Abstract
Major extensions of the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution (GMCR) are delineated and illustrated. The matrix formulation allows stability calculations to be carried out more efficiently and provides a solid foundation for constructing theoretical advances. Simple (crisp) preferences can be extended for handling not only unknown preferences but also other kinds of uncertain preferences, such as fuzzy, grey, and probabilistic. In this chapter, we focus on fuzzy preferences and how they can be analyzed using the matrix method. Another recent extension of the graph model is to frame it within two systems perspectives, especially the inverse perspective, in which desirable outcomes and stability types are inputs whereas preferences to achieve them are outputs. These extensions increase the capability of the graph model to generate useful strategic advice and insights. A real-world water export conflict is used to illustrate these ideas.
References
Aljefri YM, Hipel KW, Fang L (2018) General hypergame analysis within the graph model for conflict resolution. Int J Syst Sci Oper Logist. https://doi.org/10.1080/23302674.2018.1476604
Bashar MA, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2012) Fuzzy preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE T Fuzzy Syst 20(4):760–770
Bashar MA, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2014) Fuzzy option prioritization for the graph model for conflict resolution. Fuzzy Sets Syst 26:34–48
Bernath Walker SG, Hipel KW, Inohara T (2009) Strategic decision making for improved environmental security: coalitions and attitudes in the graph model for conflict resolution. J Syst Sci Syst Eng 18(4):461–476
Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (1993) Interactive decision making: the graph model for conflict resolution. Wiley, New York
Fang L, Hipel KW, Wang L (2002) Gisborne water export conflict study. In: Schmitz GH (ed) Proceedings of 3rd International conference on water resources and environment research (ICWRER), vol 1, Dresden, pp 432–436
Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Peng X (2003a) A decision support system for interactive decision making, part 1: model formulation. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C-Appl Rev 33(1):42–55
Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Peng X (2003b) A decision support system for interactive decision making, part 2: analysis and output interpretation. IEEE T Syst Man Cybern Part C-Appl Rev 33(1):56–66
Fraser NM, Hipel KW (1979) Solving complex conflicts. IEEE T Syst Man Cybern 9(12):805–816
Fraser NM, Hipel KW (1988) Decision support systems for conflict analysis. In: Proceedings of the IMACS/IFOR first international colloquium on managerial decision support systems and knowledge-based systems, Amsterdam, pp 13–21
Garcia A, Hipel KW (2017) Inverse engineering preferences in simple games. Appl Math Comput 311:184–194
Hamouda L, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2004) Strength of preference in the graph model for conflict resolution. Group Decis Negot 13:449–462
Hamouda L, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2006) Strength of preference in graph models for multiple decision-maker conflicts. Appl Math Comput 179(1):314–327
He S, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2017) A general hierarchical graph model for conflict resolution with application to greenhouse gas emission disputes between USA and China. Eur J Oper Res 257(3):919–932
Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L, Peng X (1997) The decision support system GMCR in environmental conflict management. Appl Math Comput 83(2–3):117–152
Hipel KW, Fang L, Kilgour DM (2008) Decision support systems in water resources and environmental management. J Hydrol Eng 13(9):761–770
Hipel KW, Sakamoto M, Hagihara Y (2015) Third party intervention in conflict resolution: dispute between Bangladesh and India over control of the Ganges river. In: Hagihara K, Asahi C (eds) Coping with regional vulnerability: preventing and mitigating damages from environmental disasters. Springer, Tokyo, pp 329–355
Hipel KW, Fang L, Kilgour DM (2019) The graph model for conflict resolution: reflections on three decades of development. Group Decis Negot: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-019-09648-z
Inohara T, Hipel KW, Bernath Walker SG (2007) Conflict analysis approaches for investigating attitudes and misperceptions in the war of 1812. J Syst Sci Syst Eng 16(2):181–201
Inohara T, Hipel KW (2008a) Coalition analysis in the graph model for conflict resolution. Syst Eng 11(4):343–359
Inohara T, Hipel KW (2008b) Interrelationships among noncooperative and coalition stability concepts. J Syst Sci Syst Eng 17(1):1–29
Kilgour DM, Hipel KW, Fang L, Peng X (2001) Coalition analysis in group decision support. Group Decis Negot 10(2):159–175
Kinsara RA, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2015a) Inverse approach to the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern-Syst 45(5):734–742
Kinsara RA, Petersons O, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2015b) Advanced decision support system for the graph model for conflict resolution. J Decis Syst 24(2):117–145
Kuang H, Bashar MA, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2015) Grey-based preference in a graph model for conflict resolution with multiple decision makers. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern-Syst 45(9):1254–1267
Li KW, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L (2004) Preference uncertainty in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A-Syst Hum 34(4):507–520
Li KW, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2005) Status quo analysis in the graph model for conflict resolution. J Oper Res Soc 56:699–707
Nash JF (1950) Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proc Natl Acad Sci 36(1):48–49
Nash JF (1951) Non-cooperative games. Ann Math 54(2):286–295
Obeidi A, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2005) The role of emotions in envisioning outcomes in conflict analysis. Group Decis Negot 14(6):481–500
Peng X, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L (1997) Representing ordinal preferences in the decision support system GMCR II. In: Proceedings of 1997 IEEE international conference syst man and cybernetics, Florida, pp 809–814
Rêgo LC, dos Santos AM (2015) Probabilistic preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern-Syst 45(4):595–608
Wang M, Hipel KW, Fraser NM (1988) Modelling misperceptions in games. Behav Sci 33(3):207–223
Wang M, Hipel KW, Fraser NM (1989) Solution concepts in hypergames. Appl Math Comput 34(3):147–171
Wang J, Hipel KW, Fang L, Xu H, Kilgour DM (2017) Behavioural analysis in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern-Systems 49:904. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2017.2689004
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
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 Hum 39(1):96–108
Xu H, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L (2018) Conflict resolution using the graph model: strategic interactions in competition and cooperation. Springer, Cham
Yu J, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW, Zhao M (2015) Power asymmetry in conflict resolution with application to a water pollution dispute in China. Water Resour Res 51(10):8627–8645
Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–353
Zhu Z, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2018) A new approach to coalition analysis within the graph model. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2018.2811402
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Hipel, K.W., Kilgour, D.M., Xu, H., Xiao, Y. (2020). Conflict Resolution Using the Graph Model: Matrices, Uncertainty, and Systems Perspectives. In: Kilgour, D., Eden, C. (eds) Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12051-1_45-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12051-1_45-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-12051-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-12051-1
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences