Crisp dimension theory and valued preference relations

Representation of binary preference relations in a real space where each coordinate suggests the existence of underlying criteria is a standard and indeed suggestive approach. Classical dimension theory addresses this problem, showing that whenever crisp preferences define a partial order set, it can be represented in a real space, and then we can search for a minimal representation. Valued preference relation being a much more complex structure, there is an absolute need for meaningful representations, being manageable by decision-makers. In this paper, we continue analyzing the concept of a generalized dimension function of valued preference relations, i.e. a mapping assigning a generalized dimension value to every α-cut of any given valued preference relation, as introduced in a previous paper. We should of course be expecting deep computational problems within this generalized dimension context, since they are already present in crisp dimension theory. In this paper, we present some properties of such a generalized dimension function, pointing out that our approach allows alternative representations depending on some underlying rationality core the decision-maker may change.

[1]  Wojciech A. Trybulec Partially Ordered Sets , 1990 .

[2]  Vincenzo Cutello,et al.  On the dimension of fuzzy preference relations , 1998 .

[3]  E. Herrera-Viedma,et al.  A Hierarchical Ordinal Model for Managing Unbalanced Linguistic Term Sets Based on the Linguistic 2-tuple Model 0 , .

[4]  Jean-Paul Doignon,et al.  Dimension of valued relations , 2000, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[5]  Javier Montero,et al.  Some problems on the definition of fuzzy preference relations , 1986 .

[6]  E. Szpilrajn Sur l'extension de l'ordre partiel , 1930 .

[7]  S. Ovchinnikov Representations of Transitive Fuzzy Relations , 1984 .

[8]  Lotfi A. Zadeh,et al.  Similarity relations and fuzzy orderings , 1971, Inf. Sci..

[9]  S French,et al.  Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Aiding , 1996 .

[10]  Javier Montero,et al.  Soft dimension theory , 2003, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[11]  W. Trotter,et al.  Combinatorics and Partially Ordered Sets: Dimension Theory , 1992 .

[12]  J. Montero Rational aggregation rules , 1994 .

[13]  Javier Montero De Juan Arrow`s theorem under fuzzy rationality , 1987 .

[14]  BARTEL VAN DE WALLE,et al.  TOWARDS GROUP AGREEMENT : THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PREFERENCE ANALYSIS , 2001 .

[15]  J. González-Pachón,et al.  Mixture of Maximal Quasi Orders: a new Approach to Preference Modelling , 1999 .

[16]  M. Yannakakis The Complexity of the Partial Order Dimension Problem , 1982 .

[17]  Javier Montero,et al.  A Poset Dimension Algorithm , 1999, J. Algorithms.

[18]  L. Valverde On the structure of F-indistinguishability operators , 1985 .

[19]  Marc Roubens,et al.  Structure of transitive valued binary relations , 1995 .

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

[21]  D. Adnadjevic,et al.  Dimension of fuzzy ordered sets , 1994 .

[22]  Javier Montero,et al.  Searching for the dimension of valued preference relations , 2003, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[23]  Bertrand Mareschal,et al.  The GDSS PROMETHEE procedure: a PROMETHEE-GAIA based procedure for group decision support , 1998 .