Skip to main content
Log in

A new axiomatic foundation of partial comparability

  • Published:
Theory and Decision Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper presents some results obtained in searching for a new axiomatic foundation for partial comparability (PC) in the frame of non-conventional preference modeling. The basic idea is to define an extended preference structure able to represent lack of information, uncertainty, ambiguity, multidimensional and conflicting preferences, using formal logic as the basic formalism.

A four-valued paraconsistent logic is therefore described in the paper as a more suitable language for the purposes of the research. The concepts of partition, general binary relations properties, fundamental relational system of preferences (f.r.s.p.), maximal f.r.s.p. and well founded f.r.s.p. are then introduced and some theorems are demonstrated in order to provide the axiomatic foundation of PC. The main result obtained is a preference structure that is a maximal well founded f.r.s.p. This preference structure facilitates a more flexible, reliable and robust preference modeling. Moreover it can be viewed as a generalization of the conventional approach, so that all the results obtained until now can be used under it.

Two examples are provided at the end of the paper in order to give an account of the operational potentialities of the new theory, mainly in the area of multicriteria decision aid and social choice theory. Further research directions conclude the paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Belnap, N.D.: 1976, ‘How a computer should think’,Proceedings of the Oxford International Symposium on Contemporary Aspects of Philosophy, Oxford, England, pp. 30–56.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Belnap, N.D.: 1977, ‘A useful four-valued logic’, in G. Epstein and J. Dumm, (Eds.),Modern Uses of Multiple Valued Logics, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 8–37.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Doherty, P., Driankov, D., and Tsoukiàs A.: 1993, ‘Partiality, para-consistency and preference modeling’, submitted (preliminary version inIDA research report Lith-IDA-R-92-18, Linköping University).

  4. Dubarle, D.: 1963, Essai sur la généralisation naturelle de la logique usuelle’, manuscript published posthumously inMathématique, Informatique, Sciences Humaines, No. 107, 1989, 17–73.

  5. Fishburn, P.C.: 1991, ‘Nontransitive preferences in decision theory’,Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,4, 113–134.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fitting, M.C.: 1990, ‘Bilattices in logic programming’, in G. Epstein (Ed.),Twentieth International Symposium on Multiple-Valued Logic, IEEE, pp. 238–246.

  7. Ginsberg, M.: 1988, ‘Multivalued logics: A uniform approach to reasoning in artificial intelligence’,Computational Intelligence,4, 265–316.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kacprzyk, J. and Roubens, M. (eds.): 1988,Non Conventional Preference Relations in Decision Making, Springer Verlag, LNMES No. 301, Berlin.

  9. Luce, R.D.: 1956, ‘Semiorders and a theory of utility discrimination’,Econometrica,24, 178–191.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ovchinnikov, S. and Roubens, M.: 1991, ‘On strict preference relations’,Fuzzy Sets and Systems,43, 319–326.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ovchinnikov, S. and Roubens M.: 1992, On fuzzy strict preference, indifference and incomparability relations’,Fuzzy Sets and Systems,47, 313–318.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Perny, P. and Roy, B.: 1991, ‘The use of fuzzy outranking relations in preference modeling’,Fuzzy Sets and Systems,49, 33–53.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Roubens, M. and Vincke, Ph.: 1985,Preference Modelling, Springer Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Roy, B.: 1977, ‘Partial preference analysis and decision aid: The fuzzy outranking relation concept’, in D.E. Bell, R.L. Keeney, and H. Raiffa (Eds.),Conflicting Objectives in Decisions, J. Wiley, New York, pp. 40–75.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Roy, B.: 1985,Méthodologie multicritère d'aide à la décision, Economica, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Roy, B. and Vincke, Ph.: 1984, ‘Relational systems of preferences with one or more pseudo-criteria: some new concepts and results’,Management Science,30, 1323–1335.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Scott, D.: 1982, ‘Some ordered sets in computer science’, in I. Rival (Ed.),Ordered Sets, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 677–718.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Tsoukiàs, A. and Vincke, Ph.: 1992, ‘A survey on nonconventional preference modelling’,Ricerca Operativa,61, 5–49.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Tsoukiàs A. and Vincke, Ph.: 1994, ‘Extended preference structures in MCDA’, presented atXI International Conference on MCDM, Coimbra, to appear in the proceedings (preprint of SMG).

  20. Tversky, A.: 1969, ‘Intransitivity of preferences’,Psychological Review,76, 31–48.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

This research has been done while the first author was in the Université Libre de Bruxelles under the ‘Research in Brussels actions’.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tsoukiàs, A., Vincke, P. A new axiomatic foundation of partial comparability. Theor Decis 39, 79–114 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01078870

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01078870

Key words

Navigation