Skip to main content

Inverse Preference Optimization in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution based on the Genetic Algorithm

Abstract

The Inverse GMCR (Graph Model for Conflict Resolution) produces rankings of possible states (preference relation profiles) that will make the desired resolution of a conflict stable. However, there are usually numerous preference relation profiles making it difficult for a third party to choose an appropriate preference relation to design its mediation strategy. Moreover, the cost or effort of changing preference relations over states has rarely been studied in Inverse GMCR. The current study presents two inverse preference optimization models considering the cost and effort in changing preferences to address these issues. The first model aims to ascertain an optimal preference at minimum adjustment cost such that the desired equilibrium is reached. The other model is to find an optimal required preference under minimum adjustment amount, which is defined as the difference between the required preference matrix and the original preference matrix. Then, a Genetic Algorithm (GA)-based algorithm is proposed. Finally, the two proposed preference optimization methods are applied to two cases, demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed methodology.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

modified from Wang et al., 2018)

Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Abiodun AR (2014) Organizational conflicts: causes, effects and remedies. Int J Acad Res Econ Manag Sci 3(6):118

    Google Scholar 

  2. Araujo FC, Leoneti AB (2020) Evaluating the stability of the oil and gas exploration and production regulatory framework in Brazil. Group Decis Negot 29(1):143–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bashar MA, Hipel KW, & Kilgour DM (2010). Fuzzy preferences in a two-decision maker graph model. In 2010 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (pp. 2964–2970)

  4. Bashar MA, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2012) Fuzzy preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 20(4):760–770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bashar MA, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Obeidi A (2018) Interval fuzzy preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution. Fuzzy Optim Decis Making 17(3):287–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bercovitch J, Sigmund Gartner S (2006) Is there method in the madness of mediation? Some lessons for mediators from quantitative studies of mediation. Int Interact 32(4):329–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Esmaeili M, Bahrini A, Shayanrad S (2015) Using game theory approach to interpret stable policies for Iran’s oil and gas common resources conflicts with Iraq and Qatar. J Ind Eng Int 11(4):543–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fraser NM, Hipel KW (1979) Solving complex conflicts. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 9(12):805–816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Garcia A, Obeidi A, Hipel KW (2019) Inverse engineering preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern: Syst. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2018.2876589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gopalakrishnan C, Levy J, Li KW, Hipel KW (2005) Water allocation among multiple stakeholders: conflict analysis of the Waiahole water project. Hawaii Int J Water Resour Dev 21(2):283–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. He S, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2014) Water diversion conflicts in China: a hierarchical perspective. Water Resour Manage 28(7):1823–1837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. He S, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2017) A general hierarchical graph model for confict resolution with application to greenhouse gas emission disputes between USA and China. Eur J Oper Res 257(3):919–932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hipel KW, Wang M, Fraser NM (1988) Hypergame analysis of the Falkland/Malvinas conflict. Int Stud Quart 32(3):335–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hipel KW, Fang L, Kilgour DM, and Haight M (1993) Environmental conflict resolution using the graph model. In Proceedings of IEEE Systems Man and Cybernetics Conference-SMC (Vol. 1, pp. 153–158). IEEE

  15. Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L, Peng XJ (1997) The decision support system GMCR in environmental conflict management. Appl Math Comput 83(2–3):117–152

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L, and Peng X (1999) The decision support system GMCR II in negotiations over groundwater contamination. In Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1999. IEEE SMC '99 Conference Proceedings. 1999 IEEE International Conference on, volume 5, pages 942–948. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSMC.1999.815681

  17. Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L, Peng X (2001) Strategic decision support for the services industry. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 48(3):358–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hipel KW, Obeidi A, Fang L, Kilgour DM (2008) Adaptive systems thinking in integrated water resources management with insights into conflicts over water exports. INFOR: Inf Syst Op Res 46(1):51–69

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Bashar MA (2011) Fuzzy preferences in multiple participant decision making. Scientia Iranica 18(3):627–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hipel KW, Fang L, Kilgour DM (2020) The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution: Reflections on Three Decades of Development. Group Decis Negot 29(1):11–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Howard N (1971) Paradoxes of rationality: theory of metagames and political behavior. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  22. Inohara T, Hipel KW (2008) Coalition analysis in the graph model for conflict resolution. Syst Eng 11(4):343–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kinsara R (2015) Negotiation Support System with Third Party Intervention. UWSpace. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10012/9112

  25. Kinsara RA, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2014) Inverse approach to the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern: Syst 45(5):734–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kinsara RA, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2015a) Inverse approach to the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Tran Syst Man Cybern: Syst 45(5):734–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kinsara RA, Petersons O, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2015b) Advanced decision support for the graph model for conflict resolution. J Decis Syst 24(2):117–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kuang H, Bashar MA, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2015) a) Strategic analysis of a brownfield revitalization conflict using the grey-based graph model for conflict resolution. EURO J Decis Process 3(3–4):219–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kuang H, Bashar MA, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2015) b) Grey-based preference in a graph model for conflict resolution with multiple decision makers. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern: Syst 45(9):1254–1267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Li KW, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L (2004a) Preference uncertainty in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern-Part a: Syst Humans 34(4):507–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Li KW, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2004) Status quo analysis of the Flathead River conflict. Water Resour Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003WR002596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Madani K, Hipel KW (2011) Non-cooperative stability definitions for strategic analysis of generic water resources conflicts. Water Resour Manage 25(8):1949–1977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Mahmoudi A, Javed SA, Mardani A (2021) Gresilient supplier selection through fuzzy ordinal priority approach: decision-making in post-COVID era. Oper Manag Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-021-00178-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Nash JF (1950) Equilibrium points in n -person games. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 36(1):48–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. OBeidi A, Hipel K (2005) Strategic and dilemma analyses of a water export conflict. INFOR Inf Syst Op Res 43(3):247–270

    Google Scholar 

  36. Philpot S, Hipel K, Johnson P (2016) Strategic analysis of a water rights conflict in the south western United States. J Environ Manage 180:247–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rêgo LC, dos Santos AM (2018) Upper and lower probabilistic preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution. Int J Approx Reason 98:96–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rêgo LC, Silva HV, Rodrigues CD (2021) Optimizing the cost of preference manipulation in the graph model for conflict resolution. Appl Math Comput 392:125729

    Google Scholar 

  40. Rego LC, dos Santos AM (2015) Probabilistic preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern: Syst 45(4):595–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sakakibara H, Okada N, Nakase D (2002) The application of robustness analysis to the conflict with incomplete information. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C (Appl Rev) 32(1):14–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sheikhmohammady M, Hipel KW, Asilahijani H, Kilgour DM (2009) Strategic analysis of the conflict over Iran's nuclear program. In Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2009. SMC 2009. IEEE International Conference on (pp. 1911–1916). IEEE.

  43. Sheikhmohammady M, Madani K, Bahrini A, Tahmasebi A, Behmanesh I (2011) Modeling and analysis of the conflict over the Triple Islands in the Persian Gulf. In Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), 2011 IEEE International Conference (pp. 3046–3050). IEEE. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSMC.2011.6084127

  44. Silva MM, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW, Costa APCS (2017) Probabilistic composition of preferences in the graph model with application to the new recife project. J Leg Aff Dispute Resolut Eng Constr 9(3):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Wang Q, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2015) Facilitating risky project negotiation: an integrated approach using fuzzy real options, multicriteria analysis, and conflict analysis. Inf Sci 295:544–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Wang J, Hipel KW, Fang L, Dang Y (2018) Matrix representations of the inverse problem in the graph model for conflict resolution. Eur J Oper Res 270(1):282–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Wu N, Xu Y, Hipel KW (2019) The graph model for conflict resolution with incomplete fuzzy reciprocal preference relations. Fuzzy Sets Syst 377:52–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Xu H, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2009) Matrix representation of solution concepts in multiple-decision-maker graph models. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern-Part a: Syst Humans 39(1):96–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Xu H, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Chen Y (2010) Combining strength and uncertainty for preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution with multiple decision makers. Theor Decis 69(4):497–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Xu H, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L (2018) Conflict resolution using the graph model: strategic interactions in competition and cooperation. Springer, Switzerland

    Book  Google Scholar 

  51. Yousefi S, Hipel KW, Hegazy T (2010) Attitude-based negotiation methodology for the management of construction disputes. J Manag Eng 26(3):114–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Yu J, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L (2019) Fuzzy levels of preference strength in a graph model with multiple decision makers. Fuzzy Sets Syst 377:71–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Yu J, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L, Yin K (2020) Graph model under unknown and fuzzy preferences. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 28(2):308–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Zhao S, Xu H, Hipel KW, Fang L (2019) Mixed stabilities for analyzing opponents’ heterogeneous behavior within the graph model for conflict resolution. Eur J Oper Res 277(2):621–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71801127, 71671091, 71671090, 71871117); China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No. 2019TQ0150).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saad Ahmed Javed.

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

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tao, L., Su, X. & Javed, S.A. Inverse Preference Optimization in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution based on the Genetic Algorithm. Group Decis Negot 30, 1085–1112 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-021-09748-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Group decision and negotiation
  • Inverse GMCR
  • Preference optimization
  • Conflict Resolution
  • Genetic Algorithm
  • Graph Model for Conflict Resolution