Advertisement

Ordinal Decision Making with a Notion of Acceptable: Denoted Ordinal Scales

  • Ronald R. Yager
Part of the Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing book series (STUDFUZZ, volume 95)

Abstract

Our concern is with the problem of constructing decision functions to aid in making decision under uncertainty. We discuss the tradeoff that has to be made, when selecting a scale for representing our possible payoffs, between the power of the scale and the burden of the scale. We consider here the situation in which our basic scale is an ordinal scale, however we augment this scale by allowing an additional notion, a classification of payoffs as to whether they are acceptable or not. This allows us to have information such as A is preferred to B but both are acceptable. We indicate that this formally corresponds to an ordinal scale with a denoted element and call such a scale a Denoted Ordinal Scale (DOS). It is shown that this augmentation of the ordinal scale increases the power of the scale and therefore allows us to built more sophisticated decision models.

Keywords

Decision Maker Ordinal Scale Decision Function Acceptable Solution Valuation Function 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1].
    Krantz, D. H., Luce, R. D., Suppes, P. and Tversky, A., Foundations of Measurement, Academic Press: New York, 1971.MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. [2].
    Roberts, F. S., Measurement Theory, Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, 1979.MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. [3].
    Arrow, K. J., Social Choice and Individual Values, John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1951.MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Zadeh, L. A., “From computing with numbers to computing with words-From manipulation of measurements to manipulations of perceptions,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems, (To Appear).Google Scholar
  5. [5].
    Zadeh, L. A., “Toward a theory of fuzzy information granulation and its centrality in human reasoning and fuzzy logic,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems 90, 111 - 127, 1997.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6].
    Yager, R. R., “On mean type aggregation,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 26, 209 - 221, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7].
    Yager, R. R. and Rybalov, A., “Full reinforcement operators in aggregation techniques,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 28, 757 - 769, 1998.Google Scholar
  8. [8].
    Kosko, B., Neural Networks and Fuzzy Systems, Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. [9].
    Yager, R. R. and Filev, D. P., Essentials of Fuzzy Modeling and Control, John Wiley: New York, 1994.Google Scholar
  10. [10].
    Roubens, M. and Vincke, P., Preference Modeling, Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 1989.Google Scholar
  11. [11]. Dubois, D., Fargier, H. and Prade, H., “Refining the maximin approach to decision making in fuzzy environment,” Proceedings of the Sixth International Fuzzy Systems Association (IFSA)
    Congress, Sao Paulo, Brazil, I: 313 - 316, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. [12].
    Yager, R. R., “On the analytic representation of the leximin ordering and its application to flexible constraint propagation,” European Journal of Operations Research 102, 176 - 192, 1997.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13].
    Arrow, K. J. and Hurwicz, L., “An optimality criterion for decision making under ignorance,” in Uncertainty and Expectations in Economics, edited by Carter, C. F. and Ford, J. L., Kelley: New Jersey, 1972.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald R. Yager
    • 1
  1. 1.Machine Intelligence InstituteIona CollegeNew RochelleUSA

Personalised recommendations