. (1996). Negotiation among Self-Interested Computationally Limited Agents. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Department of Computer Science. 297 pages.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sandholm, T. (1992). Automatic Cooperation of Area-Distributed Dispatch Centers in Vehicle Routing. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Applications in Transportation Engineering, San Buenaventura, California, pp. 449–467.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sandholm, T. and Lesser, V. (1995). Equilibrium Analysis of the Possibilities of Unenforced Exchange in Multiagent Systems. Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-95), Montreal, Canada, pp. 694–701.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sandholm, T. and Lesser, V. (1995). Issues in Automated Negotiation and Electronic Commerce: Extending the Contract Net Framework. Proceedings of the International Conference on Multiagent Systems pp. 328–335. American Association for Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sandholm, T. and Lesser, V. (1997). Coalitions among Computationally Bounded Agents. Artificial Intelligence 94(1), 99–137, Special issue on Economic Principles of Multiagent Systems.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schehory, O and Kraus, S. (1996). A Kernel-oriented model for Coalitionformation in General Environments: Implementation and Results, Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (AAAI-96), Portland.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Selman, B., Kautz H. and McAllester D. (1997). Ten Challenges in Propositional Reasoning and Search. Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI- 97), Nagoya, Aichi, Japan.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Skowron, A. and Rauszer, C. (1991). The Discernibility Matrix and Functions in Information Systems. Institute of Computer Science Reports, 1/91, Warsaw University of Technology, and Fundamenta Informaticae.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Skowron, A. and Grzymala-Busse, J. (1991). From the Rough Set Theory to the Evidence Theory. Institute of Computer Science Reports, 8/91, Warsaw University of Technology.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sycara, K. (1996). Coordination of Multiple Intelligent Softwareagents. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 5(2–3) pp. 181–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tohme, F. and Sandholm, T. (1997). Coalition Formation Processes with Belief Revision among Bounded Rational Self-Interested Agents. Fifteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-97), Workshop on Social Interaction and Communityware, Nagoya, Japan, August 25.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wellman, M. (1995). A Computational Market Model for Distributed Configuration Design. AI EDAM 9 pp. 125–133. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wiederhold, G. (1992). Mediators in the Architecture of Future Information Systems. IEEE Computer 25(3) pp. 38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zlotkin, G. and Rosenchein, J. (1993). The Extend of Cooperation in Stateoriented Domains: Negotiations among Tidy Agents. Computers and Artificial Intelligence, 12(2) pp. 105–122.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zlotkin, G. and Rosenchein, J. (1993). Negotiation with Incomplete Information about Worth: Strict versus Tolerant Mechanism. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, pp. 175–184, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Żakowski, W.(1991). On Conflicts and Rough Sets. Bulletin of the Polish Academy of Science, Technical Science, 39, 3/1991.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zakowski, W.(1991). Conflicts, Configurations, Situations and Rough Sets. Bulletin of the Polish Academy of Science, Technical Science, 4/1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rafal Deja
    • 1
  1. 1.Alta s.c.KatowicePoland

Personalised recommendations