基于概率强度偏好的冲突分析图模型方法

doi:10.12305/j.issn.1001-506X.2025.02.14

Abstract

Abstract:

In response to the coexistence of uncertainty and strength in preferences of decision makers in complex conflicts in reality, combined with the advantages of two expression methods of probabilistic preference and strength preference, the graph model for conflict resolution (GMCR) method based on probabilistic-strength preference is proposed. Firsty, the basic concept and process of classical GMCR method are reviewed. Then, a probabilistic-strength preference structure is introduced to comprehensively characterize the preferences of decision makers. After that, eight stability definitions are redefined to reveal the logical rules inherent in complex game behaviors. Finally, the method is applied to study the choice preferences and strategy interactions in each party's strategies, which verifies the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed method in solving conflicts involving multiple parties.

Key words: graph model for conflict resolution (GMCR), probabilistic preference, strength preference

CLC Number:

C934

Yibo DONG, Bingfeng GE, Yuming HUANG, Zeqiang HOU, Guangdong DING, Ziyi LIU. Probabilistic-strength preference based method in the graph model for conflict resolution[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2025, 47(2): 478-485.

Figures/Tables 8

Fig.1

Table 1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Table 2

Fig.5

Fig.6

References 30

13	ZHAO S N , XU H Y , HIPEL K W , et al. Mixed stabilities for analyzing opponents'heterogeneous behavior within the graph model for conflict resolution[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2019, 277 (2): 621- 632. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2019.02.043
14	YIN K D , YU L , FANG L P , et al. Impact of external influence on unilateral improvements in the graph model for conflict resolution[J]. Expert Systems with Applications, 2023, 212, 118692. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118692
15	KILGOUR D M, HIPEL K W, FANG L P. Conflict resolution using the graph model: individuals and coalitions[M]//KILGOUR D M, EDEN C. Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation. Cham: Springer, 2020.
16	WU N N , XU Y J , KILGOUR D M , et al. The graph model for composite decision makers and its application to a water resource conflict[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2023, 306 (1): 308- 321. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2022.07.046
17	FANG L P , HIPEL K W , KILGOUR D M . Interactive decision making: the graph model for conflict resolution[M]. New York: Wiley, 1993.
18	LI K W, HIPEL K W, KILGOUR D M, et al. Stability definitions for two-player conflict models with uncertain preferences[C]//Proc. of the IEE E International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2002: 13-18.
19	HAMOUDA L , KILGOUR D M , HIPEL K W . Strength of preference in the graph model for conflict resolution[J]. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2004, 13 (5): 449- 462. doi: 10.1023/B:GRUP.0000045751.21207.35
20	BASHAR M A , KILGOUR D M , HIPEL K W . Fuzzy preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution[J]. IEEE Trans.on Fuzzy Systems, 2012, 20 (4): 760- 770. doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2012.2183603
21	TANG M , LIAO H C . Attitude-based intuitionistic fuzzy graph model for conflict resolution with soft consensus: application to dam construction projects[J]. IEEE Trans.on Computational Social Systems, 2024, 11 (1): 1339- 1351. doi: 10.1109/TCSS.2023.3244720
22	WU N N , XU Y J , KILGOUR D M , et al. Composite decision makers in the graph model for conflict resolution: hesitant fuzzy preference modeling[J]. IEEE Trans.on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 2021, 51 (12): 7889- 7902. doi: 10.1109/TSMC.2020.2992272
23	REGO L C , SANTOS A M . Probabilistic preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution[J]. IEEE Trans.on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 2015, 45 (4): 595- 608. doi: 10.1109/TSMC.2014.2379626
1	HIPEL K W , FANG L , KILGOUR D M . The graph model for conflict resolution: reflections on three decades of development[J]. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2020, 29 (1): 11- 60. doi: 10.1007/s10726-019-09648-z
2	KINSARA R A , KILGOUR D M , HIPEL K W . Communication features in a DSS for conflict resolution based on the graph model[J]. International Journal of Information and Decision Sciences, 2018, 10 (1): 39- 56. doi: 10.1504/IJIDS.2018.090668
3	李烨, 王亚刚, 许晓鸣. 证据融合的聚焦与冲突处理研究[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2012, 34 (6): 1113- 1119. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-506X.2012.06.06
	LI Y , WANG Y G , XU X M . Research on convergence and conflict treatment in evidence fusion[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2012, 34 (6): 1113- 1119. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-506X.2012.06.06
4	BI W H , ZHANG A , YUAN Y . Combination method of conflict evidences based on evidence similarity[J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2017, 28 (3): 503- 513. doi: 10.21629/JSEE.2017.03.10
5	KILGOUR D M , HIPEL K W , FANG L P . The graph model for conflicts[J]. Automatica, 1987, 23 (1): 41- 55. doi: 10.1016/0005-1098(87)90117-8
6	FANG L P , HIPEL K W , KILGOUR D M . Conflict models in graph form: solution concepts and their interrelationships[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 1989, 41 (1): 86- 100. doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(89)90041-6
7	VON N J , MORGENSTERN O . Theory of games and economic behavior[M]. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1944.
8	NASH J . Non-cooperative games[J]. Annals of Mathematics, 1951, 54 (2): 286- 295. doi: 10.2307/1969529
9	HOWARD N . Paradoxes of rationality: theory of metagames and political behavior[M]. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1971.
10	FRASER N M , HIPEL K W . Conflict analysis: models and resolutions[M]. New York: North-Holland, 1984.
11	HAN Y , XU H Y , GINGER Y K . Construction and application of hyper-inverse conflict models based on the sequential stability[J]. EURO Journal on Decision Processes, 2020, 8 (3/4): 237- 259. doi: 10.1007/s40070-020-00117-6
12	REGO L C , VIEIRA G I . Symmetric sequential stability in the grap h model for conflict resolution with multiple decision makers[J]. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2017, 26 (4): 775- 792. doi: 10.1007/s10726-016-9520-8
24	HUANG Y M , GE B F , SUN J B , et al. Belief-based preference structure and elicitation in the graph model for conflict resolution[J]. IEEE Trans.on Systems, Man, and Cyberne-tics: Systems, 2023, 53 (2): 727- 740. doi: 10.1109/TSMC.2022.3186763
25	黄宇铭. 基于冲突分析图模型的军事战略冲突博弈分析方法[D]. 长沙: 国防科技大学, 2020.
	HUANG Y M. Military strategic conflict gaming analysis approach using graph model for conflict resolution[D]. Changsha: National University of Defense Technology, 2020.
26	HIPEL K W , FANG L P . The graph model for conflict resolution and decision support[J]. IEEE Trans.on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 2021, 51 (1): 131- 141. doi: 10.1109/TSMC.2020.3041462
27	葛冰峰. 基于能力的武器装备体系结构建模、评估与组合决策分析方法[D]. 长沙: 国防科学技术大学, 2014.
	GE B F. Capability-based modeling, evaluation, and portfolio decision analysis approaches for system-of-armament-systems architecture[D]. Changsha: National University of Defense Technology, 2014.
28	ZHU Z M , KILGOUR D M , HIPEL K W . A new approach to coalition analysis within the graph model[J]. IEEE Trans.on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 2020, 50 (6): 2231- 2241. doi: 10.1109/TSMC.2018.2811402
29	XU H Y , HIPEL K W , KILGOUR D M . Multiple levels of preference in interactive strategic decisions[J]. Discrete App-lied Mathematics, 2009, 157 (15): 3300- 3313. doi: 10.1016/j.dam.2009.06.032
30	KILGOUR D M , HIPEL K W . The graph model for conflict resolution: past, present, and future[J]. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2005, 14 (6): 441- 460. doi: 10.1007/s10726-005-9002-x

决策者及其策略		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21
A方	撤军	Y	N	N	Y	N	N	Y	N	N	Y	N	N	Y	N	N	Y	N	N	Y	N	N
	维持	N	Y	N	N	Y	N	N	Y	N	N	Y	N	N	Y	N	N	Y	N	N	Y	N
	升级	N	N	Y	N	N	Y	N	N	Y	N	N	Y	N	N	Y	N	N	Y	N	N	Y
B方	结盟	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	抵抗	N	N	N	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N
	中立	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	Y	Y
C方	制裁	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	参战	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N
	弃B	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y

状态	Nash(G: S, W)				GMR(G: S, W)				SMR(G: S, W)				SEQ(G: S, W)
状态	A	B	C	E	A	B	C	E	A	B	C	E	A	B	C	E
s₁	-	Y	Y	-	-	Y	Y	-	-	Y	Y	-	-	Y	Y
s₂	-	Y	Y	-	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y³	Y	Y	Y	-	Y	Y
s₃	Y²	Y	Y	Y	Y²	Y	Y	Y	Y²	Y	Y	Y	Y²	Y	Y	Y
s₄	-	-	Y	-	Y¹	Y	Y	Y	Y³	Y	Y	Y	Y¹	Y	Y	Y
s₅	Y¹	-	Y	-	Y¹	Y	Y	Y	Y¹	Y	Y	Y	Y¹	Y	Y	Y
s₆	Y¹	-	Y	-	Y¹	-	Y	-	Y¹	-	Y	-	Y¹	-	Y
s₇	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
s₈	-	Y	Y	-	-	Y	Y	-	-	Y	Y	-	-	Y	Y
s₉	-	Y	Y	-	-	Y	Y	-	-	Y	Y	-	-	Y	Y
s₁₀	-	Y	-	-	-	Y	Y	-	-	Y	Y	-	-	Y	Y
s₁₁	-	Y	-	-	-	Y	Y	-	-	Y	Y	-	-	Y	Y
s₁₂	Y²	Y	-	-	Y²	Y	-	-	Y²	Y	-	-	Y²	Y	-
s₁₃	-	-	-	-	-	Y	Y	-	-	Y	Y	-	-	Y	Y
s₁₄	Y	-	-	-	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	-
s₁₅	Y	-	-	-	Y	-	-	-	Y	-	-	-	Y	-	-
s₁₆	-	Y	-	-	Y¹	Y	Y	Y	Y²	Y	Y	Y	Y¹	Y	Y	Y
s₁₇	Y	Y	-	-	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
s₁₈	Y	-	-	-	Y	-	Y	-	Y	-	Y	-	Y	-	Y
s₁₉	Y	Y	-	-	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	-
s₂₀	-	Y	-	-	Y¹	Y	Y	Y	Y¹	Y	Y	Y	-	Y	-
s₂₁	-	Y	-	-	Y¹	Y	-	-	Y¹	Y	-	-	-	Y	-

Probabilistic-strength preference based method in the graph model for conflict resolution

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 8

References 30

Related Articles 1

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments