Three-way conflict analysis model via the best-worst method: Balancing subjective preferences and objective data on incomplete and dispersed systems

Abstract

In real-world environments, different issues contribute to conflicts with varying weights. However, current conflict analysis weighting models face significant limitations when dealing with incomplete data and dispersed knowledge. Objective methods are sensitive to missing values and struggle to accurately capture authentic preferences, while subjective approaches lack systematic evaluation criteria, leading to substantial randomness in weight assignments. Therefore, a three-way conflict analysis model via the best-worst method is proposed, which is combined with a correlation coefficient method to balance subjective preferences and objective data. First, the trisection of agent pairs is derived through Bayesian minimum risk. Subsequently, a new conflict distance function is defined on the incomplete information system to provide a more precise measurement of conflict degrees. Then, for incomplete and dispersed information systems, a maximal coalition-based agent partitioning algorithm is designed, along with a new weighted voting mechanism to aggregate dispersed knowledge. Finally, the scientific transparency of the weighting process, as well as the robustness and feasibility of the model, are demonstrated through experimental analysis.