Fuzzy Logic pp 337-349 | Cite as

The Role of Fuzziness in Decision Making

Part of the Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing book series (STUDFUZZ, volume 215)


In this paper we discuss the true objective of fuzzy decision making models. In particular, we stress that fuzzy models should focus their attention on decision processes, instead of referring to the final output of a decision, which is a crisp act. In fact, while Probability Theory can properly model crisp acts, this is not the case for fuzzy decisions. But in fact human beings manage poorly defined arguments and alternatives, and what we usually call a decision is always ill defined, although we still expect they should produce consistent acts as their consequence. These acts, still being consistent with the previous fuzzy decision, are somewhat unpredictable, being extremely dependant on the specific circumstances at the moment an act is required by decision makers. Therefore, in many cases pursuing consistency of these subsequent crisp acts may be misleading. The main issue should be in principle to check consistency between those acts and the true decision behind them, usually poorly formalized. But this objective may sometimes be unrealistic, since there may be few chances to repeat the experience. We should also focus our attention on the arguments that led us to such a poorly defined decision. This should be a relevant role of fuzziness in decision making, viewed as a decision support problem (acts are supported by a fuzzy decision which is supported in fuzzy arguments).


Decision making preference representation probabilistic and fuzzy uncertainties 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    A. Amo, D. Gómez, J. Montero and G. Biging (2001): Relevance and redundancy in fuzzy classification systems. Mathware and Soft Computing 8:203–216.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Amo, J. Montero, G. Biging and V. Cutello (2004): Fuzzy classification systems. European Journal of Operational Research 156:459–507.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Amo, J. Montero and V. Cutello (1999): On the principles of fuzzy classification. Proc. NAFIPS Conference. IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ; pp. 675–679.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Amo, J. Montero, A. Fernàndez, M. López, J. Tordesillas and G. Biging (2002): Spectral fuzzy classification, an application. IEEE Trans on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C, 32:42–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    K.J. Arrow (1951, 1964): Social Choice and Individual Values. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Bechara, H. Damasio and A.R. Damasio (2003): Role of the amygdala in decision-making. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 985, 356–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Bechara, D. Tranel and H. Damasio (2000): Characterization of the decision-making deficit of patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions. Brain 123, 2189–2202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    B. Bérard, M. Bidoit, A. Finkel, F. Laroussinie, A. Petit, L. Petrucci and Ph. Shnobelen (2001): Systems and Software Verification: Model-Checking Techniques and Tools. Springer .Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Y. Bertot and P. Castéran (2004): Interactive Theorem Proving and Program Development Coq’Art: The Calculus of Inductive Constructions. Springer.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J.C. Bezdek and S. K. Pal (1992): Fuzzy Models for Pattern Recognition. IEEE Press, New York.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Black (1958): The Theory of Commitees and Elections. Cambridge U.P., Cambridge.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    P. Bonissone (1997): Soft computing, the convergence of emerging reasoning technologies, Soft Computing 1:6–18.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J.P. Brans (1998): The DGS Prometee procedure, Journal of Decision Systems 7:283–307.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J.M. Cleva, J. Leach and F.J. López-Fraguas (2004): A logic programming approach to the verification of functional-logic programs. Proc. Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming. ACM Press; pp. 9–19.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    C.A. Coello (2006): Evolutionary multiobjective optimization, a historical view of the field, IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine 1:28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. Cousot and R. Cousot (1999): Refining model checking by abstract interpretation. Automated Software Engineering Journal 6:69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    V. Cutello and J. Montero (1993): A characterization of rational amalgamation operations. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 8:325–344.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    V. Cutello and J. Montero (1994): Fuzzy rationality measures. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 62:39–44.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Fodor and M. Roubens (1994): Fuzzy Preference Modelling and Multicriteria Decision Support. Kluwer, Dorcrecht.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. Gómez, J. Montero and J. Yáñez (2006): A coloring algorithm for image classification. Information Sciences 176:3645–3657.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    D. Gómez, J. Montero, J. Yáñez and C. Poidomani (2007): A graph coloring approach for image segmentation. OMEGA-Int.J. Management Science 35: 273–183.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. González-Pachón, D. Gómez, J. Montero and J. Yánez (2003): Soft dimension theory. Fuzzy set and Systems 137:137–149.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. González-Pachón, D. Gómez, J. Montero and J. Yánez (2003): Searching for the dimension of binary valued preference relations. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 33:133–157.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    M.J.C. Gordon and T.F. Melham (1993): Introduction to HOL. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    F. Herrera, L. Martínez and P.J. Sánchez (2005): Managing non-homogeneous information in group decision making. European Journal of Operational Research 166, 115–132.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    C.A.R. Hoare (1969): An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Comm. ACM 12:89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    M. Hsu, M. Bahtt, R. Adolfs, D. Tranel and C.F. Camarer (2005): Neural systems responding to degrees of uncertainty in human decision-making. Science 310, 1680–1683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    J.S. Kelly (1975): Arrow Impossibility Theorems. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    J. Kounios, J.L. Frymiare, E.M. Bowden, J.I. Fleck, K. Subramaniam, T.B. Parrish and M. Jung-Beeman (in press): The prepared mind, neural activity prior to problem presentation predicts subsequent solution by sudden insight. Psycological Science.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    V. López, J.M. Cleva and J. Montero (2006): A functional tool for fuzzy first order logic evaluation. In D. Ruan et al., eds.: Applied Artificial Intelligence, World Scientific, New Jersey; pp. 19–26.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    J. Montero (1985): A note on Fung-Fu’s theorem, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 13:259–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    J. Montero (1987): Arrow’s theorem under fuzzy rationality, Behavioral Science 32:267–273.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    J. Montero (1987): Social welfare functions in a fuzzy environment, Kybernetes 16:241–245.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    J. Montero (2003): Classifiers and decision makers. In D. Ruan et al., eds.: Applied Computational Intelligence. World Scientific, Singapore; pp. 19–24.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    J. Montero and M. Mendel (1998): Crisp acts, fuzzy decisions. In S. Barro et al., eds.: Advances in Fuzzy Logic. Universidad de Santiago de Compostela; pp. 219–238.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    J. Montero, J. Tejada and V. Cutello (1997): A general model for deriving preference structures from data. European Journal of Operational Research 98: 98–110.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    G.J. Myers (1979): The Art of Software Testing. Wiley.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    T. Nipkow, L.C. Paulson and M. Wenzel (2002): Isabelle/HOL - A Proof Assistant for Higer-Order Logic. Springer.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    G. Owen (1982): Game Theory. Academic Press.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    S. Owre, N. Shankar, J.M. Rushby and D.W.J. Stringer-Calvert (2001): PVS System Guide. SRI International.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    P.K. Pattanaik (1971): Voting and Collecive Choice. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    B. Roy (1993): Decision sciences or decision aid sciences, European Journal of Operational Research 66:184–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    A.K. Sen (1970): Collective Choice and Social Welfare. Holden-Day, San Francisco.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    G. Shafer (1986): Savage revisited. Statistical Science 1:463–501.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    W.T. Trotter (1992): Dimension Theory. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    J. Yáñez and J. Montero (1999): A poset dimension algorithm, Journal of Algorithms 30:185–208.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    L.A. Zadeh (1965): Fuzzy Sets, Information and Control 8:338–353.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    L.A. Zadeh (1971): Similarity relations and fuzzy orderings. Informations Sciences 3:177–200.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations