Matrix Representations and Extension of the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution

The graph model for conflict resolution (GMCR) provides a convenient and effective means to model and analyze a strategic conflict. Standard practice is to carry out a stability analysis of a graph model, and then to follow up with a post-stability analysis, two critical components of which are status quo analysis and coalition analysis. In stability analysis, an equilibrium is a state that is stable for all decision makers (DMs) under appropriate stability definitions or solution concepts. Status quo analysis aims to determine whether a particular equilibrium is reachable from a status quo (or an initial state) and, if so, how to reach it. A coalition is any subset of a set of DMs. The coalition stability analysis within the graph model is focused on the status quo states that are equilibria and assesses whether states that are stable from individual viewpoints may be unstable for coalitions. Stability analysis began within a simple preference structure which includes a relative preference relationship and an indifference relation. Subsequently, preference uncertainty and strength of preference were introduced into GMCR but not formally integrated. In this thesis, two new preference frameworks, hybrid preference and multiple-level preference, and an integrated algebraic approach are developed for GMCR. Hybrid preference extends existing preference structures to combine preference uncertainty and strength of preference into GMCR. A multiple-level preference framework expands GMCR to handle a more general and flexible structure than any existing system representing strength of preference. An integrated algebraic approach reveals a link among traditional stability analysis, status quo analysis, and coalition stability analysis by using matrix representation of the graph model for conflict resolution. To integrate the three existing preference structures into a hybrid system, a new preference framework is proposed for graph models using a quadruple relation to express strong or mild preference of one state or scenario over another, equal preference, and an uncertain preference. In addition, a multiple-level preference framework is introduced into the graph model methodology to handle multiple-level preference information, which lies between relative and cardinal preferences in information content. The existing structure with strength of preference takes into account that if a state is stable, it may be either strongly stable or weakly stable in the context of three levels of strength. However, the three-level structure is limited in its ability to depict the intensity of relative preference. In this research, four basic solution concepts consisting of Nash stability, general metarationality, symmetric metarationality, and sequential stability, are defined at each level of preference for the graph model with the extended multiple-level preference. The development of the two new preference frameworks expands the realm of applicability of the graph model and provides new insights into strategic conflicts so that more practical and complicated problems can be analyzed at greater depth. Because a graph model of a conflict consists of several interrelated graphs, it is natural to ask whether well-known results of Algebraic Graph Theory can help analyze a graph model. Analysis of a graph model involves searching paths in a graph but an important restriction of a graph model is that no DM can move twice in succession along any path. (If a DM can move consecutively, then this DM's graph is effectively transitive. Prohibiting consecutive moves thus allows for graph models with intransitive graphs, which are sometimes useful in practice.) Therefore, a graph model must be treated as an edge-weighted, colored multidigraph in which each arc represents a legal unilateral move and distinct colors refer to different DMs. The weight of an arc could represent some preference attribute. Tracing the evolution of a conflict in status quo analysis is converted to searching all colored paths from a status quo to a particular outcome in an edge-weighted, colored multidigraph. Generally, an adjacency matrix can determine a simple digraph and all state-by-state paths between any two vertices. However, if a graph model contains multiple arcs between the same two states controlled by different DMs, the adjacency matrix would be unable to track all aspects of conflict evolution from the status quo. To bridge the gap, a conversion function using the matrix representation is designed to transform the original problem of searching edge-weighted, colored paths in a colored multidigraph to a standard problem of finding paths in a simple digraph with no color constraints. As well, several unexpected and useful links among status quo analysis, stability analysis, and coalition analysis are revealed using the conversion function. The key input of stability analysis is the reachable list of a DM, or a coalition, by a legal move (in one step) or by a legal sequence of unilateral moves, from a status quo in 2-DM or $n$-DM ($n > 2$) models. A weighted reachability matrix for a DM or a coalition along weighted colored paths is designed to construct the reachable list using the aforementioned conversion function. The weight of each edge in a graph model is defined according to the preference structure, for example, simple preference, preference with uncertainty, or preference with strength. Furthermore, a graph model and the four basic graph model solution concepts are formulated explicitly using the weighted reachability matrix for the three preference structures. The explicit matrix representation for conflict resolution (MRCR) that facilitates stability calculations in both 2-DM and $n$-DM ($n > 2$) models for three existing preference structures. In addition, the weighted reachability matrix by a coalition is used to produce matrix representation of coalition stabilities in multiple-decision-maker conflicts for the three preference frameworks. Previously, solution concepts in the graph model were traditionally defined logically, in terms of the underlying graphs and preference relations. When status quo analysis algorithms were developed, this line of thinking was retained and pseudo-codes were developed following a similar logical structure. However, as was noted in the development of the decision support system (DSS) GMCR II, the nature of logical representations makes coding difficult. The DSS GMCR II, is available for basic stability analysis and status quo analysis within simple preference, but is difficult to modify or adapt to other preference structures. Compared with existing graphical or logical representation, matrix representation for conflict resolution (MRCR) is more effective and convenient for computer implementation and for adapting to new analysis techniques. Moreover, due to an inherent link between stability analysis and post-stability analysis presented, the proposed algebraic approach establishes an integrated paradigm of matrix representation for the graph model for conflict resolution

Multiplex Communities and the Emergence of International Conflict

Advances in community detection reveal new insights into multiplex and multilayer networks. Less work, however, investigates the relationship between these communities and outcomes in social systems. We leverage these advances to shed light on the relationship between the cooperative mesostructure of the international system and the onset of interstate conflict. We detect communities based upon weaker signals of affinity expressed in United Nations votes and speeches, as well as stronger signals observed across multiple layers of bilateral cooperation. Communities of diplomatic affinity display an expected negative relationship with conflict onset. Ties in communities based upon observed cooperation, however, display no effect under a standard model specification and a positive relationship with conflict under an alternative specification. These results align with some extant hypotheses but also point to a paucity in our understanding of the relationship between community structure and behavioral outcomes in networks.Comment: arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1802.0039

The Second-Order Impact of Relative Power on Outcomes of Crisis Bargaining: A Theory of Expected Disutility and Resolve

How does structure shape behavior and outcomes in crisis bargaining? Formal bargaining models of war rely on expected utility theory to describe first-order effects, whereby the payoffs of war determine actors’ “resolve” to fight as a function of costs and benefits. Value preferences of risk and future discounting are routinely treated as predefined and subjective individual attributes, outside the strategic context of bargaining or independent from expected utility. However, such treatment fails to account for context-conditional preferences sourcing from actors’ expectations of relative gain or loss. Drawing on a wealth of experimental evidence from behavioral economics, but without departing from rational choice or compromising theoretical parsimony, this dissertation proposes a systematic differentiation of value preferences conditional on anticipated gain/loss, i.e., the endogenous shift in power bargaining is expected to produce. Whereas the utility of gain incentivizes a challenge to the status quo, the disutility of loss imposes reactive resolve via asymmetrical risk-acceptance and lower discounting of future payoffs. The proposed theory of reactive resolve, thus, reveals the second-order impact of structural conditions on behavior and outcomes in crisis bargaining. Short of this behavioral effect, bargaining models exhibit a tendency of automatic adjustment of benefits which fails to capture the very essence of conflict and encourages erroneous hypotheses about the role of superiority, such as the nuclear superiority hypothesis reviewed and rejected as part of this research. The prescriptive and predictive inaccuracy of the standard rationalist approach is evident in the solution of the most fundamental bargaining problem - a credible commitment problem arising in the context of “bargaining over future bargaining power” (Fearon 1996). By formally integrating and simulating expected gain- and loss-induced preferences, this study demonstrates substantial deviations from previous results. Based on the findings, several theoretical and empirical implications are derived concerning the mechanism of crisis escalation, the relationship between the distribution of power and the likelihood of war, and the challenge to coercion. The prescribed mechanism is then empirically tested against cases of compellence and deterrence, including two of the most significant cases of nuclear crisis, using process tracing as a qualitative tool of causal inference

Applications of negotiation theory to water issues

The authors review the applications of noncooperative bargaining theory to waterrelated issues-which fall in the category of formal models of negotiation. They aim to identify the conditions under which agreements are likely to emerge and their characteristics, to support policymakers in devising the"rules of the game"that could help obtain a desired result. Despite the fact that allocation of natural resources, especially trans-boundary allocation, has all the characteristics of a negotiation problem, there are not many applications of formal negotiation theory to the issue. Therefore, the authors first discuss the noncooperative bargaining models applied to water allocation problems found in the literature. Key findings include the important role noncooperative negotiations can play in cases where binding agreements cannot be signed; the value added of politically and socially acceptable compromises; and the need for a negotiated model that considers incomplete information over the negotiated resource.Water Supply and Sanitation Governance and Institutions,Town Water Supply and Sanitation,Water and Industry,Environmental Economics&Policies,Water Conservation

Applications of negotiation theory to water issues

The purpose of the paper is to review the applications of non-cooperative bargaining theory to water related issues – which fall in the category of formal models of negotiation. The ultimate aim is that of, on the one hand, identify the conditions under which agreements are likely to emerge, and their characteristics; and, on the other hand, to support policy makers in devising the “rules of the game” that could help obtain a desired result. Despite the fact that allocation of natural resources, especially of trans-boundary nature, has all the characteristics of a negotiation problem, there are not many applications of formal negotiation theory to the issue. Therefore, this paper first discusses the noncooperative bargaining models applied to water allocation problems found in the literature. Particular attention will be given to those directly modelling the process of negotiation, although some attempts at finding strategies to maintain the efficient allocation solution will also be illustrated. In addition, this paper will focus on Negotiation Support Systems (NSS), developed to support the process of negotiation. This field of research is still relatively new, however, and NSS have not yet found much use in real life negotiation. The paper will conclude by highlighting the key remaining gaps in the literature.Negotiation theory, Bragaining, Coalitions, Fairness, Agreements

Cooperation in a Game of Chicken with Heterogeneous Agents: An Experimental Study

Using a two-stage Game of Chicken, Cabon-Dhersin and Ramani (2007) examine the impact of population heterogeneity on cooperative behaviour. For that purpose, they introduce two different types of agents, namely those who always cooperate and those who strategically cooperate. The aim of the present experimental study is to investigate the descriptive accuracy of the one-stage version of this model. Even though the level of cooperation appears to be much higher than predicted, our data bring strong support to the main predictions that the structure of the population as well as the structure of the payoffs affect cooperative behaviour

Applications of Negotiation Theory to Water Issues

The purpose of the paper is to review the applications of non-cooperative bargaining theory to water related issues – which fall in the category of formal models of negotiation. The ultimate aim is that to, on the one hand, identify the conditions under which agreements are likely to emerge, and their characteristics; and, on the other hand, to support policy makers in devising the “rules of the game” that could help obtain a desired result. Despite the fact that allocation of natural resources, especially of trans-boundary nature, has all the characteristics of a negotiation problem, there are not many applications of formal negotiation theory to the issue. Therefore, this paper first discusses the non-cooperative bargaining models applied to water allocation problems found in the literature. Particular attention will be given to those directly modelling the process of negotiation, although some attempts at finding strategies to maintain the efficient allocation solution will also be illustrated. In addition, this paper will focus on Negotiation Support Systems (NSS), developed to support the process of negotiation. This field of research is still relatively new, however, and NSS have not yet found much use in real life negotiation. The paper will conclude by highlighting the key remaining gaps in the literature.Negotiation theory, Water, Agreeements, Stochasticity, Stakeholders

Exploiting a Goal-Decomposition Technique to Prioritize Non-functional Requirements

Business stakeholders need to have clear and realistic goals if they want to meet commitments in application development. As a consequence, at early stages they prioritize requirements. However, requirements do change. The effect of change forces the stakeholders to balance alternatives and reprioritize requirements accordingly. In this paper we discuss the problem of priorities to non-functional requirements subjected to change. We, then, propose an approach to help smooth the impact of such changes. Our approach favors the translation of nonoperational specifications into operational definitions that can be evaluated once the system is developed. It uses the goal-question-metric method as the major support to decompose non-operational specifications into operational ones. We claim that the effort invested in operationalizing NFRs helps dealing with changing requirements during system development. Based on\ud this transformation and in our experience, we provide guidelines to prioritize volatile non-functional requirements

Integrated Decision Support System for Infrastructure Privatization under Uncertainty using Conflict Resolution

Infrastructure privatization decisions have an enormous financial and social impact on all stakeholders, including the public sector, the private sector, and the general public. Appropriate privatization decisions, however, are difficult to make due to the conflicting nature of the objectives of the various stakeholders. This research introduces a multi-criteria decision-making framework for evaluating and comparing a wide range of privatization schemes for infrastructure facilities. The framework is designed to resolve conflicts that arise because of the varying points of view of the stakeholders, and accordingly, determine the most appropriate decision that satisfies all stakeholders’ preferences. The developed framework is expected to help in re-engineering the traditional conflict resolution process, particularly for construction conflict resolution and infrastructure privatization decisions. The framework provides decision support at the management level through three successive decision support processes related to 1. Screening of feasible solutions using the Elimination Method of multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA); 2. Analyzing the actions and counteractions of decision makers using conflict resolution and decision stability concepts to determine the most stable resolution; and 3. Considering the uncertainty in decision maker’s preferences using Info-gap Theory to evaluate the robustness of varying uncertainty levels of the decisions. Based on the research, a procedure and a decision support system (DSS) have been developed and tested on real-life case studies of a wastewater treatment plant and a construction conflict. The results of the two case studies show that the proposed DSS can be used to support decisions effectively with respect to both construction conflicts and infrastructure privatization. The developed system is simple to apply and can therefore save time and avoid the costs associated with unsatisfactory decisions. This research is expected to contribute significantly to the understanding and selecting of proper Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) programs for infrastructure assets

Combining Spot and Futures Markets: A Hybrid Market Approach to Dynamic Spectrum Access

Dynamic spectrum access is a new paradigm of secondary spectrum utilization and sharing. It allows unlicensed secondary users (SUs) to exploit opportunistically the under-utilized licensed spectrum. Market mechanism is a widely-used promising means to regulate the consuming behaviours of users and, hence, achieves the efficient allocation and consumption of limited resources. In this paper, we propose and study a hybrid secondary spectrum market consisting of both the futures market and the spot market, in which SUs (buyers) purchase under-utilized licensed spectrum from a spectrum regulator, either through predefined contracts via the futures market, or through spot transactions via the spot market. We focus on the optimal spectrum allocation among SUs in an exogenous hybrid market that maximizes the secondary spectrum utilization efficiency. The problem is challenging due to the stochasticity and asymmetry of network information. To solve this problem, we first derive an off-line optimal allocation policy that maximizes the ex-ante expected spectrum utilization efficiency based on the stochastic distribution of network information. We then propose an on-line VickreyCClarkeCGroves (VCG) auction that determines the real-time allocation and pricing of every spectrum based on the realized network information and the pre-derived off-line policy. We further show that with the spatial frequency reuse, the proposed VCG auction is NP-hard; hence, it is not suitable for on-line implementation, especially in a large-scale market. To this end, we propose a heuristics approach based on an on-line VCG-like mechanism with polynomial-time complexity, and further characterize the corresponding performance loss bound analytically. We finally provide extensive numerical results to evaluate the performance of the proposed solutions.Comment: This manuscript is the complete technical report for the journal version published in INFORMS Operations Researc