Progress of graph model for conflict resolution in conflict analysis: A systematic review and bibliometrics research

Conflict is an inevitable social phenomenon and the analysis of it can effectively resolve disputes, improve the position of decision makers (DMs), forecast compromise solutions as well. At present, the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution (GMCR), a completely non-quantitative decision support system (DSS) based on DM’s ordinal preference information, is constructed to combat conflict analysis complicated by multiple participant or multiple criteria or both. The purpose of the study is to introduce an overview of GMCR in conflict analyzing through bibliometrics. In order to achieve this goal, a systematic review of articles in leading journals of Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) during 1987–2019 is posed, referring to the distribution of countries, institutions, authors, subjects and journals, research topics and hotspots exploration as well as frontiers prediction, by utilizing VOSviewer and CiteSpace. The contributions of this study are not only providing a handy method to grasp generalized scientific research situation, but also demonstrating status quo and emerging trends of GMCR for researchers and everyone who interested in.

Preference–Approval Structures in Group Decision Making: Axiomatic Distance and Aggregation

Preference–approval structure combines the preference information of both ranking and approval, which extends the ordinal preference model by incorporating two categories of choice alternatives, that is, acceptable (good) and unacceptable (bad), in the preference modeling process. In this study, we present some axioms that imply the existence of a unique distance function of preference–approval structures. Based on theoretical analysis and simulation experiments, we further study a preferences aggregation model in the group decision-making context based on the proposed axiomatic distance function. In this model, the group preference is defined as a preference–approval structure that minimizes the sum of its distances to all preference–approval structures of individuals in the group under consideration. Particularly, we show that the group preference defined by the axiomatic distance–based aggregation model has close relationships with the simple majority rule and Cook and Seiford’s ranking.

Can Market Participants Report Their Preferences Accurately (Enough)?

In mechanism design theory it is common to assume that agents can perfectly report their preferences, even in complex settings in which this assumption strains reality. We experimentally test whether real market participants can report their real preferences for course schedules “accurately enough” for a novel course allocation mechanism, approximate competitive equilibrium from equal incomes (A-CEEI), to realize its theoretical benefits. To use market participants’ real preferences (i.e., rather than artificial “induced preferences” as is typical in market design experiments), we develop a new experimental method. Our method, the “elicited preferences” approach, generates preference data from subjects through a series of binary choices. These binary choices reveal that subjects prefer their schedules constructed under A-CEEI to their schedules constructed under the incumbent mechanism, a bidding points auction, and that A-CEEI reduces envy, suggesting subjects are able to report their preferences accurately enough to realize the efficiency and fairness benefits of A-CEEI. However, preference-reporting mistakes do meaningfully harm mechanism performance. One identifiable pattern of mistakes was that subjects had relatively more difficulty reporting cardinal as opposed to ordinal preference information. The experiment helped to persuade the Wharton School to adopt the new mechanism and helped guide aspects of its practical implementation, especially around preference reporting. This paper was accepted by Yan Chen, decision analysis.

Ofelimità and Its Impact in Economy and Society

The concept was introduced by Vilfredo F. D. Pareto, a leading representative of the Lausanne School of Economic thought. Ophelimity comes from Greek, meaning something useful, advantageous for people. And in these challenging and bad days, it is a good landmark to refer to. The term is the expression of the ordinal preference-ranking indicator of the utility. That is, the setting of preferences in a certain order and the purchase of the goods/services depending on the intensity and urgency of the needs, now and on short-run. Therefore, using a survey of the literature in the field, we can deduce the tendencies of the human life and social-economic activities on short-run and, even, on medium-run, altogether with the elements of the Maslow Hierarchy Needs. The term utility of goods and services, even ophelimity is necessary towards regaining the basic needs of people and the re-birth of economies and of social life.