Abstract
Probabilistic preferences have been proposed in the graph model for conflict resolution (GMCR) to accommodate both situations in which a decision maker (DM) vacillates in which criteria to use when comparing two scenarios and also situations in which there is uncertainty regarding who will act as a DM representative. In this paper, we propose two option prioritizing techniques to obtain probabilistic preferences in the GMCR more efficiently. The crisp preference option prioritizing relies on an ordered sequence of preference statements that determines the crisp preference relation. In the first proposed technique, a probability distribution is associated with a class of ordered sequences of preference statements of the DM, where the probability of state s being preferred to state t by the DM consists of the sum of the probabilities of the ordered sequences of preference statements where s is preferred to t according to the crisp preference based on the corresponding ordered sequence of preference statements. In the second technique proposed, we allow for uncertainty both on the set of preference statements considered by a DM and also on which preference statement within the set is the most important one for him. An application is provided to illustrate the use of these techniques.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The assumption that the sets of DMs’ options are disjoint for different DMs can always be made without loss of generality by assuming that options are labeled by the DM who takes it.
References
Bashar MA, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2012) Fuzzy preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 20(4):760–770. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2012.2183603
Bashar MA, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2014) Fuzzy option prioritization for the graph model for conflict resolution. Fuzzy Sets Syst 246:34–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2014.02.011
Bashar MA, Obeidi A, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2015) Modeling fuzzy and interval fuzzy preferences within a graph model framework. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 24(4):765–778. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2015.2446536
Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (1993) Interactive decision making: the graph model for conflict resolution, vol 11. Wiley, New York
Fishburn PC, Gehrlein WV (1977) Towards a theory of elections with probabilistic preferences. Econometr J Econ Soc 45(8):1907–1924. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914118
Fraser NM, Hipel KW (1979) Solving complex conflicts. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 9(12):805–816. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1979.4310131
Hamouda L, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2006) Strength of preference in graph models for multiple-decision-maker conflicts. Appl Math Comput 179(1):314–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2005.11.109
Hou Y, Jiang Y, Xu H (2015) Option prioritization for three-level preference in the graph model for conflict resolution. In: International conference on group decision and negotiation. Springer, pp 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19515-5-21
Howard N (1971) Paradoxes of rationality: games, metagames, and political behavior. MIT press, Cambridge
Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2005) The graph model for conflict resolution: past, present, and future. Group Decis Negot 14(6):441–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-005-9002-x
Kilgour DM, Hipel KW, Fang L (1987) The graph model for conflicts. Automatica 23(1):41–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-1098(87)90117-8
Kreps D (1988) Notes on the theory of choice. Westview, Boulder
Kuang H, Bashar MA, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2015) Grey-based preference in a graph model for conflict resolution with multiple decision makers. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 45(9):1254–1267. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2014.2387096
Li KW, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L (2004) Preference uncertainty in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cyber Part A Syst Hum 34(4):507–520. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCA.2004.826282
Luce RD (1958) A probabilistic theory of utility. Econometr J Econometr Soc 26(2):193–224. https://doi.org/10.2307/1907587
Nash JF (1950) Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proc Nat Acad Sci 36(1):48–49
O’Hagan A, Buck CE, Daneshkhah A, Eiser JR, Garthwaite PH, Jenkinson DJ, Oakley JE, Rakow T (2006) Uncertain judgements: eliciting experts’ probabilities. Wiley, New York
Peng X, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L (1997) Representing ordinal preferences in the decision support system GMCR II. In: 1997 IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics. Computational cybernetics and simulation, vol 1. IEEE, pp 809–814. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSMC.1997.626196
Rêgo LC, Santos AM (2015) Probabilistic preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 45(4):595–608. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2014.2379626
Rêgo LC, Santos AM (2018) Upper and lower probabilistic preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution. Int J Approx Reason 98:96–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2018.04.008
Rêgo LC, Vieira GIA (2017) Symmetric sequential stability in the graph model for conflict resolution with multiple decision makers. Group Decis Negot 26(4):775–792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-016-9520-8
Rêgo LC, Vieira GIA (2019) \({M}aximin_h\) stability in the graph model for conflict resolution for bilateral conflicts. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2019.2917824
Renooij S (2001) Probability elicitation for belief networks: issues to consider. Knowl Eng Rev 16(3):255–269. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269888901000145
Wilcox NT (2008) Stochastic models for binary discrete choice under risk: a critical primer and econometric comparison. In: Risk aversion in experiments. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp 197–292
Xu H, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2009) Multiple levels of preference in interactive strategic decisions. Discrete Appl Math 157(15):3300–3313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2009.06.032
Xu P, Xu H, Ke GY (2018) Integrating an option-oriented attitude analysis into investigating the degree of stabilities in conflict resolution. Group Decis Negot 27(6):981–1010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-018-9585-7
Yu J, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Zhao M (2016) Option prioritization for unknown preference. J Syst Sci Syst Eng 25(1):39–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-015-5282-0
Yu J, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L (2017) Fuzzy strength of preference in the graph model for conflict resolution with two decision makers. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), IEEE, pp 3574–3577, https://doi.org/10.1109/SMC.2017.8123186
Yu J, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L (2018) Fuzzy levels of preference strength in a graph model with multiple decision makers. Fuzzy Sets Syst. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2018.12.016
Zeng DZ, Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2006) Generalized metarationalities in the graph model for conflict resolution. Discrete Appl Math 154(16):2430–2443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2006.04.021
Zhao S, Xu H (2017) Grey option prioritization for the graph model for conflict resolution. J Grey Syst 29(3):14–26
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank anonymous referees for helpful comments in a previous version of this paper.
Funding
Funding was provided by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (307556/2017-4, 428325/2018-1) and Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (001).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rêgo, L.C., Vieira, G.I.A. Probabilistic Option Prioritizing in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. Group Decis Negot 28, 1149–1165 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-019-09635-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-019-09635-4