An Extension of the Axioms of Utility Theory Based on Fuzzy Rationality Measures

  • Vincenzo Cutello
  • Javier Montero
Part of the Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing book series (STUDFUZZ, volume 51)


We present here a (better yet, the problems involved with a) generalization of classical utility theory when basic preferences are stated by means of “rational” fuzzy preference relations. Rationality of fuzzy preference relations will be measured according to general fuzzy rationality measures. A utility function is proposed and introduced by using a “boosting” procedure on the fuzzy preference relations which may assure a linearization of the alternatives, still maintaining or improving rationality.


Preference Relation Binary Relation Utility Theory Intelligent Agent Strict Preference 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    V. Cutello and J. Montero, A model for amalgamation in group decision making, in: J. Villareal, Ed., NAFIPS ‘82, vol. 1 ( N.A.S.A. Conference Publications, Houston, 1992 ) 215–223.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    V. Cutello and J. Montero. An axiomatic approach to fuzzy rationality. In: K.C. Min, Ed., IFSA’93 (Korea Fuzzy Mathematics and Systems Society, Seoul, 1993 ), 634–636.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    V. Cutello and J. Montero. Equivalence of Fuzzy Rationality Measures. In: H.J. Zimmermann, Ed., EUFIT’93 ( Elite Foundation, Aachen, 1993 ), vol. 1, 344–350.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    V. Cutello and J. Montero. Fuzzy rationality measures. Fuzzy sets and Systems 62: 39–54, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    V. Cutello and J. Montero. Equivalence and Composition of Fuzzy rationality measures. Fuzzy sets and Systems, 85 (1): 31–43, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    V. Cutello, J. Montero and G. Sorace On the computational complexity of computing fuzzy rationality degrees In Proceedings of IPMU’96, Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems,B. Bouchon-Meunier, M. Delgado, J.L. Verdegay, M.A. Vila and R.R. Yager, Eds.; pp. 471–475, Granada, July 1–5, 1996, Spain.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    V. Cutello and J. Montero. Intelligent agents, fuzzy preferences and utilities. In Proceedings of IPMU’98, Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems,July 1998, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    V. Cutello and J. Montero. Fuzzy Rationality and Utility theory axioms. In Proceedings of NAFIPS’99, North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society Conference, New York, NY, 1999, pp. 332–336.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. Debreu Topological methods in cardinal utility theory In K.J. Arrow, S. Karlin, P. Suppes, Eds. Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences, Stanford University Press, 1959.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Dubois and H. Prade, Fuzzy Sets and Systems: Theory and Applications ( Academic Press, New York, 1980 ).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J.C. Fodor and M. Roubens. Preference modelling and aggregation procedures with valued binary relations. In: R. Lowen and M. Roubens, Eds., Fuzzy Logic ( Kluwer Academic Press, Amsterdam, 1993 ), 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J.C. Fodor and M. Roubens. Valued preference structures. European Journal of Operational Research 79: 277–286 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Fodor and M. Roubens Fuzzy modelling and multicriteria decision support. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1994.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    L. Kitainik. Fuzzy Decision Procedures with Binary Relations. Kluwer Academic Pub., Boston, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Montero and J. Tejada, A necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of Orlovsky’s choice set, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 26 (1988) 121–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Montero, J. Tejada and V.Cutello. A general model for deriving preference structures from data. European Journal of Operational Research, 98: 98–100, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    K. Nakamura. Preference relations on a set of fuzzy utilities as a basis for decision making. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 20: 147–162, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A.M. Norwich and I.B. Turksen. A model for the measurement of membership and the consequences of its empirical implementation. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 12: 1–25 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    S.E. Orlovski. Calculus of Decomposable Properties, Fuzzy Sets and Decisions. Allerton Press, New York, 1994.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    P.K. Pattanaik, Voting and collective choice ( Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1971 ).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    S. Russell and P. Norvig. Artificial Intelligence: A modern approach. Prentice Hall, 1995.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    A.K. Sen, Collective choice and social welfare ( Holden-Day, San Francisco, 1970 ).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    U. Thole, H.J. Zimmermann and P. Zysno. On the suitability of minimum and product operators for the intersection of fuzzy sets. Fuzzy sets and Systems, 2: 167–180 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    I.B. Turksen. Measurement of membership functions and their acquisition. Fuzzy sets and Systems, 40: 5–38 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    L.A. Zadeh, Similarity relations and fuzzy orderings, Information Science 3 (1971) 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    H.J. Zimmerman, Fuzzy Sets Theory and its Applications ( Kluwer-Nijhoff, Boston, 1985 ).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vincenzo Cutello
    • 1
  • Javier Montero
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Math. and C.S.University of CataniaCataniaItaly
  2. 2.Dept. of Statistics and O.R.Complutense UniversityMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations