Advertisement

Conflict Resolution Using the Graph Model: Matrices, Uncertainty, and Systems Perspectives

  • Keith W. HipelEmail author
  • D. Marc Kilgour
  • Haiyan Xu
  • Yi Xiao
Living reference work entry
  • 17 Downloads

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

  1. 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
  2. Bashar MA, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2012) Fuzzy preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE T Fuzzy Syst 20(4):760–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bashar MA, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2014) Fuzzy option prioritization for the graph model for conflict resolution. Fuzzy Sets Syst 26:34–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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):461–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (1993) Interactive decision making: the graph model for conflict resolution. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 432–436Google Scholar
  7. 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):42–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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):56–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fraser NM, Hipel KW (1979) Solving complex conflicts. IEEE T Syst Man Cybern 9(12):805–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 13–21Google Scholar
  11. Garcia A, Hipel KW (2017) Inverse engineering preferences in simple games. Appl Math Comput 311:184–194Google Scholar
  12. Hamouda L, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2004) Strength of preference in the graph model for conflict resolution. Group Decis Negot 13:449–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hamouda L, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2006) Strength of preference in graph models for multiple decision-maker conflicts. Appl Math Comput 179(1):314–327Google Scholar
  14. 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):919–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L, Peng X (1997) The decision support system GMCR in environmental conflict management. Appl Math Comput 83(2–3):117–152Google Scholar
  16. Hipel KW, Fang L, Kilgour DM (2008) Decision support systems in water resources and environmental management. J Hydrol Eng 13(9):761–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 329–355Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 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):181–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Inohara T, Hipel KW (2008a) Coalition analysis in the graph model for conflict resolution. Syst Eng 11(4):343–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Inohara T, Hipel KW (2008b) Interrelationships among noncooperative and coalition stability concepts. J Syst Sci Syst Eng 17(1):1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kilgour DM, Hipel KW, Fang L, Peng X (2001) Coalition analysis in group decision support. Group Decis Negot 10(2):159–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kinsara RA, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2015a) Inverse approach to the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern-Syst 45(5):734–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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):117–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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):1254–1267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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):507–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Li KW, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2005) Status quo analysis in the graph model for conflict resolution. J Oper Res Soc 56:699–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nash JF (1950) Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proc Natl Acad Sci 36(1):48–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nash JF (1951) Non-cooperative games. Ann Math 54(2):286–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Obeidi A, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2005) The role of emotions in envisioning outcomes in conflict analysis. Group Decis Negot 14(6):481–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 809–814Google Scholar
  32. Rêgo LC, dos Santos AM (2015) Probabilistic preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern-Syst 45(4):595–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang M, Hipel KW, Fraser NM (1988) Modelling misperceptions in games. Behav Sci 33(3):207–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wang M, Hipel KW, Fraser NM (1989) Solution concepts in hypergames. Appl Math Comput 34(3):147–171Google Scholar
  35. 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.2017.2689004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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):282–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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):96–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Xu H, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L (2018) Conflict resolution using the graph model: strategic interactions in competition and cooperation. Springer, ChamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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):8627–8645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keith W. Hipel
    • 1
    Email author
  • D. Marc Kilgour
    • 2
  • Haiyan Xu
    • 3
  • Yi Xiao
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Systems Design EngineeringUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsWilfrid Laurier UniversityWaterlooCanada
  3. 3.College of Economics and ManagementNanjing University of Aeronautics and AstronauticsNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations