Reciprocity and consistency of fuzzy preference relations

Preference relations are the most common representation structures of information used in decision making problems because they are useful tool in modelling decision processes, above all when we want to aggregate experts’ preferences into group preferences. Therefore, to establish rationality properties to be verified by preference relations is very important in the design of good decision making models. There are three fundamental and hierarchical levels of rationality assumptions when dealing with preference relations: the first one requires indifference between any alternative and itself, the second one assumes the property of reciprocity in the pairwise comparison between any two alternatives, and the third one is associated with the transitivity in the pairwise comparison among any three alternatives. Furthermore, it would also be desirable to maintain the rationality assumptions on the individual preferences in the aggregation process, so that the collective preferences verify the same ones. However, as this is not always the case, establishing conditions that guarantee the preservation of these rationality properties throughout the aggregation process becomes very important. In this article we address this problem and present a review of the main results that we have obtained about reciprocity and consistency properties of fuzzy preference relations. In particular, we present a characterization of fuzzy consistency based on the additive transitivity property which facilitates the verification of consistency in the case of fuzzy preference relations. Using this new characterization we give a method to construct consistent fuzzy preference relations from n−1 given preference values. We also discuss some questions concerning the compatibility between the three levels of rationality, as well as the conflict that appears between the additive consistency property and the scale used to provide fuzzy preferences. Finally, we provide aggregation operators that provide reciprocal and consistent collective preference relations when the individual preference relations are reciprocal and consistent.

[1]  Eugene Galanter,et al.  Handbook of mathematical psychology: I. , 1963 .

[2]  A. Sen,et al.  Social Choice Theory: A Re-Examination , 1977 .

[3]  Didier Dubois,et al.  Fuzzy sets and systems ' . Theory and applications , 2007 .

[4]  L. Zadeh A COMPUTATIONAL APPROACH TO FUZZY QUANTIFIERS IN NATURAL LANGUAGES , 1983 .

[5]  T. Tanino Fuzzy preference orderings in group decision making , 1984 .

[6]  Piero P. Bonissone,et al.  Selecting Uncertainty Calculi and Granularity: An Experiment in Trading-off Precision and Complexity , 1985, UAI.

[7]  Didier Dubois,et al.  A review of fuzzy set aggregation connectives , 1985, Inf. Sci..

[8]  Ronald R. Yager,et al.  On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decisionmaking , 1988, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[9]  Ronald R. Yager,et al.  On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decision-making , 1988 .

[10]  Tetsuzo Tanino,et al.  Fuzzy Preference Relations in Group Decision Making , 1988 .

[11]  C. J. Hearne Non-conventional Preference Relations in Decision Making , 1989 .

[12]  J. Kacprzyk,et al.  Group decision making and consensus under fuzzy preferences and fuzzy majority , 1992 .

[13]  R. Yager Families of OWA operators , 1993 .

[14]  H. Zimmermann,et al.  Fuzzy Set Theory and Its Applications , 1993 .

[15]  Marc Roubens,et al.  Fuzzy Preference Modelling and Multicriteria Decision Support , 1994, Theory and Decision Library.

[16]  J. Montero,et al.  Fuzzy rationality measures , 1994 .

[17]  Vincenzo Cutello,et al.  Hierarchies of aggregation operators , 1994, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

[18]  Gloria Bordogna,et al.  Controlling retrieval through a user-adaptive representation of documents , 1995, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[19]  Sung-Bae Cho,et al.  Fuzzy aggregation of modular neural networks with ordered weighted averaging operators , 1995, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[20]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  A Sequential Selection Process in Group Decision Making with a Linguistic Assessment Approach , 1995, Inf. Sci..

[21]  R. Yager,et al.  Generalizing the modeling of fuzzy logic controllers by parameterized aggregation operators , 1995 .

[22]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Direct approach processes in group decision making using linguistic OWA operators , 1996, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[23]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  A model of consensus in group decision making under linguistic assessments , 1996, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[24]  F. Herrera,et al.  A classification method of alternatives for multiple preference ordering criteria based on fuzzy majority. , 1996 .

[25]  Gloria Bordogna,et al.  A linguistic modeling of consensus in group decision making based on OWA operators , 1997, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[26]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  A rational consensus model in group decision making using linguistic assessments , 1997, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[27]  R. Yager,et al.  Operations for granular computing: mixing words and numbers , 1998, 1998 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems Proceedings. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence (Cat. No.98CH36228).

[28]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Integrating three representation models in fuzzy multipurpose decision making based on fuzzy preference relations , 1998, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[29]  Dimitar Filev,et al.  Induced ordered weighted averaging operators , 1999, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part B.

[30]  R. Słowiński Fuzzy sets in decision analysis, operations research and statistics , 1999 .

[31]  Evangelos Triantaphyllou,et al.  Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study , 2000 .

[32]  H. B. Mitchell,et al.  Multiple priorities in an induced ordered weighted averaging operator , 2000, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

[33]  A feedback process to model consensus in multiperson decision making with different preference representation. , 2000 .

[34]  T. Saaty Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory With the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 2000 .

[35]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Multiperson decision-making based on multiplicative preference relations , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[36]  Myung-Geun Chun,et al.  A similarity-based bidirectional approximate reasoning method for decision-making systems , 2001, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[37]  Didier Dubois,et al.  Leximin optimality and fuzzy set-theoretic operations , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[38]  J. García-Lapresta,et al.  Majority decisions based on difference of votes , 2001 .

[39]  Saul I. Gass,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process - An Exposition , 2001, Oper. Res..

[40]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Integrating multiplicative preference relations in a multipurpose decision-making model based on fuzzy preference relations , 2001, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[41]  Janusz Kacprzyk,et al.  Computing with words in intelligent database querying: standalone and Internet-based applications , 2001, Inf. Sci..

[42]  Ronald R. Yager,et al.  The induced fuzzy integral aggregation operator , 2002, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

[43]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  A consensus model for multiperson decision making with different preference structures , 2002, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[44]  Enrique Herrera-Viedma,et al.  Some induced ordered weighting averaging operators to solve decision problems based on fuzzy preference relations. , 2003 .

[45]  Ronald R. Yager,et al.  Induced aggregation operators , 2003, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[46]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Preference modelling and applications: Selected papers from EUROFUSE 2001, Granada , 2003, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[47]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  A note on the reciprocity in the aggregation of fuzzy preference relations using OWA operators , 2003, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[48]  M. Bohanec,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 2004 .

[49]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..