Weighted three-way conflict analysis in multi-attribute decision-making perspective

Abstract

In real life, multiple issues may have different weights in leading to conflicts. Some of the existing conflict analysis literature related to weight does not involve an explicit weight method, and some use common methods such as entropy weight method. This paper aims to design a reasonable weighting method for the inherent characteristics of conflict analysis. The main motivation is that the issues getting vast majority of support (or opposition) are assumed to be more likely to cause intense conflicts. Firstly, a novel weighting method using N-bounded symmetric concave reciprocal function is brought in. Some properties of the method such as duality, objectivity and symmetry are discussed. Then, by embedding the weights into the existing distance function a weighted three-way conflict analysis model is proposed. Next the thresholds of conflict, alliance and neutrality relations are given by decision-theoretic rough set theory. In addition, as a main characteristic of the model, the conflict distance between any two agents is determined by the overall conflict table rather than their own. Finally, the model of this paper is compared with the existing conflict analysis weight model. At the same time, a comparative simulation experiment was carried out on the weight change and the number of maximal coalitions. The new weighted conflict model proposed in this paper can effectively compensate for the limitations of existing weighted models, especially in three-valued information systems and multi-valued information systems. It can also theoretically expand the field of three-way conflict analysis.