Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A graph model for conflict resolution with inconsistent preferences among large-scale participants

  • Published:
Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As a flexible and powerful method to resolve strategy conflicts, the graph model for conflict resolution has drawn much attention. In the graph model for conflict resolution, decision-makers need to provide their preference information for all possible scenarios. Most existing studies assumed that decision-makers adopt quantitative representation formats. However, in some real-life situations, decision-makers may tend to use qualitative assessments due to their cognitive expression habits. In addition, stakeholders involved in a graph model can be a group that is composed of a large number of participants. How to manage these participants’ inconsistent preference assessments is also a debatable issue. To fit these gaps, in this study, we propose a graph model for conflict resolution with linguistic preferences, and this model allows participants to use inconsistent assessments. To do this, we first construct a linguistic preference structure, with the necessary concepts being defined. Then, four stability definitions for both a two-decision-maker scenario and an n-decision-maker scenario are introduced. To illustrate the usefulness of the proposed model, an illustrative example regarding the Huawei conflict is provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bashar, M. A., Kilgour, D. M., & Hipel, K. W. (2012). Fuzzy preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 20(4), 760–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bashar, M. A., Hipel, K. W., Kilgour, D. M., & Obeidi, A. (2018). Interval fuzzy preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 17, 287–315.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N. M., & Hipel, K. W. (1979). Solving complex conflicts. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 9, 805–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamouda, L., Kilgour, D. M., & Hipel, K. W. (2004). Strength of preference in the graph model for conflict resolution. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 449–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, S. W., Kilgour, D. M., & Hipel, K. W. (2017). A general hierarchical graph model for conflict resolution with application to greenhouse gas emission disputes between USA and China. European Journal of Operational Research, 257, 919–932.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera, F., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2000). Choice functions and mechanisms for linguistic preference relations. European Journal of Operational Research, 120, 144–161.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera-Viedma, E., Martinez, L., Mata, F., & Chiclana, F. (2005). A consensus support system model for group decision-making problems with multigranular linguistic preference relations. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 13(5), 644–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hipel, K. W., & Fang, L. P. (2021). The graph model for conflict resolution and decision support. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 51(1), 131–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, N. (1971). Paradoxes of rationality: Theory of metagame and political behavior. MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, N. (1994). Drama theory and its relation to game theory. Part 1: Dramatic resolution vs. rational solution. Group Decision and Negotiation, 3, 187–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilgour, D. M., Hipel, K. W., & Fang, L. P. (1987). The graph model for conflicts. Automatica, 23, 41–55.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Kuang, H. B., Bashar, M. A., Hipel, K. W., & Kilgour, D. M. (2015). Grey-based preference in a graph model for conflict resolution with multiple decision makers. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 45, 1254–1267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, N. N., Xu, Y. J., & Hipel, K. W. (2019). The graph model for conflict resolution with incomplete fuzzy reciprocal preference relations. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 377, 52–70.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, M. W., Li, X. M., & Chen, L. F. (2020). Linguistic q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets and their interactional partitioned Heronian mean aggregation operators. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 35(2), 217–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matbouli, Y. T., Kilgour, D. M., & Hipel, K. W. (2015). Robustness of equilibria in the graph model for conflict resolution. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 24(4), 450–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nash, J. F. (1950). Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences., 36, 48–49.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Pang, Q., Wang, H., & Xu, Z. S. (2016). Probabilistic linguistic term sets in multi-attribute group decision making. Information Sciences, 369, 128–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rêgo, L. C., & Santos, A. M. D. (2015). Probabilistic preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 45, 595–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rêgo, L. C., & Santos, A. M. D. (2018). Upper and lower probabilistic preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 98, 96–111.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez, R. M., Martínez, L., & Herrera, F. (2012). Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets for decision making. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 20, 109–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, H. Y., Hipel, K. W., & Kilgour, D. M. (2009). Multiple levels of preference in interactive strategic decisions. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 157(15), 3300–3313.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, J., Hipel, K. W., Kilgour, D. M., & Fang, L. P. (2017). Fuzzy strength of preference in the graph model for conflict resolution with two decision makers. In: IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, (pp. 3574–3577).

  • Yu, J., Hipel, K. W., Kilgour, D. M., Fang, L. P., & Yin, K. D. (2020). Graph model under unknown and fuzzy preferences. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 28(2), 308–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh, L. A. (1975). The concept of a linguistic variable and its applications to approximate reasoning-Part I. Information Sciences, 8, 199–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, S. N., Xu, H. Y., Hipel, K. W., & Fang, L. P. (2019). Mixed stabilities for analyzing opponents’ heterogeneous behavior within the graph model for conflict resolution. European Journal of Operational Research, 277, 621–632.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71771156, 71971145, 72171158).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Business School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610064, China

    Ming Tang & Huchang Liao

Authors
  1. Ming Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Huchang Liao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Huchang Liao.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tang, M., Liao, H. A graph model for conflict resolution with inconsistent preferences among large-scale participants. Fuzzy Optim Decis Making 21, 455–478 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10700-021-09373-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10700-021-09373-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation