Dominance-Based Rough Set Approach to Preference Learning from Pairwise Comparisons in Case of Decision under Uncertainty

  • Salvatore Greco
  • Benedetto Matarazzo
  • Roman Słowiński
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6178)

Abstract

We deal with preference learning from pairwise comparisons, in case of decision under uncertainty, using a new rough set model based on stochastic dominance applied to a pairwise comparison table. For the sake of simplicity we consider the case of traditional additive probability distribution over the set of states of the world; however, the model is rich enough to handle non-additive probability distributions, and even qualitative ordinal distributions. The rough set approach leads to a representation of decision maker’s preferences under uncertainty in terms of “if..., then...” decision rules induced from rough approximations of sets of exemplary decisions. An example of such decision rule is “if act a is at least strongly preferred to act a′ with probability at least 30%, and a is at least weakly preferred to act a′ with probability at least 60%, then act a is at least as good as act a′.

Keywords

Decision under uncertainty Dominance-based Rough Set Approach Pairwise Comparison Table Decision rules Preference learning 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Allais, M.: Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque; critique des postulats et axioms de l’école américaine. Econometrica 21, 503–546 (1953)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Artzner, P., Delbaen, F., Eber, J., Heath, D.: Coherent measures of risk. Mathematical Finance 9, 203–228 (1999)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borgonovo, E., Peccati, L.: Financial management in inventory problems: risk averse vs risk neutral policies. International Journal of Production Economics 118, 233–242 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ellsberg, D.: Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics 75, 643–669 (1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Epstein, L., Marinacci, M., Seo, K.: Coarse contingencies and ambiguity. Theoretical Economics 2, 355–394 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fishburn, P.: SSB utility theory and decision-making under uncertainty. Mathematical Social Sciences 8, 253–285 (1984)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fishburn, P.: Nonlinear Preferences and Utility Theory. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (1988)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fishburn, P.: Non-transitive measurable utility for decision under uncertainty. Journal of Mathematical Economics 18(2), 187–207 (1989)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ghirardato, P., Marinacci, M., Maccheroni, F.: Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude. Journal of Economic Theory 118, 133–173 (2004)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gilboa, I., Schmeidler, D.: Maxmin expected utility with a non-unique prior. Journal of Mathematical Economics 18, 141–153 (1989)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Słowiński, R.: Rough approximation of a preference relation by dominance relations. European Journal of Operational Research 117, 63–83 (1999)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Słowiński, R.: The use of rough sets and fuzzy sets in MCDM. In: Gal, T., Stewart, T., Hanne, T. (eds.) Advances in Multiple Criteria Decision Making, ch. 14, pp. 14.1–14.59. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Słowiński, R.: Rough set approach to decisions under risk. In: Ziarko, W.P., Yao, Y. (eds.) RSCTC 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2005, pp. 160–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Słowiński, R.: Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 129, 1–47 (2001)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Słowiński, R.: Decision rule approach. In: Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M. (eds.) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, ch. 13, pp. 507–562. Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Słowiński, R.: Dominance-based rough set approach to decision under uncertainty and time preference. Annals of Operations Research 176, 41–75 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kahnemann, D., Tversky, A.: Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47, 263–291 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kreps, D.M.: A representation theorem for “preference for flexibility”. Econometrica 47, 565–577 (1979)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Loomes, G., Sudgen, R.: Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Economic Journal 92, 805–824 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marinacci, M., Montrucchio, L.: Introduction to the mathematics of ambiguity. In: Gilboa, I. (ed.) Uncertainty in Economic Theory: a collection of essays in honor of David Schmeidlers 65th birthday, pp. 46–107. Routledge, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pawlak, Z.: Rough Sets. Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Data. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1991)MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Savage, L.: The Foundations of Statistics. Wiley, New York (1954)MATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schmeidler, D.: Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity. Econometrica 57, 571–587 (1989)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Słowiński, R., Greco, S., Matarazzo, B.: Mining decision-rule preference model from rough approximation of preference relation. In: Proc. 26th IEEE Annual Int. Conference on Computer Software & Applications (COMPSAC 2002), Oxford, pp. 1129–1134 (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Słowiński, R., Greco, S., Matarazzo, B.: Rough set based decision support. In: Burke, E., Kendall, G. (eds.) Search Methodologies: Introductory Tutorials in Optimization and Decision Support Techniques, ch. 16, pp. 475–527. Springer, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Starmer, C.: Developments in nonexpected utility theory: the hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of Economic Literature 38, 332–382 (2000)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    von Neumann, J., Morgenstern, O.: The Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour, 2nd edn. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton (1947)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Salvatore Greco
    • 1
  • Benedetto Matarazzo
    • 1
  • Roman Słowiński
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of EconomicsUniversity of CataniaCataniaItaly
  2. 2.Institute of Computing SciencePoznań University of TechnologyPoznań
  3. 3.Institute for Systems ResearchPolish Academy of SciencesWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations