Consistent union and prioritized consistent union: new operations for preference aggregation

We discuss some new approaches to preference aggregation, keeping the natural property of transitivity of strict preferences in mind. In a previous paper, we discussed various ways in which to construct and process strict partial order relations in the context of ranking objects on the basis of multiple criteria. We now broaden the scope to include more general expressions of preferences as inputs and introduce the concept of a NIP-triple, composed of a relation of necessary couples, a relation of impossible couples and a relation of possible couples. The use of NIP-triples allows for a more straightforward characterization of the consistent and prioritized consistent union as well as a smooth formulation of algorithmic implementations. We also introduce a NIP-triple closing operation, which can be combined with the consistent union operations for increased flexibility. Some properties of the proposed operations are examined. The consistent union operation is commutative, as is its composition with the closing operation. Both the consistent and prioritized consistent union are associative, but not when they are composed with the closing operation. Nevertheless, the composed operations surely have their use, which is also discussed.

[1]  Bernard De Baets,et al.  On the existence and construction of T-transitive closures , 2003, Inf. Sci..

[2]  Radim Nedbal.  Relational Databases with Ordered Relations , 2005, Log. J. IGPL.

[3]  P. Fishburn.  Condorcet Social Choice Functions , 1977 .

[4]  Eyke Hüllermeier,et al.  Pairwise Preference Learning and Ranking , 2003, ECML.

[5]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Aggregating Partially Ordered Preferences , 2009, J. Log. Comput..

[6]  Carlos A. Bana e Costa,et al.  Readings in Multiple Criteria Decision Aid , 2011 .

[7]  S. Pudenz,et al.  An algebraic/graphical tool to compare ecosystems with respect to their pollution by PB/CD III: Comparative regional analysis by applying a similarity index , 1998 .

[8]  R. Weiner.  Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems , 1985 .

[9]  Bernard De Baets,et al.  T-transitive closures. , 2001 .

[10]  Bernard De Baets,et al.  New operations for informative combination of two partial order relations with illustrations on pollution data. , 2008, Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening.

[11]  Bernard De Baets,et al.  Fuzzy preference structures without incomparability , 1995, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[12]  Denis Bouyssou,et al.  Building Criteria: A Prerequisite for MCDA , 1990 .

[13]  P. Fishburn.  SOCIAL CHOICE FUNCTIONS , 1974 .

[14]  Jan Chomicki,et al.  Preference formulas in relational queries , 2003, TODS.

[15]  Jan Chomicki.  Database querying under changing preferences , 2007, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[16]  P. Vincke.  Exploitation of a crisp relation in a ranking problem , 1992 .

[17]  Stephen Warshall,et al.  A Theorem on Boolean Matrices , 1962, JACM.

[18]  Eyke Hüllermeier,et al.  Label ranking by learning pairwise preferences , 2008, Artif. Intell..

[19]  Bernard De Baets,et al.  Characterizable fuzzy preference structures , 1998, Ann. Oper. Res..

[20]  Thierry Denoeux,et al.  Evidential reasoning in large partially ordered sets , 2012, Ann. Oper. Res..

[21]  Rainer Brüggemann,et al.  A Theoretical Concept To Rank Environmentally Significant Chemicals , 1999, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[22]  Bernard De Baets,et al.  Algorithms for the computation of T-transitive closures , 2002, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst..

[23]  Didier Dubois,et al.  Possibility theory , 2018, Scholarpedia.

[24]  P. Fishburn.  Paradoxes of Voting , 1974, American Political Science Review.

[25]  Pierre-Yves Schobbens,et al.  Operators and Laws for Combining Preference Relations , 2002, J. Log. Comput..

[26]  Domenico Beneventano,et al.  Description logics for semantic query optimization in object-oriented database systems , 2003, TODS.