Feasible strategies in three-way conflict analysis with three-valued ratings

TL;DR

This paper introduces new models for conflict analysis using three-valued ratings, focusing on feasible strategies based on consistency measures, and demonstrates their effectiveness through case studies and comparisons.

Contribution

It proposes weighted consistency and non-consistency measures for identifying feasible strategies in three-way conflict analysis, advancing resolution methods with algorithms and case validations.

Findings

Models outperform existing approaches in conflict resolution tasks.

Proposed algorithms effectively identify feasible and optimal strategies.

Case studies validate the practicality and superiority of the models.

Abstract

Most existing work on three-way conflict analysis has focused on trisecting agent pairs, agents, or issues, which contributes to understanding the nature of conflicts but falls short in addressing their resolution. Specifically, the formulation of feasible strategies, as an essential component of conflict resolution and mitigation, has received insufficient scholarly attention. Therefore, this paper aims to investigate feasible strategies from two perspectives of consistency and non-consistency. Particularly, we begin with computing the overall rating of a clique of agents based on positive and negative similarity degrees. Afterwards, considering the weights of both agents and issues, we propose weighted consistency and non-consistency measures, which are respectively used to identify the feasible strategies for a clique of agents. Algorithms are developed to identify feasible strategies, $L$-order feasible strategies, and the corresponding optimal ones. Finally, to demonstrate the practicality, effectiveness, and superiority of the proposed models, we apply them to two commonly used case studies on NBA labor negotiations and development plans for Gansu Province and conduct a sensitivity analysis on parameters and a comparative analysis with existing state-of-the-art conflict analysis approaches. The comparison results demonstrate that our conflict resolution models outperform the conventional approaches by unifying weighted agent-issue evaluation with consistency and non-consistency measures to enable the systematic identification of not only feasible strategies but also optimal solutions.