Advertisement

Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 271, Issue 2, pp 701–735 | Cite as

An axiomatization of the Choquet integral in the context of multiple criteria decision making without any commensurability assumption

  • Christophe LabreucheEmail author
Original Research
  • 68 Downloads

Abstract

An axiomatization of the Choquet integral is proposed in the context of multiple criteria decision making without any commensurability assumption. The most essential axiom—named Commensurability Through Interaction—states that the importance of an attribute i takes only one or two values when a second attribute k varies. When the importance takes two values, the point of discontinuity is exactly the value on the attribute k that is commensurate to the fixed value on attribute i. If the weight of criterion i does not depend on criterion k, for any value of the other criteria than i and k, then criteria i and k are independent. Applying this construction to any pair ik of criteria, one obtains a partition of the set of criteria. In each block, the criteria interact one with another, and it is thus possible to construct vectors of values on the attributes that are commensurate. There is complete independence between the criteria of any two blocks in this partition. Hence one cannot ensure commensurability between two blocks in the partition. But this is not a problem since the Choquet integral is additive between subsets of criteria that are independent.

Keywords

Choquet integral Capacity Commensurability Interaction between criteria 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the paper.

References

  1. Angilella, S., Corrente, S., & Greco, S. (2015). Stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis for the Choquet integral preference model and the scale construction problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 240, 172–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angilella, S., Greco, S., Lamantia, F., & Matarazzo, B. (2004). Assessing non-additive utility for multicriteria decision aid. European Journal of Operational Research, 158, 734–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bana e Costa, C. A., De Corte, J., & Vansnick, J.-C. (2012). MACBETH. International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making, 11, 359–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbaresco, F., Deltour, J., Desodt, G., Durand, B., Guenais, T., & Labreuche, C. (2009). Intelligent M3R radar time resources management: Advanced cognition, agility & autonomy capabilities. In International radar conference, Bordeaux, France.Google Scholar
  5. Benvenuti, P., Mesiar, R., & Vivona, D. (2002). Monotone set functions-based integrals. In E. Pap (Ed.), Handbook of measure theory (pp. 1329–1379). Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  6. Choquet, G. (1953). Theory of capacities. Annales de l’Institut Fourier, 5, 131–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Couceiro, M., & Marichal, J. (2011a). Axiomatizations of Lovász extensions of pseudo-Boolean functions. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 181, 28–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Couceiro, M., & Marichal, J. (2011b). Axiomatizations of quasi-Lovász extensions of pseudo-Boolean functions. Aequationes Mathematicae, 82, 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Denguir, A. (2014). Modèle de performance agrégée et raisonnement approché pour l’optimisation de la consommation énergétique et du confort dans les bâtiments. Ph.D. thesis, Ecole des Mines d’Ales.Google Scholar
  10. Diestel, R. (2005). Graph theory. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Dubois, D., Fargier, H., & Perny, P. (2003). Qualitative decision theory with preference relations and comparison uncertainty: An axiomatic approach. Artificial Intelligence, 148, 219–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fanger, P. (Ed.). (1970). Thermal comfort: Analysis and applications in environnmental engineering. Copenhagen: Danish Technical Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fishburn, P. (1967). Interdependence and additivity in multivariate, unidimensional expected utility theory. International Economic Review, 8, 335–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goujon, B., & Labreuche, C. (2013). Holistic preference learning with the Choquet integral. In International conference of the European society for fuzzy logic and technology (EUSFLAT), Minano, Italy.Google Scholar
  15. Grabisch, M. (1996). The application of fuzzy integrals in multicriteria decision making. European Journal of Operational Research, 89, 445–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grabisch, M., & Labreuche, C. (2010). A decade of application of the Choquet and Sugeno integrals in multi-criteria decision aid. Annals of Operation Research, 175, 247–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grabisch, M., & Labreuche, C. (2016). Fuzzy measures and integrals in MCDA. In J. Figueira, S. Greco, M. E., (Eds.), Multiple criteria decision analysis—State of the art surveys (pp. 553–603). Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Grabisch, M., Murofushi, T., & Sugeno, M. (2000). Fuzzy measures and integrals. Theory and applications (edited volume). Studies in fuzziness. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. Krantz, D., Luce, R., Suppes, P., & Tversky, A. (1971). Foundations of measurement: Additive and polynomial representations (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Labreuche, C. (2011). Construction of a Choquet integral and the value functions without any commensurateness assumption in multi-criteria decision making. In International conference of the European society for fuzzy logic and technology (EUSFLAT), Aix Les Bains, France.Google Scholar
  21. Labreuche, C. (2012). An axiomatization of the Choquet integral and its utility functions without any commensurateness assumption. In International Conference on information processing and management of uncertainty in knowledge-based systems (IPMU), Catania, Italy.Google Scholar
  22. Labreuche, C., & Grabisch, M. (2003). The Choquet integral for the aggregation of interval scales in multicriteria decision making. Fuzzy Sets & Systems, 137, 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Labreuche, C., & Grabisch, M. (2006). Generalized Choquet-like aggregation functions for handling ratio scales. European Journal of Operational Research, 172, 931–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Labreuche, C., & Grabisch, M. (2007). The representation of conditional relative importance between criteria. Annals of Operation Research, 154, 93–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Larsson, S.-O. (2001). Multi-criteria decision support in a road planning process—A Swedish case. In Euro working group on multiple criteria decision aiding meeting (pp. 167–170).Google Scholar
  26. Marichal, J.-L. (1998). Aggregation operators for multicriteria decision aid. Ph.D. thesis, University of Liège.Google Scholar
  27. Marichal, J.-L. (2000). An axiomatic approach of the discrete Choquet integral as a tool to aggregate interacting criteria. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 8(6), 800–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Murofushi, T., & Soneda, S. (1993). Techniques for reading fuzzy measures (III): Interaction index. In 9th fuzzy system symposium (pp. 693–696). Sapporo, Japan.Google Scholar
  29. Peleg, B., & Sudholter, P. (2003). Introduction to the theory of cooperative games. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publisher.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pignon, J., Labreuche, C., & Ponthoreau, P. (2008). Combining experimentation and multi-criteria decision aid: A way to improve nec systems of systems architecting. In NATO SCI panel symposium on agility, resilience and control in NEC, Amsterdam, The Netherland.Google Scholar
  31. Savage, L. J. (1972). The foundations of statistics (2nd ed.). New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  32. Schmeidler, D. (1986). Integral representation without additivity. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 97(2), 255–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schmeidler, D. (1989). Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity. Econometrica, 57(3), 571–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shapley, L. S. (1953). A value for $n$-person games. In H. W. Kuhn & A. W. Tucker (Eds.), Contributions to the theory of games, number 28 in annals of mathematics studies (Vol. 2, pp. 307–317). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Tehrani, A. F., Labreuche, C., & Hüllermeier, E. (2014). Choquistic utilitaristic regression. In Decision aid to preference learning (DA2PL) workshop, Chatenay-Malabry, France.Google Scholar
  36. Timonin, M. (2014). Conjoint axiomatization of the Choquet integral for two-dimensional heterogeneous product sets. In Decision aid to preference learning (DA2PL) workshop. Chatenay-Malabry, France.Google Scholar
  37. Von Neuman, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Thales Research and Technology FrancePalaiseau CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations