Option prioritization for unknown preference

Abstract

An option prioritization technique is developed to efficiently elicit the preferences, both unknown and crisp, of decision makers (DMs) in strategic conflicts. In the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution, each DM has one or more options, each of which may be selected or not. A state, or possible scenario, is formed when all DMs make an option selection. The software GMCR II contains an option prioritization procedure that makes it easy for a modeller to enter a DM’s crisp preference ordering over the states using prioritized statements describing the DM’s preferred option combinations. This procedure is extended by adding two new logical connectives that describe uncertainty of preference. For each DM, a range of possible scores for each feasible state can then be calculated, facilitating the determination of a preference ordering containing uncertainty by comparing and ranking scores. To demonstrate how this new methodology can be used to represent unknown preferences in a real-world decision problem, it is applied to a Canadian dispute over proposed water exports.

Keywords

Graph model for conflict resolution / option prioritization / unknown preference / logical connectives

References

[1] Al-Mutairi M.S., Hipel K.W., Kamel M.S.. Fuzzy preferences in conflicts. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 2008, 17(3): 257-276.

[2] Bashar M.A., Kilgour D.M., Hipel K.W.. Fuzzy preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 2012, 20(4): 760-770.

[3] Bashar M.A., Kilgour D.M., Hipel K.W.. Fuzzy option prioritization for the graph model for conflict resolution. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2014, 246: 34-48.

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

[5] Fang L., Hipel K.W., Wang L.. Gisborne water export conflict study. Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Water Resources Environment Research (ICWRER), 2002, 1: 432-436.

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

[7] Fang L., Hipel K.W., Kilgour D.M., Peng X.. A decision support system for interactive decision making- part II: Analysis and output interpretation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C. Applications and Reviews, 2003, 33(1): 56-66.

[8] Fraser N.M., Hipel K.W.. Conflict Analysis: Models and Resolutions, 1984.

[9] Fraser N.M., Hipel K.W.. Singh M.G., Salassa D., Hindi K.S.. Decision support systems for conflict analysis. Managerial Decision Support Systems, 1988 13-21.

[10] 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.

[11] Hipel K.W., Kilgour D.M., Fang L., Peng X.. The decision support system GMCR in environmental conflict management. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 1997, 83(2): 117-152.

[12] Hipel K.W., Fang L., Wang L.. Bulk water export issues in Canada and the Lake Gisborne conflict, 2003

[13] Hipel K.W., Kilgour D.M., Bashar M.A.. Fuzzy preferences in multiple participant decision making. Scientia Iranica, 2011, 18(3): 627-638.

[14] Howard N.. Paradoxes of Rationality: Theory of Metagames and Political Behavior, 1971

[15] Howard N.. Confrontation Analysis: How to Win Operations Other Than War, 1999

[16] Inohara T., Hipel K.W., Walker S.. Conflict analysis approaches for investigating attitudes and misperceptions in the War of 1812. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 2007, 16(2): 181-201.

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

[18] Ke G.Y., Fu B., De M., Hipel K.W.. A hierarchical multiple criteria model for eliciting relative preferences in conflict situations. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 2012, 21(1): 56-57.

[19] Kilgour D.M., Eden C.. Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation, 2011.

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

[21] Kilgour D.M., Hipel K.W., Fang L., Peng X.. Coalition analysis in group decision support. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2001, 10(2): 159-175.

[22] 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.

[23] Water Resources Research, 2004, 40(5):

[24] Li K.W., Hipel K.W., Kilgour D.M., Noakes D.. Integrating unknown preferences into status quo analysis with applications to an environmental conflict. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2005, 14(6): 461-479.

[25] Ma J., Hipel K.W., De M.. Devils lake emergency outlet diversion conflict. Journal of Environmental Management, 2011, 92(3): 437-447.

[26] Von Neumann J., Morgenstern O.. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, 1944.

[27] Walker S., Hipel K.W., Inohara T.. Strategic decision making for improved environmental security: coalitions and attitudes in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 2009, 18(4): 461-476.

[28] Walker S., Hipel K.W., Inohara T.. Dominating attitudes in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 2012, 21(3): 316-336.

[29] Xu H., Hipel K.W., Kilgour D.M.. Multiple levels of preference in interactive strategic decisions. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 2009, 157(15): 3300-3313.

[30] Yu J., Zhao M., Sun D., Dong J.. Research on the water pollution conflict between the upstream area and the downstream area in a river basin based on GMCR. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 2013, 44(12): 1389-1398.