Three-way conflict analysis with preference-based conflict situations

IF 8.1 1区 计算机科学 0 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS Information Sciences Pub Date : 2024-11-22 DOI:10.1016/j.ins.2024.121676
Mengjun Hu
{"title":"Three-way conflict analysis with preference-based conflict situations","authors":"Mengjun Hu","doi":"10.1016/j.ins.2024.121676","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Existing conflict analysis models, mostly based on Pawlak's framework, start with a situation table containing agent ratings toward issues. These ratings can take various formats with differing assumptions and are often implicitly assumed to be independent. However, in practice, an agent more often specifies the ratings through relative comparisons across issues. Furthermore, consistent interpretation of ratings is hard to achieve across different agents. A numeric rating of 0.7 might indicate very strong support when provided by a conservative agent but reflect only weak support when given by a radical agent. These challenges complicate both data collection and subsequent analysis. This paper proposes a preference-based conflict analysis model to address these limitations. The model begins with preference-based conflict situations, representing pairwise preferences over issues, and defines conflict degrees based on these preferences. It further establishes three-way agent relationships to capture conflict dynamics. The model integrates seamlessly with existing rating-based approaches, demonstrated through examples involving three-valued ratings and triangular-fuzzy-number ratings. A case study illustrates its practical applicability. By prioritizing preferences over direct ratings, the proposed approach ensures more intuitive and consistent data collection while enhancing the explainability and reliability of conflict analysis.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51063,"journal":{"name":"Information Sciences","volume":"693 ","pages":"Article 121676"},"PeriodicalIF":8.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Information Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020025524015901","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Existing conflict analysis models, mostly based on Pawlak's framework, start with a situation table containing agent ratings toward issues. These ratings can take various formats with differing assumptions and are often implicitly assumed to be independent. However, in practice, an agent more often specifies the ratings through relative comparisons across issues. Furthermore, consistent interpretation of ratings is hard to achieve across different agents. A numeric rating of 0.7 might indicate very strong support when provided by a conservative agent but reflect only weak support when given by a radical agent. These challenges complicate both data collection and subsequent analysis. This paper proposes a preference-based conflict analysis model to address these limitations. The model begins with preference-based conflict situations, representing pairwise preferences over issues, and defines conflict degrees based on these preferences. It further establishes three-way agent relationships to capture conflict dynamics. The model integrates seamlessly with existing rating-based approaches, demonstrated through examples involving three-valued ratings and triangular-fuzzy-number ratings. A case study illustrates its practical applicability. By prioritizing preferences over direct ratings, the proposed approach ensures more intuitive and consistent data collection while enhancing the explainability and reliability of conflict analysis.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于偏好的三方冲突分析
现有的冲突分析模型大多基于 Pawlak 的框架,以包含代理人对问题评级的情况表为起点。这些评级可以采用不同的假设形式,并且通常被隐含地假定为独立的。然而,在实践中,代理人更经常通过对不同问题的相对比较来确定评级。此外,不同代理人对评级的解释也很难保持一致。当一个保守的代理人给出 0.7 的数字评级时,它可能表示非常强烈的支持,但当一个激进的代理人给出 0.7 的数字评级时,它可能只反映微弱的支持。这些挑战使得数据收集和后续分析变得更加复杂。本文提出了一种基于偏好的冲突分析模型来解决这些局限性。该模型以基于偏好的冲突情况为起点,代表对问题的成对偏好,并根据这些偏好定义冲突程度。它进一步建立了三方代理关系,以捕捉冲突动态。该模型与现有的基于评级的方法无缝集成,并通过涉及三值评级和三角模糊数评级的示例进行了演示。一项案例研究说明了该模型的实际适用性。通过优先考虑偏好而非直接评级,所提出的方法确保了更直观、更一致的数据收集,同时提高了冲突分析的可解释性和可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Information Sciences
Information Sciences 工程技术-计算机:信息系统
CiteScore
14.00
自引率
17.30%
发文量
1322
审稿时长
10.4 months
期刊介绍: Informatics and Computer Science Intelligent Systems Applications is an esteemed international journal that focuses on publishing original and creative research findings in the field of information sciences. We also feature a limited number of timely tutorial and surveying contributions. Our journal aims to cater to a diverse audience, including researchers, developers, managers, strategic planners, graduate students, and anyone interested in staying up-to-date with cutting-edge research in information science, knowledge engineering, and intelligent systems. While readers are expected to share a common interest in information science, they come from varying backgrounds such as engineering, mathematics, statistics, physics, computer science, cell biology, molecular biology, management science, cognitive science, neurobiology, behavioral sciences, and biochemistry.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Three-way conflict analysis with preference-based conflict situations Optimal scale combination selection based on genetic algorithm in generalized multi-scale decision systems for classification Optimizing energy efficiency in unrelated parallel machine scheduling problem through reinforcement learning A robust image descriptor-local radial grouped invariant order pattern
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1