Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A general conflict analysis model based on three-way decision

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In a three-valued situation table, researchers have investigated the relationship between two agents by using auxiliary and distance functions, and proposed several models of conflict analysis for trisecting the set of all pairs of agents. But we have not observed a unification of these conflict analysis models. In this paper, we introduce the concepts of conditional alliance and conflict evaluations of two agents towards a subset of issues. In the framework of three-way decision, we propose a general model of three-way conflict analysis, and study three levels of conflict between two agents. We illustrate that five models of conflict analysis for trisecting the set of all pairs of agents are special cases of the general model, and provide a deep insight into the models of conflict analysis based on three-way decision.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Azam N, Zhang Y, Yao JT (2017) Evaluation functions and decision conditions of three-way decisions with game-theoretic rough sets. Eur J Oper Res 261:704–714

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Deja R (2002) Conflict analysis. Int J Intell Syst 17:235–253

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Deja R (2003) Rough set approach to conflict analysis. In: Inuiguchi M, Hirano S, Tsumoto S (eds) Rough set theory and granular computing. Studies in fuzziness and soft computing. Springer, Berlin, 211 p

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Deng XF, Yao YY, Yao JT (2014) On interpreting three-way decisions through two-way decisions. In: International symposium on methodologies for intelligent systems, ISMIS2014, Roskilde, Denmark, June 25-27, LNCS(LNAI), vol 8502, pp 73–82

  5. Fan Y, Qi JJ, Wei L (2018) A conflict analysis model based on three-way decisions. In: International joint conference on rough sets, IJCRS 2018, Quy Nhon, Vietnam, August 20-24, LNCS(LNAI), vol 11103, pp 522–532

  6. Hao C, Li JH, Fan M, Liu WQ, Eric CC (2017) Tsang, Optimal scale selection in dynamic multi-scale decision tables based on sequential three-way decisions. Inf Sci 415–416:213–232

    Google Scholar 

  7. He XL, Wei L, She YH (2018) L-fuzzy concept analysis for three-way decisions: basic definitions and fuzzy inference mechanisms. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 9:1857–1867

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hu MJ, Yao YY (2019) Structured approximations as a basis for three-way decisions in rough set theory. Knowl-Based Syst 165:92–109

    Google Scholar 

  9. Huang CC, Li JH, Mei CL, Wu WZ (2017) Three-way concept learning based on cognitive operators: an information fusion viewpoint. Int J Approx Reason 83:218–242

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Jiao L, Yang HL, Li SG (2019) Three-way decision based on decision-theoretic rough sets with single-valued neutrosophic information. Int J Mach Learn Cybern. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-019-01023-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lang GM, Luo JF, Yao YY (2020) Three-way conflict analysis: a unification of models based on rough sets and formal concept analysis. Knowl-based Systems. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2020.105556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lang GM, Miao DQ, Cai MJ (2017) Three-way decision approaches to conflict analysis using decision-theoretic rough set theory. Inf Sci 406–407:185–207

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Lang GM, Miao DQ, Fujita H (2019) Three-way group conflict analysis based on Pythagorean fuzzy set theory. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2019.2908123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Li JH, Huang CC, Qi JJ, Qian YH, Liu WQ (2017) Three-way cognitive concept learning via multi-granularity. Inf Sci 378:244–263

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Liang DC, Wang MW, Xu ZS, Liu D (2020) Risk appetite dual hesitant fuzzy three-way decisions with TODIM. Inf Sci 507:585–605

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Liu D, Liang DC (2017) Three-way decisions in ordered decision system. Knowl-Based Syst 137:182–195

    Google Scholar 

  17. Liu Y, Lin Y (2015) Intuitionistic fuzzy rough set model based on conflict distance and applications. Appl Soft Comput 31:266–273

    Google Scholar 

  18. Luo JF, Fujita H, Yao YY, Qin KY (2019) On modeling similarity and three-way decision under incomplete information in rough set theory. Knowl-Based Syst. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2019.105251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Luo C, Li TR, Huang YY, Fujita H (2019) Updating three-way decisions in incomplete multi-scale information systems. Inf Sci 476:274–289

    Google Scholar 

  20. Pawlak Z (1984) On conflicts. Int J Man Mach Stud 21:127–134

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Pawlak Z (1998) An inquiry into anatomy of conflicts. Inf Sci 109:65–78

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Pawlak Z (2005) Some remarks on conflict analysis. Eur J Oper Res 166:649–654

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Przybyla-Kasperek M, Wakulicz-Deja A (2014) Global decision-making system with dynamically generated clusters. Inf Sci 70:172–191

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Przybyla-Kasperek M, Wakulicz-Deja A (2016) The strength of coalition in a dispersed decision support system with negotiations. Eur J Oper Res 252:947–968

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Przybyla-Kasperek M, Wakulicz-Deja A (2017) Dispersed decision-making system with fusion methods from the rank level and the measurement level-A comparative study. Inf Syst 69:124–154

    Google Scholar 

  26. Qian T, Wei L, Qi JJ (2017) Constructing three-way concept lattices based on apposition and subposition of formal contexts. Knowl-Based Syst 116:39–48

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ramanna S, Peters J, Skowron A (2007) Approaches to conflict dynamics based on rough sets. Fundam Inform 75:453–468

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Singh PK (2017) Three-way fuzzy concept lattice representation using neutrosophic set. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 8:69–79

    Google Scholar 

  29. Singh PK (2018) Three-way n-valued neutrosophic concept lattice at different granulation. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 9:1839–1855

    Google Scholar 

  30. Shivhare R, Cherukuri AK (2017) Three-way conceptual approach for cognitive memory functionalities. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 8:21–34

    Google Scholar 

  31. Skowron A, Deja R (2002) On some conflict models and conflict resolutions, Romanian. J Inf Sci Technol 5:69–82

    Google Scholar 

  32. Sun BZ, Chen XT, Zhang LY, Ma WM (2020) Three-way decision making approach to conflict analysis and resolution using probabilistic rough set over two universes. Inf Sci 507:809–822

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. Sun BZ, Ma WM (2015) Rough approximation of a preference relation by multi-decision dominance for a multi-agent conflict analysis problem. Inf Sci 315:39–53

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Sun BZ, Ma WM, Zhao HY (2016) Rough set-based conflict analysis model and method over two universes. Inf Sci 372:111–125

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Wang XZ, Li JH (2018) Three-way decisions, concept lattice and granular computing: Editorial. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 9:1765–1766

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wang PX, Shi H, Yang XB, Mi JS (2019) Three-way k-means: integrating k-means and three-way decision. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 10:2767–2777

    Google Scholar 

  37. Yan YT, Wu ZB, Du XQ, Chen J, Zhao S, Zhang YP (2019) A three-way decision ensemble method for imbalanced data oversampling. Int J Approx Reason 107:1–16

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Yang XP, Li TJ, Tan AH (2019) Three-way decisions in fuzzy incomplete information systems. Int J Mach Learn Cybern. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-019-01025-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Yao YY (2020) Three-way granular computing, rough sets, and formal concept analysis. Int J Approx Reason 116:106–125

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Yao YY (2012) An outline of a theory of three-way decisions. In: International conference on rough sets and current trends in computing, RSCTC 2012, Chengdu, China, August 17-20, LNCS(LNAI), vol 7413, pp 1–17

  41. Yao YY (2016) Three-way decisions and cognitive computing. Cogn Comput 8:543–554

    Google Scholar 

  42. Yao YY (2017) Interval sets and three-way concept analysis in incomplete contexts. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 8:3–20

    Google Scholar 

  43. Yao YY (2018) Three-way decision and granular computing. Int J Approx Reason 103:107–123

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Yao YY (2019) Three-way conflict analysis: reformulations and extensions of the Pawlak model. Knowl-Based Syst 180:26–37

    Google Scholar 

  45. Yao YY (2019) Tri-level thinking: models of three-way decision. Int J Machine Learn Cybern. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-019-01040-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Yu H, Chang ZH, Wang GY, Chen XF (2019) An efficient three-way clustering algorithm based on gravitational search. Int J Mach Learn Cybern. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-019-00988-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Yu HY, Li QG, Cai MJ (2018) Characteristics of three-way concept lattices and three-way rough concept lattices. Knowl-Based Syst 146:181–189

    Google Scholar 

  48. Yu T, Liang X, Shen GQ, Shi Q, Wang G (2019) An optimization model for managing stakeholder conflicts in urban redevelopment projects in China. J Clean Prod 212:537–547

    Google Scholar 

  49. Zhai JH, Zhang Y, Zhu HY (2017) Three-way decisions model based on tolerance rough fuzzy set. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 8:35–43

    Google Scholar 

  50. Zhang QH, Lv GX, Chen YH, Wang GY (2018) A dynamic three-way decision model based on the updating of attribute values. Knowl-Based Syst 142:71–84

    Google Scholar 

  51. Zhang YJ, Miao DQ, Zhang ZF, Xu JF, Luo S (2018) A three-way selective ensemble model for multi-label classification. Int J Approx Reason 103:394–413

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Zhang XY, Miao DQ (2017) Three-way attribute reducts. Int J Approx Reason 88:401–434

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. Zhang XY, Yang JL, Tang LY (2020) Three-way class-specific attribute reducts from the information viewpoint. Inf Sci 507:840–872

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  54. Zhi HL, Qi JJ, Qian T, Ren RS (2020) Conflict analysis under one-vote veto based on approximate three-way concept lattice. Inf Sci 516:316–330

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  55. Zhi HL, Qi JJ, Qian T, Wei L (2019) Three-way dual concept analysis. Int J Approx Reason 114:151–165

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper was written while the author was Visiting Scholar at the University of Regina, the author is grateful to Dr. Yiyu Yao for his valuable comments and suggestions. The author is grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their professional comments and suggestions. This work was supported in part by the China Scholarship Council (No. 201808430120), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61603063), Hunan Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 2018JJ3518), Hunan Provincial Education Department Foundation (No. 19B027), and the Scientific Research Fund of Hunan Provincial Key Laboratory of Mathematical Modeling and Analysis in Engineering (No. 2018MMAEZD10).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Mathematics and Statistics, Changsha University of Science and Technology, Changsha, 410114, Hunan, People’s Republic of China

    Guangming Lang

  2. Department of Computer Science, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, S4S 0A2, Canada

    Guangming Lang

Authors
  1. Guangming Lang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guangming Lang.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lang, G. A general conflict analysis model based on three-way decision. Int. J. Mach. Learn. & Cyber. 11, 1083–1094 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-020-01100-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-020-01100-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation