Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conflict analysis based on three-way decision for trapezoidal fuzzy information systems

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

Abstract

Three-way decision is a decision-making model in line with people’s cognition and aims to think and deal with problems at three levels or three aspects. One of the main purposes of conflict analysis is to partition the set of agents into three coalitions called positive alliance, central alliance and negative alliance in order to determine the relationship between two agents. Recently, researchers combine these two closely related directions to form a new research topic: three-way conflict analysis. This paper consider the case that the attitude of an agent on an issue is a trapezoidal fuzzy number. Firstly, we provide a trapezoidal fuzzy information system for conflict analysis and then we transform attitudes of agents from trapezoidal fuzzy numbers to real numbers through the expectation of trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. Secondly, conflict analysis for a single issue is investigated and three alliances based on a pair of thresholds are obtained. As for multiple issues, it is necessary to integrate multiple attitudes for a collection of issues to one. Considering different importance of issues, we develop a new method to integrate attitudes based on the variance of trapezoidal fuzzy numbers, and then we come up with a conflict analysis model for multiple issues. Thirdly, a method to calculate thresholds is proposed based on decision-theoretic rough sets so as to acquire three alliances based on a single issue or multiple issues more reasonably. Finally, we devote to ranking all the issues according to the conflict degree among agents and our method may be instructive to promote the resolution of conflict situations.

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. Bashir Z, Mahnaz S, Abbas Malik MG (2021) Conflict resolution using game theory and rough sets. Int J Intell Syst 36:237–259

    Google Scholar 

  2. Chen YF, Yue XD, Fujita H, Fu SY (2017) Three-way decision support for diagnosis on focal liver lesions. Knowl Based Syst 127:85–99

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bushan Rao PP, Ravi Shankar N (2012) Ranking generalized fuzzy numbers using area, mode, spreads and weights. Int J Appl Sci Eng 10(1):41–57

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cheng CH (1998) A new approach for ranking fuzzy numbers by distance method. Fuzzy Sets Syst 95(3):307–317

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Dubois D, Prade H (2000) Fundamentals of fuzzy sets. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. de Oliveira Silva LG, de Almeida Filho AT (2016) A multicriteria approach for analysis of conflicts in evidence theory. Inform Sci 346:275–285

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Melliani S, Castillo O (2018) Recent advances in intuitionistic fuzzy logic systems-theoretical aspects and applications. Springer, Cham

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Fang Y, Gao C, Yao YY (2020) Granularity-driven sequential three-way decisions: a cost-sensitive approach to classification. Inform Sci 507:644–664

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fan Y, Qi JJ, Wei L (2018) A conflict analysis model based on three-way decisions. Int J Comp Sci Res 11:522–532

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hu BQ, Wong H, Cedric Yiu KF (2017) On two novel types of three-way decisions in three-way decision spaces. Int J Approx Reason 82:285–306

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Krejčí J (2018) Fuzzy set theory, 2nd edn. Springer International Publishing, Cham

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Bector CR, Chandra S (2005) Fuzzy mathematical programming and fuzzy matrix games. Springer International Publishing, Berlin Heidelberg

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Lang GM (2020) A general conflict analysis model based on three-way decision. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 11(5):1083–1094

    Google Scholar 

  14. 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 Syst. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2020.105556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Li XN, Wang X, Lang GM, Yi HJ (2021) Conflict analysis based on three-way decision for triangular fuzzy information systems. Int J Approx Reason 132:88–106

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Li XN, Sun QQ, Chen HM, Yi HJ (2020) Three-way decision on two universes. Inform Sci 515:263–279

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Li XN, Wang X, Sun BZ, She YH, Zhao L (2021) Three-way decision on information tables. Infrorm Sci 545:25–43

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Li XN, Yi HJ, She YH, Sun BZ (2017) Generalized three-way decision models based on subset evaluation. Int J Approx Reason 83:142–159

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  20. Liu D, Liang DC, Wang CC (2016) A novel three-way decision model based on incomplete information system. Knowl Based Syst 91:32–45

    Google Scholar 

  21. Luo JF, Fujita H, Yao YY, Qin KY (2020) 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 

  22. Liu JB, Li HX, Zhou XZ, Huang B, Wang TX (2019) An optimization-based formulation for three-way decisions. Inform Sci 495:185–214

    Google Scholar 

  23. Liang DC, Liu D, Pedrycz W, Hu P (2013) Triangular fuzzy decision-theoretic rough sets. Int J Approx Reason 54(8):1087–1106

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Pawlak Z (1998) An inquiry into anatomy of conflicts. Inform Sci 109(1):65–78

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Pawlak Z (2005) Some remarks on conflict analysis. Eur J Oper Res 166(3):649–654

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Przybyła-Kasperek M (2017) Directions of use of the Pawlak’s approach to conflict analysis. In: Wang GY, Skowron A, Yao YY, Ślȩzak D, Polkowski L (eds) Thriving rough sets studies in computational intelligence, vol 708. Springer, Berlin, pp 329–351

    Google Scholar 

  27. Qian J, Dang CY, Yue XD, Zhang N (2017) Attribute reduction for sequential three-way decisions under dynamic granulation. Int J Approx Reason 85:196–216

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Ramanna S, Peters JF, Skowron A (2007) Approaches to conflict dynamics based on rough sets. Fundam Inform 75(1):453–468

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. 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. Inform Sci 507:809–822

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Vahidi J, Rezvani S (2013) Arithmetic operations on trapezoidal fuzzy number. J Nonlinear Anal Appl 2017:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  32. Wei S, Chen S (2009) A new approach for fuzzy risk analysis based on similarity measures of generalized fuzzy numbers. Expert Syst Appl 36(1):589–598

    Google Scholar 

  33. Wang CZ, Huang Y, Shao MW, Fan XD (2019) Fuzzy rough set-based attribute reduction using distance measures. Knowl Based Syst 164:205–212

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wang CZ, Huang Y, Ding WP, Cao ZH (2021) Attribute reduction with fuzzy rough self-information measures. Inform Sci 549:68–86

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Xu Y, Wang XS (2020) Three-way decision based on improved aggregation method of interval loss function. Inform Sci 508:214–233

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  36. Xu JF, Miao DQ, Zhang YJ, Zhang ZF (2017) A three-way decisions model with probabilistic rough sets for stream computing. Int J Approx Reason 88:1–22

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Yang B, Li JH (2020) Complex network analysis of three-way decision researches. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 11(5):973–987

    Google Scholar 

  38. Yue XD, Zhou J, Yao YY, Miao DQ (2020) Shadowed neighborhoods based on fuzzy rough transformation for three-way classification. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 28(5):978–991

    Google Scholar 

  39. Yue XD, Chen YF, Miao DQ, Fujita H (2020) Fuzzy neighborhood covering for three-way classification. Inform Sci 507:795–808

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Yang JL, Yao YY (2020) Semantics of soft sets and three-way decision with soft sets. Knowl Based Syst. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2020.105538

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  42. Yao YY (2010) Three-way decisions with probabilistic rough sets. Inform Sci 180(3):341–353

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

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

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Yao YY (2021) The geometry of three-way decision. Appl Intell. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-020-02142-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Zhang QH, Lv GX, Chen YH, Wang GY (2017) A dynamic three-way decision model based on the updating of attribute values. Knowl Based Syst 142:71–84

    Google Scholar 

  46. Zhang QH, Xia DY, Wang GY (2017) Three-way decision model with two types of classification errors. Inform Sci 420:431–453

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Yao YY (2020) Tri-level thinking: models of three-way decision. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 11(5):947–959

    Google Scholar 

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

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are particularly grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and helpful suggestions. This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 61772019, 61976244, 61906154) and the Youth Innovation Team of Shaanxi Provincial Department of Education (No. 21JP123).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Mathematics and Statistics, Xidian University, Xi’an, 710071, China

    Xiaonan Li, Yanpo Yang & Qianqian Yu

  2. School of Information and Technology, Northwest University, Xi’an, 710069, China

    Huangjian Yi

Authors
  1. Xiaonan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yanpo Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Huangjian Yi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Qianqian Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaonan Li.

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

Li, X., Yang, Y., Yi, H. et al. Conflict analysis based on three-way decision for trapezoidal fuzzy information systems. Int. J. Mach. Learn. & Cyber. 13, 929–945 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-021-01427-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-021-01427-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation