Fuzzy preferences in conflicts

Abstract

A systematic fuzzy approach is developed to model fuzziness and uncertainties in the preferences of decision makers involved in a conflict. This unique fuzzy preference formulation is used within the paradigm of the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution in which a given dispute is modeled in terms of decision makers, each decision maker’s courses of actions or options, and each decision maker’s preferences concerning the states or outcomes which could take place. In order to be able to determine the stability of each state for each decision maker and the possible equilibria or resolutions, a range of solution concepts describing potential human behavior under conflict are defined for use with fuzzy preferences. More specifically, strong and weak definitions of stability are provided for the solution concepts called Nash, general metarational, symmetric metarational, and sequential stability. To illustrate how these solution concepts can be conveniently used in practice, they are applied to a dispute over the contamination of an aquifer by a chemical company located in Elmira, Ontario, Canada.

Keywords

Environmental conflict / fuzzy sets / Graph Model for Conflict Resolution / preferences / multiple participants

References

[1] Barrett C., Pattanaik P., Salles M.. On choosing rationally when preferences are fuzzy. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1990, 34: 197-212.

[2] Bennett P.. Modeling decision in international relations: game theory and beyond. Mershon International Studies Review, 1995, 39: 19-52.

[3] Bennett P.. Confrontation analysis as a diagnostic tool. European Journal of Operational Research, 1998, 109: 465-482.

[4] Binmore K.. Fun and Games: A Text on Game Theory, 1992, Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Health.

[5] Brams S.. Theory of Moves, 1994, Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

[6] Cai, L. & Deng, X. (1996). An approach to constructing judgment matrix with desirable consistency in AHP. In: Sun, H.C. (eds.), Decision science and its application, pp. 88–91

[7] Chiclana F., Herrera F., Herrera-Viedma E.. Integrating three representation models in fuzzy multipurpose decision making based on fuzzy preference relations. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1998, 97: 33-48.

[8] Chiclana F., Herrera F., Herrera-Viedma E.. Integrating multiplicative preference relations in a multipurpose decision-making model based on fuzzy preference relations. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2001, 122: 277-291.

[9] Dubois D., Prade H.. Fuzzy Sets and Systems: Theory and Applications, 1980, New York: Academic Press.

[10] Fang L., Hipel K.W., Kilgour D.M.. Interactive Decision Making: The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution, 1993, New York: Wiley

[11] Fang L., Hipel K.W., Kilgour D.M., Peng X.. A decision support system for interactive decision making, part 1: model formulation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C, Applications and Reviews, 2003, 33: 42-55.

[12] Fang L., Hipel K.W., Kilgour D.M., Peng X.. 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, 2003, 33: 56-66.

[13] Fraser N., Hipel K.W.. Conflict Analysis: Models and Resolutions, 1984, New York: North-Holland.

[14] Hamouda L., Kilgour D.M., Hipel K.W.. Strength of preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2004, 13: 449-462.

[15] Hamouda L., Kilgour D.M., Hipel K.W.. Strength of preference in graph models for multiple decision-maker conflicts. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 2006, 179: 314-327.

[16] Herrera F., Herrera-Viedma E., Chiclana F.. Multiperson decision-making based on multiplicative preference relations. European Journal of Operational Research, 2001, 129: 372-385.

[17] Herrera F., Martinez L., Sanchez P.. Managing non-homogeneous information in group decision making. European Journal of Operational Research, 2005, 166: 115-132.

[18] Hipel K.W., Fang L., Kilgour D.M., Haight M.. Environmental conflict resolution using the graph model. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 1993, I: 153-158.

[19] Howard N.. Paradoxes of Rationality: Theory of Metagames and Political Behavior, 1971, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press

[20] Howard N.. Drama theory and its relationship to game theory: I and II. Group Decision and Negotiation, 1994, 3: 187-206.

[21] Howard N.. Confrontation Analysis: How to Win Operations other than War, 1999, Washington: CCRP publication series, D.C.

[22] Inohara T., Hipel K.W.. Interrelationships among noncooperative and coalition stability concepts. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 2008, 17(1): 1-29.

[23] Inohara, T. & Hipel, K.W. (2008)b. Coalition analysis in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. Systems Engineering, 11 (4)

[24] Kandel A., Zhang Y.. Fuzzy moves. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1998, 99: 159-177.

[25] Kilgour D.M., Hipel K.W., Fang L.. The graph model for conflicts. Automatica, 1987, 23(1): 41-55.

[26] Kilgour D.M., Hipel K.W., Fang L.. Coalition analysis in group decision support. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2001, 10: 159-175.

[27] Li K.W., Hipel K.W., Kilgour D.M., Fang L.. Preference uncertainty in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A, Humans and Systems, 2004, 34(4): 507-520.

[28] Li K., Karray F., Hipel K.W., Kilgour D.M.. Fuzzy approaches to the game of chicken. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 2001, 9: 608-623.

[29] Ma J., Fan Z.P., Jiang Y.P., Mao J.Y., Ma L.. A method for repairing the inconsistency of fuzzy preference relations. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2006, 157: 20-33.

[30] Mikhailov L.. Fuzzy analytical approach to partnership selection in formation of virtual enterprises. Omega, 2002, 30: 393-401.

[31] Mikhailov L.. Deriving priorities from fuzzy pairwise comparison judgments. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2003, 134: 365-385.

[32] Nash J.. Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings of National Academy of Science, 1950, 36: 48-49.

[33] Nash J.. Non-cooperative games. Annals of Mathematics, 1951, 54: 286-295.

[34] Nishizawa K.. A method to find elements of cycles in an incomplete directed graph and its application’s binary AHP and Petri nets. Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 1997, 33(9): 33-46.

[35] Nurmi H.. Approaches to collective decision making with fuzzy preference relations. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1981, 6: 249-259.

[36] Orlovsky S.A.. Decision-making with a fuzzy preference relation. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1978, 1: 155-167.

[37] Osborne M.. An Introduction to Game Theory, 2003, New York: Oxford University Press

[38] Roy B.. Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Aiding, 1996, The Netherlands: Kluwer, Dordrecht.

[39] Saaty T.. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, 1980, New York: McGraw-Hill.

[40] Saaty T., Vargas L.. Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 1987, 32: 107-117.

[41] Tanino T.. Kacprzyk J., Roubens M.. Fuzzy preference relations in group decision making. Non-conventional Preference Relations in Decision Making, 1988, Berlin: Springer-Verlag 54-71.

[42] Tanino T.. Kacprzyk J., Fedrizzi M.. On group decision making under fuzzy preferences. Multiperson Decision Making Using Fuzzy Sets and Possibility Theory, 1990, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers 172-185.

[43] Von Neumann J., Morgenstern O.. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, 1953, 3 New Jersey: Princeton University Press, Princeton.

[44] Wang Y., Yang J., Xu D.. A two-stage logarithmic goal programming method for generating weights from interval comparison matrices. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2005, 152: 475-498.

[45] Xu Z.. Goal programming models for obtaining the priority vector of incomplete fuzzy preference relation. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 2004, 36: 261-270.

[46] Xu Z.. Method for group decision making with various types of incomplete judgment matrices. Control and Decision, 2006, 21: 28-33.

[47] Xu Z.. A survey of preference relations. International Journal of General Systems, 2007, 36(2): 179-203.

[48] Xu Z., Chen J.. Some models for deriving the priority weights from interval fuzzy preference relations. European Journal of Operational Research, 2008, 184: 266-280.

[49] Xu Z., Wei C.. A consistency improving method in the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 1999, 116: 443-449.

[50] Yager R.R., Xu Z.. The continuous ordered weighted geometric operator and its application to decision making. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2006, 157: 1393-1402.

[51] Zimmermann H.. Fuzzy Sets, Decision Making, and Expert Systems, 1987, Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston