In three-way conflict analysis, a key challenge lies in faithfully capturing agents’ attitudes towards multiple issues within complex conflict situations. Preference-based conflict situations, which characterize comparisons through ordered issue pairs, offer a structured alternative to traditional rating scales by emphasizing relational judgments. However, existing single-level preference frameworks are limited in their ability to capture variations in preference strengths, confidence levels across agents, and refinements that emerge over time. Moreover, they do not reliably support cross-agent comparison of preference relations. Consequently, single-level models exhibit inherent constraints when representing diverse agent viewpoints across different issue pairs. To overcome these limitations, this paper introduces a multi-level preference framework that generalizes single-level preference, converse, and indifference relations by incorporating multiple levels of relational intensity, thereby enabling a more fine-grained characterization of agents’ preference strengths over issue pairs. Within this framework, we define conflict measures for individual issue pairs between two agents, and further extend them to a set of issues, facilitating the exact quantification of conflict degrees between two agents across multiple issues, and enabling a more accurate trisection of agent pairs into alliance, neutrality, and conflict relations. As a concrete instantiation, we develop a two-level preference-based model distinguishing strong and weak relations, and apply it to a case study on development planning in Gansu Province. A comparative analysis demonstrates that the multi-level preference framework not only captures conflicts with greater expressiveness and accuracy than single-level approaches but also yields richer and more actionable insights for conflict resolution, thereby enhancing both the interpretability and the practical value of three-way conflict analysis.
扫码关注我们
求助内容:
应助结果提醒方式:
