Probabilistic Option Prioritizing in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution

被引:8
|
作者
Rego, Leandro Chaves [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Alves Vieira, Giannini Italino [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Fed Ceara, Stat & Appl Math Dept, BR-60455760 Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil
[2] Univ Fed Pernambuco, Grad Program Stat Engn, BR-50740550 Recife, PE, Brazil
[3] Univ Fed Pernambuco, Grad Program Management Engn, BR-50740550 Recife, PE, Brazil
[4] Univ Fed Ceara, BR-63700000 Crateus, CE, Brazil
关键词
Graph model; Probabilistic preferences; Option prioritizing; Preference elicitation; FUZZY PREFERENCES; STRENGTH;
D O I
10.1007/s10726-019-09635-4
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:1149 / 1165
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Preference uncertainty in the graph model for conflict resolution
    Li, KW
    Hipel, KW
    Kilgour, DM
    Fang, LP
    [J]. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS MAN AND CYBERNETICS PART A-SYSTEMS AND HUMANS, 2004, 34 (04): : 507 - 520
  • [22] The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution and Decision Support
    Hipel, Keith W.
    Fang, Liping
    [J]. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS MAN CYBERNETICS-SYSTEMS, 2021, 51 (01): : 131 - 141
  • [23] ROBUSTNESS OF EQUILIBRIA IN THE GRAPH MODEL FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION
    Matbouli, Yasser T.
    Kilgour, D. Marc
    Hipel, Keith W.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS SCIENCE AND SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, 2015, 24 (04) : 450 - 465
  • [24] Interactive Unawareness in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution
    Rego, Leandro Chaves
    Alves Vieira, Giannini Italino
    [J]. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS MAN CYBERNETICS-SYSTEMS, 2020, 50 (03): : 829 - 839
  • [25] Coalition Analysis in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution
    Inohara, Takehiro
    Hipel, Keith W.
    [J]. SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, 2008, 11 (04) : 343 - 359
  • [26] Fuzzy Preferences in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution
    Abul Bashar, M.
    Kilgour, D. Marc
    Hipel, Keith W.
    [J]. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS, 2012, 20 (04) : 760 - 770
  • [27] Dominating attitudes in the graph model for conflict resolution
    Sean Bernath Walker
    Keith W. Hipel
    Takehiro Inohara
    [J]. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 2012, 21 : 316 - 336
  • [28] Consensus building and the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution
    Inohara, Takehiro
    [J]. IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SYSTEMS, MAN AND CYBERNETICS (SMC 2010), 2010,
  • [29] Choice stabilities in the graph model for conflict resolution
    Rego, Leandro Chaves
    Kilgour, D. Marc
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 2022, 301 (03) : 1064 - 1071
  • [30] Matrix Representation of Solution Concepts in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution with Probabilistic Preferences and Multiple Decision Makers
    Rego, Leandro Chaves
    Vieira, Giannini Italino Alves
    [J]. GROUP DECISION AND NEGOTIATION, 2021, 30 (03) : 697 - 717