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

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.21420v2
• Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 02:25:21 GMT
• Title: Feasible strategies in three-way conflict analysis with three-valued ratings
• Abstract summary: This paper investigates feasible strategies from two perspectives of consistency and non-consistency.<n>We develop algorithms to identify feasible strategies, $L$-order feasible strategies, and the corresponding optimal ones.
• Score: 6.402753182639444
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• 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.

Related papers

• Beyond Rational Illusion: Behaviorally Realistic Strategic Classification [56.458581740660236]
  We propose the Prospect-Guided Strategic Framework (Pro-SF) to address the behaviorally realistic strategic classification problem.<n>Pro-SF is a principled framework grounded in prospect theory to model and learn under behaviorally realistic strategic responses.<n> Experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets establish Pro-SF as a behaviorally grounded approach to strategic classification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-19T11:04:55Z)
• Strategy Executability in Mathematical Reasoning: Leveraging Human-Model Differences for Effective Guidance [86.46794021499511]
  We show a previously underexplored gap between strategy usage and strategy executability.<n>We propose Selective Strategy Retrieval (SSR), a test-time framework that explicitly models executability.<n> SSR yields reliable and consistent improvements over direct solving, in-context learning, and single-source guidance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-26T03:34:23Z)
• Feasible strategies for conflict resolution within intuitionistic fuzzy preference-based conflict situations [14.046056867216285]
  We introduce an intuitionistic fuzzy preference-based conflict situation that captures agents' attitudes towards issue pairs with finer granularity than that afforded by classical preference-based models.<n>We construct three-way conflict analysis models for trisecting the set of agent pairs, the agent set, and the issue set.<n>We present adjustment mechanism-based feasible strategies that simultaneously account for both adjustment magnitudes and conflict degrees.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T11:30:34Z)
• Doubly Robust Estimation of Causal Effects in Strategic Equilibrium Systems [0.0]
  We introduce the Strategic Doubly Robust (SDR) estimator, a novel framework for causal inference in strategic environments.<n>The framework provides a principled approach for reliable causal inference when agents respond strategically to interventions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-17T11:41:35Z)
• Plan before Solving: Problem-Aware Strategy Routing for Mathematical Reasoning with LLMs [49.995906301946]
  Existing methods usually leverage a fixed strategy to guide Large Language Models (LLMs) to perform mathematical reasoning.<n>Our analysis reveals that the single strategy cannot adapt to problem-specific requirements and thus overlooks the trade-off between effectiveness and efficiency.<n>We propose Planning and Routing through Instance-Specific Modeling (PRISM), a novel framework that decouples mathematical reasoning into two stages: strategy planning and targeted execution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T07:22:41Z)
• Unveiling Trust in Multimodal Large Language Models: Evaluation, Analysis, and Mitigation [51.19622266249408]
  MultiTrust-X is a benchmark for evaluating, analyzing, and mitigating the trustworthiness issues of MLLMs.<n>Based on the taxonomy, MultiTrust-X includes 32 tasks and 28 curated datasets.<n>Our experiments reveal significant vulnerabilities in current models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-21T09:00:01Z)
• Adversarial Testing in LLMs: Insights into Decision-Making Vulnerabilities [5.0778942095543576]
  This paper introduces an adversarial evaluation framework designed to systematically stress-test the decision-making processes of Large Language Models.<n>We apply this framework to several state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Gemini-1.5, and DeepSeek-V3.<n>Our findings highlight distinct behavioral patterns across models and emphasize the importance of adaptability and fairness recognition for trustworthy AI deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-19T14:50:44Z)
• Insight Over Sight: Exploring the Vision-Knowledge Conflicts in Multimodal LLMs [55.74117540987519]
  This paper explores the problem of commonsense level vision-knowledge conflict in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs)<n>We introduce an automated framework, augmented with human-in-the-loop quality control, to generate inputs designed to simulate and evaluate these conflicts in MLLMs.<n>Using this framework, we have crafted a diagnostic benchmark consisting of 374 original images and 1,122 high-quality question-answer pairs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T17:31:17Z)
• On strategies for risk management and decision making under uncertainty shared across multiple fields [55.2480439325792]
  The paper finds more than 110 examples of such strategies and this approach to risk is termed RDOT: Risk-reducing Design and Operations Toolkit.<n>RDOT strategies fall into six broad categories: structural, reactive, formal, adversarial, multi-stage and positive.<n>Overall, RDOT represents an overlooked class of versatile responses to uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-06T16:14:32Z)
• On solving decision and risk management problems subject to uncertainty [91.3755431537592]
  Uncertainty is a pervasive challenge in decision and risk management. This paper develops a systematic understanding of such strategies, determine their range of application, and develop a framework to better employ them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-18T19:16:23Z)
• Gamifying optimization: a Wasserstein distance-based analysis of human search [0.0]
  This paper outlines a theoretical framework to characterise humans' decision-making strategies under uncertainty. The key element in this paper is the representation of behavioural patterns of human learners as a discrete probability distribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-12T18:23:46Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.