Top

Published in:

2019 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

New Trends in Preference, Utility, and Choice: From a Mono-approach to a Multi-approach

Author : Alfio Giarlotta

Published in: New Perspectives in Multiple Criteria Decision Making

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

We give an overview of some new trends in preference modeling, utility representation, and choice rationalization. Several recent contributions on these topics point in the same direction: the use of multiple tools—may they be binary relations, utility functions, or rationales explaining a choice behavior—in place of a single one, in order to more faithfully model economic phenomena. In this stream of research, the two traditional tenets of economic rationality, completeness and transitivity, are partially (and naturally) given up. Here we describe some recent approaches of this kind, namely: (1) utility representations having multiple orderings as a codomain, (2) multi-utility and modal utility representations, (3) a finer classifications of preference structures and forms of choice rationalizability by means of generalized Ferrers properties, (4) a descriptive characterization of all semiorders in terms of shifted types of lexicographic products, (5) bi-preference structures, and, in particular, necessary and possible preferences, (6) simultaneous and sequential multi-rationalizations of choices, and (7) multiple, iterated, and hierarchical resolutions of choice spaces. As multiple criteria decision analysis provides broader models to better fit reality, so does a multi-approach to preference, utility, and choice. The overall goal of this survey is to suggest the naturalness of this general setting, as well as its advantages over the classical mono-approach.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

next chapter Analytic Hierarchy Process and Its Extensions

Available only for authorised users

Notice that, since x and y are distinct, this formulation of completeness does not imply reflexivity.

See Sect. 3.3 of this survey for a discussion on this point in relation to the so-called (m, n)-Ferrers properties.

In case \(\succsim \) is complete, then the following statements are equivalent: (i) \(\succsim \) is quasi-transitive; (ii) for each \(x,y,z \in X\), \(x \succ y \succsim z\) implies \(x \succsim z\); (iii) for each \(x,y,z \in X\), \(x \succsim y \succ z\) implies \(x \succsim z\).

We follow the approach described in Bouyssou and Pirlot (2004), defining all traces in terms of weak sections, instead of defining strict traces first and then deriving weak traces. The difference is immaterial whenever dealing with complete and quasi-transitive preferences, in particular for interval orders and semiorders. Notice also that the notion of global trace has been recently revised from a different perspective, and renamed transitive core (Nishimura 2018).

The literature also examines weaker forms of representability of a single binary relation, e.g., the existence of (continuous, semicontinuous) Richter-Peleg utility functions (Alcantud et al. 2016; Peleg 1970; Richter 1966). We shall deal with this topic in Sect. 4.3, where we also discuss some shortcomings of this notion, and introduce multi-utility representations.

A set \(Y \subseteq X\) is weakly order-dense in X if, for each \(x_1,x_2 \in X\) such that \(x_1 \succ x_2\), there is \(y \in Y\) with the property that \(x_1 \succsim y \succsim x_2\). Such a set is often called Debreu order-dense, and the existence of a countable Debreu order-dense is referred to as Debreu-separability (Bridges and Mehta 1995).

A jump in an ordered space \((X,\succsim )\) is a pair \((a,b) \in X^2\) such that \(a \succ b\) and there is no point \(c \in X\) such that \(a \succ c \succ b\). The topology \(\tau _\succsim \) is the order topology induced by \(\succsim \). The topological space \((X,\tau _\succsim )\) is separable if it contains a countable set D that intersects each nonempty open set. See Munkres (2000) for topological notions.

This is not the terminology originally used by the authors.

An ordinal is a well-ordered set \((X,<)\) such that each \(x \in X\) is equal to its initial segment \(\{y \in X : y < x\}\). The finite ordinals are the natural numbers. The first infinite ordinal is the set \(\omega _0\) of all natural numbers, endowed with the usual order. The first uncountable ordinal is the set \(\omega _1\) of all countable ordinals, endowed with the natural order. The famous continuum hypothesis, formulated by George Cantor in 1878, says that the cardinality of \({\mathbb R}\) is equal to \(\omega _1\) (as a cardinal). In 1963, Paul Cohen proved that the continuum hypothesis is independent from the axioms of ZFC (Zermelo-Fraenkel axiomatic set theory, plus the Axiom of Choice), in sense that there are models in which it is true, and models in which it is false (because \(\vert {\mathbb R}\vert > \omega _1\) holds). See the classical textbook by Kunen (1980) for ZFC axiomatic set theory.

Here we use the notion of continuity employed in some standard textbooks in microeconomic theory, such as Mas-Colell et al. (1995, p. 46). Other authors sometimes employ a weaker notion of continuity: see, e.g., Sect. 1.6 of Bridges and Mehta (1995). However, from the point of view of applications, the distinction between the various notions of continuity is often immaterial. See also Evren and Ok (2011, p. 555), and Gerasímou (2013, pp. 2–3).

Herden and Pallack (2002) provide a very simple counterexample to the equivalence between continuity and bi-semicontinuity for incomplete preferences: in fact, they show that the relation of equality is a bi-semicontinuous non-continuous preorder in any topological space that is \(T_1\) but not Hausdorff. On the topic, see also Gerasímou (2013), who characterizes continuity in terms of closed semicontinuity and a property of “local expansion” of transitivity (Theorem 1 in Gerasímou (2013)).

The literature on choice theory also consider other types of domains, e.g., for the case of choices arising from consumer demand theory. For the sake of simplicity, here we limit our analysis to the case in which \(\varOmega \) satisfies some rather mild closure properties (see Cantone et al. (2016), Eliaz and Ok (2006) for a justification of this assumption).

Selected items are underlined: thus, \(\underline{x}\,y\,z\) means \(c(\{x,y,z\}) = \{x\}\), \(\underline{y}\,\underline{z}\) means \(c(\{y,z\}) = \{y,z\}\), etc. Notice that, by the very definition of a choice correspondence, we always have \(c(\{a\}) = \{a\}\) for each \(a \in X\): thus, it suffices to indicate how choices are defined for menus of size at least two.

By a “divide and conquer” manner, we mean: the menu is split up into smaller sets, a choice is made over each of these sets, the selected items are collected, and finally a choice is made from them.

We should also distinguish between purely ordinal codomains, and those which also have an algebraic structure. Among the latter, let us mention (without getting into details) representations that employ non-Archimedean ordered fields, introduced by Narens (1985).

See Kunen (1980) for the undefined notions of regular cardinal and Souslin line.

The canonical completion of an asymmetric relation transforms incomparability into indifference.

The transitive closure of a binary relation \(\succsim \) is the smallest transitive relation \(\succsim _{\mathrm {tc}}\) containing \(\succsim \).

The dimension of a strict semiorder \(\succ \) is the least number of strict linear orders whose intersection gives \(\succ \).

This is a work in progress (Giarlotta and Watson 2018c).

The strict Ferrers property and the strict semitransitive property are respectively defined exactly as the Ferrers property and the semitransitive property in Definition 2.2, with \(\succ \) in place of \(\succsim \).

A linear continuum is a linear ordering with the properties that (i) every nonempty subset with an upper bound has a least upper bound, and (ii) for every pair of distinct elements, we can always find another element strictly in between them.

For some recent examples of this approach, see Hansson (1993) and Rabinowicz (2008).

On the other hand, Schick (1986) and McClennen (1990) argue against the possibility of a money-pump phenomenon, observing that, after transactions between indifferent alternatives, an economic agent may well refuse a transaction between strictly preferred alternatives. However, as Piper (2014) notes, the above solutions are based on the (unlikely) circumstance that the economic agent remembers the past and accordingly plans the future.

For the formal notion of the transitive coherence of two binary relations, see Sect. 4.1 on bi-preferences.

According to the notation employed in Definition 2.14, we should denote these choice space by \((2^X,c_X)\). However, for the sake of simplicity, here we prefer to use the more direct notation \((X,c_X)\).

Two choice spaces \((X,c_X)\) and \((W,c_W)\) are isomorphic if there exists a bijection \(\sigma :X \rightarrow W\) that preserves the choice structure, i.e., the equality \(\sigma (c_X(A)) = c_W(\sigma (A))\) holds for each menu \(A \in 2^X\).

Contractibility is a form of “outer indiscernibility”, in the sense that a contractible menu cannot be distinguished from outside, but it typically has an internally distinguishable structure. In fact, contractibility is a weaker version of revealed indiscernibility, introduced by Cantone et al. (2018b) in the process of dealing with congruence relations (i.e., structure-preserving equivalence relations) on a choice space.

A menu is proper if it contains more than one item and is different from the ground set.

This notion was originally introduced by Giarlotta and Greco (2013) under the name of partial NaP-preference. Here we switch to a simpler and more agile terminology, which allows us to qualify special types of bi-preferences, such as “uniform”, “monotonic”, “comonotonic”, etc. (see later in this section).

The philosophy underlying this distinction will be used again in dealing with (1) simultaneous and sequential multi-rationalizations (Sect. 4.4), and (2) multiple and iterated resolutions (Sect. 4.5).

A choice is replaceable if the consistency properties \((\alpha )\) and \((\rho )\) hold for it.

Configurations (2)\('\), (M2)\('\), and (M3)\('\) are dual to, respectively, (2), (M2), and (M3).

This procedure is reminiscent of the rational shortlist method, a bounded rationality approach to individual choice recently introduced by Manzini and Mariotti (2007). However, in the latter case, the two sequential rationales need not be nested one inside the other, and they fail in general to be transitively coherent. On the point, see Sect. 4.4 of this survey.

Configurations (2)\('\), (C2)\('\), and (C3)\('\) are dual to, respectively, (2), (C2), and (C3).

Cf. with the notion of continuity given in Sect. 2.3.

In fact, Giarlotta and Watson (2018b) constructively characterize strongly comonotonic bi-preferences as those that can be obtained from simpler types of bi-preferences by an operation of resolution (Resolutions of preference structures do have the same flavor as the operation of choice resolution described in Sect. 3.5.).

The Axiom of Choice (AC) is needed in the proof of Theorem 4.9 to apply Zorn’s Lemma in the case of an uncountable ground set X.

See Footnote 6.

A square matrix is bi-stochastic if (i) all of its entries are non-negative, and (ii) all the row and column sums are equal to one.

Meet-semilattice means that \(\left( \textsf {NaP}(X),\sqsubseteq \right) \) is a poset, and for each \(\left( \succsim ^N_1, \succsim ^P_1\right) ,\left( \succsim ^N_2, \succsim ^P_2\right) \in \textsf {NaP}(X)\), there is a greatest element \(\left( \succsim ^N_3, \succsim ^P_3\right) \) in \(\textsf {NaP}(X)\) such that \(\left( \succsim ^N_3, \succsim ^P_3\right) \sqsubseteq \left( \succsim ^N_1, \succsim ^P_1\right) \) and \(\left( \succsim ^N_3, \succsim ^P_3\right) \sqsubseteq \left( \succsim ^N_2, \succsim ^P_2\right) \).

For the notions of trapezoidal and quasi-trapezoidal profiles, as well as for their canonical representations by means of quadruples of real numbers in \([-1,1]\), see Sect. 2.3 in Alcantud et al. (2018).

See also Ok (2002, Theorem 3) and Mandler (2006, Theorem 1) for the existence of special multi-utility representations under suitable order-separability conditions.

This type of representation has already been mentioned: see (3) in Sect. 4.2.

A quasi-choice function on X is a map \(c :\varOmega \rightarrow \varOmega \cup \{\emptyset \}\) such that \(c(A) \subseteq A\) and \(0 \le \vert c(A)\vert \le 1\) for all \(A \in \varOmega \). Thus, the agent selects either a single item or no item at all from each menu. Similarly, a quasi-choice correspondence on X is a map \(c :\varOmega \rightarrow \varOmega \cup \{\emptyset \}\) such that \(c(A) \subseteq A\) and \(0 \le \vert c(A)\vert \le \vert A \vert \) for all \(A \in \varOmega \).

In order to avoid dealing with the theory of infinite cardinals, we limit our analysis to case (1a), that is, we assume that the ground set X is finite.

“Luce and Raiffa’s dinner” mentioned in the quotation below will be described in Example 4.35.

It is worth noticing that this is exactly the same underlying philosophy which has inspired those MCDA methodologies that limit comparisons to few points of view a time: the prototype of such an approach is the Pairwise Criterion Comparison Approach (PCCA), originally developed by Matarazzo (1986, 1988a, b, 1990a, b, 1991a, b) and later on by his followers Angilella and Giarlotta (2009); Angilella et al. (2010a), Giarlotta (1998, 2001), Greco (1997, 2005).

This issue is connected to the problem of the lifting of choices having certain properties: see Cantone et al. (2017) for the general formulation of the problem and its logic-theoretic analysis in some special cases.

Somehow in between approaches (8a) and (8b) lies the very interesting model constructed by Cherepanov et al. (2013), who provide a general framework for a formal and testable theory of rationalization, in which a decision maker selects her preferred alternative from among those that she can rationalize.

A very surprising answer to a closely related question is given by Mandler, Manzini, and Mariotti (2012). In their paper, the authors show that “fast and frugal” sequential procedures are not incompatible with utility maximization. In fact, two rather unexpected facts hold: (1) any agent who uses the benchmark model of quickly-executing checklists always has a utility function, and (2) any utility maximizer can make decisions with a quickly-executing checklist (under suitable conditions on the domain). In Mandler et al.’s (2012) words: “Checklists are a fast and frugal way to maximize utility.”

Agaev, R., & Aleskerov, F. (1993). Interval choice: Classic and general cases. Mathematical Social Sciences, 26, 249–272.CrossRef

Alcantud, J. C. R., de Andrés, R., & Torrecillas, M. J. M. (2016). Hesitant fuzzy worth: An innovative ranking methodology for hesitant fuzzy subsets. Applied Soft Computing, 38, 232–243.CrossRef

Alcantud, J. C. R., Biondo, A. E., & Giarlotta, A. (2018). Fuzzy politics I: The genesis of parties. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 349, 71–98.CrossRef

Alcantud, J. C. R., Bosi, G., & Zuanon, M. (2016). Richter-Peleg multi-utility representations of preorders. Theory and Decision, 80(3), 443–450.CrossRef

Alcantud, J. C. R., & Giarlotta, A. (2019). Necessary and possible hesitant fuzzy sets: A novel model for group decision making. Information Fusion, 46, 63–76.CrossRef

Aleskerov, F., Bouyssou, D., & Monjardet, B. (2007). Utility maximization, choice and preference. Berlin: Springer.

Angilella, S., Bottero, M., Corrente, S., Ferretti, V., Greco, S., & Lami, I. (2016). Non additive robust ordinal regression for urban and territorial planning: An application for siting an urban waste landfill. Annals of Operations Research, 245(1), 427–456.CrossRef

Angilella, S., Catalfo, P., Corrente, S., Giarlotta, A., Greco, S., & Rizzo, M. (2018). Robust sustainable development assessment with composite indices aggregating interacting dimensions: The hierarchical-SMAA-Choquet integral approach. Knowledge-Based Systems, 158, 136–153.CrossRef

Angilella, S., Corrente, S., Greco, S., & Słowiński, R. (2014). MUSA-INT: Multicriteria customer satisfaction analysis with interacting criteria. Omega, 42(1), 189–200.CrossRef

Angilella, S., Corrente, S., Greco, S., & Słowiński, R. (2016). Robust ordinal regression and stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis in multiple criteria hierarchy process for the Choquet integral preference model. Omega, 63, 154–169.CrossRef

Angilella, S., & Giarlotta, A. (2009). Implementations of PACMAN. European Journal of Operational Research, 194, 474–495.CrossRef

Angilella, S., Giarlotta, A., & Lamantia, F. (2010a). A linear implementation of PACMAN. European Journal of Operational Research, 205, 401–411.

Angilella, S., Greco, S., & Matarazzo, B. (2010b). Non-additive robust ordinal regression: A multiple criteria decision model based on the Choquet integral. European Journal of Operational Research, 201(1), 277–288.

Apesteguía, J., & Ballester, M. A. (2009). A theory of reference-dependent behavior. Economic Theory, 40, 427–455.CrossRef

Apesteguía, J., & Ballester, M. A. (2013). Choice by sequential procedures. Games and Economic Behavior, 77, 90–99.CrossRef

Armstrong, W. E. (1939). The determinateness of the utility function. The Economic Journal, 49(195), 453–467.CrossRef

Arrow, K. J. (1959). Rational choice functions and orderings. Economica, 26, 121–127.CrossRef

Arrow, K. J. (1963). Social choice and individual values. New York: Wiley.

Anscombe, F. J., & Aumann, R. J. (1963). A definition of subjective probability. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 34(1), 199–295.CrossRef

Atanassov, K. T. (1986). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 20, 87–96.CrossRef

Atanassov, K. T. (1999). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Theory and applications. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Vol. 35. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.

Au, P. H., & Kawai, K. (2011). Sequentially rationalizable choice with transitive rationales. Games and Economic Behavior, 73(2), 608–614.CrossRef

Aumann, R. J. (1962). Utility theory without the completeness axiom. Econometrica, 30, 445–462.CrossRef

Bade, S. (2005). Nash equilibrium in games with incomplete preferences. Economic Theory, 26, 309–332.CrossRef

Bandyopadhyay, T., & Sengupta, K. (1991). Revealed preference axioms for rational choice. The Economic Journal, 101(405), 202–213.CrossRef

Bandyopadhyay, T., & Sengupta, K. (1993). Characterization of generalized weak orders and revealed preference. Economic Theory, 3, 571–576.CrossRef

Beardon, A. F., Candeal, J. C., Herden, G., Induráin, E., & Mehta, G. B. (2002a). The non-existence of a utility function and the structure of non-representable preference relations. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 37, 17–38.

Beardon, A. F., Candeal, J. C., Herden, G., Induráin, E., & Mehta, G. B. (2002b). Lexicographic decomposition of chains and the concept of a planar chain. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 37(2), 95–104.

Beja, A., & Gilboa, I. (1992). Numerical representations of imperfectly ordered preferences. A unified geometric exposition. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 36, 426–449.CrossRef

Bell, D. E. (1982). Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Operation Research, 30(5), 961–981.CrossRef

Bewley, T. F. (1972). Existence of equilibria in economies with infinitely many commodities. Journal of Economic Theory, 4, 514–540.CrossRef

Bewley, T. F. (1986). Knightian decision theory. Part I: Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper No. 807. (Reprinted in 2002, Decisions in Economics and Finance, 25(2), 79–110).

Birkhoff, G. (1948). Lattice theory. American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publication, Vol. 25. Providence, RI.

Blackorby, C., & Donaldson, D. (1977). Utility vs equity: Some plausible quasi-orderings. Journal of Public Economics, 7, 365–381.CrossRef

Bleichrodt, H., & Wakker, P. P. (2015). Regret theory: A bold alternative to the alternatives. The Economic Journal, 125, 493–532.CrossRef

Bosi, G., Candeal, J. C., Induráin, E., Olóriz, E., & Zudaire, M. (2001). Numerical representations of interval orders. Order, 18, 171–190.CrossRef

Bosi, G., & Herden, G. (2012). Continuous multi-utility representations of preorders. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 48, 212–218.CrossRef

Bossert, W. (1999). Intersection quasi-orderings: An alternative proof. Order, 16(3), 221–225.CrossRef

Bouyssou, D., & Pirlot, M. (2004). Preferences for multi-attributed alternatives: Traces, dominance, and numerical representations. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 48(3), 167–185.CrossRef

Bridges, D., & Mehta, G. B. (1995). Representations of preference orderings. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, Vol. 422. Berlin: Springer.

Campión, M. J., Candeal, J. C., & Induráin, E. (2006). The existence of utility functions for weakly continuous preferences on a Banach space. Mathematical Social Sciences, 51, 227–237.CrossRef

Campión, M. J., Candeal, J. C., Induráin, E., & Zudaire, M. (2008). Continuous representability of semiorders. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 52, 48–54.CrossRef

Candeal, J. C., & Induráin, E. (1999). Lexicographic behavior of chains. Archiv der Mathematik, 72, 145–152.CrossRef

Candeal, J. C., & Induráin, E. (2010). Semiorders and thresholds of utility discrimination: Solving the Scott-Suppes representability problem. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 54, 485–490.CrossRef

Candeal, J. C., Estevan, A., Gutiérrez García, J., & Induráin, E. (2012). Semiorders with separability properties. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56, 444–451.CrossRef

Cantone, D., Giarlotta, A., Greco, S., & Watson, S. (2016). \((m, n)\)-rationalizability. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 73, 12–27.CrossRef

Cantone, D., Giarlotta, A., & Watson, S. (2017). The satisfiability for Boolean set theory with a choice correspondence. In Proceedings of the Eight International Symposium on Games, Automata, Logics and Formal Verification (GandALF 2017), Rome, Italy, 20–22 September.

Cantone, D., Giarlotta, A., & Watson, S. (2018a). Decomposing choice behavior: One-point resolutions. Mimeo: University of Catania.

Cantone, D., Giarlotta, A., & Watson, S. (2018b). Congruence relations on a choice space. Social Choice and Welfare (forthcoming). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-018-1146-0.

Cantone, D., Giarlotta, A., & Watson, S. (2018c). Multi-rationalizability. Mimeo: University of Catania.

Cantor, G. (1895). Beiträge zur begründung der transfinite mengenlehre. Mathematische Annalen, 46, 481–512.CrossRef

Caserta, A., Giarlotta, A., & Watson, S. (2006). On resolutions of linearly ordered spaces. Applied General Topology, 7(2), 211–231.CrossRef

Caserta, A., Giarlotta, A., & Watson, S. (2008). Debreu-like properties of utility representations. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 44, 1161–1179.CrossRef

Cerreia-Vioglio, S., Giarlotta, A., Greco, S., Maccheroni, F., & Marinacci, M. (2018). Rational preference and rationalizable choice. Economic Theory (forthcoming).

Chambers, C. P., & Echenique, F. (2016). Revealed preference theory. Econometric Society Monographs. Cambridge University Press.

Chambers, C. P., & Miller, A. D. (2018). Benchmarking. Theoretical Economics, 11, 485–504.CrossRef

Cherepanov, V., Feddersen, T., & Sandroni, A. (2013). Razionalization. Theoretical Economics, 8, 775–800.CrossRef

Chernoff, H. (1954). Rational selection of decision functions. Econometrica, 22, 422–443.CrossRef

Chipman, J. S. (1960). The foundations of utility. Econometrica, 28, 193–224.CrossRef

Chipman, J. S. (1971). On the lexicographic representations of preference orderings. In J. S. Chipman, L. Hurwicz, M. Richter, & H. F. Sonnenschein (Eds.), Preference, utility and demand (pp. 276–288). New York: Harcourt Brace and Jovanovich.

Corrente, S., Greco, S., Kadziński, M., & Słowiński, R. (2013). Robust ordinal regression in preference learning and ranking. Machine Learning, 93(2–3), 381–422.CrossRef

Corrente, S., Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., & Słowiński, R. (2016). Robust ordinal regression for decision under risk and uncertainty. Journal of Business Economics, 86(1), 55–83.CrossRef

Corrente, S., Greco, S., & Słowiński, R. (2012). Multiple criteria hierarchy process in robust ordinal regression. Decision Support Systems, 53(3), 660–674.CrossRef

Corrente, S., Greco, S., & Słowiński, R. (2013). Multiple criteria hierarchy process with ELECTRE and PROMETHEE. Omega, 41(5), 820–846.CrossRef

Corrente, S., Greco, S., & Słowiński, R. (2016). Multiple criteria hierarchy process for ELECTRE Tri methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 252(1), 191–203.CrossRef

Danan, E. (2010). Randomization vs. selection: How to choose in the absence of preference? Management Science, 56, 503–518.CrossRef

Davidson, D., McKinsey, J. C., & Suppes, P. (1955). Outlines of a formal theory of value, I. Philosophy of Science, 22(2), 140–160.CrossRef

Davis-Stober, C., Doignon, J.-P., Fiorini, S., Glineur, F., & Regenwetter, M. (2018). Extended formulations for order polytopes through network flows. Journal of Mathematical Psychology (forthcoming).

