Logo PTI
Polish Information Processing Society
Logo FedCSIS

Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, Volume 9

Position Papers of the 2016 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems

Developing Coalitions by Pairwise Comparisons: a Preliminary Study


DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15439/2016F466

Citation: Position Papers of the 2016 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, M. Ganzha, L. Maciaszek, M. Paprzycki (eds). ACSIS, Vol. 9, pages 189193 ()

Full text

Abstract. In all industries, competition among business encouraged business organizations to utilize collaborative logistics for planning, forecasting and efficient customer response to optimize the supply chain. Consequently, numerous business organizations build coalitions among themselves making their partnerships more effective.


  1. Agarwal, R.; Ergun, Ö., Network design and allocation mechanisms for carriere alliances in liner shipping, Operations Research, 58(6); 1726–1742, 2010.
  2. Alqarni, M.; Y. Arabi, Y.; Kakiashvili, T.; Khedr, M.; Koczkodaj, W. W.; Leszek, J.; Przelaskowski, A.; Rutkowski, K., Improving the predictability of ICU illness severity scales, Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), Szczecin, IEEE Conference Publications, 11–17, 2011.
  3. Arrow, K.J., A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare, Journal of Political Economy, 58(4): 328-34, 1950.
  4. Audy, J.F.; D’Amours, S.; Rönnqvist, M., An empirical study on coalition formation and cost/savings allocation, International Journal of Production Economics, 136(1): 13 - 27, 2012.
  5. Aumann, R.J.; Myerson, R. B., Endogenous formation of links between players of coalitions: an application of Shapley value, University Press, Cambridge, 175-191, 1988.
  6. Babiy, V.; Janicki, R.; Wassyng, A.; Bogobowicz, A. D.; Koczkodaj, W.W., Selecting the best strategy in a software certification process, Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS): 53 - 58, 2010.
  7. Condorcet, M., The Essay on the Application of Analysis to the Probability of Majority Decisions, Paris: Imprimerie Royale, 1785.
  8. Concluder, https://sourceforge.net/projects/concluder/, accessed 2016-05-01.
  9. Cruijssen, F., Horizontal Cooperation in Transport and Logistics, Dissertation thesis, University of Tilburg, 2007.
  10. Cruijssen, F.; Dullaert, W.; Fleuren, H., Horizontal cooperation in transport and logistics: A literature review, Transportation Journal, 207 (3): 22 - 39, 2007.
  11. Dai, B.; Chen, H., A multi-agent and auction-based framework and approch for carrier collaboration, Logistics Research, 3: 101–120, 2011.
  12. Edmonds, J; Johnson, E., Matching, Euler tours and the Chinese postman, Mathematical Programming, 5: 88 - 124, 1973.
  13. Faliszewski, P.; Hemaspaandra, E.; Hemaspaandra, L. A., Using Complexity to Protect Elections, Communications of the ACM, 53(11): 74–82, 2010.
  14. Fang, X.; Cho, S.-H., Stability and endogenous formation of inventory transshipment networks, Operations Research, 62(6): 1316–1334, 2014.
  15. Fechner, G., Elemente der Psychophysik, 1860.
  16. Frisk, M.; Göthe-Lundgren, M.; Jörnsten, K.; Rönnqvist, M., Cost allocation in collaborative forest transportation, European Journal of Operational Research, 205: 448 - 458, 2010.
  17. Fülöp, J; Koczkodaj, W. W.; Szarek, S. J.; A Different Perspective on a Scale for Pairwise Comparisons, Transactions on Computational Collective Intelligence I, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6220: 71-84, 2010.
  18. Guajardo, M.; Jörnsten, K.; Rönnqvist, M, Constructive and blocking power in collaborative transportation, OR Spectrum, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00291-015-0413-z.
  19. Guajardo, M.; Rönnqvist, M, Operations research models for coalition structure in collaborative logistics, European Journal of Operational Research, 240(1), 147 - 159, 2015.
  20. Hamers, H, On the concavity of delivery games, European Journal of Operational Research, 99: 445 - 458, 1997.
  21. Hennet, J. C.; Mahjoub, S., Toward the fair sharing of profit in a supply network formation, International Journal of Production Economics, 127(1), 112-120, 2010.
  22. Jouida, S. B.; Krichen, S.; Klibi, W., Coalition formation for sourcing contract design with cooperative replenishment in supply networks, 2014.
  23. Kahan, J.P.; Rapoport, A., Theories of coalition formation, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1984.
  24. Kakiashvili, K.; Koczkodaj, W.W.; Phyllis Montgomery, P.; Passi, K.; Tadeusiewicz, R., Assessing the Properties of the World Health OrganizationŠs Quality of Life Index, Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), Wisla, IEEE Conference Publications, 151 - 154, 2008.
  25. Kefi, M.; Ghedire, K., A multi-agent model for the Vehicle Routing Problem with Time Windows, WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, 75, 2004.
  26. Kemahlioglu-Ziya, E.; Bartholdi III, J.J., Centralizing inventory in supply chain by using Shapley value to allocate the profits, Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 13(2), 146-162, 2011.
  27. Koczkodaj, W. W., A new definition of consistency of pairwise comparisons, Mathematical and computer modelling, 7(18): 79-84, 1993.
  28. Koczkodaj, W. W., Statistically accurate evidence of improved error rate by pairwise comparisons Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82(1): 43-48, 1996.
  29. Koczkodaj, W. W., Herman, M. W., Orlowski, M. Using Consistency-driven Pairwise Comparisons in Knowledge-based Systems, International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 1997.
  30. Testing the accuracy enhancement of pairwise comparisons by a Monte Carlo experiment By: Koczkodaj, W. W. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 69(1): 21-31, 1998.
  31. Koczkodaj, W. W.; Kulakowski, K.; Ligeza, A., On the quality evaluation of scientific entities in Poland supported by consistency-driven pairwise comparisons method, Scientometrics, 99(3): 911-926, 2014.
  32. Koczkodaj, W. W., Mikhailov, L., Redlarski, G., Soltys, M., Szybowski, J., Tamazian, G., Wajch, E., Yuen, K. K. F., Important Facts and Observations about Pairwise Comparisons, Fundamenta Informaticae, 144: 1-17, (2016)
  33. Krajewska, M.; Kopfer, H.; Laporte, G.; Ropke, S.; Zaccour, G., Horizontal cooperation among freight carriers: request allocation and profit sharing, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 59: 1483–1491, 2008.
  34. Laporte, G., The vehicle routing problem: an overview of exact and approximate algorithms, European Journal of Operational Research, 59(3), 345–358, 1992.
  35. Lozano, S.; Moreno, P.; Adenso-Díaz, B.; Algabaí, E., Cooperative game theory approach to allocating benefits of horizontal cooperation, European Journal of Operational Research, 229: 444–452, 2013.
  36. Luce, R. D.; Raiffa, H., Games decisions, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1957.
  37. Myerson, R. B., Game theory: analysis of conflict, Harvard Unversity Press, 1991.
  38. G. Owen, Game theory, London, UK: Academic Press, Oct. 1995.
  39. Özener, O., Developing a collaborative planning framework for sustainable transportation, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, art. ID 107102, 2014.
  40. Özener, O.; Ergun, Ö., Allocationg costs in a collaborative transportation procurement network, Transportation Science, 42: 146 - 165, 2008.
  41. Perea, F.; Puerto, J.; Fernández, F.; Modeling cooperative on a class of distribution problems, European Journal of Operational Research, 198: 726–733, 2009.
  42. Rapoport, A.; Kahan, J. P.; Funk, S. G.; Horowitz, A. D., Coalition formation by sophisticated players, Springer, 1979.
  43. Saad, W.; Han, Z.; Basar, T.; Debbah, M.; Hjorungnes, A., Hedonic coalition formation for distributed task allocation among wireless agents, IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 10(9), 1327–1344, 2011.
  44. Saaty, T. L., A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15: 234-281, 1977.
  45. Sandholm, T.; Larson, K.; Anderson, M.; Shehory, O.; Tohme, F., Antytime coalition structure generation with worst case guarantees, Proceedings of the Fifteenth National Conference on Artifical Intelligence, 46–53, 1998.
  46. Sandholm, T.; Lesser, V. R., Coalitions among computationally bounded agents, Artifical Intelligence, 94: 99 - 137, 1997.
  47. Simatupang, T. M.; Sridharan, R., The collaboration supply chain, The International Journal of Logistics Management, 13(1), 15 - 30, 2002.
  48. Simchi-Levi, D.; Simchi-Levi, E.; Kaminsky, P., Designing and managing the supply chain: concepts, strategies, and cases, New-York: McGraw-Hill, 1999.
  49. Thurstone, L. L., A law of comparative judgement, Psychological Review, 34: 278-286, 1927.
  50. Tolstoi, A., Methods of findings the minimal total kilometrage in cargo transportation planning in space, TransPress of the National Commissariat of Transportation, I, 23 - 55, 1930.
  51. Ulrike, L.-W., Pauoff divisions on coalition formation in a three-person characteristic function experiment, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 17(1): 183 - 193, 1992.
  52. Wi, H.; Oh, S.; Mun, J.; Jung, M., A team formation model based on knowledge and collaboration, Expert Systems with Applications, 36(5): 9121 - 9124, 2009.
  53. Winter, S. G., The satisficing principle in capability learning, Startegic Management Journal, 21(10 - 11): 981 - 996, 2000.
  54. Xu, X., Collaboration mechanism in the horizontal logistics collabora- tion, Dissertation thesis, 2014.
  55. Zlotkin, G.; Rosenschein, J. S., Coalition, cryptography, and stability: Mechanism for coalition formation in task oriented domains, AAAI, 432: 87 - 94, 1994.