Strategic Analysis of a Regulatory Conflict Using Dempster-Shafer Theory and AHP for Preference Elicitation

Abstract

Dempster-Shafer Theory (DST) and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) are integrated in order to elicit preference information from experts regarding decision makers (DMs) involved in a regulatory conflict. More precisely, DST is used for combining expert knowledge regarding preferences of a specific DM(the regulatory body), and AHP is employed for ranking feasible states in the conflict for this same DM. In order to illustrate how this preference elicitation proposal can be conveniently implemented in practice within the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution (GMCR), it is applied to a real construction dispute located in the city of Ipojuca, Brazil. The conflict is modeled with three DMs: support, opposition, and the regulatory body. Results show that the new preference methodology possesses many inherent advantages including high flexibility, the ability to capture uncertainty or even ignorance about preferences, the possibility of combining expert knowledge with respect to missing preferences, and a substantial reduction in the number of pairwise comparisons of states required to express preference information.

Keywords

Regulatory conflict / graph model for conflict resolution / absence of preference information / DST-AHP

References

[1] Anderson DR, Sweeney DJ, Williams TA. An Introduction to Management Science, 1998, New York, USA: West

[2] Barzilai J, Cook W, Golany B. Consistent weights for judgment matrices of the relative importance for alternatives. Operations Research Letters, 1987, 6: 131-134.

[3] Barzilai J. Deriving weights from pairwise comparison matrices. Journal of Operational Research Society, 1997, 48(12): 1226-1232.

[4] Barzilai J, Golany B. Deriving weights from pairwise comparison matrices: The additive case. Operations Research Letters, 1990, 9(6): 407-410.

[5] Bashar MA, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW. Fuzzy preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 2012, 20(4): 760-770.

[6] Bashar MA, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW. Fuzzy option prioritization for the graph model for conflict resolution. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2014, 46: 34-48.

[7] Bashar MA, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Obeidi A. Coalition fuzzy stability analysis in the graph model for conflict resolution. Journal of Intelligent Fuzzy Systems, 2015, 29(2): 593-607.

[8] Bashar MA, Obeidi A, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW. Modelling fuzzy and interval fuzzy preferences within a graph model framework. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 2015, 99: 1-15.

[9] Belton V, Gear AE. On a shortcoming of Saaty’s method of analytic hierarchies. Omega, 1983, 11: 228-230.

[10] Beynon M, Curry B, Morgan P. The Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence: An alternative approach to multicriteria decision modelling. Omega, 2000, 28: 37-50.

[11] Beynon M, Cosker D, Marshall D. An expert system for multi-criteria decision making using Dempster Shafer theory. Expert Systems with Applications, 2001, 20(4): 357-367.

[12] Beynon M. DS/AHP method: Amathematical analysis, including an understanding of uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research, 2002, 140(1): 148-164.

[13] Beynon M. A method of aggregation in DS/AHP for group decision-making with the non-equivalent importance of individuals in the group. Computers and Operations Research, 2005, 32(7): 1881-1896.

[14] Chen K, Kou G, Tarn JM, Song Y. Bridging the gap between missing and inconsistent values in eliciting preference from pairwise comparison matrices. Annals of Operations Research, 2015, 235: 155-175.

[15] Dempster AP. Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multi-valued mapping. The Annals of Mathematical Statatics, 1967, 38: 325-339.

[16] Dempster AP. Upper and lower probability inferences based on a sample from a finite univariate population. Biometrika, 1967, 54: 515-528.

[17] Deng JL. Introduction to grey system theory. Journal of Grey Systems, 1989, 1(1): 1-24.

[18] Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM. Interactive Decision Making: The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution, 1993, New York, USA: Wiley and Sons

[19] Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Peng X. A decision support system for interactive decision making, Part 1: Model Formulation. Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, C, Applied Reviews, 2003, 33(1): 42-55.

[20] Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Peng X. A decision support system for interactive decision making, Part 2: Model Formulation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, C, Applied Reviews, 2003, 33(1): 56-66.

[21] Fraser NM, Hipel KW. Solving complex conflicts. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 1979, 9(12): 805-816.

[22] Fraser NM, Hipel KW. Conflict Analysis: Models and Resolutions, 1984, New York, USA: North-Holland.

[23] Fraser NM, Hipel KW. Decision support systems for conflict analysis. Proceedings of the IMACS/IFOR First International Colloquium on Managerial Decision Support Systems and Knowledge-Based Systems, Manchester, United Kingdom, November 23–25, 1987, 1988

[24] Garcia A, Obeidi A, Hipel KW. Two methodological perspectives on the energy east pipeline conflict. Energy Policy, 2016, 91: 397-409.

[25] Gelman A. The boxer, the wrestler, and the coin flip: A paradox of robust Bayesian inference and belief functions. American Statistical, 2006, 60(2): 146-150.

[26] Harker PT. Alternative modes of questioning in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical Modelling, 1987, 9(3–5): 353-360.

[27] Harker PT. Incomplete pairwise comparisons in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical Modelling, 1987, 9(11): 837-848.

[28] He S, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW. A general hierarchical graph model for conflict resolution with application to greenhouse gas emission disputes between USA and China. European Journal of Operational Research, 2017, 257: 919-932.

[29] Hipel KW, Fraser NM. Metagame analysis of the garrison conflict. Water Resources Research, 1980, 16(4): 629-637.

[30] Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Bashar MA. Fuzzy preferences in multiple participant decision making. Sci. Iran. Trans, 2011, 18(3): 627-638.

[31] Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L, Peng X. The decision support system GMCR in environmental conflict management. Applied Mathematics and Computing, 1997, 83(2–3): 117-152.

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

[33] Hua Z, Gong B, Xu X. A DS-AHP approach for multi-attribute decision making problem with incomplete information. Expert Systems with Applications, 2007, 34(3): 2221-2227.

[34] Inohara T, Hipel KW. Coalition analysis in the graph model for conflict resolution. Systems Engineering, 2008, 11(4): 343-359.

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

[36] Ke Y, Fu B, De M, Hipel KW. A hierarchical multiple criteria model for eliciting relative preferences in conflict situations. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 2012, 21(1): 56-76.

[37] Ke Y, Li KW, Hipel KW. An integrated multiple criteria preference ranking approach to the Canadian West Coast port congestion problem. Expert Systems with Applications, 2012, 39(10): 9181-9190.

[38] Kilgour DM, Hipel KW, Fang L. The graph model for conflicts. Automatica, 1987, 23(1): 41-55.

[39] Kilgour DM, Hipel KW, Fang L, Peng X. Coalition analysis in group decision support. Group Decisision and Negotiation, 2001, 10(2): 159-175.

[40] Krause P, Clark D. Representing Uncertain Knowledge: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, 1993, London UK: Intellect Books.

[41] Kuang H, Bashar MA, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM. Grey-based preference in a graph model for conflict resolution with multiple decision makers. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 2015, 45(9): 1254-1267.

[42] Kuang H, Bashar MA, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM. Strategic analysis of a Brownfield revitalization conflict using the grey-based graph model for conflict resolution. EURO Journal of Decision Process, 2015, 3(3): 219-248.

[43] Li KW, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L. Preference uncertainty in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, Cybernetics: A, Syst. Human, 2004, 34(4): 507-520.

[44] Li KW, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Noakes DJ. Integrating uncertain preferences into status Quo analysis with application to an environmental conflict. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2005, 14(6): 461-479.

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

[46] Nash JF. Noncooperative games. Annals of Mathematics, 1951, 54(2): 286-295.

[47] Pearl J. Reasoning with belief functions: An analysis of compatibility. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 1990, 4: 363-389.

[48] Rego LC, Santos AM. Probabilistic preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics: Systems, 2015, 45: 595-608.

[49] Rego LC, Vieira GIA. Symmetric sequential stability in the graph model for conflict resolution with multiple decision makers. Group Decisions and Negotiation, 2016

[50] Rogova G. Combining the results of several neural network classifiers. Neural Networks, 1994, 7(5): 777-781.

[51] Roy B. ELECTRE III: un alghoritme de methode de classements fonde sur une representation floue des préférences en presence de critères multiplex. Cahieres de CERO, 1978, 20(1): 3-24.

[52] Saaty TL. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, 1980, New York, USA: McGraw Hill.

[53] Saaty TL. Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytical Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World, 1982, Belmont (CA), USA: Lifetime Learning Publications

[54] Saaty TL. Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process, 1996, Pittsburgh, USA: RWS Publications

[55] Shafer G. A Mathematical Theory of Evidence, 1976, Princeton, USA: Princeton University Press.

[56] Silva LGO, De Almeida-Filho AT. A multicriteria approach for analysis of conflicts in evidence theory. Information Sciences, 2016 346-347.

[57] Silva MM, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW, Costa APCS. Probabilistic composition of preferences in the graph model, with application to the new Recife project. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution, 2017

[58] Silva MM, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW, Costa APCS. Urban planning in Recife, Brazil: Evidence from a conflict analysis on the ‘New Recife’ Project. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 2017

[59] Smets P, Kennes R. The transferable belief model. Artificial Intelligence, 1994, 66(2): 191-234.

[60] Triantaphyllou E. Two new cases of rank reversals when the AHP and some of its additive variants are used that do not occur with the multiplicative AHP. Multicriteria Decision Analysis, 2001, 10: 11-25.

[61] VonNeumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory Of Games And Economic Behavior, 1944, Princeton, USA: Princeton University Press

[62] Xu H, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L. Conflict Resolution Using the Graph Model: Strategic Interactions in Competition and Cooperation, 2018.

[63] Yu J, Hipel KW, Kilgour D Z. Option prioritization for unknown preference. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 2016, 25(1): 39-61.

[64] Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 1965, 8: 338-353.

[65] Zadeh LA. A simple view of the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence and its implication for the rule of combination. AI Magazine, 1986, 7(2): 85-90.

[66] Zeng DZ, Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM. Generalized metarationalities in the graph model for conflict resolution. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 2006, 154(16): 2430-2443.