Debreu, G. (1954). Representation of a preference ordering by a numerical function. In R. M. Thrall, C. H. Coombs, & R. L. Davies (Eds.), Decision processes (pp. 159–166). New York: Wiley.

Debreu, G. (1964). Continuity properties of Paretian utility. International Economic Review, 5, 285–293.CrossRef

Diamond, P. A. (1965). The evaluation of infinite utility streams. Econometrica, 33, 70–77.CrossRef

Doignon, J.-P., & Falmagne, J.-C. (1997). Well-graded families of relations. Discrete Mathematics, 173, 35–44.CrossRef

Doignon, J.-P., & Falmagne, J.-C. (1999). Knowledge spaces. Berlin: Springer.CrossRef

Del Vasto-Terrientes, L., Valls, A., Słowiński, R., & Zielniewicz, P. (2015). ELECTRE-III-H: An outranking-based decision aiding method for hierarchically structured criteria. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(11), 4910–4926.CrossRef

Del Vasto-Terrientes, L., Valls, A., Zielniewicz, P., & Borras, J. (2016). A hierarchical multi-criteria sorting approach for recommender systems. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 46(2), 313–346.CrossRef

Donaldson, D., & Weymark, J. A. (1998). A quasi-ordering is the intersection of orderings. Journal of Economic Theory, 78, 382–387.CrossRef

Dubra, J., Maccheroni, F., & Ok, E. A. (2004). Expected utility theory without the completeness axiom. Journal of Economic Theory, 115, 118–133.CrossRef

Dushnik, B., & Miller, E. W. (1941). Partially ordered sets. American Journal of Mathematics, 63, 600–610.CrossRef

Eilenberg, S. (1941). Ordered topological spaces. American Journal of Mathematics, 63, 39–45.CrossRef

Eliaz, K., & Ok, E. A. (2006). Indifference or indecisiveness? Choice-theoretic foundations of incomplete preferences. Games and Economic Behavior, 56, 61–86.CrossRef

Estévez, M., & Hervés, C. (1995). On the existence of continuous preference orderings without utility representations. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 24, 305–309.CrossRef

Evren, O. (2014). Scalarization methods and expected multi-utility representations. Journal of Economic Theory, 151, 30–63.CrossRef

Evren, O., & Ok, E. A. (2011). On the multi-utility representation of preference relations. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 47, 554–563.CrossRef

Falmagne, J.-C. (1996). A stochastic theory for the emergence and the evolution of preference relations. Mathematical Social Sciences, 31, 63–84.CrossRef

Falmagne, J.-C. (1997). Stochastic token theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 41(2), 129–143.CrossRef

Falmagne, J.-C., & Doignon, J.-P. (1997). Stochastic evolution of rationality. Theory and Decisions, 43(2), 107–138.CrossRef

Falmagne, J.-C., & Doignon, J.-P. (2011). Learning spaces. Berlin: Springer.CrossRef

Fechner, G. T. (1860). Elemente der Psychophysik. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, tome I.

Fedorcuk, V. V. (1968). Bicompacta with noncoinciding dimensionalities. Soviet Mathematics Doklady, 9(5), 1148–1150.

Fishburn, P. C. (1968). Semiorders and risky choices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 5, 358–361.CrossRef

Fishburn, P. C. (1970). Intransitive indifference with unequal indifference intervals. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 7, 144–149.CrossRef

Fishburn, P. C. (1973a). The theory of social choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Fishburn, P. C. (1973b). Interval representations for interval orders and semiorders. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 10, 91–105.

Fishburn, P. C. (1974). Lexicographic orders, utilities and decision rules. Management Science, 20, 1442–1471.CrossRef

Fishburn, P. C. (1975). Semiorders and choice functions. Econometrica, 43, 975–977.CrossRef

Fishburn, P. C. (1982). Nontransitive measurable utility. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 26(1), 31–67.CrossRef

Fishburn, P. C. (1985). Interval orders and interval graphs. New York: Wiley.CrossRef

Fishburn, P. C. (1997). Generalisations of semiorders: A review note. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 41(4), 357–366.CrossRef

Fishburn, P. C., & Monjardet, B. (1992). Norbert Wiener on the theory of measurement (1914, 1915, 1921). Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 36, 165–184.CrossRef

Fleischer, I. (1961). Numerical representation of utility. Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 9(1), 147–150.

Fleischer, I. (1961). Embedding linearly ordered sets in real lexicographic products. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 49, 147–150.CrossRef

Fujimoto, K., Murofushi, T., & Sugeno, M. (1998). Canonical hierarchical decomposition of Choquet integral over finite set with respect to null additive fuzzy measure. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 6(4), 345–363.CrossRef

García-Sanz, M., & Alcantud, J. C. R. (2015). Sequential rationalization of multivalued choice. Mathematical Social Sciences, 74, 29–33.CrossRef

Gensemer, S. H. (1987). Continuous semiorder representations. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 16, 275–286.CrossRef

Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1936). The pure theory of consumer’s behaviour. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 545–593.

Gerasímou, G. (2013). On continuity of incomplete preferences. Social Choice and Welfare, 41, 157–167.CrossRef

Ghirardato, P., Maccheroni, F., & Marinacci, M. (2004). Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude. Journal of Economic Theory, 118, 133–173.CrossRef

Ghirardato, P., Maccheroni, F., Marinacci, M., & Siniscalchi, M. (2003). A subjective spin on roulette wheels. Econometrica, 71, 1897–1908.CrossRef

Giarlotta, A. (1998). Passive and active compensability multicriteria analysis (PACMAN). Journal of Multicriteria Decision Analysis, 7(4), 204–216.CrossRef

Giarlotta, A. (2001). Multicriteria compensability analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 133, 190–209.CrossRef

Giarlotta, A., (2004a). Lexicographic products of linear orderings. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana.

Giarlotta, A. (2004b). Representable lexicographic products. Order, 21, 29–41.

Giarlotta, A. (2005). The representability number of a chain. Topology and its Applications, 150, 157–177.CrossRef

Giarlotta, A. (2014). A genesis of interval orders and semiorders: Transitive NaP-preferences. Order, 31, 239–258.CrossRef

Giarlotta, A. (2015). Normalized and strict NaP-preferences. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 66, 34–40.CrossRef

Giarlotta, A., & Greco, S. (2013). Necessary and possible preference structures. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 42(1), 163–172.CrossRef

Giarlotta, A., & Watson, S. (2009). Pointwise Debreu lexicographic powers. Order, 26(4), 377–409.CrossRef

Giarlotta, A., & Watson, S. (2013). A hierarchy of chains embeddable into the lexicographic power \({\mathbb{R}}^\omega _{\rm lex}\). Order, 30, 463–485.CrossRef

Giarlotta, A., & Watson, S. (2014a). The pseudo-transitivity of preference relations: Strict and weak \((m, n)\)-Ferrers properties. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 58, 45–54.

Giarlotta, A., & Watson, S. (2014b). Lexicographic preferences representable by real-branching trees with countable height: A dichotomy result. Indagationes Mathematicae, 25, 78–92.

Giarlotta, A., & Watson, S. (2016). Universal semiorders. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 73, 80–93.CrossRef

Giarlotta, A., & Watson, S. (2017a). Well-graded families of NaP-preferences. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 77, 21–28.

Giarlotta, A., & Watson, S. (2017b). Necessary and possible indifferences. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 81, 98–109.

Giarlotta, A., & Watson, S. (2018a). Strict \((m, 1)\)-Ferrers properties. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 82, 84–96.

Giarlotta, A., & Watson, S. (2018b). A general theory of bi-preferences. Mimeo: University of Catania.

Giarlotta, A., & Watson, S. (2018c). A descriptive classification of universal semiorders. Mimeo: University of Catania.

Giarlotta, A., & Watson, S. (2018d). Benchmarking: revisited, extended, and generalized. Mimeo: University of Catania.

Giarlotta, A., & Watson, S. (2019). On the interplay between the two rationality tenets: extending Schmeidler’s theorem to bi-preferences. Mimeo: University of Catania.

Gilboa, I., Maccheroni, F., Marinacci, M., & Schmeidler, D. (2010). Objective and subjective rationality in a multiple prior model. Econometrica, 78(2), 755–770.CrossRef

Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (1989). Maxmin expected utility with a non-unique prior. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 18, 141–153.CrossRef

Greco, S. (1997). A new PCCA method: IDRA. European Journal of Operational Research, 98, 587–601.CrossRef

Greco, S. (Ed.). (2005). Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys., International Series in Operations Research & Management Science Berlin: Springer.

Greco, S., Mousseau, V., & Słowiński, R. (2008). Ordinal regression revisited: Multiple criteria ranking with a set of additive value functions. European Journal of Operational Research, 191, 415–435.CrossRef

Greco, S., Ehrgott, M., & Figueira, J. (Eds.). (2010a). Trends in multiple criteria decision analysis., International Series in Operations Research & Management Science Berlin: Springer.

Greco, S., Mousseau, V., & Słowiński, R. (2010b). Multiple criteria sorting with a set of additive value functions. European Journal of Operational Research, 207(3), 1455–1470.

Gustafsson, J. E. (2010). A money-pump for acyclic intransitive preferences. Dialectica, 64(2), 251–257.CrossRef

Halphen, E. (1955). La notion de vraisemblance. Inst. de Statistique de l’Université de Paris.

Hansson, B. (1968). Choice structures and preference relations. Synthese, 18, 443–458.CrossRef

Hansson, S. (1993). Money-pumps, self-torturers and the demons of real life. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 71(4), 476–485.

Herden, G. (1989). On the existence of utility functions. Mathematical Social Sciences, 17, 297–313.CrossRef

Herden, G., & Mehta, G. B. (2004). The Debreu Gap Lemma and some generalizations. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 40, 747–769.CrossRef

Herden, G., & Pallack, A. (2002). On the continuous analogue of the Szpilrajn theorem I. Mathematical Social Sciences, 43, 115–134.CrossRef

Herzberger, H. (1973). Ordinal preference and rational choice. Econometrica, 41(2), 187–237.CrossRef

Hicks, J. (1956). A Revision of Demand Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Houthakker, H. S. (1950). Revealed preference and the utility function. Economica, 17, 159–174.CrossRef

Jaffray, J. (1975a). Existence of a continuous utility function: An elementary proof. Econometrica, 43, 981–983.

Jaffray, J. (1975b). Semicontinuous extension of a partial order. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 2, 395–406.

Jamison, D. T., & Lau, L. J. (1973). Semiorders and the theory of choice. Econometrica, 41, 901–912.CrossRef

Jamison, D. T., & Lau, L. J. (1975). Semiorders and the theory of choice: A correction. Econometrica, 43, 975–977.CrossRef

Jacquet-Lagreze, E., & Siskos, J. (1982). Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision-making, the UTA method. European Journal of Operational Research, 10(2), 151–164.CrossRef

Kalai, G., Rubinstein, A., & Spiegler, R. (2002). Rationalizing choice functions by multiple rationales. Econometrica, 70(6), 2481–2488.CrossRef

Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Kaminski, B. (2007). On quasi-orderings and multi-objective functions. European Journal of Operational Research, 177, 1591–1598.CrossRef

Knoblauch, V. (2000). Lexicographic orders and preference representation. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 34, 255–267.CrossRef

Kopylov, I. (2009). Choice deferral and ambiguity aversion. Theoretical Economics, 4, 199–225.

Krantz, D. H. (1967). Extensive measurement in semiorders. Philosophy of Science, 34, 348–362.CrossRef

Kreps, D. M. (2013). Microeconomics Foundations I: Choice and Competitive Markets. Princeton University Press.

Kuhlmann, S. (1995). Isomorphisms of lexicographic powers of the reals. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 123(9), 2657–2662.CrossRef

Kunen, K. (1980). Set theory. An introduction to independence proofs. North-Holland, Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Lehrer, E., & Teper, R. (2011). Justifiable preferences. Journal of Economic Theory, 146, 762–774.CrossRef

Lehrer, K., & Wagner, C. (1985). Intransitive indifference: The semi-order problem. Synthese, 65, 249–256.CrossRef

Levin, V. (1983). Measurable utility theorems for closed and lexicographic preference relations. Soviet Mathematics Doklady, 27, 639–643.

Levy, G. (2004). A model of political parties. Journal of Economic Theory, 115, 250–277.CrossRef

Lleras, J. S., Masatlioglu, Y., Nakajima, D., & Ozbay, E. Y. (2017). When more is less: Limited consideration. Journal of Economic Theory, 170, 70–85.

Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1982). A rationale for preference reversal. Newcastle Discussion Papers in Economics, 63.

Luce, R. D. (1956). Semiorders and a theory of utility discrimination. Econometrica, 24, 178–191.CrossRef

Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. Wiley.

Luce, R. D., & Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and decisions: Introduction and critical survey. New York: Wiley.

Maccheroni, F. (2004). Yaari’s dual theory without the completeness axiom. Economic Theory, 23, 701–714.CrossRef

Majumdar, M., & Sen, A. (1976). A note on representing partial orderings. Review of Economic Studies, 43, 543–545.CrossRef

Manders, K. L. (1981). On JND representations of semiorders. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 24, 224–248.CrossRef

Mandler, M. (2006). Cardinality versus ordinality: A suggested compromise. American Economic Review, 96, 1114–1136.CrossRef

Mandler, M., Manzini, P., & Mariotti, M. (2012). A million answers to twenty questions: Choosing by checklist. Journal of Economic Theory, 147, 71–92.CrossRef

Manzini, P., & Mariotti, M. (2007). Sequentially rationalizable choice. American Economic Review, 97, 1824–1839.CrossRef

Manzini, P., & Mariotti, M. (2012). Choice by lexicographic semiorders. Theoretical Economics, 7, 1–23.CrossRef

Mas-Colell, A., Whinston, M. D., & Green, J. R. (1995). Microeconomic theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

Masatlioglu, Y., & Nakajima, D. (2013). Choice by iterative search. Theoretical Economics, 8, 701–728.CrossRef

Masatlioglu, Y., Nakajima, D., & Ozbay, E. Y. (2012). Revealed attention. American Economic Review, 102(5), 2183–2205.CrossRef

Masatlioglu, Y., & Ok, E. A. (2005). Rational choice with status quo bias. Journal of Economic Theory, 121, 1–29.CrossRef

Masin, M., & Bukchin, Y. (2008). Diversity maximization approach for multiobjective optimization. Operations Research, 56, 411–424.CrossRef

Matarazzo, B. (1986). Multicriterion analysis of preferences by means of pairwise action and criterion comparisons (MAPPAC). Applied Mathematics and Computation, 18(2), 119–141.CrossRef

Matarazzo, B. (1988a). Preference ranking of global frequencies in multicriterion analysis (PRAGMA). European Journal of Operational Research, 36(1), 36–49.

Matarazzo, B. (1988b). A more effective implementation of the MAPPAC and PRAGMA methods. Foundations of Control Engineering, 13, 155–173.

Matarazzo, B. (1990a). A pairwise criterion comparison approach: The MAPPAC and PRAGMA methods. In: C. A. Bana e Costa (ed.), Readings in multiple criteria decision aid (pp. 253–273). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Matarazzo, B. (1990b). PCCA and \(k\)-dominance in MCDM. Belgian Journal of Operational Research, Statistics and Computer Science, 30(3), 56–69.

Matarazzo, B. (1991a). MAPPAC as a compromise between outranking methods and MAUT. European Journal of Operational Research, 54, 48–65.

Matarazzo, B. (1991b). PCCA and compensation. In P. Korhonen, A. Lewandowski, & J. Wallenius (Eds.), Multiple criteria decision support (pp. 99–108). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

McClennen, E. F. (1990). Rationality and dynamic choice: Foundational explorations. Cambridge University Press.

Mehta, G. B. (1998). Preference and utility. In S. Barberà, P. Hammond, & C. Seidl (Eds.), Handbook of utility theory (pp. 1–47). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.

Milgram, A. N. (1939). Partially ordered sets, separating systems and inductiveness. In K. Menger (Ed.), Reports of a mathematical colloquium (2nd Series, Vol. 1). University of Notre Dame.

Minguzzi, E. (2013). Normally preordered spaces and utilities. Order, 30, 137–150.CrossRef

Monjardet, B. (1978). Axiomatiques et proprietés des quasi-ordres. Mathématiques et Sciences Humaines, 63, 51–62.

Monteiro, P. K. (1987). Some results on the existence of utility functions on path connected spaces. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 16, 147–156.CrossRef

Moulin, H. (1985). Choice functions over a finite set: A summary. Social Choice and Welfare, 2, 147–160.CrossRef

Munkres, J. R. (2000). Topology (2nd Ed.). Prentice-Hall.

Nakamura, Y. (2002). Real interval representations. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 46, 140–177.CrossRef

Narens, L. (1985). Abstract measurement theory. MIT press.

Nau, R. (2006). The shape of incomplete preferences. Annals of Statistics, 34, 2430–2448.CrossRef

Neuefeind, W. (1972). On continuous utility. Journal of Economic Theory, 5, 174–176.CrossRef

von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press.

Nishimura, I. (2018). The transitive core: Inference of welfare from nontransitive preference relations. Theoretical Economics, 13, 579–606.CrossRef

Ok, E. A. (2002). Utility representation of an incomplete preference relation. Journal of Economic Theory, 104, 429–449.CrossRef

Ok, E. A., Ortoleva, P., & Riella, G. (2012). Incomplete preferences under uncertainty: Indecisiveness in beliefs versus tastes. Econometrica, 80(4), 1791–1808.CrossRef

Öztürk, M. (2008). Ordered sets with interval representations and \((m, n)\)-Ferrers relation. Annals Operations Research, 163, 177–196.CrossRef

Peleg, B. (1970). Utility functions for partially ordered topological spaces. Econometrica, 38, 93–96.CrossRef

Piper, A. M. (2014). The money pump is necessarily diachronic. In Adrian Piper Research Archive Foundation Berlin/Philosophy.

Pirlot, M., & Vincke, P. (1997). Semiorders: properties, representations, applications. Dordrecht: Kluver.CrossRef

Plott, C. R. (1973). Path independence, rationality, and social choice. Econometrica, 41(6), 1075–1091.CrossRef

Poincaré, H. (1908). La valeur de la science. E. Flammarion.

Rabinovitch, I. (1977). The Scott-Suppes theorem on semiorders. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15, 209–212.CrossRef

Rabinovitch, I. (1978). The dimension of semiorders. Journal of Combinatorial Theory (A), 25, 50–61.CrossRef

Rabinowicz, W. (2008). Value relations. Theoria, 74(1), 18–49.CrossRef

Regenwetter, M., Dana, J., & Davis-Stober, C. P. (2010). Testing transitivity of preferences on two-alternative forced choice data. Frontiers in Quantitative Psychology and Measurement, 1.

Regenwetter, M., Dana, J., & Davis-Stober, C. P. (2011). Transitivity of preferences. Psychological Review, 118, 42–56.CrossRef

Restle, F. (1961). Psychology of judgment and choice: A theoretical essay. New York: Wiley.

Richter, M. K. (1966). Revealed preference theory. Econometrica, 34, 635–645.CrossRef

Richter, M. K. (1980). Continuous and semicontinuous utility. International Economic Review, 21, 293–299.CrossRef

Rigotti, L., & Shannon, C. (2005). Uncertainty and risk in financial markets. Econometrica, 73, 203–243.CrossRef

Roemer, J. E. (1999). The democratic political economy of progressive income taxation. Econometrica, 67, 1–19.CrossRef

Roy, B. (1985). Méthodologie multicritère d’Aide à la décision. Paris: Economica.

Roy, B. (1990a). Decision-aid and decision-making. European Journal of Operational Research, 45, 324–331.

Roy, B. (1990b). The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods. In: C. A. Bana e Costa (Ed.), Readings in multiple criteria decision aid (pp. 155–183). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Rubinstein, A. (1988). Similarity and decision-making under risk (is there a utility theory resolution to the Allais paradox)? Journal of Economic Theory, 46, 145–153.CrossRef

Rubinstein, A., & Salant, Y. (2006). A model of choice from lists. Theoretical Economics, 1, 3–17.

Salant, Y. (2003). Limited computational resources favor rationality. Discussion Paper 320, Center for the Study of Rationality, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Samuelson, P. (1938). A note on the pure theory of consumers’ behavior. Economica, 5, 61–71.CrossRef

Schick, F. (1986). Dutch bookies and money pumps. The Journal of Philosophy, 83(2), 112–119.CrossRef

Schmeidler, D. (1971). A condition for the completeness of partial preference relations. Econometrica, 39(2), 403–404.CrossRef

Schumm, G. F. (1987). Transitivity, preference and indifference. Philosophical Studies, 52(3), 435–437.CrossRef

Schwartz, T. (1976). Choice functions, “rationality” conditions, and variations on the weak axiom of revealed preference. Journal of Economic Theory, 13, 414–427.CrossRef

Scott, D., & Suppes, P. (1958). Foundational aspects of theories of measurement. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 23, 113–128.CrossRef

Sen, A. (1971). Choice functions and revealed preferences. Review of Economic Studies, 38, 307–317.CrossRef

Sen, A. (1986). Social choice theory. In: K. J. Arrow & M. D. Intriligator (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical economics (Vol. III, pp. 1073–1181). North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers.

Sen, A. (1993). Internal consistency of choice. Econometrica, 61, 495–521.CrossRef

Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99–118.CrossRef

Simon, H. A. (1982). Models of bounded rationality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Sondermann, D. (1980). Utility representations for partial orders. Journal of Economic Theory, 23, 183–188.CrossRef

Stanley, R. P. (1999). Enumerative combinatorics: Volume 2. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, Vol. 62, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Suzumura, K. (1983). Rational choice, collective decisions, and social welfare. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Swistak, P. (1980). Some representation problems for semiorders. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 21, 124–135.CrossRef

Torra, V. (2010). Hesitant fuzzy sets. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 25(6), 529–539.

Tversky, A. (1969). Intransitivity of preferences. Psychological Review, 76(1), 31–48.CrossRef

Tversky, A. (1972). Eliminations by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79, 281–299.CrossRef

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.CrossRef

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 1039–1061.CrossRef

Tyson, C. J. (2013). Behavioral implications of shortlisting procedures. Social Choice and Welfare, 41, 941–963.CrossRef

Wakker, P. P. (1988). Continuity of preference relations for separable topologies. International Economic Review, 29, 105–110.CrossRef

Watson, S. (1992). The construction of topological spaces: Planks and resolutions. In: M. Hus̄ek & J. van Mill (Eds.), Recent progress in general topology (pp. 673–757). North-Holland, Amsterdam.

Wiener, N. (1914). Contribution to the theory of relative position. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 17, 441–449.

Yee, M., Dahan, E., Hauser, J. R., & Orlin, J. (2007). Greedoid-based noncompensatory inference. Marketing Science, 26(4), 532–549.CrossRef

Zadeh, L. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338–353.CrossRef

Title: New Trends in Preference, Utility, and Choice: From a Mono-approach to a Multi-approach
Author: Alfio Giarlotta
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Book: New Perspectives in Multiple Criteria Decision Making
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-11481-7

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-11482-4

Copyright Year: 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11482-4_1